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
L.J.D
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 06:34
Location: W.Yorkshire

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by L.J.D »

traffic-light-man wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 20:56
L.J.D wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 14:21this junction
I couldn't help but notice this site just up the road with seemingly no conflicts. Are they just there to manage entry through the bus gate?

Yeh they only turn green for buses and taxis I'm not sure what specifically triggers them they had some at the bottom of the hill too but they moved them around the corner and doubled them up as a pedestrian crossing. But they work the same way. The pedestrian crossing sits on green man until a bus arrives.
User avatar
MotorwayGuy
Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 15:37
Location: S.E. London

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by MotorwayGuy »

L.J.D wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 21:42
traffic-light-man wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 20:56
L.J.D wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 14:21this junction
I couldn't help but notice this site just up the road with seemingly no conflicts. Are they just there to manage entry through the bus gate?

Yeh they only turn green for buses and taxis I'm not sure what specifically triggers them they had some at the bottom of the hill too but they moved them around the corner and doubled them up as a pedestrian crossing. But they work the same way. The pedestrian crossing sits on green man until a bus arrives.
That whole layout is a mess, there are no advance warning signs apart from these rather small "Pedestrian Zone" signs that are set back about 100ft from the Junction. The stop line is also on the opposite side of the junction so technically you'd have to run the red light to turn left. Surely a camera-enforced bus gate with proper signs would work a lot better than this mess?
User avatar
L.J.D
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 06:34
Location: W.Yorkshire

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by L.J.D »

Whilst not the signals themselves they are missing a stop line here.
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Chris Bertram »

L.J.D wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 21:48 Whilst not the signals themselves they are missing a stop line here.
In which case isn't the stop line deemed to extend across the carriageway from the primary signal pole?
“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
L.J.D
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 06:34
Location: W.Yorkshire

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by L.J.D »

Chris Bertram wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 22:57 In which case isn't the stop line deemed to extend across the carriageway from the primary signal pole?
Not really because as you can see from this view the signals aren't synced. Nor are they synced with the left turn nearest to it. It goes red and green at different times so it's definitely a botch. Also if you pan around to the right that set has one which is correct. I'm not keen on signalling crossings on junctions like that full stop with the louvers on. I know it's to slip in extra phases but it just isn't ideal with the louvers on because when your turning sometimes you cant see them until your on top of them and the red just appears on out of nowhere causing slamming on. But unfortunately they are becoming really common across West Yorkshire lately so it must be the new standard here to have them.
WhiteBlueRed
Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 03:58
Location: Krasnoyarsk, Russia

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by WhiteBlueRed »

L.J.D wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 21:48 Whilst not the signals themselves they are missing a stop line here.
Looks more like farside repeaters to me, in which case there's no need for a stop line.
Due to a lot of people sharing the same opinion as you, there's actually a rule in our Road Rules saying that drivers who have entered a junction on a green light must leave the junction regardless of the traffic lights at the end of the junction unless they have a stop line or an equivalent sign (СТОП).
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

They're not repeaters, it's a separate crossing across the exit of the junction. I'm sure L.J.D might have more insight as to how these ones operate, but my initial thought would be that they run with the indicative arrow, and only when demanded. With them having their own RAGs, the intergreens for the junction aren't lengthened out by them running, and so the stage that starts them up won't have to run for long. It seems trivial, but it's a reasonable way to gain back a few seconds of efficiency.

They're incredibly common in Merseyside and typically get used in one of two ways, the former being more common. One is as I describe above, which also has the added bonus of allowing a U-turn rather than banning it. The other is where they're used to hold turning traffic to allow a 'walk-with-traffic' type arrangement, but those are typically configured to be displaying a red signal by the time the turning drivers see them, so it's not such a surprise to see the red suddenly appear.

This one is an example of the former which shows every cycle. The corresponding indicative arrow for the opposing approach operates in a late start arrangement in this instance, so the arrow also shows every cycle anyway in typical late start fashion.

This one is also an example of the former, but runs in an early cut off arrangement, where if it's demanded, it also demands the indicative arrow for the opposing approach which gives it the 'shadow' in which to show.

