Failure Behaviour of Temporary Traffic Lights

[qwertyK]

I wonder if there could be an argument that they didn't pass a traffic signal on red, as the thing they passed is not in fact a traffic signal? A fundamental part of being a traffic signal is that it displays changing aspects to control the traffic. A signal that only ever shows red is not performing this function. In fact it's indicating a full road closure, which is illegal without a TTRO authorising it.

Where's the legislation or regulation stating maximum red and green periods for traffic signals, please?

I assume this doesn't necessarily exist but it is an interesting point that a traffic signal only displaying red is clearly not operating as the legislation intends and may cease to be considered "lawfully placed" and may even constitute an unlawful obstruction. It would be interesting if case law existed for this but I doubt anything of the sort would ever make it to court.

I posted a recent thread. In a nutshell, the temp lights were displaying red for 10 + minutes, everyone ended up jumping the lights, i asked a roadworker what on earth was going on he told me they needed to put the lights on red to close the road for ten minutes for their truck to do whatever was doing. I told him if that was the case they should actually tell people the road is shut and not leave people to assume the lights are defective, which after ten minutes, any reasonable person would assume.

[Conekicker]

ARTSM have uploaded the first edition of their document:
https://artsm.org.uk/sales/

Hopefully a second edition will be along sooner rather than later to fix the errors in the first one.

[traffic-light-man]

ARTSM have uploaded the first edition of their document:
https://artsm.org.uk/sales/

Hopefully a second edition will be along sooner rather than later to fix the errors in the first one.

"6.2 The WAIT HERE sign shall not obscure the signals or be too close to the signal. The WAIT HERE sign shall be at least 15m from the lead-in taper"



It's a shame that this has to be written down. All guidance aside, to me this is purely logic and I don't understand why 99% of deployments seem to get the sign in a position that's impossible to stop at without causing issues.

[Conekicker]

ARTSM have uploaded the first edition of their document:
https://artsm.org.uk/sales/

Hopefully a second edition will be along sooner rather than later to fix the errors in the first one.

"6.2 The WAIT HERE sign shall not obscure the signals or be too close to the signal. The WAIT HERE sign shall be at least 15m from the lead-in taper"



It's a shame that this has to be written down. All guidance aside, to me this is purely logic and I don't understand why 99% of deployments seem to get the sign in a position that's impossible to stop at without causing issues.

Some of the errors in the document, picked up on a quick skim through:

page 12, the 50mph approach signing doesn't conform to Chapter 8.
page 21, unlawful application of Diagram 562. TSRGD requires this sign to always have a supplementary plate.
page 33, non-prescribed and unauthorised (thus unlawful) supplementary plate below the Diagram 562.
page 34, para 14.5. If you want to reduce the speed limit to 30mph, "considering" a TTRO is not what you should do. You need to apply for one - and get it before you start works.
page 38, the photo shows both a stop line and a wait here sign, pointedly not in the same location. Which one do you stop at? The car in the photo seems to have ignored both. When producing guidance, at least make sure you get photos showing what you want to show.
page 52, a 3 way system but they show the incorrect Wait here sign.
In numerous locations Diagram 610 is referred to as a "Traffic direction sign", in no official documentation is this correct, so why do it here?

Overall a much needed update to the old pink book but falling a little short in knowledge of both TTM and more seriously, TSRGD. 9/10, try harder, especially as those in the industry with less knowledge will take this as gospel, warts and all.

[Bryn666]

Why are the 562s needed in either example, these are just more pedestrian trip hazards to deal with.

[Conekicker]

Why are the 562s needed in either example, these are just more pedestrian trip hazards to deal with.

Frankly they're not needed. I suspect they've been included as some sort of back-covering exercise for those who allow uncontrolled access into 2 way controlled sections, where really 3 or 4 way control is required. "But we did what the guidance said m'lud, how can we possibly be guilty?"

Definitely not a cost cutting measure. Nosirreebob.

[Bryn666]

Why are the 562s needed in either example, these are just more pedestrian trip hazards to deal with.

Frankly they're not needed. I suspect they've been included as some sort of back-covering exercise for those who allow uncontrolled access into 2 way controlled sections, where really 3 or 4 way control is required. "But we did what the guidance said m'lud, how can we possibly be guilty?"

Definitely not a cost cutting measure. Nosirreebob.

The existing "Joining traffic not signal controlled" was too easy a sign, presumably. I'd argue a temporary Stop sign with the standard "traffic under signal control" sign on the uncontrolled side arm would have been more value than 562s on the main road, if we have to play risk aversion.

[Conekicker]

Why are the 562s needed in either example, these are just more pedestrian trip hazards to deal with.

Frankly they're not needed. I suspect they've been included as some sort of back-covering exercise for those who allow uncontrolled access into 2 way controlled sections, where really 3 or 4 way control is required. "But we did what the guidance said m'lud, how can we possibly be guilty?"

Definitely not a cost cutting measure. Nosirreebob.

