德國紅燈亮了28年.

　　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.

　　德累斯頓在過去的28年里發(fā)生了很大的變化。共產主義崩潰，民主發(fā)展都市重生。但有一件事仍然不變——交通燈自1987年就是紅燈。

　　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 Güntzustra?e can do so at any time as long as they take due caution.

　　易北河河的南面的十字路口是四個街道的紅綠燈。交通燈指示司機開車向前直行，隨時可以右轉進入Guntzustra?e，只需司機們小心謹慎駕駛即可。

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

　　但等待進入Gerokstra?e的司機可能需要等待很長一段時間，如果司機們夠耐心的話，都等了近三十年了。

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

　　這個紅綠燈從未變成綠色，并沒有壞，而是城管就是這樣規(guī)劃的。

　　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.

　　這一個紅綠燈三十年的維修總成本幾乎大約需要€150000。每年的維護和運營費用達到€5500。

　　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.

　　這個紅燈貌似既沒有什么意義，又浪費司機的錢，德累斯頓當局會為你準確詳細地解釋為什么這個紅燈從不改變顏色。

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

　　他們的解釋可能多余——弄巧成拙的監(jiān)管而已。

　　“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.

　　“在交通法規(guī)第37節(jié)第二段行政法規(guī)中提到要求對紅綠燈信號的計劃要精確，”一位發(fā)言人對本報說。

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

　　路口交通燈由街道交通研究所指導規(guī)劃。

　　“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 Ziegelstra?e.”

　　“因為綠燈代表‘自由通行’，其他所有與綠燈沖突的燈的顏色必須顯示紅色。這其中也包括Ziegelstra?e的這個紅燈?！?/p>

　　“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. ”

　　紅燈指示：停在十字路口。如果右轉燈信號在黑色背景中顯示綠色箭頭也允許右轉。

　　“Because on Ziegelstra?e 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.”

　　“因為在Ziegelstra?e路口的這個紅燈僅允許右轉，按照交通法規(guī)第37節(jié)第27條的規(guī)章，我們可以不使用交通信號燈的綠燈。”

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

　　交通燈全部顯示。但是為什么不直接取消紅燈呢?有一個信號不起作用嗎?

　　“As long as Ziegelstra?e 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.”

　　[cn]“只要Ziegelstra?e有路口，我們就不能取消交通信號燈，”發(fā)言人說?！巴＼嚇酥静环辖煌粝到y(tǒng)，也不履行同一套交通法規(guī)?！?/p>

　　So, we are all clearer for that then.

　　所以，我們都清楚這個問題。

　　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.

　　但據《柏林報》報道，真正令人費解的是，維護年金不僅不含更換紅色燈泡的費用，也不含更換琥珀色燈泡和綠色燈泡的費用。