Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

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

Moderator: Site Management Team

User avatar
rhyds
Member
Posts: 13723
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 15:51
Location: Beautiful North Wales

Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by rhyds »

Over the weekend I had cause to spend a fair while walking around Caerdydd as one of them Non-Motorised Users we hear so much about.

Something that really got on my nerves was the widespread use of nearside pedestrian/bicycle indicators on crossings. To me they're a very counterintuitive to use as you have to turn away from your direction of travel to use them, as well as look away from the road you're crossing until it silently swaps to green and you can walk.

Can someone explain the benefits to me aside from them being cheaper and installable without a ladder?
Built for comfort, not speed.
AlexBr967
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2020 21:08

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by AlexBr967 »

The benefit that has always been claimed is that they force you to look in the direction of traffic. This argument doesn't work when you think about it for a second though. My local council seems to love them though for some reason and has even had to install a second set of lights higher up the pole in high pedestrian areas so the cheaper argument is out the window. I imagine they were originally used due to the additional sensors needed for them which were originally too big to put with farside indicators. That's purely speculation though
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by traffic-light-man »

There isn't really a cost saving in using nearside signals, the difference between those an a farside signal head are negligible in the scheme of things.

The early detection equipment was also essentially the same size as the MVDs of the day, so there's been no drastic changes in the size of the technology since they were introduced, aside from modern AGDs from both of the main manufacturers being generally a lot slimmer than the old style ones.

Aside from the 'encouraging you to look towards oncoming traffic' point, other points to note are that they can have a beneficial comfort factor for those users who are hard of sight as they can get close to the unit to see what it's showing, and that they're prime for working with on-crossing detection as they can display a comparatively short green time as the user is (in theory) unable to see that the green has gone off while the on-crossing detection does its thing. As with most things, there's all sorts of reasons and scenarios that undermine those points, though.

We did have a long-standing topic on this subject: Puffin Crossings: A Blunder?

Disclaimer - I personally prefer farsides.
Simon
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by RichardA35 »

Given the length of time the signals have been in use and the extensive public information film promotion of their correct use, we appear to have conditioned several generations of Pavlov's far-side pedestrians who are difficult to reprogramme.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by Bryn666 »

RichardA35 wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 20:42 Given the length of time the signals have been in use and the extensive public information film promotion of their correct use, we appear to have conditioned several generations of Pavlov's far-side pedestrians who are difficult to reprogramme.
It's extremely counter-intuitive; humans instinctively look forward when waiting, so they are not going to turn their heads 90 degrees to a nearside indicator. It feels that the introduction of them was once again policy wonks not bothering to consider what happens in the real world and just imposing their latest innovation upon hapless road users.

I consider myself very clued up on changes to highways and I do not recall any mass public information campaign about the introduction of Puffins. They were in the revised highway codes but I don't recall any PIFs (thankfully perhaps, because this one from 1976 was dire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvFh24EU5Ro)

Nearsides are so great that very few places have emulated their use on any kind of widespread basis. It seems they are a problematic invention that the DfT are trying to row back from with the introduction of the PedEx. Chapter 6 quite openly admits Puffins are not suited to all locations, and for me if you're going to introduce a two tier system where some crossings have farsides and others have nearsides then you have created a pointless distinction that does nothing to benefit road users.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by FosseWay »

The "forces you to look at approaching traffic" argument is very spurious IMV. You can't look left if you're looking right, but you're just as likely to encounter an errant vehicle driving against red from the left as from the right (presuming you're crossing a normal two-way S2). Yes, the vehicles coming from the right will get to you marginally sooner than ones coming from the left, but over the distance we're talking about, it really is marginal. Basically what these crossings expect pedestrians to do once they've got green is to first apply 100% of their observation to traffic coming from the right and only then, once they've started to cross, then apply their attention to the left, having previously had no idea whether there was anything coming there.

