Botched Traffic Signals

Discussion about street lighting, road signs, traffic signals - and all other street furniture - goes here.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
Glen
Social Media Admin
Posts: 5486
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 02:16
Location: Inbhir Pheofharain
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Glen »

L.J.D wrote:Also does anyone know why the toucan crossing bellow doesn't have any zig zag lines ? Is it because of the presence of the double yellow lines ? Looks very odd indeed
Because it is very wrong and should have zig-zags.
Matatu wrote:No stop line either!
There is, but it is very worn as are the speed hump arrows which the stop lines seem to be merged into.
drm567
Member
Posts: 588
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 13:13
Location: Watford, Herts

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by drm567 »

Go back a bit (and a bit off topic I'm afraid) and you see these 'shared ped/cycle route' signs, one on each side of the road. The right hand one could be to do with the cycle lane in the side turning, but could both of them indicate that you can cycle on the footway? :stir:

David
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 36757
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Bryn666 »

A shared cycle route allows cycling on the footway - you have to redesignate under the Highways Act but it's hardly unusual.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
BlueSky - https://bsky.app/profile/showmeasignbryn.bsky.social
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4772
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

dave55uk wrote:Instead of having NRT and TRO signs, how about a square white plate with directional arrows in black, mounted above the heads. I've seen some like this already - thought it might even be standard. If I find a picture I'll post it up (unless one of you beats me to it).
I've thought of this many times before. Even just a black arrow on a white 300mm disk to fit a standard box sign unit, perhaps mounted above the red aspect for clarity - something which they do in Spain.
Simon
AndyB
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 11617
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by AndyB »

Stop line is attached to the ramp triangles on either side.
User avatar
FurryBoots
Member
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 17:34

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by FurryBoots »

Glen wrote:
scynthius726 wrote:Not sure I see the problem with that TBH, although it is unconventional - tell me what you don't like about it and I'll include it when I do the site refurbishment in a few months! :mrgreen:
I think the 606 arrows are a bit unnecessary and confusing/contradictory/just plain wrong.
It appears that Transport Scotland is a fan of using the 606 arrows on signals as demonstrated by these signals on the A90 in Dundee.

It's even better from the opposite direction. Conflicting arrows on these signal heads and if you look to the left, no right turn signs on the other heads. I thought that was a London special.


EDIT: They've also gone nuts with the arrows on the these signals nearby which includes this pedestrian crossing. Why are there arrows on those heads??
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4772
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

Siemens clearly had a sale on Dia606 box signs! :roll:
Simon
User avatar
novaecosse
Member
Posts: 4722
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 23:35
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by novaecosse »

FurryBoots wrote:
Glen wrote:
scynthius726 wrote:Not sure I see the problem with that TBH, although it is unconventional - tell me what you don't like about it and I'll include it when I do the site refurbishment in a few months! :mrgreen:
I think the 606 arrows are a bit unnecessary and confusing/contradictory/just plain wrong.
It appears that Transport Scotland is a fan of using the 606 arrows on signals as demonstrated by these signals on the A90 in Dundee.

It's even better from the opposite direction. Conflicting arrows on these signal heads and if you look to the left, no right turn signs on the other heads. I thought that was a London special.


EDIT: They've also gone nuts with the arrows on the these signals nearby which includes this pedestrian crossing. Why are there arrows on those heads??
Both junctions were paid for by Morrisons.
It's not now the worst trunk junction in Dundee. That accolade goes to the upgraded Greendykes / Broughty Ferry junction where right-turners have to go through a red signal, thanks to the poor positioning of the nearside and offside secondaries!
User avatar
Big L
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 7946
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 20:36
Location: B5012

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Big L »

I went around this roundabout for the first time in a while today. I have never understood what the point of the extra stop line and set of lights is for.
Make poetry history.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Chris Bertram »

Big L wrote:I went around this roundabout for the first time in a while today. I have never understood what the point of the extra stop line and set of lights is for.
To stop you from being taken by surprise by a red light round the corner and getting T-boned by traffic from the left. Visibility at that end of the longabout is poor, partly because of the countours - at the other end, it's not such a problem. Bear in mind that the whole thing is a retrofit to the A4040 dual carriageway when the A47 Fort/Heartlands Parkway was added a few years ago, and the motorway pillars prevent much more being done in improving the geometry.
“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!
User avatar
Glen
Social Media Admin
Posts: 5486
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 02:16
Location: Inbhir Pheofharain
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Glen »

