Gridlock in Greater Manchester

[AndyB]

So if you were stood at a pedestrian crossing for several minutes and the road was clear in both directions, you would refuse to cross even if unaccompanied by your son?

That’s not rational.

[nowster]

Whereabouts in Manchester does your lad go to school?

[Helvellyn]

So if you were stood at a pedestrian crossing for several minutes and the road was clear in both directions, you would refuse to cross even if unaccompanied by your son?

That’s not rational.

I can see where he's coming from - it's a bit irritating to have to stop for a crossing that no-one's crossing, but there's not much point hanging around if the traffic clears enough to cross safely before the lights change. I'll wait if there are children around (assuming that their parents might get an earful of "but that man crossed, why should we wait?!") but not otherwise.

[FosseWay]

So if you were stood at a pedestrian crossing for several minutes and the road was clear in both directions, you would refuse to cross even if unaccompanied by your son?

That’s not rational.

I can see where he's coming from - it's a bit irritating to have to stop for a crossing that no-one's crossing, but there's not much point hanging around if the traffic clears enough to cross safely before the lights change. I'll wait if there are children around (assuming that their parents might get an earful of "but that man crossed, why should we wait?!") but not otherwise.

It's irritating to have to stop at all, let's face it. We do it through a combination of legal compulsion and a desire to be done by as others do unto us, not because it is actively helpful to us at that point. If it happens a lot at a certain crossing, it may indicate that there is something amiss with the timings there. But either way, it's not the pedestrian's fault. It's not "selfish" to press the button because there is clearly traffic approaching, but then find that the red man persists after the immediate traffic has cleared and go then. (Though I take your point about setting an example to children.) As I said earlier, the net result to the motorist is zero - if the button is pressed the red light will show at a certain point for traffic, regardless of whether the pedestrian waits for the green man or not.

A lot of blood pressure pills could go unused by road users of all types if they stopped finding fault with other people when the (perceived) fault has no impact on them whatsoever. So what if that driver is doing 31 mph with no-one at risk of being hit. So what if that cyclist is cycling on a deserted pavement or runs a red on a deserted road. These may be issues for the police, but neither you, I nor Lenzar are the police.

[Bryn666]

Most crossings could reliably be zebras or even uncontrolled with a refuge and move more pedestrians without "unduly" delaying vehicles.

The problem with that is under the Equalities Act we must consider those who may not be confident crossing the road without reassurance from audible or tactile aids.

The real fix would to be replace all green lights on signal crossings with a flashing amber and having them go straight to red if you push the button.

[Chris Bertram]

The real fix would to be replace all green lights on signal crossings with a flashing amber and having them go straight to red if you push the button.

Not sure that I buy that. Flashing amber means "proceed with caution", steady amber means "stop unless it's dangerous to do so". Changing from flashing amber to steady amber, then red would work. It's what the French do with traffic signals in certain locations, such as outside fire and ambulance stations. The flashing amber replaces the green light in these cases.

I noted when in Canada earlier this year that signals guarding pedestrian crossings, as opposed to full intersections, show flashing green rather than steady green when not activated. Any mileage in that?

[Bryn666]

Yes I hadn't meant literally to red - a normal sequence change would work.

Flashing green could work given that pelicans still exist for now. They aren't allowed as new installs since TSRGD 2016 so all new signal crossings are puffin.

[trickstat]

Again, I have no issue with the crossings being there. I have no issue with having to wait if someone's crossing.

I have issue with people making a very deliberate decision to push the button then cross anyway.

Do many actually do this?

I agree that it is not really right for someone to press the button when they know they are going to cross just after the one car that is just approaching the crossing with nothing else being in sight. However, I don't think this is a common thing for people to actually do.

I believe it is far more common to see that the road is quite busy and press the button only to find that the road is clear once the cars you could originally see have passed. In this situation I see nothing wrong in crossing even if it means that cars may end up stopping for no-one as they will have to stop whether you wait or not and why should you have to wait. This situation occurs to me quite often on my walk from the station to work where a nearby roundabout makes it impossible to tell if there is a big gap in the traffic behind the cars near the crossing. It is actually quite common here for others to be at the crossing by the time the traffic is stopped.

[Helvellyn]

I've sometimes seen kids walk pass and press the button even when they're not crossing.

[Berk]

Again, I have no issue with the crossings being there. I have no issue with having to wait if someone's crossing.

