Driving without due care and attention I'd think. At an absolute push they could claim you wilfully ignored an instruction given by a lawfully placed sign (in this case a signal) but I'm not really sure Road Traffic Act Section 36 is meant to be used that way (it's how you get busted for jumping a red).Stevie D wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 19:12I believe that is the correct installation.Rambo wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 22:33 https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4630111 ... 384!8i8192
theres straight ahead and straight ahead? was there once a right turn filter here?
A green 'ahead' arrow on its own doesn't make it illegal to turn left or right, you need a traffic order backed up by a mandatory 'ahead only' sign.
I'm not sure what the legal situation is if you pass a green arrow but take a different route from the one indicated by the arrow – I don't recommend anyone tries it to find out though!
Botched Traffic Signals
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4736
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
TSM seems to suggest that if you make a TRO to make a movement mandatory (or prohibit a movement, for that matter), then you don't need the 606, a substitute green arrow will suffice.Stevie D wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 19:12I believe that is the correct installation.Rambo wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 22:33 https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4630111 ... 384!8i8192
theres straight ahead and straight ahead? was there once a right turn filter here?
A green 'ahead' arrow on its own doesn't make it illegal to turn left or right, you need a traffic order backed up by a mandatory 'ahead only' sign.
I'm not sure what the legal situation is if you pass a green arrow but take a different route from the one indicated by the arrow – I don't recommend anyone tries it to find out though!
Of course, the TSRGD states that (with regards to green aspects) "where the signal is an arrow, vehicles may only proceed in the direction indicated by the arrow" and the RTA S36 states that "a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence", so I think coupling those together (particularly with a TRO) would constitute an offence for someone making a movement otherwise in accordance with the arrow. I think we discussed this fairly recently with regards to U-turning on a substitute green arrow pointing to the right.TSM Chapter 6, 5.2.7. wrote:Banned or required movements must have an associated TRO, including those indicated
by a sign to diagram 606, as set out in S14‑6‑28. If a substitute green arrow is used to show
a specific movement there is no requirement to include a box sign to diagram 606
Simon
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
I don't like the idea of enforcing a TRO with merely a green arrow, personally. To me, a green arrow tells you that you may go in a certain direction, not that you can't. Only the additional presence of a red light would properly ban other moves, in my opinion.
That being said, there is some ambiguity when it comes to pork chop islands where there's a thru only lane to the right of the island but no TRO. Sometimes signals are installed with NLT box signs, which is technically wrong without a TRO. So I wonder what legal ground a motorist would have turning left in the thru lane, especially if it's against a normal green ball and there's a pedestrian stage, like here, for example...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rT12XgodanEMrvQi7
That being said, there is some ambiguity when it comes to pork chop islands where there's a thru only lane to the right of the island but no TRO. Sometimes signals are installed with NLT box signs, which is technically wrong without a TRO. So I wonder what legal ground a motorist would have turning left in the thru lane, especially if it's against a normal green ball and there's a pedestrian stage, like here, for example...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rT12XgodanEMrvQi7
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4736
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
If a green arrow tells you that you may go in a certain direction, then surely you shouldn't go in any of the directions not indicated by an arrow? It's therefore the same as a box sign telling you not to, just approached in a different way. I think this is in a similar vein to the 'buses only' vs 'no entry except buses' argument.
As always, I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all response to this. I see the benefit of a box sign for outright banning a movement where they're not allowed at all, but either side of a splitter island where substitute green arrows are used, I think they're just increasing the clutter.
Having said that, I do accept the argument that there's a substantial amount of morons out there who think, perhaps naively, that it's acceptable to do something they shouldn't unless they're explicitly told not to. There's also those folk that will do something they shouldn't with intent, in which case I'm not sure a sign will always help anyway.
As always, I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all response to this. I see the benefit of a box sign for outright banning a movement where they're not allowed at all, but either side of a splitter island where substitute green arrows are used, I think they're just increasing the clutter.
Having said that, I do accept the argument that there's a substantial amount of morons out there who think, perhaps naively, that it's acceptable to do something they shouldn't unless they're explicitly told not to. There's also those folk that will do something they shouldn't with intent, in which case I'm not sure a sign will always help anyway.
Simon
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
I just think there's a difference between "allowed" and "must do". It's why we don't do the Russian thing where a green ahead & right means left turners must wait for their own signal, despite there being no red light.
The colour green naturally suggests "allowed" to me, whereas blue suggests "obligatory".
The colour green naturally suggests "allowed" to me, whereas blue suggests "obligatory".
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Also, in many places (especially at traffic light junctions), some roads are disconnected from the junction to improve flow, but allow cycle permeability. These movement are often forgotten about, however are still physically and legally possible.