This also presumes that the only relevant misbehaviour the drivers are likely to be doing is running the red. Not driving (or especially cycling) on the wrong side of the road, not going so fast that not only can they not stop, but they can't keep in their lane, not overtaking on the zigzags... If you're looking across the road at a farside signal, you will probably see a good deal of any approaching hazards in your peripheral vision, which will be improved by small head movements to either side which don't stop you keeping the signal in view. If your peripheral vision picks up a wrong-way cyclist, a speeding driver or whatever, you can then focus on that. You can't do this if it's behind you.

It's basically much the same argument as for long reversing manoeuvres - if you crane your head round, you can see out the right left side of the car and the back window, but what's going on to your left right is a complete mystery; if on the other hand you reverse using the mirrors - all three - after having turned your head to check blind spots, you can not only reverse in a straight line but also will see anything that appears from either side or behind that you need to react to.

Edited to make up my mind which side my steering wheel is on...
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!
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by AndyB »

I think the argument is that if you're looking for gaps where you may cross using the Green Cross Code without waiting, then the present position is absolutely correct.
User avatar
Gareth
Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 19:16
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by Gareth »

Bryn666 wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 21:16It's extremely counter-intuitive; humans instinctively look forward when waiting, so they are not going to turn their heads 90 degrees to a nearside indicator. It feels that the introduction of them was once again policy wonks not bothering to consider what happens in the real world and just imposing their latest innovation upon hapless road users.

I consider myself very clued up on changes to highways and I do not recall any mass public information campaign about the introduction of Puffins. They were in the revised highway codes but I don't recall any PIFs (thankfully perhaps, because this one from 1976 was dire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvFh24EU5Ro)

Nearsides are so great that very few places have emulated their use on any kind of widespread basis. It seems they are a problematic invention that the DfT are trying to row back from with the introduction of the PedEx. Chapter 6 quite openly admits Puffins are not suited to all locations, and for me if you're going to introduce a two tier system where some crossings have farsides and others have nearsides then you have created a pointless distinction that does nothing to benefit road users.
The first and last paragraphs here sum it up succinctly.

It's something that makes sense on paper but not in practice. I was just thinking about this topic a couple of days ago funnily enough. I was walking down to the road to the puffin crossing by mine where there was just a sole pedestrian waiting, staring directly straight ahead, after having pushed the button. I thought that if after all this time people aren't adapting to the change in the way they were supposed to, then they're never going to.

Puffins are supposed be safer than pelicans. I can believe that but I do wonder if that has more to do with puffins having the standard signal phasing, rather than the flashing plus the pedestrian detection. I'd be much more interested in seeing direct comparisons between nearside and farside puffins.

Btw, a few other countries have dabbled with nearside indicators. The main one is the Netherlands which had some in Maastricht as early as the 1980s. I believe that Dutch authorities can now use nearside indicators without needing special permission, so it'll be interesting to see how many areas take to them. The Netherlands is the only other country I'm aware of that has used them for junctions and not just at mid-block.

Belgium also has the odd experiment. Iceland and New Zealand also have some, using UK-style PBUs. Australia claims to have Puffin crossings but I get the feeling it's just farside signals with the detection equipment.
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by FosseWay »

AndyB wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 20:17 I think the argument is that if you're looking for gaps where you may cross using the Green Cross Code without waiting, then the present position is absolutely correct.
I wonder if you're onto something here.