Big L wrote:I went around this roundabout for the first time in a while today. I have never understood what the point of the extra stop line and set of lights is for.
It looks like it due to the visibility of the second set of lights as they are round a bend after a straight where people may speed up.
But it is a stupid way of dealing with the problem, improving the visibility would be a better idea - removing the vegetation for a start - and adding warning signs.
User avatar
Big L
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 7946
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 20:36
Location: B5012

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Big L »

But why 2 sets of lights atnd 2 stop lines ?
Make poetry history.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
User avatar
Glen
Social Media Admin
Posts: 5486
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 02:16
Location: Inbhir Pheofharain
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Glen »

If the forward stop line wasn't there it would reduce queuing space and increase the distance through the junction and therefore inter-green times.
But it's a daft way to deal with a problem that could be better resolved with a chainsaw and maybe a mast arm signal.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Chris5156 »

L.J.D wrote:Tfl strikes again! This time outside the new Westfield in Stratford City

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Stratfo ... 4,,1,-2.03
Complete with a botched direction sign too - the one facing traffic from the side road should have flag signs. That's an advance direction sign.
User avatar
hughster
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 14:07

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by hughster »

FurryBoots wrote:
Glen wrote:
scynthius726 wrote:Not sure I see the problem with that TBH, although it is unconventional - tell me what you don't like about it and I'll include it when I do the site refurbishment in a few months! :mrgreen:
I think the 606 arrows are a bit unnecessary and confusing/contradictory/just plain wrong.
It appears that Transport Scotland is a fan of using the 606 arrows on signals as demonstrated by these signals on the A90 in Dundee.

It's even better from the opposite direction. Conflicting arrows on these signal heads and if you look to the left, no right turn signs on the other heads. I thought that was a London special.
The regulations say that 606 arrows mean "all vehicular traffic must proceed in the direction indicated by the arrow" (note "all vehicular traffic", not "vehicular traffic in the lane corresponding to the direction of travel indicated by the arrow").

Under TSRGD Regulation 10, it's an offence under the RTA to disobey a 606 arrow. So, to pass two conflicting 606 arrows (as in the above cases) in any direction is an automatic offence... isn't it?

If signals do need to be marked so as to make clear which direction of travel they apply to, red/amber arrow aspects would surely make more sense.
mercer
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 17:48
Location: Preston

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by mercer »

Just found this junction in Manchester whilst looking at the new Metrolink line. More of a botch of lining and arrows than anything!
User avatar
michael769
Member
Posts: 11418
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 20:36
Location: Polbeth, West Lothian
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by michael769 »

hughster wrote:
Under TSRGD Regulation 10, it's an offence under the RTA to disobey a 606 arrow. So, to pass two conflicting 606 arrows (as in the above cases) in any direction is an automatic offence... isn't it?
Sect 36 of the RTA make it clear that it only applies to signs that are lawfully placed, which is not the case for a sign that is not being used in compliance with TSRGD, so one could argue that no offence was comitted.
Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open
Thomas Robert Dewar(1864-1930)
Take the pledge
User avatar
dragonv480
Member
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 23:14
Location: Dumfries and Galloway
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by dragonv480 »

Can someone remind me what the rules are with regard to primary signals (and where they must be placed) and secondaries) - how many primaries are required as a minimum and where should it/they be placed in relation to the stop line etc etc etc
Cheers! Image

Gaz Wilson
User avatar
Gareth
Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 19:16
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Gareth »

From memory, I'm pretty sure the default is that only one primary and one secondary are the standard minimum. On dual carriageways or where there's a traffic island, there should be two primaries' one on each side of the stop line. Additional secondaries can be added where and when deemed necessary to local situations.
User avatar
dragonv480
Member
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 23:14
Location: Dumfries and Galloway
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by dragonv480 »

OK, that ties in with my own thoughts. Are there any rules about how far beyond the stop line a secondary must be as a minimum? I'm asking as I found a junction with just 2 signal heads per arm, one is on the left side of the road and in line with the stop line, and it has a second head on the right hand side of the road, just maybe a foot beyond the stop line, which makes it tricky to see either signal head when you're actually at the stop line
Cheers! Image

Gaz Wilson
Post Reply