For example, when Cycling through Lewes (W-E), you have to use the one-way system, however there is the option for cycles to use the old high street. But the traffic lights only have an ahead arrow.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.87423 ... 312!8i6656 - Having to follow the arrow strictly would mean that this movement wouldn't be possible. There are probably thousands of these examples across the country.
For example, when Cycling through Lewes (W-E), you have to use the one-way system, however there is the option for cycles to use the old high street. But the traffic lights only have an ahead arrow.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.87423 ... 312!8i6656 - Having to follow the arrow strictly would mean that this movement wouldn't be possible. There are probably thousands of these examples across the country.
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
When does the arrow cease to have effect?
If the turn happens 100 yds down the road, does the 'Ahead' arrow mean you can't follow it?
Obviously there are farcical examples where an ahead arrow might prevent you from ever turning if interpreted in the most banal way, but, legally speaking, is it just up to interpretation as to when a 'junction' ends or is there a specific definition at which a right-turn restriction, ahead arrow, etc. ceases to have effect?
If the turn happens 100 yds down the road, does the 'Ahead' arrow mean you can't follow it?
Obviously there are farcical examples where an ahead arrow might prevent you from ever turning if interpreted in the most banal way, but, legally speaking, is it just up to interpretation as to when a 'junction' ends or is there a specific definition at which a right-turn restriction, ahead arrow, etc. ceases to have effect?
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4736
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Try telling that to Know Your Traffic Signs. The one site I can think of like that was, admittedly, converted to a green ball.
It looks to me as though the kerb line continues through the junction without anything indicating that cycles (or any other vehicle, for that matter) may leave the carriageway there, so the ahead only arrows appear just. As far as I can tell, the only legal way to access the high street other than as a pedestrian is via Railway Lane.jervi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 22:44For example, when Cycling through Lewes (W-E), you have to use the one-way system, however there is the option for cycles to use the old high street. But the traffic lights only have an ahead arrow.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.87423 ... 312!8i6656 - Having to follow the arrow strictly would mean that this movement wouldn't be possible. There are probably thousands of these examples across the country.
There's plenty of situations where drivers of motor traffic regularly turn against banned turns, presumably because there's no visible reason why it should be banned. This is exactly that same argument, but more refined by virtue of the modal filter. I accept that with a modal filter, it's more likely to be a design oversight rather than an intentional restriction, but I don't think that's a reason to simply decide the instruction of the signal no longer applies.
It's also unfortunate that so many exemptions are null and void because they've erroneously been coupled with a substitute green arrow, which in practice just devalues the meaning of the arrow as road users will, expectedly, take more note of the exemption than the arrow. You cannot correctly exempt a substitute green arrow like you can with a sign, which again shows that the substitute green arrow must have some standing on its own.
I would say that it's up to interpretation (or the specifics of a TRO, if available) depending on the junction layout, yes. IIRC, the regulation just states something along the lines of 'completing a movement through the junction in the direction indicated by the green arrow'.tom66 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 22:57 When does the arrow cease to have effect?
If the turn happens 100 yds down the road, does the 'Ahead' arrow mean you can't follow it?
Obviously there are farcical examples where an ahead arrow might prevent you from ever turning if interpreted in the most banal way, but, legally speaking, is it just up to interpretation as to when a 'junction' ends or is there a specific definition at which a right-turn restriction, ahead arrow, etc. ceases to have effect?
Simon
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Skipsy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 18:24 There's a rather unique traffic light controlled roundabout on the A217, unique in that it's quite small of a roundabout to have traffic lights.
Anyway, I only just realised how potentially misleading these signals are from this approach:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4105663 ... 384!8i8192
The 2 lanes have straight ahead arrows however lane 1 is meant to go straight over whereas lane 2 is meant for going around the roundabout. With a straight on filter light, the intention is understandable, to allow lane 1 to move over the roundabout, continuing along the A217, however, both lanes show straight ahead arrow markings, which could potentially cause people in lane 2 to proceed. Not to mention the straight on filter and use of a straight arrow for lane 1 is confusing as there is a side road on the left.
You'll both be chuffed to know that the roundabout has now been removed.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:03 It’s an absolute nightmare of a junction. If it worked you could forgive the very weird signalisation and the strange layout, but it doesn’t work at all and causes queues in all directions for most of every day.
It is fundamentally much too small a roundabout to ever be signalised, and the signals don’t do very much more than just let one approach enter the junction at a time. The extra things the signals do permit are, as you’ve noted, at best liable to be misunderstood and at worst downright dangerous.
It is candidate number one for signalised roundabouts that would have been better as plain signalised junctions. The roundabout should never have been retained.
I'm nobody special, just somebody who enjoys looking at and talking about infrastructure. Eager to learn as much as I can about the roads of the UK - please help me with this.
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
No idea, I've never been there. I had a look around when I saw the roundabout linked and it updated to a 2020 view where I could see the roundabout had been replaced.