The existing "Joining traffic not signal controlled" was too easy a sign, presumably. I'd argue a temporary Stop sign with the standard "traffic under signal control" sign on the uncontrolled side arm would have been more value than 562s on the main road, if we have to play risk aversion.

They show the "Joining..." sign within the approach sign array. Which some might say is too far from the location at which traffic joins and thus likely to be forgotten about, particularly if you've been stuck in a queue for a minute or two.

I wouldn't say that of course.

Perish the very thought...

[Bryn666]

Frankly they're not needed. I suspect they've been included as some sort of back-covering exercise for those who allow uncontrolled access into 2 way controlled sections, where really 3 or 4 way control is required. "But we did what the guidance said m'lud, how can we possibly be guilty?"

Definitely not a cost cutting measure. Nosirreebob.

The existing "Joining traffic not signal controlled" was too easy a sign, presumably. I'd argue a temporary Stop sign with the standard "traffic under signal control" sign on the uncontrolled side arm would have been more value than 562s on the main road, if we have to play risk aversion.

They show the "Joining..." sign within the approach sign array. Which some might say is too far from the location at which traffic joins and thus likely to be forgotten about, particularly if you've been stuck in a queue for a minute or two.

I wouldn't say that of course.

Perish the very thought...

I'm fairly sure no one cares what my views on signs are anyway, everyone's too busy empire building for that.

[ryzzey]

Whenever I have come across temporary traffic signals either not working (off) or stuck on red and I have called the number provided, I have been given no help at all.

These TM companies seem to outsource the support line to call centres hundreds of miles away who have no record of where the traffic signals are and have great difficulty in pinpointing them.

Even then when I do report it they usually say they will send someone in '1 to 2 working days' which is not good enough, there needs to be better regulation of this industry.

We had temp traffic signals near us for 18 months on an A-road, they used to fail almost daily and the TM company, Amberon blamed cold weather affecting the batteries, but did nothing to try to prevent this i.e. check them each day.

[WHBM]

This is one of the areas where the law needs tightening so that there is reciprocity in duty/responsibility between those imposing the restriction and those expected to obey it.

This is actually a notably wider subject. Progressively the penalties etc, as stipulated by Parliament, for transgression have been tightened, subjected to automated camera enforcement, etc, such that from when originally envisaged as being implemented and maintained by professional engineers, and enforced in each case by sensible police officers on the spot, it's now whatever revenue can be gained from automated enforcement, and for more serious cases whoever has the better lawyer in court.

We had temp traffic signals near us for 18 months on an A-road, they used to fail almost daily and the TM company, Amberon blamed cold weather affecting the batteries, but did nothing to try to prevent this i.e. check them each day.

We had this near me, and I took it up on the local authority website. The highways team responded pretty promptly, and when I then added further engineering detail I got a most useful response back from the senior engineer, who started by saying the failures had inconvenienced him personally on his way to work (just so you realise this is not personal favouritism he said there had also been formal complaints from London Buses), and he had served a notice on the contractor that the signals were to be manned by an operator for the duration, so clearly this can be done. A decidedly bored-looking and very junior operator indeed was then on site, but the principal thing was progress on the actual works was galvanised, it was all hands to the pump by the contractor, and work was finished in a couple of days.

So it can be done !

[FosseWay]

This is one of the areas where the law needs tightening so that there is reciprocity in duty/responsibility between those imposing the restriction and those expected to obey it.

This is actually a notably wider subject. Progressively the penalties etc, as stipulated by Parliament, for transgression have been tightened, subjected to automated camera enforcement, etc, such that from when originally envisaged as being implemented and maintained by professional engineers, and enforced in each case by sensible police officers on the spot, it's now whatever revenue can be gained from automated enforcement, and for more serious cases whoever has the better lawyer in court.

The nature of enforcement has changed as you suggest, but there has been no change in the basic principle since the introduction of absolute-liability requirements like speed limits and red lights. In theory, it has always been a driver's absolute duty not to exceed the speed limit or run red lights, on pain of legal consequences, even if in various individual circumstances an observing officer may choose to interpret any prosecution as not being in the public interest. There hasn't, AFAIK, been a similar legal requirement, backed up by the threat of criminal prosecution, on the authorities to make sure that signs and signals relating to absolute duties on road users are present and correct.

Exactly how and to what degree of exactness offences are enforced can legitimately change from time to time, I feel. In an age when few vehicles could exceed the speed limit it mattered less if one or two did, than today when basically any powered vehicle can do so, and there are far more of them. And our understanding of how alcohol impairs driving ability means that we have become a lot stricter on drink-driving. That's as it should be and isn't really connected to the underlying principles, one of which must surely be some degree of reciprocity: if we as a society are sufficiently keen to control a certain kind of antisocial behaviour that we impose significant restrictions and penalties on transgressors, then we surely must also impose a requirement with similar legal weight on the authorities to do what is practically in their power to support the overall aim.

