The wild success of traffic lights disagrees with your statement.

inetknght 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The wild success of traffic lights is only wildly successful to those who aren't color blind. Do some reading.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness

> The colors of traffic lights can be difficult for red–green color-blind people. This difficulty includes distinguishing red/amber lights from sodium street lamps, distinguishing green lights (closer to cyan) from white lights, and distinguishing red from amber lights, especially when there are no positional clues (see image).

Publication from 1983: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1875309/

> All but one admitted to difficulties with traffic signals, one admitted to a previously undeclared accident due to his colour blindness, and all but one offered suggestions for improving signal recognition. Nearly all reported confusion with street and signal lights, and confusion between the red and amber signals was common.

▲

nawgz 8 hours ago | parent [-]

What a horrendous counter-argument. "People with notable perception issues don't perceive the same" is insanely obvious.

▲

onraglanroad 8 hours ago | parent [-]

People not perceiving in the same way (the original point) is exactly the same as "notable perception issues".

	▲	bawolff 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's misunderstanding what the original argument is about. You really think that people have been debating for thousands of years if colour blind people exist, with no conclusion in sight?

▲

nickthegreek 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The wild success of traffic lights comes from having 3 colors at fixed positions. You put those 3 colors in a single color changing light and I would assume the accident rate would measurably increase.

▲

evilduck 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The fact that a single emitter traffic light that simply varies its color doesn't exist also disagrees with your statement.