Botched Traffic Signals

[traffic-light-man]

Saw this oddity today. I wonder why the left turn signals have a left turn filter arrow ? Why not just a simple RAGa ?

I suspect it's another case of trying to deal with a left pointing green arrow from giving some misleading expectation of an exclusive movement or priority when the opposing right turn also has a full green - I can't think why else you'd use this arrangement. I think I've seen it elsewhere, but the only one I can remember off the top of my head was this one (now gone) in Plymouth, that weirdly didn't actually have a conflict on full green anyway because the opposing right turn is separately signalled.

Been reminded of this today
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.25501 ... 384!8i8192

What does "Right turn goes first" mean?

I suspect it'll do a back-to-back right turn, looking at the markings. It looks to be a bit different to the Brighton examples in terms of layout because they're trying to use the same road space for ahead + left and right turning movements, whereas in this case it's just that the staging has the right turns running on their own.


One I spotted closer to home the other day that's technically not a bodge but a bit scary none the less, is this one. I know we've discussed two lane (and three lane) gap accepting right turns, but this is a left turn. Despite the opposing right turn getting a 'free' turn (though it doesn't have an arrow), this left turn still goes to green in the same stage. There's an incredibly short distance between the studs and the give way line as well which I think makes matters worse (IMV, anyway!).

[wallmeerkat]

There's an incredibly short distance between the studs and the give way line as well which I think makes matters worse (IMV, anyway!).

Reminds me a little of this https://www.google.com/maps/@54.5960586 ... 384!8i8192 - the traffic light isn't part of the overall junction, but is a pedestrian crossing, the give way line dictates if you can proceed.

[tom66]

Reminds me a little of this https://www.google.com/maps/@54.5960586 ... 384!8i8192 - the traffic light isn't part of the overall junction, but is a pedestrian crossing, the give way line dictates if you can proceed.

Quite a few of those about. I'm not a fan - I feel that the signal should be phased with the traffic, because it's easy to see how a driver could read the green signal and not see the give way marking.

Example in Leeds:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7998935 ... 384!8i8192

[L.J.D]

Quite a few of those about. I'm not a fan - I feel that the signal should be phased with the traffic, because it's easy to see how a driver could read the green signal and not see the give way marking

When this one was installed they soon added a sign onto the signal pole and the give way signs were changed from normal ones to the orange backed ones.

[traffic-light-man]

Reminds me a little of this https://www.google.com/maps/@54.5960586 ... 384!8i8192 - the traffic light isn't part of the overall junction, but is a pedestrian crossing, the give way line dictates if you can proceed.

Quite a few of those about. I'm not a fan - I feel that the signal should be phased with the traffic, because it's easy to see how a driver could read the green signal and not see the give way marking.

Example in Leeds:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7998935 ... 384!8i8192

It's certainly incredibly common in the north west and they do still get installed, at least in some areas. This one (with a backwards nearside) and this one both spring to mind as recent completely-new additions. Typically, they're only at green when there's either no conflict or the only conflict is the opposing right turn, although there's a few kicking around (here and here, for instance) that only ever change when a demand is placed for the pedestrian crossing.

I'm aware of two sites that hold the left turn at red while the ahead and right run, purely because there's the possibility of an opposing right turn movement. One of them gets away with it because the adjacent ahead/right movement usually runs for a short time so it doesn't have much chance to cause frustration, the other one causes copious issues because the adjacent ahead movement is the heaviest and the left turn in question second to that, and both movements are principal routes - it would appear that most drivers can't understand why they're being held at red on a left turn while the adjacent traffic is moving.

Other techniques that I've seen employed solely to avoid the give way left turn include separately signalling the opposing right turn, separately staging both arms and removing the triangle island altogether - they're all pretty heavy measures in their own right, though.

When this one was installed they soon added a sign onto the signal pole and the give way signs were changed from normal ones to the orange backed ones

You'd think the 'altered signals' signs could come down after more than 10 years...

Aside from signs, there's two ways I've seen this problem tackled. The first is to use full greens, but I'm not sure how effective that is as it would seem the majority of the motoring public can't distinguish an arrow or its meaning anyway so I don't hold much faith in them understanding why it's a full green rather than an arrow on that particular occasion. The second way I've seen it done is to use louvres on the green, like the Belfast example, to essentially extinguish the green altogether in a legal way, usually coupled with an upright give way sign. I think this is the method I prefer most, given the tools available.

Of course we need to look a bit further west for the real answer... Allowing flashing amber arrows would solve so many problems, just like allowing substitute red and amber arrow aspects.

[L.J.D]

You'd think the 'altered signals' signs could come down after more than 10 years...

