德國文化 德國紅燈亮了28年

　　本日口譯文章：德國文化 德國紅燈亮了28年

　　德累斯頓在曩昔的28年裏產生了很大的變更。共產主義瓦解，民主成長都會更生。但有一件事仍舊穩定——交通燈自1987年便是紅燈。

　　易北河河的南面的十字路口是四個街道的紅綠燈。交通燈指導司機開車向前直行，隨時可以右轉進入Guntzustraße，只需司機們膽小如鼠駕駛便可。

　　但期待進入Gerokstraße的司機大概須要期待很長一段時光，假如司機們夠耐煩的話，都等了近三十年了。

　　這個紅綠燈從未釀成綠色，並無壞，而是城管便是如許計劃的。

　　這一個紅綠燈三十年的維修總本錢險些約莫須要150000。每一年的保護和運營用度到達5500。

　　這個紅燈貌似既沒有甚麽意義，又糟蹋司機的錢，德累斯頓政府會為你精確具體地說明為何這個紅燈從不轉變色彩。

　　他們的說明大概過剩——畫蛇添足的羈系罷了。

　　“在交通律例第37節第二段行政律例中提到請求對紅綠燈旌旗燈號的籌劃要準確，”一名談話人對本報說。

　　路口交通燈由街道交通研討所指點計劃。

　　“由於綠燈代表‘自由通暢’，其他全部與綠燈辯論的燈的色彩必需表現赤色。這個中也包含Ziegelstraße的這個紅燈。”

　　紅燈指導：停在十字路口。假如右轉燈旌旗燈號在玄色配景中表現綠色箭頭也許可右轉。

　　“由於在Ziegelstraße路口的這個紅燈僅許可右轉，依照交通律例第37節第27條的規章，咱們可以不應用交通訊號燈的綠燈。”

　　交通燈全體表現。然則為何不直接撤消紅燈呢?有一個旌旗燈號不起感化嗎?

　　[cn]“只要Ziegelstraße有路口，咱們就不克不及撤消交通訊號燈，”談話人說。“泊車標記不相符交通燈體系，也不實行統一套交通律例。”

　　以是，咱們都清晰這個題目。

　　但據《柏林報》報導，真正使人費解的是，保護年金不但不含改換赤色燈膽的用度，也不含改換虎魄色燈膽和綠色燈膽的用度。

　　【參考譯文】

　　In Dresden much has changed over the last 28 years. Communism collapsed, democracy blossomed and the city was reborn. But one thing has remained the same - a traffic light which has stayed red since 1987.

　　The traffic light stands at the intersection of four different streets just south of the river Elbe. It instructs drivers who want to drive straight ahead to wait. Those who wish to turn right into Güntzustraße can do so at any time as long as they take due caution.

　　But anyone who waits to cross into Gerokstraße could be waiting a long time - almost three decades if they are patient enough.

　　That this traffic light has never changed to green is no accident. It has been planned so by the city administration.

　　And the total cost of maintaining this one traffic light over almost three decades runs to roughly 150,000. Every year maintenance and running costs come to 5,500.

　　While this may seem nonsensical and a waste of money to your average motorist, the Dresden authorities can explain in exact detail why the light never changes colour.

　　And their explanation might show another habitat that dies hard - a love of convoluted, self-defeating regulation.

　　“The administrative regulation as set out in section 37 paragraph 2 of the of the transportation regulations alludes to the need for an exact plan for traffic light signals,” a spokesperson told The Local.

　　The planning of the junction is based upon directives set out by The Research Institute for Street Transportation.

　　“Because the green light means ‘transport is free to go’ all the other lights in conflict to this one must show red. That also includes the light on Ziegelstraße.”

　　“The red light instructs: stop at the intersection. After stopping one is also allowed to turn right if there is a sign to the right of the traffic light that shows a green arrow on a black background. “

　　“Because on Ziegelstraße one is only allowed to turn right, in accordance with regulation 27 section 37 of the transport regulations, we can do without using the traffic signal’s green light.”

　　All well and good. But why not simply do away with the red light? Would a sign not do?

　　“As long as Ziegelstraße has access to the junction, we cannot get rid of the traffic lights,” said the spokesperson. “Stop signs do not correspond to traffic light systems and do not fulfill the same set of regulations.”

　　So, we are all clearer for that then.

　　But the truly puzzling thing, reports Berliner Zeitung, is that included in annual maintenance costs are not only replacement red light bulbs, but amber and green ones too.