I'm nobody special, just somebody who enjoys looking at and talking about infrastructure. Eager to learn as much as I can about the roads of the UK - please help me with this.
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4736
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
I'm going out on a limb to put this one in traffic signals, but it's a mess whatever category it fits in. I believe it (and its partner in the other direction) wig-wag amber, but I've never seen them in operation.
Simon
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Never seen them in operation either. Just by Fiddlers Ferry power station?traffic-light-man wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 19:02 I'm going out on a limb to put this one in traffic signals, but it's a mess whatever category it fits in. I believe it (and its partner in the other direction) wig-wag amber, but I've never seen them in operation.
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4736
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Yes, they're the ones, for Penketh Fire Station. I can't help but think with all the faffing around they've done with these, they might as well have used proper compliant Wig Wags, painted a line across each lane and done it properly!
Simon
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Wow it's been a while since I've been there so I never knew it was replaced!Britain wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 04:42Skipsy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 18:24 There's a rather unique traffic light controlled roundabout on the A217, unique in that it's quite small of a roundabout to have traffic lights.
Anyway, I only just realised how potentially misleading these signals are from this approach:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4105663 ... 384!8i8192
The 2 lanes have straight ahead arrows however lane 1 is meant to go straight over whereas lane 2 is meant for going around the roundabout. With a straight on filter light, the intention is understandable, to allow lane 1 to move over the roundabout, continuing along the A217, however, both lanes show straight ahead arrow markings, which could potentially cause people in lane 2 to proceed. Not to mention the straight on filter and use of a straight arrow for lane 1 is confusing as there is a side road on the left.You'll both be chuffed to know that the roundabout has now been removed.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:03 It’s an absolute nightmare of a junction. If it worked you could forgive the very weird signalisation and the strange layout, but it doesn’t work at all and causes queues in all directions for most of every day.
It is fundamentally much too small a roundabout to ever be signalised, and the signals don’t do very much more than just let one approach enter the junction at a time. The extra things the signals do permit are, as you’ve noted, at best liable to be misunderstood and at worst downright dangerous.
It is candidate number one for signalised roundabouts that would have been better as plain signalised junctions. The roundabout should never have been retained.
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
At that location, wow, they must really not want you to do a u-turn: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4322389 ... 384!8i8192Gareth wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 17:07 I don't like the idea of enforcing a TRO with merely a green arrow, personally. To me, a green arrow tells you that you may go in a certain direction, not that you can't. Only the additional presence of a red light would properly ban other moves, in my opinion.
That being said, there is some ambiguity when it comes to pork chop islands where there's a thru only lane to the right of the island but no TRO. Sometimes signals are installed with NLT box signs, which is technically wrong without a TRO. So I wonder what legal ground a motorist would have turning left in the thru lane, especially if it's against a normal green ball and there's a pedestrian stage, like here, for example...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rT12XgodanEMrvQi7
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4736
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
The old Mellors here used to have NRT signs in the right hand boxes, which was apparently missed in the 'like-for-like' LED 'upgrade' at this site. The other direction got the correct signs, though.Skipsy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 21:31At that location, wow, they must really not want you to do a u-turn: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4322389 ... 384!8i8192
Simon
- ReissOmari
- Member
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 21:51
- Location: Birmingham
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
I'm not sure if this happens much in other Cities, but in Birmingham, there seems to be a problem that hits junctions/crossings quite frequently.
Pedestrian crossings at junctions, the "Wait" lights by itself, forcing the signals to go through the whole cycle, and its happening at a few Ped crossings too, so they change to red for absolutely nobody to cross, what causes this? It seems to happen to the same junctions around the City too.
Pedestrian crossings at junctions, the "Wait" lights by itself, forcing the signals to go through the whole cycle, and its happening at a few Ped crossings too, so they change to red for absolutely nobody to cross, what causes this? It seems to happen to the same junctions around the City too.
ReissOmari..
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Electrical fault, probably. Report it via fixmystreet, I've done this before and it's worked.ReissOmari wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 15:28 I'm not sure if this happens much in other Cities, but in Birmingham, there seems to be a problem that hits junctions/crossings quite frequently.
Pedestrian crossings at junctions, the "Wait" lights by itself, forcing the signals to go through the whole cycle, and its happening at a few Ped crossings too, so they change to red for absolutely nobody to cross, what causes this? It seems to happen to the same junctions around the City too.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
-
- Member
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 19:45
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Oops.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.59569 ... 384!8i8192
Harder to see, but a bigger "oops" in this case.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.54629 ... 384!8i8192
Presumably both are a result of incorrect fitting following maintenance and in the case of the latter example, the green arrow is now pointing north west, instead of east!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.59569 ... 384!8i8192
Harder to see, but a bigger "oops" in this case.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.54629 ... 384!8i8192
Presumably both are a result of incorrect fitting following maintenance and in the case of the latter example, the green arrow is now pointing north west, instead of east!