As you say, looking straight ahead while keeping an eye on approaching traffic allows you to use the Green Cross Code and cross before you get green if it's safe. But I strongly suspect that the powers that be would much rather we didn't do that - partly from a liability point of view, but mainly because they like the idea of meek drones that follow the rules. Taking shortcuts is a suboptimal outcome as far as the authorities are concerned, whether it's walking against the red man or cutting across a grassed area rather than going the long way round on the footpath. By forcing people to look at something right next to them and pointing in one direction only, you reduce the opportunities for people to make up their own mind.
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!
WhiteBlueRed
Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 03:58
Location: Krasnoyarsk, Russia

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by WhiteBlueRed »

Here in Russia, pedestrian signals always were placed on the far side. However, they've recently upgraded a "request only" pedestrian crossing, and added the red and green man into the push button unit itself, which is very rare, and there's no mention of this in the GOST.
https://www.google.com/maps/@55.9677332 ... 384!8i8192
To be honest, there's no standard for push buttons, it's up to the local government.
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by AndyB »

On the other hand, part of the point of Puffins was because pedestrians don't wait for the lights to turn red if it's safe to cross, thus the detectors to see if they're still there.
User avatar
Gareth
Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 19:16
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by Gareth »

Indeed. We have no jaywalking laws here, so people are often looking for gaps in the traffic.

That Russian example is interesting, although there are still farsides. Perhaps something closer to that is the long term solution. In a way, we've pretty much always had a nearside indicator in the form of the WAIT light above the button.
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by FosseWay »

AndyB wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 09:03 On the other hand, part of the point of Puffins was because pedestrians don't wait for the lights to turn red if it's safe to cross, thus the detectors to see if they're still there.
Gareth wrote:Indeed. We have no jaywalking laws here, so people are often looking for gaps in the traffic.
Yes, it's a balance between wanting to mould behaviour by trying to force people to use the equipment as intended and to follow a number of steps in the right order, and accepting that people will do other things and catering for those other behaviours when reasonably practicable. A compromise, or a bodge, depending on how you want to look at it.
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!
pjr10th
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2020 23:35

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by pjr10th »

I'm firmly a farside advocate. Far better for pedestrians and especially for cyclists (cyclist nearsides should not be permitted). We don't have nearside signals in Jersey. They aren't permitted and are (thank god) never used. It seemed the most bizarre thing discovering them for the first time, which was only a few years ago (mostly used to drive when not in London, and London for the most part hasn't submitted to the tyranny of the nearsides).

Nearsides have countless problems and are effectively a method to force pedestrians, who are already given the short end of the stick at most junctions, away from being independently minded and towards following the signals. Rather than being aware of everything going on in the street (basic hazard perception skills), pedestrians instead look down to their right side or anyone who finds that uncomfortable or dangerous (anyone with any sense) just watches the traffic signals (then crosses before the green man appears).

British traffic signals are too "mummy-coddly". First they allow all approaching traffic to clear (often with a clear window on the main stretch), then they have a generous amber period, then a generous all-red period before the green man can go. I've noticed a light near me which runs in time with a vehicle green. The pedestrian lights stay red for a while even after the vehicle green begins! In most cases, I'm already on the other pavement by the time (supposedly) my green man has lit up. Amber is the vehicle clearance period: if a vehicle crosses the stop line and a red light is showing, that should be an immediate prosecution (if deliberate or recividist, immediate recovation of the license, with a requirement to prove mental fitness to drive safely) and that would make it safe for the green man to show immediately. We don't need this 2 second grace period to cater for unlawful driving.

I'd like to see toucan farside aspects with the ped and cycle next to each other, to reduce the cost of an extra aspect on a toucan signal.
User avatar
L.J.D
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 06:34
Location: W.Yorkshire

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by L.J.D »

Here Wakefield Council use nearside indicators only and have done for over a decade but I noticed this oddity. For some reason they've installed farside heads at that junction when they were installed at the same time as the ones on the roundabout just ahead which used nearside. Struck me as really odd given new installations in the Wakefield district have used nearsides all the time and have done for years. Wonder what is different there ?
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9706
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by WHBM »

My understanding is they were the invention of a DfT senior official who was trying to suck up to the disability lobby, by having indicators supposedly more visible to wheelchair users than conventional farsides.

