Farside Secondary Signals

[Gareth]

My understanding is that they are only present with a main green and disappear when they turn amber. So basically, like here, except for the fact it's a single aspect.

EDIT: although this thread suggests that the main light can actually be red, which does suggest back-to-back operation does occur...

https://www.gratisrijbewijsonline-forum ... hp?t=19722

And apparently the arrow doesn't override the main signal, which is how we would interpret it over here. That must be what the blog post further up was getting at: you may think the arrow will let you turn left through the red light, but the cross aspect almost certainly wouldn't.

[exiled]

I suspect the federal government only has limited ability to influence such things these days; if the regions are okay or ambivalent about the matter, the status quo probably remains.

I'm not sure what the argument is against evacuation arrows in the blog post. He's suggesting that the arrow doesn't give priority to left turners and that if the oncoming vehicle ran the red light, the blame would be shared. I would've thought the very fact one vehicle ran the red light would make where the blame lies quite clear. I'm also not sure how the cross aspects are any better in this respect.

Although the regions have been responsible since the second state reform it appears they only started diverging recently. I suspect you are right though that in situ lights etc won't be changed, apart from Flanders repainting the poles.

[the cheesecake man]

Far side secondaries are a good contingency plan as it's harder for vehicle to take out both in a collision than if they're together on the nearside.

[multiraider2]

Never knew turning traffic stopping at the farside secondary for the cross street was such a big problem. Are we just getting stupider? The few times I've seen it, it's often been a foreign registered car.

Potentially also the increase in the number of signalled pedestrian crossings just one or two carlengths beyond the departure side of the junction, as here.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4908976 ... 384!8i8192

Is that a farside or is it a separately staged pedestrian crossing, in fact one which will be red when traffic is turning and the through traffic is stopped ? If the farside has a pedestrian central island, unfamiliar users turning into the road can mistake one for the other.

The use of pedestrian signals very close to traffic signals can lead to the opposite problem to that already identified and potentially much worse than a false stop. Near me the A222/A215 junction at Spring Lane has this arrangement and the red pedestrian signal which is, I believe, linked to the main signals can actually trigger before all the traffic filtering from the A222 westbound has actually completed the turn. I have seen numerous vehicles sail right through the red and I have reasoned that at least some are ignoring it as a mistaken secondary signal, even though the other arm of the crossroads is only from the fire station. When stopping if there is more than a couple of vehicles they can be stranded across the junction and traffic on the green from the A215 has to manoeuvre round. Also traffic filtering left on the early start from the A222 eastbound has to stop immediatley after getting a green and I've seen them ignore it also. Of course all the drivers are actually at fault, but still do not like the timings and I myself use other crossings of Spring Lane as a pedestrian because of the potential of being hit.

[AndyB]

Here's an example of where turning traffic has stopped at the farside secondary.

The farside secondary was installed on the main pole where you can see the mountings in about 2008, but traffic turning left out of Eglantine Avenue kept stopping at it. First, they installed long hoods, but it wasn't until the signal head was moved to its current location that traffic realised there was no stop line.

Being rather tall, this is one junction which I dearly wish had a farside secondary. I am frequently the first in the queue in the outside lane (turning right within 200 yards of joining the main road) and the green is out of my line of sight - I have to scrunch down at the lights and others like it to see when the lights are changing.

It would probably help if the secondary in view was better aligned.

[Chris Bertram]

Here's an example of where turning traffic has stopped at the farside secondary.

The farside secondary was installed on the main pole where you can see the mountings in about 2008, but traffic turning left out of Eglantine Avenue kept stopping at it. First, they installed long hoods, but it wasn't until the signal head was moved to its current location that traffic realised there was no stop line.

Andy, I think you may need to edit your link here.

[AndyB]

Done!

Check streetview as well. July 2008 shows as installed, April 2010 shows attached to the existing straight pole, and March 2011 onwards shows the curved pole which replaced it.

[traffic-light-man]

Here's an example of where turning traffic has stopped at the farside secondary.

In addition to the longer hoods, Liverpool tried mounting locations similar to that in the 2000s. Here, here and here are examples - the ones mounted to ped poles are tidier, obviously!

I can't think of many 'simple' junctions that have had a proper upgrade in the recent past without it being a re-model of some sort, but they do generally still tend to mount the secondaries closer to the junction than the opposing primaries, rather than the old back-to-back standard.

[AndyB]

The problem they encountered was that when placed in the conventional back to back position, it was misread as meaning to stop at the pedestrian crossing. I think the idea is that by moving it closer to the junction, there is less likelihood that it will be misread by turning drivers.

The remodelling in that case was that a pedestrian crossing used to be a short distance round the corner - it was moved, quite literally, the length of the zig zags to be part of the signalised junction. The top of Donnybrook Street was reversed, to the chagrin of Co-op delivery drivers for whom the delivery ramp is now the wrong way round, and the Lisburn Road/Eglantine Avenue/Donnybrook Street junction was included in the existing signalised junction with Tates Avenue.

[traffic-light-man]

I stumbled across this set of far-side signals in Delft, NL. Both very strange, but very familiar look to it! Replicated on the opposite side of the junction, too.

I believe the Dutch generally have at least one signal per lane, rather than just signalling per movement, so this arrangement would satisfy that without an island.

[tom66]

Talking about strange secondary signals this one on the A58 in Halifax has always intrigued me:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7282771 ... 384!8i8192

The green 'ahead' arrow is always lit. I've never seen it not lit. Now presumably the reason this was installed was because the main line traffic was confused about the red light for right turning traffic, but I've never seen this done before.