This one, on the other hand, is an example of the latter. The previous side roads are split into two separate stages, and this crossing only comes in with the road to the left, and only when demanded. Similarly to the last example, a demand for the crossing also demands the side road. My experience here is that countless folks actually plough straight through this one when it's at red, which is likely down to the fact it only shows when demanded and certain drivers not being aware of their surroundings.
Simon
WhiteBlueRed
Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 03:58
Location: Krasnoyarsk, Russia

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by WhiteBlueRed »

traffic-light-man wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 11:11 They're not repeaters, it's a separate crossing across the exit of the junction. I'm sure L.J.D might have more insight as to how these ones operate, but my initial thought would be that they run with the indicative arrow, and only when demanded. With them having their own RAGs, the intergreens for the junction aren't lengthened out by them running, and so the stage that starts them up won't have to run for long. It seems trivial, but it's a reasonable way to gain back a few seconds of efficiency.

They're incredibly common in Merseyside and typically get used in one of two ways, the former being more common. One is as I describe above, which also has the added bonus of allowing a U-turn rather than banning it. The other is where they're used to hold turning traffic to allow a 'walk-with-traffic' type arrangement, but those are typically configured to be displaying a red signal by the time the turning drivers see them, so it's not such a surprise to see the red suddenly appear.

This one is an example of the former which shows every cycle. The corresponding indicative arrow for the opposing approach operates in a late start arrangement in this instance, so the arrow also shows every cycle anyway in typical late start fashion.

This one is also an example of the former, but runs in an early cut off arrangement, where if it's demanded, it also demands the indicative arrow for the opposing approach which gives it the 'shadow' in which to show.

This one, on the other hand, is an example of the latter. The previous side roads are split into two separate stages, and this crossing only comes in with the road to the left, and only when demanded. Similarly to the last example, a demand for the crossing also demands the side road. My experience here is that countless folks actually plough straight through this one when it's at red, which is likely down to the fact it only shows when demanded and certain drivers not being aware of their surroundings.
It's a bit strange to me that the UK does not allow turning vehicles to conflict with pedestrians, as is the case in the US, Europe or Russia. Here, as long as the pedestrian light is green, or if there's no pedestrian light and the traffic light in the direction the pedestrian wants to cross in is green, the pedestrian has priority.
Of course here, some junctions with lots of pedestrian traffic have dedicated "all-red" pedestrian stages, in which case the pedestrian lights remain red in all other stages.
A few years ago, the first diagonal crossing was unveiled in Moscow, with the only new things being the diagonal zebras, and information signs telling people of the new diagonal crossing, due to Moscow having a tradition of separating pedestrian and road traffic flows.
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

Ireland doesn't have turning vehicle/pedestrian (or cycle) conflicts either, and I believe they're being phased out at a reasonable rate in the Netherlands as well. Of course, they contradict the Dutch policy of separating out conflicts in either space or time, so that's no surprise that 'hold the left/right' arrangements are becoming more common there.

It's also notable that many places now adopt (or indeed some may have always used) flashing amber (or yellow) arrows, or specific signs to remind turning drivers to give way to pedestrians and cyclists. To me, that's an admission of there being a problem with the concept in the first place, even in places where it's always been the standard.
Simon
User avatar
L.J.D
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 06:34
Location: W.Yorkshire

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by L.J.D »

WhiteBlueRed wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 09:14 Looks more like farside repeaters to me, in which case there's no need for a stop line.
Due to a lot of people sharing the same opinion as you, there's actually a rule in our Road Rules saying that drivers who have entered a junction on a green light must leave the junction regardless of the traffic lights at the end of the junction unless they have a stop line or an equivalent sign (СТОП).
I never said I had that opinion at all!
And they definitely aren't farside repeaters as I've proven. They aren't synced! Also why would they have louvres on also repeaters don't have 3 heads. Its a separate crossing as traffic-light-man said.
Also you can see the old set correctly had a stopline.
User avatar
Gareth
Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 19:16
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Gareth »

traffic-light-man wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 14:33 Ireland doesn't have turning vehicle/pedestrian (or cycle) conflicts either, and I believe they're being phased out at a reasonable rate in the Netherlands as well. Of course, they contradict the Dutch policy of separating out conflicts in either space or time, so that's no surprise that 'hold the left/right' arrangements are becoming more common there.