When the downsides became apparent (including to the disabled, who find them equally counter-intuitive) the official was sufficiently far up the seniority scale that they are to be just left in the legislation until he retires.
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by traffic-light-man »

pjr10th wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 17:00Nearsides have countless problems and are effectively a method to force pedestrians, who are already given the short end of the stick at most junctions, away from being independently minded and towards following the signals.
Sorry, what? I'm not sure why the position of the signal aspects have anything to do with that. Pedestrians are free to do what they like.
pjr10th wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 17:00Rather than being aware of everything going on in the street (basic hazard perception skills), pedestrians instead look down to their right side or anyone who finds that uncomfortable or dangerous (anyone with any sense) just watches the traffic signals (then crosses before the green man appears).
Yes, because looking at something 4m high directly opposite you gives you a fantastic understanding of what's happening all around the junction, except for all those areas that you can't see while looking straight ahead.

I'm a farside advocate, but I don't buy that theory either I'm afraid. There's no difference between looking all around you before crossing on a farsided crossing to that of a nearsided crossing, that's just being street wise.
pjr10th wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 17:00RThe pedestrian lights stay red for a while even after the vehicle green begins! In most cases, I'm already on the other pavement by the time (supposedly) my green man has lit up. Amber is the vehicle clearance period: if a vehicle crosses the stop line and a red light is showing, that should be an immediate prosecution (if deliberate or recividist, immediate recovation of the license, with a requirement to prove mental fitness to drive safely) and that would make it safe for the green man to show immediately. We don't need this 2 second grace period to cater for unlawful driving.
I'm not sure a 3 second intergreen to peds is ever going to be seen as safe in the majority of circumstances, if ever, and that's irrespective of whether there's a nearside indicator or a farside signal head being used. That's just not how distance over time works. If you've got say a 20m gap between the stop line and the last row of crossing studs, a vehicle travelling (for argument's sake, legitimately) across the stop line on the 00.02.59 mark of amber isn't going to have cleared the last row of studs by 00.03.00 seconds. It's just not safe, with all the will in the world. And that's discounting turning traffic, particularly those at junctions where it's expected that waiting drivers will clear the junction and the crossings during the intergreen.

There's no blanket 'grace period', it (should be) calculated and then may be altered later to site conditions.

Most of the complaints I've seen to do with intergreens to peds have been around the fact the intergreen isn't long enough, which is generally more often than not caused by gap-accepting right turners being slow to clear the crossings during the intergreens.

But again, if you wish to disregard the pedestrian signals and accept a gap, then there's nothing wrong with that.
L.J.D wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 14:59 Here Wakefield Council use nearside indicators only and have done for over a decade but I noticed this oddity. For some reason they've installed farside heads at that junction when they were installed at the same time as the ones on the roundabout just ahead which used nearside. Struck me as really odd given new installations in the Wakefield district have used nearsides all the time and have done for years. Wonder what is different there ?
Although this one doesn't necessarily strike me as one of those situations per se, some nearsided authorities do still use farside on busy crossings, and in fact some are returning to farsides particularly where countdowns are deemed to be useful. TfGM have done this in some parts of the city centre.

Unfortunately there's some authorities who are remaining staunchly nearsided even when it might be in everyone's interest to give the farsides and perhaps countdowns a go, particularly at busy urban problem sites. Although painting daft patterns on the road and wrapping the signal poles in gold sleeves is apparently worth more of a try... :roll:
WHBM wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 15:14When the downsides became apparent (including to the disabled, who find them equally counter-intuitive) the official was sufficiently far up the seniority scale that they are to be just left in the legislation until he retires.
I think there's far, far too many of them now for that to be reversed in any kind of rapid fashion, so they're likely going to be with us for the long term.

