Botched Traffic Signals
Moderator: Site Management Team
-
- Member
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 03:58
- Location: Krasnoyarsk, Russia
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
My only 2 guesses are that it's either a botch as you said, or they're adding a "contraflow" bus and taxi lane, judging by the road works taking place. The latter seems to be the case, as that lane is separated by a kerb from the direction towards the camera.
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
A possibility but I thought the bit with the kerb is going to be used for segregated cycling like in other areas of Leeds.WhiteBlueRed wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 10:13 My only 2 guesses are that it's either a botch as you said, or they're adding a "contraflow" bus and taxi lane, judging by the road works taking place. The latter seems to be the case, as that lane is separated by a kerb from the direction towards the camera.
They should just cover up the exemption plate up while it's been constructed as I'd imagine most taxi drivers will do it because I've seen a few in Leeds making illegal turns.
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
This consultation page seems to agree with you, but I've no idea how current it is:WhiteBlueRed wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 10:13 My only 2 guesses are that it's either a botch as you said, or they're adding a "contraflow" bus and taxi lane, judging by the road works taking place. The latter seems to be the case, as that lane is separated by a kerb from the direction towards the camera.
https://leedscitycentretransport.common ... r-briggate
The exemption plate should definitely be covered during construction, although the temporary sign ought to be clear enough.
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4736
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
It doesn't matter about the exemption plate because there's a green arrow anyway
And no only does the signal head configuration not comply in general, it's one of those cases where the exemption box really needs to be under the regulation in order for the regulation itself to have any chance at being correct as well.
I don't understand why these simple things being so horribly wrong is becoming so common.
Simon
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
That one is outdated though this is one is more accurate to what I said about the segregated cycling areajnty wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:09This consultation page seems to agree with you, but I've no idea how current it is:WhiteBlueRed wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 10:13 My only 2 guesses are that it's either a botch as you said, or they're adding a "contraflow" bus and taxi lane, judging by the road works taking place. The latter seems to be the case, as that lane is separated by a kerb from the direction towards the camera.
https://leedscitycentretransport.common ... r-briggate
The exemption plate should definitely be covered during construction, although the temporary sign ought to be clear enough.
https://leedscitycentretransport.common ... 20/details
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Another botch here because buses come up the hill and go ahead at that junction into the bus station. I guess that was the easiest way to signal it without sticking exemption plates on it.
-
- Member
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 03:58
- Location: Krasnoyarsk, Russia
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6935455 ... 312!8i6656
Stop signs together with traffic lights in the UK, that is interesting.
Stop signs together with traffic lights in the UK, that is interesting.
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Gated off now anyway and permanently shut due to pedestrians walking across the bus way and getting injured. Signals have been bagged up. Buses can only enter through that way now.WhiteBlueRed wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 18:10 https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6935455 ... 312!8i6656
Stop signs together with traffic lights in the UK, that is interesting.
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
They've put the louvres on the wrong set of lights. They should be on the next ones along. There's no reason for that first set to have them on.
- Nathan_A_RF
- Member
- Posts: 731
- Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:53
- Location: East Sussex/Southampton
- Contact:
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
I was thinking the same thing. Useless bollard only discriminating against larger cycles.
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4736
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
I wonder if the intention is to draw attention to the second set when the first are green, particularly if the first are often green while the second are red? There have been examples of this kind of louvreing on the approaches to roundabouts or left turn slips with subsequent give way lines to intentionally 'hide' the green almost entirely. If the first set only changes to red with the second set, which is what I'd expect, then green louvres on the second set would be unnecessary, but the ones fitted for the opposing approach are necessary for the same reason.
This one is a bit more interesting as it seems like there's no purpose to the louvres. It looks to me as though its predecessor had louvres perhaps in an attempt to prevent drivers mistaking the secondary for a primary and stopping within the junction, but it's had a casual replacement with the wrong louvre arrangement.
Simon
- MotorwayGuy
- Member
- Posts: 1013
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 15:37
- Location: S.E. London
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
This bus gate has no entry roundels which looks very odd, and the left arrow on the right head is on the wrong side. Even more odd is the fact the short section of bus lane leading to it is timed, the kicker arrows and dashed lines obviously mean they don't intend other traffic to use the bus gate outside of these hours but the signage is very unclear. I'd be interested if anyone has had a ticket for driving through this mess.
