Botched Traffic Signals

[jnty]

It seems to be a trend with alot of local authorities in the UK to just use green arrows now. My council does the same now. Which I think is a step backwards all to save on installing box signs. Alot of them also remove mandatory blue box signs now also.

It's because the legislation was changed around the green arrow so it now has its own legal standing. Personally, where a banned turn is absolute like this, I'd still be using them. In this instance, all full greens with the two left hand lanterns sporting NLT boxes would make more sense, IMV anyway.

Indeed. if you're lost/unfamiliar with the area - which is who these signs are surely aimed at realistically - no left turn arrow allows you to stop at a red light, take it in and replan your route. A green arrow is insufficient on its own unless the road furniture is re-enforcing it - eg. a segregated left-turn slip - as you'll already have planned your movement on approach/while waiting and realistically pay detailed attention to it for a split second (maybe not even that if you simply react to the amber and then look at other things.)

[Skermington]

Is this a bit small?

[Chris Bertram]

Is this a bit small?

Isn't that an AluStar?

[MotorwayGuy]

What's missing here?

[Norfolktolancashire]

What's missing here?

I can't see much wrong or missing, apart from the left hand light facing the opposite direction is at an angle, probably so traffic exiting the road on the right can see it?

[Nathan_A_RF]

More botched road markings than botched signals

[Chris Bertram]

What's missing here?

Zig-zags?

[jervi]

What's missing here?

By the looks of it historically, it was likely associated with the traffic signal controlled junction which is now a roundabout. Just a very off-set crossing, but wouldn't require zig zags because its part of a controlled junction.
But when the traffic signal controlled junction because a roundabout it did become a standalone crossing, which would require zig zags.

Looks like a long-time temporary job too resulting in the stepped cycle lanes just terminating into the pavement

[MotorwayGuy]

What's missing here?

By the looks of it historically, it was likely associated with the traffic signal controlled junction which is now a roundabout. Just a very off-set crossing, but wouldn't require zig zags because its part of a controlled junction.
But when the traffic signal controlled junction because a roundabout it did become a standalone crossing, which would require zig zags.

Looks like a long-time temporary job too resulting in the stepped cycle lanes just terminating into the pavement

The thing is from what I can remember it ran independently to the junction. There was a similar situation further up on Erith Road which was closer but that did have zig-zags. As for the cycle lanes, they are like many a complete mess. Here cyclists are given the option to either use the shared pavement or chance the roundabout. This section they couldn't make their mind up what markings to use.

[traffic-light-man]

It also depends if it used the flashing amber/green period or not - that's the key thing, really.

Looking at where the only controller cabinet in the area was, it must have been ran from the junction controller either way, like Jervi mentioned. Local liking could have been time-of-day dependant and/or offset, too, especially if it was a second stream, which may give the appearance of it being independent (that's not to say it wasn't independent, of course!). None of that particularly makes a difference as it could have been a second stream Pelican with local linking, in which case it would have needed zig zags irrespective of the controller arrangement.

Interestingly it looks like they've kept the arrangement with the new layout as well, with one controller in the same location running all three crossings.

I'd definitely argue whatever the case, it should have zig zags now as a Pedex.

[jervi]

The thing is from what I can remember it ran independently to the junction. There was a similar situation further up on Erith Road which was closer but that did have zig-zags. As for the cycle lanes, they are like many a complete mess. Here cyclists are given the option to either use the shared pavement or chance the roundabout. This section they couldn't make their mind up what markings to use.

Ah right, very strange then.

That other location, interesting sign. Not sure why the used a GSJ roundabout sign there...

[pjr10th]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/t1uE8QMDeFE3xNrDA

[WhiteBlueRed]

It appears that this crossing is part of the junction ahead. However, that doesn't explain the zig-zag markings.

[MotorwayGuy]

Why does this exist?

[traffic-light-man]

Why does this exist?

This is one of those situations where box signs just shouldn't be used to try and indicate the restriction ahead.

Although unusual, an option these days would be substitute green arrows for the left and right, and a green cycle aspect which would apply to all movements.

On a similar note, I was delighted to see last week that the example of my pet peeve closest to me - a lone 'except buses' box sign to indicate buses only, at Bridgefoot in Warrington - has thankfully been replaced with a white-on-blue regulatory sign instead which actually makes sense. Admittedly still not compliant, but I'll take it making sense over it just being absolute nonsense.

[Nathan_A_RF]

There are certainly a lot of instances where included regulatory signage and exception plates for buses, cycles etc are erroneous, e.g.:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4424163 ... 384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4424378 ... 384!8i8192

[traffic-light-man]

There are certainly a lot of instances where included regulatory signage and exception plates for buses, cycles etc are erroneous, e.g.:
Link

I just cannot understand how a designer, installation contractor or commissioning engineer (whoever made the decision to install it) can look at it and think it makes sense to anyone.

Link

Although it's wrong, at least it (hopefully) makes some sense to the average road user.

Of course the correct option would have been LTO except for buses signs and an NRT sign, and that would have been just as understandable in my mind.

[the cheesecake man]

What's missing here?

White border?

[Chris5156]

What's missing here?

White border?

Not unusual in London!

[pjr10th]

It's interesting that the DfT media team get the basics wrong: https://twitter.com/transportgovuk/stat ... JuZBg&s=19

These nearside ped signals are facing into the road! Perhaps it's DfT policy for pedestrians to wait in the road for the lights to change, or perhaps for pedestrians to moon walk across puffin crossings.

Edit: see if you can notice anything else wrong in the image. For a post about walking and cycling, there's one pretty glaring error.