Any personal thoughts on them aside, one of the biggest problems with them has always been a lack of public information. The fact that people and local media still often see nearsides as 'new' technology says quite a lot, especially as they celebrate their 30th.
Simon
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9706
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by WHBM »

traffic-light-man wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 18:24 Most of the complaints I've seen to do with intergreens to peds have been around the fact the intergreen isn't long enough, which is generally more often than not caused by gap-accepting right turners being slow to clear the crossings during the intergreens.
Although true at sites with a high gap-accepting right turn component, it's inappropriate to extend that to all crossings, as TfL do. In fact it's counter-safety, because seeing the vehicles stop pedestrians start to cross while still red man, getting into the habit of doing so.

It's a shame that after all this time the supply industry has not been able to come up with reliable detectors to identify this situation (as a manually-controlling policeman would do) and give a green man as the last vehicle clears - they can work on this, together with proper bicycle detectors.

The TfL countdowns also seem inappropriately timed because they count down for the full crossing time (recently increased), but then do the conventional dark pedestrian phase as well after that. The first countdowns I encountered, in the USA, were going down to when the traffic restarted. Something seems to have been counted twice. Just as an aside, is there a reason WHY countdowns are incompatible with nearsides ?
WhiteBlueRed
Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 03:58
Location: Krasnoyarsk, Russia

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by WhiteBlueRed »

pjr10th wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 17:00 I'm firmly a farside advocate. Far better for pedestrians and especially for cyclists (cyclist nearsides should not be permitted). We don't have nearside signals in Jersey. They aren't permitted and are (thank god) never used. It seemed the most bizarre thing discovering them for the first time, which was only a few years ago (mostly used to drive when not in London, and London for the most part hasn't submitted to the tyranny of the nearsides).

Nearsides have countless problems and are effectively a method to force pedestrians, who are already given the short end of the stick at most junctions, away from being independently minded and towards following the signals. Rather than being aware of everything going on in the street (basic hazard perception skills), pedestrians instead look down to their right side or anyone who finds that uncomfortable or dangerous (anyone with any sense) just watches the traffic signals (then crosses before the green man appears).

British traffic signals are too "mummy-coddly". First they allow all approaching traffic to clear (often with a clear window on the main stretch), then they have a generous amber period, then a generous all-red period before the green man can go. I've noticed a light near me which runs in time with a vehicle green. The pedestrian lights stay red for a while even after the vehicle green begins! In most cases, I'm already on the other pavement by the time (supposedly) my green man has lit up. Amber is the vehicle clearance period: if a vehicle crosses the stop line and a red light is showing, that should be an immediate prosecution (if deliberate or recividist, immediate recovation of the license, with a requirement to prove mental fitness to drive safely) and that would make it safe for the green man to show immediately. We don't need this 2 second grace period to cater for unlawful driving.

I'd like to see toucan farside aspects with the ped and cycle next to each other, to reduce the cost of an extra aspect on a toucan signal.
Here in Russia, all-red periods between stages aren't that common, so this issue is not that big of a deal here. We have a rule which requires drivers to let pedestrians finish crossing, and vehicles complete their maneuver, upon the light turning green, if they couldn't finish it earlier.
It looks unsafe, but I've never seen any crash caused by the lack of an all-red period at my local junction.
You could get an idiot starting on red+amber too fast with another idiot speeding up on yellow, but that's more of a driving standard issue, which is not that common, and again I've never seen that happen in person.
In my opinion, the best of both worlds would be to use both farside and nearside indicators, with the nearside indicator changing to a red man during the clearance period, and the farside indicator going dark.
Last edited by WhiteBlueRed on Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:28, edited 1 time in total.
WhiteBlueRed
Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 03:58
Location: Krasnoyarsk, Russia

Re: Nearside indicators: Why are they a thing?

Post by WhiteBlueRed »

WHBM wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 21:56 Just as an aside, is there a reason WHY countdowns are incompatible with nearsides ?
Probably because at most nearside installations, the pedestrian-to-vehicle intergreen is variable. Also, a countdown mainly exists to let crossing pedestrians know how much time they have to cross, and with nearside indicators (defeating the main purpose) and vehicle-actuated stages, you can't really know for sure how long it is until the green man appears.
Post Reply