Shah 1

Harsh Shah
Prof. Avani Sabade
Critical Reasoning
15th April, 2017

I LIKE TRAFFIC LIGHTS BUT ONLY WHEN THEY’RE DISMANTLED

Martin Cassini

Conclusion: - Wes should get rid of traffic lights.

Reasons: -
1. A lot of time is wasted usually when you are stopped by traffic lights to let non-existent
traffic pass.
2. A driver can usually judge better than a traffic light, which is a mere signal to stop and
start traffic.
3. When traffic rights did not exist during 1929, drivers and motorists were more
responsible about driving and there were very few collisions and a sense of care to other
road users, prevailed.
4. In Dutch cities, where the traffic lights have been scrapped, the accidents and congestion
have melted away. Similarly in Drachten, when 24 sets of traffic lights were removed, the
journey times were halved and the accidents and congestion have disappeared.
5. Traffic lights not only impede journeys pointlessly, but they are harmful to the
environment. About 30% of our carbon dioxide output is from traffic. Professor David
Begg the influential transport expert, said that 40% of those carbon dioxide emissions are
from traffic idling.
6. Traffic lights are very expensive. A set of typical crossroads can cost up to 100000
pounds to install and 10000 pounds a year to maintain.
 Shah 2

7. It’s very dangerous to have traffic lights as people have to move their eyes towards the
traffic signal to watch them and there could be many accidents because of that.

Assumptions: -
1. We are assuming that everyone will prioritise safety first, just like people did before
1929.
2. The judgement and decisions made by the drivers will always be correct.
3. We are assuming that the traffic will be more organised without traffic lights.
4. Traffic lights are the reason people take their eyes off the road for quite some time.
5. The cars run on petrol and diesel and petrol and not on CNG.
6. We assume that volume + control = crisis, there is no proof about it.

Evaluation: -
1. When people stop their cars because of traffic lights, a lot of time is wasted. Without
traffic lights, the time of journey will be reduced and become smoother. For example, in
Drachten, the journey times have been halved after the removal of many traffic lights.
This example further supports the reason and makes it a valid argument.
Intermediate Conclusion: - Traffic lights waste a lot of time.
2. This reason says that people driving the cars are much better in judging the situation on
the road rather than non-living self-regulated standing poles known as traffic lights. This
is because people driving the car are there on the road and they will have a better say of
things and making decisions and not the street lights. These traffic lights are one of the
main reasons for accidents.
Intermediate conclusion: - People driving cars on their own judgement will be better
than traffic lights guiding them.
3. The reason says that before 1929 the drivers and motorists were very careful and cared
about other road users, the first come first serve rule prevailed where all road users had
equal rights, so a motorist arriving at junction gave way to anyone who arrived first, even
 Shah 3

the humble pedestrian. Now due to traffic lights, there is queue jumping and aggression
and people fight to go through the signal as it turns green.
Intermediate conclusion: - Due to presence of traffic signals, the sense of care for road
users has demolished and fights between road users have increased.
4. This reason states that when in Dutch cities the traffic lights are scrapped, the see that the
accidents and congestion melts away. The travel time and fights also reduce. Similarly in
a place called Drachten, when 24 sets of lights were removed, the journey time reduced
to half, and the accidents and congestion caused due to traffic completely dis appeared.
With less traffic, there are less fights and peace prevails.
Intermediate conclusion: - Less traffic lights, reduce congestion and accidents.

5. Traffic lights are indirectly harmful to the environment. Around 30 percent of the carbon
Dioxide emitted is due to traffic and out of that about 40 percent is because of traffic
idling which occurs due to the cars stopping at traffic lights. Fuel when produces a certain
amount of carbon Dioxide and also emits other greenhouses gases which has a negative
impact on the environment. United Kingdom’s 24-hour traffic light system adds up to
Grievous planetary harm. Vehicles stop on the road due to the system of traffic lights,
and it is proven that most of the harmful gases are the effects of that. Hence, it is a
moderate reason for the argument.
Intermediate conclusion: - Traffic lights indirectly cause pollution.
6. Traffic lights and its system are very costly. A particular traffic light could cost up to
100,000 pounds to install and 10,000 pounds to maintain every year. . In London, more
than 1800 traffic lights have been installed by the new mayor. Traffic lights are very
expensive and its maintenance costs a lot and even to maintain it is tough. So, looking as
per the economy, it is not very economical to install many traffic lights.
Intermediate conclusion: - Traffic lights encourage a lot of public expense.
7. There are more chances of accidents and mishaps on the road because of the traffic lights
as people will take their eyes off the road to look at the traffic light when the drivers
should look at the other motorists, cyclists and people on the road, etc. Accidents have
almost disappeared in Drachten after the removal of some traffic light there while in
Montana, the abolition of speed limits has decreased the accidents by 30 percent. Without
 Shah 4

traffic lights, the movement will be smoother and will be according to the drivers
themselves so the chances of accidents will be almost negligible.
Intermediate Conclusion: - Due to presence of traffic lights, people lose their
concentration while driving and that may cause accidents.

Fallacy: -
1) That’s easy: too many cars. No, wrong.(Straw Man)
This is a misinterpretation of the opposition’s point of view; hence it is a Straw Man.
2) Think of all the hours in your life wasted as your car journey is stopped by lights to let non-
existent traffic through. And then ask yourself this: who is the better judge of when it is safe
to go – you, the driver at the time and place, or lights programmed by an absent
regulator?(Loaded Question)
This is the fallacy of loaded question; here the writer asks the reader a question which has
no particular answer.
3) At a recent talk- without a hint of irony, ‘London’s moving’- the congenial former
mayoral candidate, Steve Norris, listed the causes of congestion. Not once did he
mention traffic lights. But he did argue for more high-cost, high tech
equipment(Fallacy of ad hominem) (fallacy of popular opinion)
Here the writer directly attacks the readers hence it’s a fallacy of ad hominem
4) To those who say scrapping lights won’t work, the answer is: it has never been tested
in Britain.(ad hominem)
Here the writer attacks the people who say that traffic lights won’t work by
saying that they are not right as it has not been ever tested before.
5) Before 1929 when the priority rule came into force, a sort of first-come, first-served rule
prevailed.(appeal to tradition)
Here the writer refers to the rule that prevailed in the past, before 1929. Hence it is an
appeal to tradition.
6) Some is making a lot of money at public expense.(ad hominem)

Here the author directly attacks the person, in this case, the head of the city or council.

Hence it is an ad hominem.
 Shah 5

All the above reasons and intermediate conclusions leads us to one final conclusion that,

TRAFFIC LIGHTS ARE THE ACTUAL CAUSE OF TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION AND HENCE THEY

SHOULD BE DISMANTLED.