And the blind don't like them, as there's no audible indication of when the crossing's state is in their favour.

And where do you get that idea from? At most puffins there are two signals for the blind - audible AND tactile. Especially if the crossing is to meet BVPI 165.

Once a ped is on the crossing, be it pelican, puffin or junction, there is always enough time - or should be - to get most of the way across before any clearance period, be it all red or flashing. The red man is simply a red signal not to proceed.

At junctions do we give drivers a flashing yellow when they are about to gain/lose right of way? Do we allow an ambigous clearance period where two flows may or may not enter the junction, depending on who is there or not? That is the whole philosophy behind the puffin strategy.

Personally, I couldnt care less what type of crossing it is. I know that when properly maintained, puffin crossings are more reliable and less disruptive to traffic than pelicans and in my experience better recieved than pelicans becuase the signalling is positive.

But hey, Ive only been doing the job six years, so what do I know?

A pedestrian crossing designed towards improving the driving experience than the pedestrian's safety is a poor concept.

Speaking personally, and it probably goes for everyone else in this discussion, I respect you and your opinion. I take on board what you say, but I have a right to disagree with it. I believe my criticisms of Puffin Crossings are valid and other people, not just on this forum, have arrived to similar conclusions independently. Feel free to add to the debate. I'll listen, but may still not agree. (But you never know I just might ).

Hi, this is my first post on this forum.

I agree with some of you, I don't think puffin crossings are that good - it works on paper and theory but not really in reality. I think it's mainly to do with the use of nearside signals and no farside signals for assurance, at some crossings, the sensors don't even work properly - depending how well they are maintained.

I think most people prefer the use of farside signals, I guess the UK and Iceland are the only two countries so far to use nearside signals, this means nearside signals do not have to permanently replace farsides entirely!

Australia has slowly introduced puffin and pelican crossings, the pelican works in the same way but the red man flashes in sync with the amber light instead of the green man like here. The signals on puffins over there are all of the farside type, I have yet to see the nearside type being used.

My recent trip to Ireland was an inspiration for my ideal puffin replacement.
When travelling into Dublin city centre from the airport, when the taxi stopped at a crossing I thought was a pelican until I saw the ped lights, there was an amber man between the red and green.
I can't quite remember but I think there were puffin style sensors used above the traffic lights, there was only one person who crossed the road and she finished quite quickly and after 2 seconds (safety period), the traffic lights went green the timing was similar to a puffin but in this case the nearside type is not used.

I think the use of an amber man for puffins makes sense, it is shown in the same way as the blackout phase used here at junctions and farside type toucan crossings.
- If a slow moving old person takes 20 seconds to finish crossing from end to end, the blackout phase will be longer than usual leading to the assumption that the ped lights are broken.
- A flashing green man may be confusing as they are too close to pelicans as motorists might expect a flashing amber light to come on.
- If the farside type ped lights change using the puffin concept i.e. with no warning - to be walking in the middle of road only to see the green man immediately extinguish into a red man is a bit unerving and possibly scary for the elderly. But this sort apparently exist in some places like Bristol and Coventry and in Germany.

So if the Irish style ped lights were brought here, the new puffin will have the signals on the far side of the road, the green man will come on for about 5 seconds, then the variable phase begins with an amber man which will stay on until the person has finished crossing followed by a 2 sec all red safety period.
If someone has completed the crossing in a quick 4 secs or under, the amber man will appear only for a second. The quicker the person finishes crossing the quicker the traffic lights turn green.

1. Old man takes 20 seconds to cross the road
Green man - 5 secs
Amber man - 15 secs
Red man (safety) - 2 secs

2. Woman and kids takes 7-8 seconds to cross the road (probably normal timing)
Green man - 5 secs
Amber man - 2-3 secs
Red man (safety) - 2 secs

3. Businessman in a hurry, late for work, he runs across in 4 seconds
Green man - 5 secs
Amber man - 1 sec
Red man (safety) - 2 secs

After 2 secs safety period, in the British style, traffic lights go red&amber then green, instead of the Irish red to green.

The control button will have a turning knob underneath and also a bleeper to assist the blind, as a request, the crossing can have the signals both nearside and farside (A toucan crossing in Bournemouth has this, nearside signals even blackout in sync with the farsides).
To let people cross safely, alert them to observe beforehand, to avoid pedestrian accidents there will be "Look Both Ways/Left/Right" painted in bold yellow on approaches and "Press button and wait for signal opposite. Observe before crossing" written on the control button box.

