4.2 Review

100 Years of the Ubiquitous Traffic Lights: An All-Round Review

期刊

IETE TECHNICAL REVIEW
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02564602.2023.2238664

关键词

Traffic Lights; Algorithms; Traffic Control Schemes; Traffic Standards; Evolution; >

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The three-colour four-way traffic light celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2020. Research has been continuously conducted to improve algorithms for safety, travel efficiency, and road capacity optimization. This article provides a comprehensive review on the evolution of traffic lights, covering the literature, hardware, algorithms, control schemes, standards, and pedestrian lights. The article also highlights future research areas and presents a summary of the findings. Rating: 7/10
Three-colour four-way traffic light completed 100 years in 2020. Even though the traffic light in the form of Semaphore arms has been in use in London since 1868, electric traffic lights came into existence in 1912 and the standard three-colour four-way light in 1920. Research is continuously being carried out to develop better algorithms to improve safety, reduce travel delays, and optimize road capacity. Hence a review of the evolution of traffic lights is warranted. This paper presents an all-round review using a six-prong approach. Timeline of the evolution of the literature in the last 100 years, the evolution of hardware, algorithms, traffic control schemes, standards and the pedestrian lights and count down timer are the six areas in which the review is carried out. A timeline of the different keywords related to the various algorithms in use is presented. This article delves into the thinking and meticulous approach of early researchers and practitioners of the field while dwelling on the past. They laid the rock-solid foundation of today's research. Also, future research areas like connected vehicles and automated vehicles are pointed out, and a summary of the findings is presented at the end.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据