Try 20 years I remember that installation when it was Mellor and its twice been refurbished in my life. I expected them to get rid of the signs when they refurbished it but they moved them and reused them. The mellor setup had blue left turn only box signs. But they were taken off when it was refurbished. This is another drawback to the trend of not having box signs nowadays because i think a green ball with the blue mandatory arrow would also solve the issue of having green arrows like your second example.

This is another reason why I'm not keen on the use of green arrows alone and lack of box signs. They did it here but it was a waste of time because they still had to go back later and add box signs on. It's not a good move in my view having lack of box signs.

[traffic-light-man]

You'd think the 'altered signals' signs could come down after more than 10 years...

Try 20 years

Definitely 'temporary', then!

This is another reason why I'm not keen on the use of green arrows alone and lack of box signs. They did it here but it was a waste of time because they still had to go back later and add box signs on. It's not a good move in my view having lack of box signs.

That reminds me of this one, which had them before commissioning (including the ahead/left secondary, making it a bit of a monster), lost them by the time it was commissioned and then got them back again shortly after. You still regularly see folks make a right turn here, though

[MotorwayGuy]

This setup not far from the previous example in Middlesborough has a green ball on the primary with NRT except buses, but the secondary has ahead right arrows. Technically this means buses need to wait for the right one to trigger but I bet they don't.

[traffic-light-man]

This setup not far from the previous example in Middlesborough has a green ball on the primary with NRT except buses, but the secondary has ahead right arrows. Technically this means buses need to wait for the right one to trigger but I bet they don't.

I can't really work out the intention of that arrangement either, the loop for the arrow looks like it's in the middle of the yellow box so if they were to wait at the stop line it wouldn't be demanded anyway.

A RAG with an indicative arrow on the right and a set of box signs on the left would make more sense, in my mind. Not ideal for the NRT to be on the left but it'd be the best way to do it correctly.

[L.J.D]

Urgh what an ugly beast of an installation there. The other side is the same too.

[Chris Bertram]

This is where continental style double headed arrows would come in very handy.

[Nathan_A_RF]

Is this a botch? Certainly unusual. Watch the lane control signals when the wigwags activate.
https://youtu.be/bvtWPq2yxoQ

[traffic-light-man]

I'm not entirely sure if the green arrow changing to a red X for this purpose is in the true spirit of a lane control signal, but it's a nice (IMV) way to avoid presenting a situation that I'm sure could be argued is confusing.

Red wig wags on lane control signals aren't prescribed though, so that's a botch, but again, it reinforces the temporary nature of the 'lane closure' and I quite like it.

None of the wig-wagging is in synch though, that's the bit that really makes me cringe - especially the wig wag signals themselves. That's a botch, but one that's all to common. It's a regular issue with signals provided by several suppliers that I suspect are at the cheaper end of the market and are fitted with an individual sequencer* in each head.

*I've intentionally avoided the word controller there.

[MotorwayGuy]

This doesn't seem right.

[wallmeerkat]

This doesn't seem right.

Absolutely ridiculous

I would assume it either meant buses and cycles can ignore the lights, or that only those vehicles can travel straight ahead, given that it is a green ahead arrow https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4024674 ... ?entry=ttu

When it means they can take the road to the right

[MotorwayGuy]

This doesn't seem right.

Absolutely ridiculous

I would assume it either meant buses and cycles can ignore the lights, or that only those vehicles can travel straight ahead, given that it is a green ahead arrow https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4024674 ... ?entry=ttu

When it means they can take the road to the right

This approach is even worse. It appears they have tried to copy a previous botch, although at least that makes some sense as it has "exempt vehicles only" next to the arrow that is restricted.

[tom66]

This approach is even worse. It appears they have tried to copy a previous botch, although at least that makes some sense as it has "exempt vehicles only" next to the arrow that is restricted.

I've never seen a traffic set where signals for a given phase(?) have different arrows on each traffic head. That just looks like an error!

[L.J.D]

Whilst not a botch as such this mast arm was installed in 2015 but if you skip to 2018 you can see it was removed. Seems such a waste of money and time to go to all that effort for it to only last 3 years!

[traffic-light-man]

Presumably there was a perceived need due to the width of the road, then the carriageway was narrowed... Despite the fact I like them, I think I'd have taken the opportunity to get rid of the mast arm liability there, too!

[ikcdab]

I was coming out of Exeter on the A379 and wanted to turn right at the Newcourt junction to go into IKEA. I moved into the correct outside RH turning lane and sat at the red light. It's the lane to the right of the island in the attached link.
Frustratingly I watched five cycles of the lights and I never got a green....
Eventually I had no choice but to go anyway when I could see it was clear.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Mdv4wAyeCtejkcLd8

I see that on the google maps the light is red too.....
Has anyone ever seen this light green?