Botched Traffic Signals

[traffic-light-man]

Spotted these in a film the other day - I'm trying to work out how this makes any kind of sense... Presumably the lights have green arrows, and they should be enough?

Yes, the left-hand signal goes green for ahead and left turns, and the right-hand signal is for traffic in a seperate right-turn lane and has a right-turn arrow.

Must admit I didn't see anything unusual or confusing about this when I opened the GSV link you posted - is it a London thing that I'm used to seeing, that would be considered unusual elsewhere?

I think the issue here is the NRT and RTO signs facing the same approach. Poor design IMO - there's got to be a better way of signing that kind of situation.

[irrelevant]

I think the issue here is the NRT and RTO signs facing the same approach. Poor design IMO - there's got to be a better way of signing that kind of situation.

Yes, that was the issue - especially as the traffic isn't segregated by e.g. an island. Certainly up here I have never seen such used together - we might get two sets of signals on the same pole for different lanes, but they'll have green arrows pointing in different directions and that'll be enough. No need to tell traffic in the right-turn lane that it can only go in that direction, nor to tell traffic in the other lanes that they can't turn right - it should be blindingly obvious. The only time you get e.g. a No-Right-Turn sign is when it's prohibited for all traffic approaching from that direction.

I guess it's just a style thing, but it seemed contradictory.

[Gareth]

Well, I think they're crap. Regulation signs on signal heads are no different to standard regulation signs, in that they instruct you about the situation on the whole carriageway, not just to augment the signal head's meaning. So, those signals are actually telling everyone they're facing that they're not allowed to turn right, whilst also, they MUST turn right.

I can see what they're trying to do though. Really, the long overdue answer here is for the introduction of arrows on the red & amber aspects.

[Bryn666]

You can already get amber arrows with DfT approval. There are at least 2 sets in Blackburn with Darwen...

[Gareth]

They should be standard practice by now though, along with red arrows.

[boing_uk]

The signing on those lanterns does not conform to MCX 0400A therefore could technically be an unlawful obstruction. And quite how do you word a TRO for No Right Turn from the ahead lanes? Oh I forgot.. TfL... probably no TRO.

Much simpler design here

[FurryBoots]

Here's one for the guys that design traffic signals at junctions.

These mellors were replaced over a year ago. A primary movement through the junction follows the A956 hence the green arrow to allow traffic to turn right freely. The arrow accompanies the green light at all times. The traffic travelling in the opposite direction (from behind signal head showing the green arrow) is released on a different phase of the cycle.

So far so good.

Because GSV revisited this junction more recently, I can show you the current signals by moving forwards slightly. You can see that there is no longer an arrow. The cycle has not changed in any way with the installation of these signals (apart from the introduction of a pedestrian crossing). When this light is on green as shown, traffic can still freely turn to the right (that BMW is sitting at a red light in the opposite direction) but there is no arrow to indicate so.

I know that this errs on the side of caution but is there any possible reason for there not to be an arrow there or is it simply a blunder?

A similar green arrow is missing for traffic heading in the opposite direction which can be seen if you turn around (old and new).

[Nicholas]

What on earth is going on here?

[scynthius726]

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!

[Glen]

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!

I think the 606 arrows are a bit unnecessary and confusing/contradictory/just plain wrong.

[L.J.D]

Same problem here

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Enfield ... 01,,1,1.11

But as said above its a London thing

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Enfield ... 66,,1,1.22

The installation bellow looks very complicated

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Torrens ... 17,,1,0.33

[Fenlander]

I've suggested this before but why don't we have a repeater built into the ground, similar to what's used on airport taxiways?
If you arrive at a complex junction with many branches and there's a red stripe across 3 of them but a green one across the one you want you'd know straight away which set of lights correspond to which movements.
A cheaper option might be the mini repeaters that sit at driver's eye level on the pole adjacent to the stop line (I've seen them used in France). They do away with the need to use extra sets ahead of the stop line for the lead vehicle.

[traffic-light-man]

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!

Get rid of that Island!

It could be much more straight forward without it IMO. Two heads mounted beside each other (one for ahead and one for right) on the nearside primary and then duplicated for a far side secondary would suffice here, surely?

I've suggested this before but why don't we have a repeater built into the ground, similar to what's used on airport taxiways?
If you arrive at a complex junction with many branches and there's a red stripe across 3 of them but a green one across the one you want you'd know straight away which set of lights correspond to which movements.
A cheaper option might be the mini repeaters that sit at driver's eye level on the pole adjacent to the stop line (I've seen them used in France). They do away with the need to use extra sets ahead of the stop line for the lead vehicle.

Or just apply for permission to use amber arrows.

[Nicholas]

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!

I think the 606 arrows are a bit unnecessary and confusing/contradictory/just plain wrong.

Exactly - it is just confusing, is a motorist meant to go ahead or right, as the supplementary panels are telling motorists they must do both! They should only be used where there is one permitted movement.

[Jeni]

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!

I'd say that its misleading, the far right set of signals implies that you should travel into oncoming traffic coming from the right!

[traffic-light-man]

I was thinking something a little simpler - like this (obviously not a professional drawing!). I've not included the ped/toucan facilities for clarity. I've also included amber arrows as I think they would be a good addition in this situation.



I had some time to kill...

[L.J.D]

Tfl strikes again! This time outside the new Westfield in Stratford City

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Stratfo ... 4,,1,-2.03

[dave55uk]

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).

[L.J.D]

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

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=town+r ... 7,,0,13.34

[Matatu]

No stop line either!