It's also notable that many places now adopt (or indeed some may have always used) flashing amber (or yellow) arrows, or specific signs to remind turning drivers to give way to pedestrians and cyclists. To me, that's an admission of there being a problem with the concept in the first place, even in places where it's always been the standard.
I don't know about the Dutch but pretty much the rest of the world outside the British Isles and a few heavily British-influenced places, such as Hong Kong, seem to manage fine with it. Our system may have some advantages by keeping pedestrians totally separate from conflict but it means certain crossings that can't run alongside a vehicle movement end up eating capacity out of the junction when activated. As a pedestrian at these locations, you can wait ages and the green man can be very brief in order not to delay the motorists for too long.

These exit arm pedestrian crossings mentioned above are an attempt to counter this but they have the distinct disadvantage of requiring a fairly large stagger in order to provide a reservoir for the waiting vehicles, so they don't block the intersection. Long staggers can be a ballache for a pedestrian, knocking you quite a way off your desire line. Also, the stagger is the wrong way, as the recommendation is that pedestrians should be walking facing against the traffic of the carriageway they are to cross next. You also have the risk of read through by traffic thinking they're farside repeaters and it's not at all rare to see turning traffic just plough through them as if they're not there.

I also think these sorts of things make a typical signal intersection in this country look cluttered and inelegant compared to an equivalent street scene in most other places.
WhiteBlueRed
Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 03:58
Location: Krasnoyarsk, Russia

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by WhiteBlueRed »

traffic-light-man wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 14:33 Ireland doesn't have turning vehicle/pedestrian (or cycle) conflicts either, and I believe they're being phased out at a reasonable rate in the Netherlands as well. Of course, they contradict the Dutch policy of separating out conflicts in either space or time, so that's no surprise that 'hold the left/right' arrangements are becoming more common there.

It's also notable that many places now adopt (or indeed some may have always used) flashing amber (or yellow) arrows, or specific signs to remind turning drivers to give way to pedestrians and cyclists. To me, that's an admission of there being a problem with the concept in the first place, even in places where it's always been the standard.
You are right. Here in Russia, a year ago they've started introducing "flashing white arrow" reminder lights, to remind drivers to give way to pedestrians before turning in the direction the arrow is flashing. However in Moscow, turning conflicts with pedestrians at traffic light junctions were always rare.
In my opinion, it's superfluous, since the Road Rules have always required you to give way to pedestrians before turning, regardless if there were traffic lights or not. It just adds more clutter to sign posts, this for example. https://yandex.ru/maps/62/krasnoyarsk/? ... 23&z=18.66
For context, this junction has 4 stages for each road, so you only have to give way to pedestrians before turning right. A small annoying thing about this junction, is that on the approaches without filter lanes, you have to wait for the red light to change even if you are turning right, when there's no conflict.
A filter arrow would've definitely helped, as cars would be able to turn together with traffic turning left on the other road, without being hindered by pedestrians. Because green lights usually flash 3 times before turning off here, and filter arrows actually have to flash before turning off, there wouldn't be a problem with that, even if the next stage is not the road's stage.
User avatar
Gareth
Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 19:16
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Gareth »

The problem with flashing lights in such situations is that there's the risk of conditioning motorists into assuming pedestrians are only crossing on the side street if there's a light. If the light fails, this gets dodgy.
User avatar
L.J.D
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 06:34
Location: W.Yorkshire

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by L.J.D »

These look very odd where is the right turn arrow ? They appear to be off so surely it should be green balls and not ahead arrows if the right turn arrow comes on at a later stage though I can't see why it would be set up like that. Though it appears by the GSV images drivers turn right anyway even without the green right arrow showing.
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

L.J.D wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 00:18 These look very odd where is the right turn arrow ? They appear to be off so surely it should be green balls and not ahead arrows if the right turn arrow comes on at a later stage though I can't see why it would be set up like that. Though it appears by the GSV images drivers turn right anyway even without the green right arrow showing.
That layout was in Know Your Traffic Signs for a while, I'm not sure if it's still in there, but I've never seen it mentioned in any guidance. Of course there is no right turn arrow illuminated on any of the signal heads, so turning right while it isn't lit would be driving otherwise in accordance with the signal given, but I can't imagine compliance to be high if at all existent because it simply isn't logical to the every day driver.