This concept for puffins mentioned above can also be used at junctions with a crossing facility plus toucan and pegasus crossings.

You've basically decribed my personal redesign except you have an amber man instead of a flashing green man. Even a flashing red man could be used as it is in Japan & Australia, as well as North America, though it's a red hand there not a figure. I'm staying with flashing green man as it's the most common throughout the world and particularly Europe, and it's supported by the Geneva Convention.

Oh yeh, I forgot to welcome you.

Howdy!

I also couldnt care less whether you disagree with me or not. The fact is that nearside signals ARE safer as they do make peds look at traffic - whereas there are clear documented cases where a major contributory factor in the accident was the pedestrian blindly following the indication of a farside signal.

Why this special need to see something on the other side of the road? What reassurance does it really give you? The other philosophy behind nearsides is precisely that you do NOT see an indication that will get you to stop where you are not supposed to (blackouts on central refuges for nearside displays are required on full length crossings so peds dont stop inappropriately, whereas this occurs with farside signals).

It is fortunate that the UK has spent an absolute fortune in research into signalling methods, which is why probably most of the world has used our modelling techniques for so many years for instance.

Nearsides are not going away, because they ARE safer, there is no statistical evidence to prove otherwise.

Neither do I see a reason for this obsession with amber ped phases and flashing phases either. They are pointless for pedestrian movements because of the nature of the beast.

The supposedly main advantage for nearside ped signals is that they encourage you to look at the traffic in lane nearest to where you're standing. I believe you're supposed to look both ways crossing the road unless it's a one way street. Also, it can't help you see traffic in the nearest direction because the pole isn't transparent. You'd have to lean your head to look past the post.

The all red clearance phase confuses people. That's the fact of the matter. Most people don't know what the signals are doing. Too often they conclude that because the cars have stopped, they may as well cross. They then get caught out. The fact they shouldn't have crossed is besides the point where safety is concerned. I see this all the time. It's all too common. I'd put a wager that it's a lot more common, than pedestrians blindly following a farside signal.

How much money the UK spends on research doesn't mean that the conclusion is perfect. It could be completely wrong. You'll have to give examples of what techniques the world has taken from the UK.

Let's see crosings-wise:-

Zebra - Good, but was it a British invention?
Panda- A failure.
Pelican - You and I agree it's far from perfect.
Puffin - Jury's still out

The UK's research in these things has always been questionable in my opinion.

http://www.larsoa.org.uk/news_feb05/news_28feb05.htm



I'm not saying that article is the be all and end all, but it shows others share mine and some other forumers concerns.

Please could one of you chaps explain to me what a Panda Crossing was?




James

The Panda was the forerunner to yesterdays pelican crossing. The Puffin, especially a nearside puffin, is lauded by those who are fearful and dont like change.

Ive had even had a councillor complain once that some elderly folk who lived in his area didnt like them. When I spoke to some of them, they all said that it was much better because the cars were held at red while they got all the way across. "Better than the old pelican" they said.

Having to "look around the pole" is a poor argument with regards visibility. A pole is 113mm wide. To be unable to see anything because of that would mean u would have to be stood with your face against the pole.

I cannot honestly be convinced that nearside signals are less safe because the operational data and my own experience doesnt warrant me to think otherwise. What you are saying, I have never seen. If puffins really were less safe, then nearside signals would be being ripped out left right and centre. They are not.

Nor have I heard it said that the all red was confusing, nor have i seen that in the numerous observations on street.

There are pro's and cons, but in the five years ive been dealing with nearside displays, ive never had a complaint about not being able to see a signal on the opposite side. In fact, the only problem Ive had is read through on a junction with poor geometry, which was solved with internal louvres.

My natural stance when at a crossing is to stand facing where I'm going to cross. I will, from that location, look right, left, and opposite. When I get to a puffin, I find myself doing this automatically and realising that the signal is on the pole to my immediate, either at level or slightly behind me. I then have to step back. For me, it's harder to see traffic from the right at this position. I like to look at all the crossing, not just the right. Telling people to just look right is encouraging a bad habit, particularly is they start doing this automatically at an unsignalised location.

Another thing, I've found some nearside peds on junctions, where they appear away from from the oncoming traffic, though they are additional to ones facing the other way. Is that legal or bad design?