I have issue with people making a very deliberate decision to push the button then cross anyway.

Do many actually do this?

I agree that it is not really right for someone to press the button when they know they are going to cross just after the one car that is just approaching the crossing with nothing else being in sight. However, I don't think this is a common thing for people to actually do.

I believe it is far more common to see that the road is quite busy and press the button only to find that the road is clear once the cars you could originally see have passed. In this situation I see nothing wrong in crossing even if it means that cars may end up stopping for no-one as they will have to stop whether you wait or not and why should you have to wait. This situation occurs to me quite often on my walk from the station to work where a nearby roundabout makes it impossible to tell if there is a big gap in the traffic behind the cars near the crossing. It is actually quite common here for others to be at the crossing by the time the traffic is stopped.

In your situation it may make every sense to stop. But where most roads have good sight lines and are completely clear, pedestrians should have more controlled phases and be prepared to wait for them - or walk to the nearest bridge or underpass.

Only disabled people should have an unequivocal right to use at-grade crossings. Not people with bags, buggies, strollers etc.

And phases are too generously timed. They now nearly always have a red waiting phase after the red man appears.

[trickstat]

I've sometimes seen kids walk pass and press the button even when they're not crossing.

No doubt this does happen. A little like a more hi-tech derivative of 'knock-down ginger'.

[Bryn666]

Again, I have no issue with the crossings being there. I have no issue with having to wait if someone's crossing.

I have issue with people making a very deliberate decision to push the button then cross anyway.

Do many actually do this?

I agree that it is not really right for someone to press the button when they know they are going to cross just after the one car that is just approaching the crossing with nothing else being in sight. However, I don't think this is a common thing for people to actually do.

I believe it is far more common to see that the road is quite busy and press the button only to find that the road is clear once the cars you could originally see have passed. In this situation I see nothing wrong in crossing even if it means that cars may end up stopping for no-one as they will have to stop whether you wait or not and why should you have to wait. This situation occurs to me quite often on my walk from the station to work where a nearby roundabout makes it impossible to tell if there is a big gap in the traffic behind the cars near the crossing. It is actually quite common here for others to be at the crossing by the time the traffic is stopped.

In your situation it may make every sense to stop. But where most roads have good sight lines and are completely clear, pedestrians should have more controlled phases and be prepared to wait for them - or walk to the nearest bridge or underpass.

Only disabled people should have an unequivocal right to use at-grade crossings. Not people with bags, buggies, strollers etc.

And phases are too generously timed. They now nearly always have a red waiting phase after the red man appears.

I take it you don't do much walking...?

[Berk]

I did plenty - miles and miles and miles and miles and miles of it.

Until I got a car.

So yes, I do remember what it’s like to be a pedestrian, very clearly in fact. But it cuts both ways too. Provide a crossing every 200 yards (as you often find in city streets), and the buses struggle to clear the red lights, along with the other traffic.

Encouraging the use of puffin crossings is as likely to lead to crossing misuse as it is to assist people.

My own observations are that peds struggle to cross the road safely even when it’s their shout. I went to Stamford yesterday, waiting on a red in Water Street to turn left.

The number of peds who were clearly misjudging the speed of passing vehicles was ridiculous - you had people peering into the distance, stepping gingerly on to the road before they’d established it was safe to cross, etc. And this was on a green man.

My belief is that many people struggle to gauge the speed and safe distance between vehicles. And it seems to be getting worse.

[RichardA35]

My own observations are that peds struggle to cross the road safely even when it’s their shout. I went to Stamford yesterday, waiting on a red in Water Street to turn left.

The number of peds who were clearly misjudging the speed of passing vehicles was ridiculous - you had people peering into the distance, stepping gingerly on to the road before they’d established it was safe to cross, etc. And this was on a green man.

My belief is that many people struggle to gauge the speed and safe distance between vehicles. And it seems to be getting worse.

Indeed and to assist those who struggle you make a good argument for giving more of the available junction capacity over to pedestrians as their standard is apparently getting lower in a similar way to the extension of intergreen times to cater for poor driving practice.

[trickstat]

I did plenty - miles and miles and miles and miles and miles of it.

Until I got a car.

So yes, I do remember what it’s like to be a pedestrian, very clearly in fact.

I would say that we all are to some degree pedestrians unless we are either:

a) housebound.
b) someone who is always able to park or be dropped off right outside their destination e.g. The Queen.