The scary thing there is that the only reason I can see for that setup is to allow the pedestrian crossing on the right to run walk-with-traffic, so the stakes of mis-reading the signal here is even higher (IMO). If that is what's going on here, an ahead filter arrow would have undoubtably been a better solution, and it isn't a solution that's alien to TfL for just that purpose either so I find it strange that they've opted for this arrangement here.

Liverpool had one here for a short spell. I sending an email in to the council regarding it as it was regularly 'misused' and I'd certainly never seen anything like it before. I'm not sure if it gained any other 'complaints', but it got swapped to a full green with indicative arrow soon after commissioning. Interestingly, GSV managed to catch it with the arrows still in place on its first pass.
Simon
WhiteBlueRed
Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 03:58
Location: Krasnoyarsk, Russia

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by WhiteBlueRed »

This is very common in Russia. It's common for there to be green arrows for separately-controlled movements, you may proceed in their direction only if the arrow is lit, otherwise you wait.
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by jnty »

Yeah I think I'd expect to see a separate signal with a red light for when traffic shouldn't turn right, especially if it was protecting a pedestrian crossing. Using an ahead arrow to reinforce permanent turn prohibitions is fine, but using it to mean this 'temporarily' without an additional red light is a bit too clever for its own good I think.
User avatar
L.J.D
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 06:34
Location: W.Yorkshire

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by L.J.D »

traffic-light-man wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 08:56 The scary thing there is that the only reason I can see for that setup is to allow the pedestrian crossing on the right to run walk-with-traffic, so the stakes of mis-reading the signal here is even higher (IMO). If that is what's going on here, an ahead filter arrow would have undoubtably been a better solution, and it isn't a solution that's alien to TfL for just that purpose either so I find it strange that they've opted for this arrangement here.
See I'm not convinced the crossing is on green because this view shows the PBU WAIT illuminated whilst the arrow is off. Also this view shows the pedestrian crossing active on a full red.
I think crossing only goes green when the A24 ahead only heading towards Clapham Common Tube Station gets a green.

Maybe they took out the bulbs during these roadworks and forgot to put them back in.
User avatar
MotorwayGuy
Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 15:37
Location: S.E. London

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by MotorwayGuy »

L.J.D wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 15:49
traffic-light-man wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 08:56 The scary thing there is that the only reason I can see for that setup is to allow the pedestrian crossing on the right to run walk-with-traffic, so the stakes of mis-reading the signal here is even higher (IMO). If that is what's going on here, an ahead filter arrow would have undoubtably been a better solution, and it isn't a solution that's alien to TfL for just that purpose either so I find it strange that they've opted for this arrangement here.
See I'm not convinced the crossing is on green because this view shows the PBU WAIT illuminated whilst the arrow is off. Also this view shows the pedestrian crossing active on a full red.
I think crossing only goes green when the A24 ahead only heading towards Clapham Common Tube Station gets a green.

Maybe they took out the bulbs during these roadworks and forgot to put them back in.
One of the secondary appears to have had two ahead arrows at some point as well.
Coming from the other direction we have the primaries as arrows but the secondary has a green ball.
User avatar
L.J.D
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 06:34
Location: W.Yorkshire

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by L.J.D »

MotorwayGuy wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 16:51 One of the secondary appears to have had two ahead arrows at some point as well.
I'd imagine that's down to the reoccurring fault with some Siemens helios lense or mask arrows falling out of the correct alignment. There's plenty of examples of them doing it on this and other threads it's rather annoying and dangerous in some instances. It's a mystery why it's only the newer ones doing it because the old halogen heads didn't do it from what I've observed.
Post Reply