Puffin crossings - a blunder?

[jw24]

- a new design for mast arms that are more similar to continental designs and doesn't look like a motorway gantry.

Something like these TfL Standard ones?

I'd also like to see some continuity added to Toucans - perhaps the introduction of a red cycle for farside installations. It's alway irritated me that nearside Toucans have a red cycle aspect, but the farside ones don't.

Meh, they're okay I guess but I'm not a huge fan. I don't know what it is about the UK and brackets, rather than the sexier sloping curve that mast arms and lamp standards usually have in continental Europe and elsewhere. Still, those examples are many times better than the motorway gantry-style ones, especially when they're used to support tiny helios signals, like those ones on Queens Drive. Seriously, those look so ridiculous.

There are actually a few of these 'sloping' mast arms going in now. I have seen a few dotted around: http://www.nal.ltd.uk/index.asp?section ... &subid=207

It seems to me that crossings are an exercise in ergonomics - the design of equipment that fits the human body and its cognitive abilities.

Farside indicators make ergo...

Yes, farsides are within line of sight along the expected crossing path, but nearsides encourage you to look towards oncoming traffic. Installed and positioned correctly, nearsides should be no harder to detect than farsides, with the added bonus that you can be pretty confident that your pedestrian has had to look in the direction of traffic and not crossed just because the green man is lit.

You mention the confirmatory feeback at zebras be observing traffic but I feel most people probably take the same stance at signallised crossings, I certainly do. In my experience I find nearsides create less confusion. If the signal changes when your mid way across the road, you don't know about it. More importantly, unless you are crawling across the road, it doesn't really matter. You will make it across the road before traffic green. I see people become nervous and hesitant with farsides as when they lose green man they suddenly feel like they shouldn't be mid crossing, so either quickly turn back or speed up to cross quicker.

I'm not saying your wrong or right, I think a lot of this is down to opinion. Just thought I would throw in some ideas / observations of my own.

A question about near sides, (I'm thinking of a junction just up the road from me) what about where there's an island between the opposing lanes - one half might be green but the other red, there's a pair of near sides on the island itself, how do you know which is for the direction you're facing?

One of the ideas behind nearsides is to encourage you to look towards oncoming traffic, so if the nearside signal is on your left, NORMALLY traffic will be approaching from the left.

[AndyB]

If there is a nearside signal in the middle, it will be one of a pair and the two halves of the crossing staggered so it's clear which nearside signal belongs to which bit of tactile paving.

[boing_uk]

Unless of course you are in Lincolnshire, who put displays on the centre island - even if it's just a splitter island with no tactile paving.

In that instance, the middle display is configured to go dark until the final all red period.

[jouef]

The photo shows two crossings. The nearside in the foreground, showing red, could be obscured by another pedestrian on the tactile paving. The nearside visible above the steering wheel of the red car, showing green, belongs to another crossing at 90 degrees. But pedestrians could perceive it to be a farside green taking them across the red car's carriageway.

[quarella]

puffin nearsides 0714.jpg

The photo shows two crossings. The nearside in the foreground, showing red, could be obscured by another pedestrian on the tactile paving. The nearside visible above the steering wheel of the red car, showing green, belongs to another crossing at 90 degrees. But pedestrians could perceive it to be a farside green taking them across the red car's carriageway.

I can see the theory but human behaviour doesn't follow theory, so instead of standing back people will stand in front of the display and look anywhere but at it, possibly not comfortable on those designed so you have your back to oncoming traffic. THere are some with a repeater about 8' up the pole but you do have to be some distance away to view it comfortably. The crossing at the junction of Cowbridge road and Ewenny road in Bridgend nearly put me under a car as it is not clear which control/display applies to which crossing. Fortunately I glanced up and noticed the traffic light was green.

[UTCPaul]

puffin nearsides 0714.jpg

The photo shows two crossings. The nearside in the foreground, showing red, could be obscured by another pedestrian on the tactile paving. The nearside visible above the steering wheel of the red car, showing green, belongs to another crossing at 90 degrees. But pedestrians could perceive it to be a farside green taking them across the red car's carriageway.

