Speed Table at a Pinch Point

[Dougman]

Can anyone point me in the direction of a picture/streetivew link for a speed table/pinch point combo in the UK? I need a picture for a consultation I'm doing and I'm struggling to think of anywhere that has an example of this.

TIA

[Bryn666]

https://goo.gl/maps/iSS4n5EHCkZzxnJ16

Shoddy build quality aside, this is one round the corner from where I live.

https://goo.gl/maps/xvY7CGFcBuVHfDNy8

Another one on a residential estate local to me.

https://goo.gl/maps/EiWqjXMqeJiAFWjE8

One of two with bonus zebra crossings.

[Dougman]

Thanks Bryn, just what I was looking for!

[jervi]

I'm a bit late to the game, what about these ones.
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9905131 ... 312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9919135 ... 312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9872432 ... 312!8i6656

[Dougman]

THanks Jervi.

I went with one of Bryn's as I needed it last week, but much appreciated anyway.

[Britain]

I'm a bit late to the game, what about these ones.
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9905131 ... 312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9919135 ... 312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9872432 ... 312!8i6656

I noticed in your last link that both sides are give ways but neither has priority signs. Is this a legal? What's the point?

Does the location of the give way lines also mean you have to give way to anybody coming out of Juniper Court?

[avtur]

I'm a bit late to the game, what about these ones.
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9905131 ... 312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9919135 ... 312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9872432 ... 312!8i6656

I noticed in your last link that both sides are give ways but neither has priority signs. Is this a legal? What's the point?

Does the location of the give way lines also mean you have to give way to anybody coming out of Juniper Court?

There are priority signs alongside both give way lines and both priorities are set to give way to the (uncontrolled) oncoming traffic.

The point is that the 'oncoming traffic' may have emerged from either Juniper Court or from Poplar Mews (which is directly opposite Juniper Court) and both entrances cater for many residents' vehicles, in both instances there is no signage to control traffic emerging from either of these locations.

As to the legality of the signage, I have no idea, but as my older daughter lives very close to this location, I know it well and providing drivers do follow the signage it works well.

[FosseWay]

I'm a bit late to the game, what about these ones.
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9905131 ... 312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9919135 ... 312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9872432 ... 312!8i6656

I noticed in your last link that both sides are give ways but neither has priority signs. Is this a legal? What's the point?

Does the location of the give way lines also mean you have to give way to anybody coming out of Juniper Court?

There are priority signs alongside both give way lines and both priorities are set to give way to the (uncontrolled) oncoming traffic.

The point is that the 'oncoming traffic' may have emerged from either Juniper Court or from Poplar Mews (which is directly opposite Juniper Court) and both entrances cater for many residents' vehicles, in both instances there is no signage to control traffic emerging from either of these locations.

As to the legality of the signage, I have no idea, but as my older daughter lives very close to this location, I know it well and providing drivers do follow the signage it works well.

If it works in practice, then I guess there's no problem. But as someone who doesn't know the location or the typical movements people would want to make, it strikes me that it causes unnecessary uncertainty.

If I were emerging from Juniper Court or Poplar Mews, I would instinctively presume I had to give way to any traffic on the main line, regardless of which direction it was coming from. It wouldn't occur to me that the Give Way markings and no-priority roundels on the main line would give me priority over that traffic, and even if there were a sign to that effect on Juniper Court/Poplar Mews, I wouldn't trust that someone on the main line would interpret the signage visible to them in that way.

Conversely, if I approached either side of the pinch point on the main line and saw that there was no traffic approaching from the other side, I would regard it as a green light (proceed if safe to do so). If someone turned out of either of the side turnings towards me before I'd passed the point of no return, I'd wait for them, but if someone was sitting in the mouth of the side turning but not yet proceeding, I would read the situation as being my right of way. If they then turn towards me once I've entered the pinch point, there is potential for problems.

Finally, leaving aside the side turnings, it strikes me as creating unnecessary uncertainty to impose the same legally binding restriction on priority on both sides of the pinch point. "Give way to oncoming traffic" is a fairly clear, unambiguous instruction. Technically if you get vehicles approaching each side at the same time, they must both stop: even if one flashes or otherwise indicates that the other should proceed, the one who proceeds is technically committing an offence by disobeying the sign which says you MUST give way to oncoming traffic.