The funniest thing is there is still an advance give way sign that was never removed when the signals were put in!
EDIT: The other side of the junction is even worse, the stop line has been painted in the wrong place, even more dangerous since there is a controlled crossing on the side road. It used to be correct.
The funniest thing is there is still an advance give way sign that was never removed when the signals were put in!
EDIT: The other side of the junction is even worse, the stop line has been painted in the wrong place, even more dangerous since there is a controlled crossing on the side road. It used to be correct.
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4736
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
The diagram 606 arrows can be on the opposite side to the way they're pointing. It's advised against, but it's not against regulations. The classic arrangement would've been to make the offside ones inline rather than 'L' shaped.
The no entry and exception boxes on the other hand are a classic example of the incorrect arrangement proving in itself why it could've been done properly in the first place. The exemption box is side hung, so there's literally no reason at all as to why the no entry box couldn't be correctly placed above it.
The no entry and exception boxes on the other hand are a classic example of the incorrect arrangement proving in itself why it could've been done properly in the first place. The exemption box is side hung, so there's literally no reason at all as to why the no entry box couldn't be correctly placed above it.
Simon
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Not sure what "botched" this belongs to. But zebra crossing is technically a traffic control device.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.88237 ... 384!8i8192
Not going to both pointing out what is wrong with this. I imagine the installation is many many decades old, with just parts of it being replaced on an ad-hoc basis retaining legacy standards.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.88237 ... 384!8i8192
Not going to both pointing out what is wrong with this. I imagine the installation is many many decades old, with just parts of it being replaced on an ad-hoc basis retaining legacy standards.
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
London has this ridiculous obsession with putting 606 arrows on traffic lights where they simply aren't required.traffic-light-man wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 09:49 The diagram 606 arrows can be on the opposite side to the way they're pointing. It's advised against, but it's not against regulations. The classic arrangement would've been to make the offside ones inline rather than 'L' shaped.
The no entry and exception boxes on the other hand are a classic example of the incorrect arrangement proving in itself why it could've been done properly in the first place. The exemption box is side hung, so there's literally no reason at all as to why the no entry box couldn't be correctly placed above it.
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
-
- Member
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 03:58
- Location: Krasnoyarsk, Russia
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
A zebra crossing that vehicles have to drive on to get in or out of that car park. I thought this was only possible in Russia.jervi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 16:59 Not sure what "botched" this belongs to. But zebra crossing is technically a traffic control device.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.88237 ... 384!8i8192
Not going to both pointing out what is wrong with this. I imagine the installation is many many decades old, with just parts of it being replaced on an ad-hoc basis retaining legacy standards.
It's very confusing, because a zebra crossing is usually where a path or pavement intersects a road, but there's also a dropped kerb, so you are not sure whether you're allowed to drive up there or not. (either way I imagine both are against the respective countries' standards)
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4736
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Current traits aside, I know there was the old situation where mandatory movements were suggested to be backed up by the 606 sign because of the ambiguity with relation to the green arrow, but yes, they seemed to apply them almost by default with most green arrows.
Certainly in the North West, it would seem to have been typical practice that if there were other movements available from a given approach, including those separated by a splitter island, then a diagram 606 would simply not get used on any of the movements. They would only appear where there was only one mandatory movement for the whole approach, and as a result, weren't all that common in comparison to elsewhere.
One that springs to mind straight away as a case-in-point is this site in Liverpool, which is one of the few Mellor sites I can think of to have featured diagram 606 signs. This approach doesn't have them, but this one does.
Simon
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
https://imgur.com/a/7woKtMc
Spotted this when out in Leeds. Impossible to press the button without crossing the stop line. Luckily, it also has a sensor so pressing the button isn't normally necessary. In fact I don't think the sensor or button is even needed here. Location: https://goo.gl/maps/3gyh4BCNzboPTCNt6
Spotted this when out in Leeds. Impossible to press the button without crossing the stop line. Luckily, it also has a sensor so pressing the button isn't normally necessary. In fact I don't think the sensor or button is even needed here. Location: https://goo.gl/maps/3gyh4BCNzboPTCNt6