We have a site similar to that, and had a minor incident a few years ago because of this. The information was that the pedestrian was a tourist, approached from the left in a hurry, glanced across to the central res looking for far sided indicators (the norm where they lived), saw a green, and stepped out prior to the crossing point to walk diagonally across to the central res.

The site now has barriers so you have to walk to the crossing point, and so can't see the opposing red/green boxes as easily.

[boing_uk]

You've got to be damned careful when putting displays in centre islands and the narrow-field-of-view optics do work in this respect to a degree.

I'm currently designing a new junction in my area and it has taken quite a bit of tinkering with the crossing point locations to get the displays so they are not visible from another crossing point.

It was easier with farsides to just throw crossing points in where you liked, but I think you do get a much better crossing environment with nearsides. Except of course in high-flow areas where some definite engineering judgement is required.

[jouef]

I can see the theory but human behaviour doesn't follow theory, so instead of standing back people will stand in front of the display and look anywhere but at it

The photo shows a nearside indicator in operation. Two people are standing in front of it, one on the tactile paving and one off. The man in jeans is standing between the camera and the indicator (though not actually looking at it) so the photographer, also on the tactiles, cannot see it. The inset shows the actual indicator, which is only in line of sight of the man in jeans. A farside would be in line of sight of all four, but has not been provided.

[boing_uk]

And that is one of the reasons I am quite opposed to nearside signals on busier crossings. It would be nice to be able to mix and match according to site specific situations.

I prefer nearsides due to the call/cancel facility being quite useful for lightly trafficked crossings; but busy crossings tend to be generally demanded all the time during the day and the signals obscured by standing peds anyway, so a far side indicator is often required. Perhaps one way would be to have timeswitched extinguishable far sides, whereby the call/cancel facility is prevented while the far sides are lit, with specific standards on where such features can be implemented (such as numbers of peds per hour or something).

[Andy33gmail]

Call/cancel? I'm worried that I've been on this planet 27 years and never realised you could cancel the request to cross!

[Gareth]

You can't. He's referring to the detectors which check it you've moved away since pressing the button.

The thing is though, I don't see why such things, along with on crossing detectors (Puffin) must have nearside ped signals. Australia has puffin crossings with conventional far side ped signals and I'm sure many countries in the developed world are similar. It's as if the DfT are trying to coerce road authorities into using nearside signals - "Fine, have your farside signals if you insist but you can't have the fun 'techy' stuff."

And I don't think we should have a mixed format long term. If it's been conceded that nearsides are inappropriate in certain situations, then we should just have farsides (perhaps with the option of nearside repeaters if need be). We got by perfectly well for decades with the conventional farside signal position and every other country in the world continues to do so.

[boing_uk]

Nearsides though do have thier positive points; such as being able to have straight-through crossings rather than staggered such as this one.

Im not a fan of the Australian way of doing things in terms of puffins, although to be fair, their rules on pedestrian/driver interaction are a lot more strict than ours and drivers have a lot more respect for other road users compared to the UK. Their positive audible signalling of a red man aspect though is something I think we should do.

And there are very good safety reasons for not having the call cancel facility on far side signals, which I have repeated here before and which for which I am surprised the Australians havent picked up on.

[kevjs]

I can see the theory but human behaviour doesn't follow theory, so instead of standing back people will stand in front of the display and look anywhere but at it

A5038_nearside.jpg

The photo shows a nearside indicator in operation. Two people are standing in front of it, one on the tactile paving and one off. The man in jeans is standing between the camera and the indicator (though not actually looking at it) so the photographer, also on the tactiles, cannot see it. The inset shows the actual indicator, which is only in line of sight of the man in jeans. A farside would be in line of sight of all four, but has not been provided.

Nearside Toucans are a useless pain in the arse when cycling - you pretty much have to come to a stop when too see what they say (if you haven't misread the sun reflecting off the green as you approach), then lean down to press the button - they are inevitably placed on the wrong side of the road (i.e. when cycling you have to keep right off road, and keep left on road) - alongside the new tram lines (where are are very long straight sections) they are completely ignored by pedestrians and cyclists alike, who all just take a look at the traffic and then cross when it's clear.