[FosseWay]

In your situation it may make every sense to stop. But where most roads have good sight lines and are completely clear, pedestrians should have more controlled phases and be prepared to wait for them - or walk to the nearest bridge or underpass.

Only disabled people should have an unequivocal right to use at-grade crossings. Not people with bags, buggies, strollers etc.

Er, say what?

For a start, by virtue of being a human being, everyone has an unequivocal right to walk on the public highway (yes, yes, I know about Special Roads, not relevant here). No-one has the same unequivocal right to drive anything there - the right to do so is conditional upon gaining and retaining a licence, which among other things means obeying basic traffic rules like red lights.

Even, just for the sake of argument, if it's OK to impose the restrictions you suggest, how do you propose to deal with the majority of situations where there is no over- or underpass at all, usable or not?

Have you ever tried to hump 40 kg of baggage up stairs? Or a pushchair with a child in it, where a significant part of the problem is making doubly sure you don't lose your grip? Dropping a suitcase down a flight of stairs may cause mild inconvenience and slight loss. Dropping a child...

And phases are too generously timed. They now nearly always have a red waiting phase after the red man appears.

Here I think you may have a point, though it becomes insignificant in comparison to the ridiculous suggestion before it. Several posters above have said that newer crossing types do detect (the absence of) pedestrians and react accordingly, but I have to say I haven't particularly noticed them doing that. If it's possible to detect pedestrians, then it shouldn't be necessary to have a "lowest common denominator" timing on the ped phase - the crossing time for a jogger can be shorter than that for an elderly person with a zimmer frame. If it isn't possible (or if you're dealing with an older crossing) then it's fair enough to expect people to wait a few seconds more. They wouldn't have to if drivers could be reliably expected to be patient when there *is* someone with mobility problems on the crossing, but unfortunately there is a sizeable enough minority that misbehaves in such situations.

I do agree, though, that there is sometimes too much inactive time where neither movement gets green.

[mikehindsonevans]

Again, I have no issue with the crossings being there. I have no issue with having to wait if someone's crossing.

I have issue with people making a very deliberate decision to push the button then cross anyway.

Do many actually do this?

In your situation it may make every sense to stop. But where most roads have good sight lines and are completely clear, pedestrians should have more controlled phases and be prepared to wait for them - or walk to the nearest bridge or underpass.

Only disabled people should have an unequivocal right to use at-grade crossings. Not people with bags, buggies, strollers etc.

And phases are too generously timed. They now nearly always have a red waiting phase after the red man appears.

Hang on "Berk" - I remember a guy in London who took a long time to prove that a Pelican crossing was timed TOO SHORT to cross the road - this was after his wife's inquest. I cannot find the reference, but here's one from the Torygraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/ro ... -road.html

[AndyB]

The all red phase at a Puffin is the time traffic is held until the crossing is clear. The green man phase - the invitation to start crossing - at a puffin is generally shorter than at a pelican, I think 5 seconds is typical rather than 7?

As far as I can tell, the intention is that if you stay within the bounds of the crossing (ie not going corner to corner at a crossroads) then you have the assurance that once you are on the crossing, you have as long as you need.

The converse of that is that a puffin should be more responsive when someone crosses quickly. If someone crosses as the lights turn amber, you get the minimum intergreen of 13 seconds (2 amber, 2 waiting, 5 green man, 2 clearance, 2 red and amber) which is the same as a pelican (2 amber, 2 waiting, 7 green man, 2 red plus flashing green man, then whatever it is of flashing amber/flashing green man).

Maybe I just look at it from the other point of view. Decades observing why we need pedestrian crossings (essentially because of managing the risk created by bad drivers).

[Norfolktolancashire]

Much to my shock I managed to get stuck in the queues at these roadworks this Saturday evening coming from the Manchester Christmas markets (another subject,but a shock of too many people in what was a glorified shed shack area!).

Yes I was disgusted with myself as I avoid congestion hotspots like the plague, however I ended up forty minutes of not moving at all. It was only due to cars eventually in the 2nd lane turning right onto a minor road that there was an escape.

On top of this the trains were not running due to strike action.

I'll stick with Cornwall next time, a little bit quieter!

[FleetlinePhil]

Presumably none of you got stuck in this on Tuesday?

Apparently Dawnus has now gone into administration.