[WHBM]

The nature of enforcement has changed as you suggest, but there has been no change in the basic principle since the introduction of absolute-liability requirements like speed limits and red lights. In theory, it has always been a driver's absolute duty not to exceed the speed limit or run red lights, on pain of legal consequences

Quite so, but it was based on an initial understanding that speed limits would be set professionally appropriate for the road, not some "20mph One Size Fits All" approach borough-wide, and which then puts the one speed camera on the only rural-like section of a main road (eg Lea Bridge Road in Waltham Forest). Likewise traffic signal compliance would not ever be envisaged as being enforced if they were stuck on red.

[Andy33gmail]

Recently, I was approaching some road works behind set up in a village

There was a light on red, but the traffic management staff gave an unambiguous signal he wanted me to proceed

I wonder what the legal position is here? I guess technically illegal, but no-one worth their salt would prosecute?

Now I think of it, I can’t recall what I did in response

[wallmeerkat]

Temporary traffic lights beside the entrance to my daughter's school, as you can imagine at 3pm traffic was mayhem. I looked at what they were digging up, looked like an A4 sized piece of tarmac. Road has a filter lane, could they not have reduced one lane and used the other 2 for traffic?

[Conekicker]

Not knowing what the road layout is at that location, attempting to keep two way flow going, where one lane might be required to leave it's normal path could be dangerous. Especially near a school at chucking out time.
You also need working space around the works area and somewhere to park the wagon.

[Conekicker]

ARTSM have a second stab at "GUPS" as they call it. Close but no teddy bear, still some errors in it.

https://artsm.org.uk/media/ARTSM-Guidan ... ls-1-1.pdf

[tom66]

Temporary traffic lights beside the entrance to my daughter's school, as you can imagine at 3pm traffic was mayhem. I looked at what they were digging up, looked like an A4 sized piece of tarmac. Road has a filter lane, could they not have reduced one lane and used the other 2 for traffic?

They've put roadworks with traffic lights up on a residential road near me - the road normally has parked cars along it either side and so is effectively a one way street (with alternating direction) anyway. So why are traffic lights needed - are roadworks more of a hazard than parked cars? If the concern is over hitting workers, would some decently-sized water or concrete barriers not provide better protection?

[Conekicker]

Temporary traffic lights beside the entrance to my daughter's school, as you can imagine at 3pm traffic was mayhem. I looked at what they were digging up, looked like an A4 sized piece of tarmac. Road has a filter lane, could they not have reduced one lane and used the other 2 for traffic?

They've put roadworks with traffic lights up on a residential road near me - the road normally has parked cars along it either side and so is effectively a one way street (with alternating direction) anyway. So why are traffic lights needed - are roadworks more of a hazard than parked cars? If the concern is over hitting workers, would some decently-sized water or concrete barriers not provide better protection?

You need to consider the width of water/concrete barriers and their working width, i.e. how much they deflect when hit. Also how you would put them in place and remove them, as well as how the workers would access site whilst the barriers are in place. On most residential roads they aren't a practical proposition.

We'll carefully avoid any mention of the fact that water filled plastic barriers deflect a LOT when hit and thus aren't really suitable in the first place, if you want to use them for protection rather than delineation.

It can be that on residential roads a road closure can be the best solution - but that requires a temporary traffic regulation order, which costs money and takes weeks to get made. Far quicker and cheaper to go with signals, even if it's more disruptive than a closure would be. Money talks.

[jnty]

Temporary traffic lights beside the entrance to my daughter's school, as you can imagine at 3pm traffic was mayhem. I looked at what they were digging up, looked like an A4 sized piece of tarmac. Road has a filter lane, could they not have reduced one lane and used the other 2 for traffic?

They've put roadworks with traffic lights up on a residential road near me - the road normally has parked cars along it either side and so is effectively a one way street (with alternating direction) anyway. So why are traffic lights needed - are roadworks more of a hazard than parked cars? If the concern is over hitting workers, would some decently-sized water or concrete barriers not provide better protection?

You need to consider the width of water/concrete barriers and their working width, i.e. how much they deflect when hit. Also how you would put them in place and remove them, as well as how the workers would access site whilst the barriers are in place. On most residential roads they aren't a practical proposition.

We'll carefully avoid any mention of the fact that water filled plastic barriers deflect a LOT when hit and thus aren't really suitable in the first place, if you want to use them for protection rather than delineation.

It can be that on residential roads a road closure can be the best solution - but that requires a temporary traffic regulation order, which costs money and takes weeks to get made. Far quicker and cheaper to go with signals, even if it's more disruptive than a closure would be. Money talks.

This is frustrating - nothing worse than coming across a 4-way lights in a residential area where closing two of the roads would have been non-disruptive (and result in a net decrease in journey times for all, even those who had to divert.) In some cases a full closure would be even better. Some legal innovation to allow easy closure on minor roads would be very welcome - but I suppose, almost by definition, there's not enough disruption caused by the alternative to justify it.