As for me pointing out that the poles are not transparent, the guy in this link says the same thing. It's a coincidence, I assure you : -

http://www.formfunctionemotion.net/archives/2004/06/18/puffin-pedestrian-crossing-revisited-1.html

As interesting as all this is, I can't help but think that, anecdotally at least, zebra crossings seem quicker and easier (and more pleasent) to use as both a motorist and especially as a pedestrian.

Obviously they aren't suited for all applications, and they aren't perfect - but I can't help but wonder if for your typical in town pedestrian crossing they'd do the job better.

Surely there is no point in using Puffin crossings, when Pelican crossings work perfectly fine on their own, and everyone is used to using them.

The flashing amber stage for drivers is a good idea, as it means you can go if theres nothing there, but if people are still crossng you wait.
Puffin crossings have a solid amber stage, but as far as I'm (and other drivers Ive seen), they quite rightly, move out and drive through the solid amber light.

All sounds to me like councils having nothing more important to do than fiddle about.

Well good for you and you're doing it correctly. Unfortunately 99% of people do not and wait blindly for the indication from the green man.



What, do you approach a crossing with your eyes shut. or do you simply have to think about things so slowly? Im not being rude here, its just that you make it seem such a task to notice a bright red or green man at, or just below eye level. Also, if you are pushing the button, the button is located under the display usually therefore you are not having to step away from the crossing edge you are already about half a metre away.



How do you work that out, when you have to look right as that is where the first traffic is coming if its going to run you over when stepping out without looking?

Additional displays are used on high use crossing points, wide crossing points or toucan crossings.



Fist of all, that guy in the photgraph is looking behind him and not at the pole. Thats quite plain to see. However I will also point out that the puffin is not designed correctly, with the displays being perpendicular to the kerb. They should actually be 30 degrees from perpendicular, so that you are looking directly toward traffic while stood back from the edge, not - as in that picture - looking directly to the right.

I would suggest that if there were an accident at that, or another crossing so designed like that, there could be a case to answer for the local authority for failing to adhere to the design guidance - same as there would be for any other departure from the norm.

I would dispute the claim about the pole though. Even out of focus, a moving vehicle is in your peripheral vision and the movement draws your attention. Thats a fact as its the way the brain and the eye operate. A pole would not obscure that vision when stood at about half a metre from it. Any closer and you would be probably hugging the pole anyway so that argument really is a non starter from any angle, so to speak.

These seem a dying breed though.

There is one in Crossgates (east Leeds) outside a busy shopping mall - it would _seem_ as though it holds traffic up quite majorly, but that is perhaps the idea.

So does a Panda just look the same as the others then?

Thanks for the welcome!

Good points posted about the prominent use of the flashing green man instead of the amber man, as the flashing green man is supported by the Geneva convention 1949 and the use of it is almost universial, I respect that.

I just have come across a interesting site of many traffic light usages of the world, also supported by the Vienna convention in 1968, the amber man is also featured but seems to be getting less support over the years...


http://homepages.cwi.nl/~dik/english/traffic/signals/index.html

The use of the amber man is standard in Ireland, Italy and parts of Germany and perhaps other places I don't know of yet, and ironically the city of Geneva (where the 1949 convention comes from) in Switzerland uses the amber man as standard!

I remember seeing the huge chunky looking ped lights at a junction in Miami Beach, Florida in 1991, they had an amber light between the red written "DON'T WALK" and green "WALK". I don't know what was written on the amber only shown after "WALK" before "DON'T WALK", I think it was something like "CAUTION". There was no flashing used here. It was very weird to see that and it was rare that I saw it only at that location.

In 1995, I went back to the same place, these ped lights have long gone being replaced by the standard red hand/white man.

No, a Panda was like a zebra, but with flashing amber lamps and a red lamp when peds pushed a big olde-worlde pushbutton on the pole, which also had "CROSS" on it.... britains first nearside display, funnily enough.

Some might say that nearside signals were unpopular even back then!

But the abandonment was in fact due to electro-mechanical problems and the fact that a different format to normal traffic signals was used and causing confusion. The 1969 pelican was a compromise, incorporating the flashing amber clearance period as seen on zebras - and the panda - while also having the usual traffic signal red and green.

The puffin is an extension on that reformatting, really. It increases or decreases the crossing time according to how the pedestrians are crossing. Bear in mind though, that nearside displays do not necessarily mean that its a puffin crossing - in which case, normal farside timings would be used.