In fact, even after the junction was refurbished slightly and had retimed signals and new heads installed, they kept the permanently lit aspect:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7282702 ... 312!8i6656

Having never seen this anywhere else I'm assuming it is a Calderdale traffic quirk; is there a regulation/standard to cover this?

Addendum:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7258477 ... 312!8i6656

Before this junction was refurbished it looks like the Calderdale planning department had insisted on a continuously lit green arrow here, too. How curious! After the divider in the junction was removed and the signals combined, this signal was lost. Are there many examples of a single-aspect head on UK public roads? This is probably the first example I have seen.

[traffic-light-man]

This was discussed fairly recently in this thread.

In terms of the signal head, your first example is compliant, given it's an additional aspect within a signal housing. There's nothing that specifies that the arrow ever has to turn off.

Your second example, however, is not compliant. AIUI, there isn't the option for a single aspect arrow alone in the TSRGD. Theoretically, it should be a full three-aspect head that never changes, or be incorporated within the primary signal head, as per your first example.

I'd be interested to see a three-aspect head with blank doors in the red and amber positions, though - I wonder if anything like that exists out there?

[Chris Bertram]

There's this one, at the Lady Bay Bridge junction on Meadow Lane, Nottingham. In this case, it's a secondary for the left turn filter arrow on the primary signal, and is not permanently on.

[traffic-light-man]

There's this one, at the Lady Bay Bridge junction on Meadow Lane, Nottingham. In this case, it's a secondary for the left turn filter arrow on the primary signal, and is not permanently on.

There use to be one similar here, though it didn't have a partner, it was entirely alone. It would extinguish when the eastbound got a right turn, but was illuminated otherwise. Rather sensibly, it was removed when the junction had the Peek Elites installed.

[tom66]

What are the thoughts on this signal here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.66879 ... 312!8i6656

which is on the "wrong" side, repeating the main traffic signal for that roundabout entrance?

I can only surmise that the signal is placed there as the main signals are otherwise blind from that corner, but I can't see why they wouldn't just move the signals further forward until they were not blind, and adjust the roundabout timings to compensate. The signal to the right seems like a bodge, but it's a bodge from origin as it was added around 2014 or so when the junction was signalised.

[jervi]

What are the thoughts on this signal here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.66879 ... 312!8i6656

which is on the "wrong" side, repeating the main traffic signal for that roundabout entrance?

I can only surmise that the signal is placed there as the main signals are otherwise blind from that corner, but I can't see why they wouldn't just move the signals further forward until they were not blind, and adjust the roundabout timings to compensate. The signal to the right seems like a bodge, but it's a bodge from origin as it was added around 2014 or so when the junction was signalised.

That is horrid, I don't see why it is there since there is a 40 mph limit on the approach.
If the 85% percentile speed is 40mph, the recommended stopping sight distance is 80m. That is achievable from the right hand lane, and could be achievable from the left hand lane with a bit of vegetation clearance.
Interestingly there is only 1 warning sign of traffic lights. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.66987 ... 312!8i6656 surely it would be better to have 200 and 100 yards warning signs of traffic lights and clear some vegetation back rather than put a light 30 metres away from the primary signal

[Chris Bertram]

There's another "wrong side" secondary here, on the A240 just south of Tolworth - again, I think it's because of a bend just before the junction. It's been there for some time.

[Bryn666]

What are the thoughts on this signal here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.66879 ... 312!8i6656

which is on the "wrong" side, repeating the main traffic signal for that roundabout entrance?

I can only surmise that the signal is placed there as the main signals are otherwise blind from that corner, but I can't see why they wouldn't just move the signals further forward until they were not blind, and adjust the roundabout timings to compensate. The signal to the right seems like a bodge, but it's a bodge from origin as it was added around 2014 or so when the junction was signalised.

That is horrid, I don't see why it is there since there is a 40 mph limit on the approach.
If the 85% percentile speed is 40mph, the recommended stopping sight distance is 80m. That is achievable from the right hand lane, and could be achievable from the left hand lane with a bit of vegetation clearance.
Interestingly there is only 1 warning sign of traffic lights. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.66987 ... 312!8i6656 surely it would be better to have 200 and 100 yards warning signs of traffic lights and clear some vegetation back rather than put a light 30 metres away from the primary signal

RSA demand I think. "Just in case".

[tom66]

Surely an even better option would be just to move the signals further back so traffic has a clear line of sight and adjust the timing so the junction clears by the time the opposite signal has green. Liberal box areas would discourage blocking the junction, or a secondary signal with second stop line could be added with slightly adjusted timing (obviously, this costs more, and this is Calderdale, so I'm frankly surprised this isn't signalled using semaphores.)

The junction gets busy at rush hour, but rarely more than a queue up to the parking area.

[Bryn666]

Surely an even better option would be just to move the signals further back so traffic has a clear line of sight and adjust the timing so the junction clears by the time the opposite signal has green. Liberal box areas would discourage blocking the junction, or a secondary signal with second stop line could be added with slightly adjusted timing (obviously, this costs more, and this is Calderdale, so I'm frankly surprised this isn't signalled using semaphores.)

The junction gets busy at rush hour, but rarely more than a queue up to the parking area.

Kirklees, but signal control in West Yorkshire is all designed from Leeds UTMC as I understand it.