[WHBM]

I can see the theory but human behaviour doesn't follow theory, so instead of standing back people will stand in front of the display and look anywhere but at it

A5038_nearside.jpg

The photo shows a nearside indicator in operation. Two people are standing in front of it, one on the tactile paving and one off. The man in jeans is standing between the camera and the indicator (though not actually looking at it) so the photographer, also on the tactiles, cannot see it. The inset shows the actual indicator, which is only in line of sight of the man in jeans. A farside would be in line of sight of all four, but has not been provided.

As I understand it, nearsides have also suffered from the Disability regulations, the ones that say displays must be oriented primarily for those in wheelchairs rather than for the majority, so they have to be sited down low - where they are then obscured whenever there are more than a couple of pedestrians (obscured from those in wheelchairs as well, of course).

The same regulations cause credit card machines etc to be sited so low down you cannot see the displays from normal height, and various other ergonomic nonsenses.

I get the impression that we are stuck with nearsides until whoever came up with the idea at DfT retires, when we will be able to go back to sensible placing.

[zaax2]

No confirmation warning beeps either - very confusing for the older generation how are used to the lights on the other side and warning beeps for the slightly blind

[boing_uk]

very confusing for the older generation how are used to the lights on the other side and warning beeps for the slightly blind

Audible indicators are and have never used on dual crossings or junctions unless it is an all-round ped stage. Unless you count the incredibly unreliable and unhelpful-to-the-non-local descriptive audio devices.

[Glen]

Unless you count the incredibly unreliable and unhelpful-to-the-non-local descriptive audio devices.

Because blind people walk around aimlessly not knowing where they are or where obvious features like the "town centre" are?

[boing_uk]

Not if you're visiting, no.

[nirs]

We've now had a number of puffins installed in my area, and having used them both as a driver and a pedestrian for some months I have some observations I thought I'd share.

1. Not having an amber phase is very good if you're a pedestrian. For example, it eliminates the scariness of cars shooting past your ankles as you're finishing crossing. Less ambiguity.
2. The 'wait for a gap in traffic' facility is great if you're a driver. It's irritating to get stopped at a ped crossing when you're literally the only car on the road and 2 more seconds would have got you through.
3. The variable timings are great for slow users, like my 7yo daughter wobbling her way across on her child's bike or the elderly. They're also great for drivers when someone jogs across quickly and the lights can then change quickly back to green.
4. They're not good if you can't stand in view of the sensor. In one case the footpath was being resurfaced and there were barriers, with pedestrians diverted along the edge of the road with cones. You could push the button by leaning over the barrier, but it constantly cancelled the request because it couldn't detect anyone waiting. People ended up having to climb over the barrier into the works area just to get the green man to appear, or waiting until someone wanted to cross the other way.
5. On roads with a constant stream of traffic, it's irritating as a pedestrian to have to wait for ages as the lights wait in futility for a gap, when it would cause no less convenience (in this case) to drivers to just change straight away, but it delays pedestrian journeys. They work best on roads with platoons of vehicles where there is some hope of finding a gap. On roads where there is never a gap in traffic it seems a bit pointless.
6. Maybe I'm cold blooded, but sometimes the detector cancels the request even when I'm standing in full view of the sensor!

[kit]

5. On roads with a constant stream of traffic, it's irritating as a pedestrian to have to wait for ages as the lights wait in futility for a gap, when it would cause no less convenience (in this case) to drivers to just change straight away, but it delays pedestrian journeys. They work best on roads with platoons of vehicles where there is some hope of finding a gap. On roads where there is never a gap in traffic it seems a bit pointless.

I've said it before but I think the lights should change instantaneously after a ped request unless it has already changed within the last 30 seconds. The risk of inconveniencing one driver would be outweighed by the benefit of making many pedestrian journeys quicker and more attractive.

There is a toucan crossing on my commute which is on an otherwise high quality cycle route. I've never waited to see how long it takes to change but it won't change even if there is traffic on the roundabout going to other exits. So it will be a very long wait indeed.

Personally I would do away with most traffic light controlled crossings and just put in zebra crossings instead which seem to work much better for pedestrians and drivers.