I can understand why you might not want to use the blue "you have priority over oncoming traffic" sign, as it might be interpreted as meaning "you can steam through here regardless". But wouldn't it be better just to treat this as any normal S1 would be treated - encourage motorists to interact with each other without explicit signage? Quite often less is more, and there are frequent campaigns to reduce the clutter on our streets. Oversigned residential streets must surely be a significant target in this regard. The layout of the road (pinch point, hump) does much more to encourage the desired behaviour than the signage; responsible people will behave in the desired way anyway, while idiots won't pay any attention anyway; but observant drivers who know what the signs mean and who go to some lengths to avoid breaking the law while driving may be concerned by an apparent need to break it in order to get anywhere at all.

[avtur]

I noticed in your last link that both sides are give ways but neither has priority signs. Is this a legal? What's the point?

Does the location of the give way lines also mean you have to give way to anybody coming out of Juniper Court?

There are priority signs alongside both give way lines and both priorities are set to give way to the (uncontrolled) oncoming traffic.

The point is that the 'oncoming traffic' may have emerged from either Juniper Court or from Poplar Mews (which is directly opposite Juniper Court) and both entrances cater for many residents' vehicles, in both instances there is no signage to control traffic emerging from either of these locations.

As to the legality of the signage, I have no idea, but as my older daughter lives very close to this location, I know it well and providing drivers do follow the signage it works well.

If it works in practice, then I guess there's no problem. But as someone who doesn't know the location or the typical movements people would want to make, it strikes me that it causes unnecessary uncertainty.

It does work.

I use this road several times a week at different times of the day. This road sits within a very large residential development which is characterised by its overwhelmingly anti-car design. The truth is that to be able to afford to live here then it is almost certainly going to require a two-income household and given the complexities of family life these days (and the 100% lack of anything resembling public transport) this leads to nearly every property owning two cars. For the properties that are provided with parking then there is only drive space for one car per property, which gives rise to a considerable amount of on-street parking. There isn't a road on the development wide enough to accommodate three cars wide, which means wherever a car is parked on the road there is an immediate restriction which reduces the road to single line traffic. It is completely unavoidable

There are several other locations within the development where there is access to and from the road system into parking areas for flats and small groups of terraced houses very similar to this example. Traffic density varies through the day but particularly come evening time the level of traffic peaks due to school runs and commuters, add to this the numerous supermarket home delivery vehicles and it often leads to chaos, drivers need to be very patient to deal with this.

The development appears to be a very good example of where planners tried to influence the use of cars by simply not catering for them, but the reality of people's lives is out of step with the design, and reality wins at the end of the day, people have the cars they need not the cars the development was designed for.

[FosseWay]

I guess my question is "Does it work because the layout, including parked cars, makes it work, or is the signage integral to making it work?"

In other words, do the signs serve any purpose? Because if you get the same results without the signs, you may as well get rid of them and make a small contribution to reducing street clutter.

[Britain]

There are priority signs alongside both give way lines and both priorities are set to give way to the (uncontrolled) oncoming traffic.

I meant there are no "priority over oncoming traffic" signs.

Personally I hate street clutter, especially on small residential roads. I've noticed many areas sticking up 20 signs in cul-de-sacs and estates where you'd struggle to get over that anyway, and would no way be enforced. I've always assumed it was a way for them to spend their budget and claim they're doing something for road safety when really it just looks ugly and makes no difference to the speed people drive anyway.

[avtur]

There are priority signs alongside both give way lines and both priorities are set to give way to the (uncontrolled) oncoming traffic.

I meant there are no "priority over oncoming traffic" signs.

Personally I hate street clutter, especially on small residential roads. I've noticed many areas sticking up 20 signs in cul-de-sacs and estates where you'd struggle to get over that anyway, and would no way be enforced. I've always assumed it was a way for them to spend their budget and claim they're doing something for road safety when really it just looks ugly and makes no difference to the speed people drive anyway.

As a local to this particular location I wouldn't suggest that these traffic signs (both say oncoming traffic has priority) are clutter, they add extra information to inform drivers. Yes there is a high proportion of local drivers using roads in a location like this (who you might say should be familiar with the layout without the need for signs) but with the increasing traffic of say delivery drivers I'd say the signs provide useful information.

[UKboy]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.66237 ... 312!8i6656 This is one of those that I have come across.