On 31/10/2011 02:26, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\10\30 23:20, Nightjar wrote:
On 30/10/2011 21:38, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\10\30 20:49, Nightjar wrote:

I would guess that the temporary signs are there pending the
installation of a permanent up arrow, which the Traffic Signs Manual
gives as the correct sign for use in this situation when the
junction is
controlled by lights.

That's pretty strange, though. The traffic light is new.

Which makes it all the more likely that it is a temporary cock-up.

More data: the brand new layout at Palmers Green has separate lanes for
turning left and right off the North Circular, and the same thing has
been done, i.e the going forward lanes have no signage apart from the
green arrow (and lane markings), and the turning right lanes have a no
u-turn sign but no forced right sign apart from the green arrow. So it's
not a temporary cock up but a systemic failure IMO.

Different junction type and different guidance applies. In the first
case you mentioned, turning is prohibited, so a straight ahead only
arrow would be appropriate.

In this case, turning off the main road is not prohibited, so it would
not be correct to put up signs that show that it is, which direction
arrow signs would do. The road markings are the correct signs to show
that a particular lane is dedicated to a particular direction of
movement and they can be supplemented by an advance warning (get in
lane) sign, if required. In any case, to avoid confusion, there should
be no more than two (or, rarely, three if there are no supplementary
plates) regulatory signs at one spot and there is already a no-U turn
sign at these lights.

Colin Bignell

On 31/10/2011 05:24, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:51:26 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:
People breaking the law cannot expect traffic signs to be adapted
to
suit their particular illegal actions.

Amber doesn't just mean stop, as if it did we would be the same as
everywhere else and go straight to green.

There is a fairly good case for us doing just that these days. The red
and amber sequence had some merit in the days when everyone put the
vehicle in neutral and applied the handbrake when stopped at lights, but
it it is increasingly irrelevant to modern driving and removing it could
reduce accidents caused by drivers starting off before the green.

It's a warning that something
is about to happen (green) and it'd be better if drivers knew what they
were getting ready for.

The temporary signs at the junction seem to answer that need adequately.

Colin Bignell

On 31/10/2011 08:48, Mortimer wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/2011 16:21, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 30/10/2011 08:03, Basil Jet wrote:
At the crossroads of Exhibition Road and Cromwell Road SW7, traffic
approaching from three directions is now banned from turning left or
right.
This is signified by the green light being a forward arrow. At other
junctions where both turns are banned you would see a vertical white
arrow
on a blue background beneath the three traffic lights, but they have
not
done that here.

I would expect to see 'no left turn' and 'no right turn' signs in red
circles alongside or under the green arrow.

According to the Traffic Signs Manual, at lights controlled crossings,
a single arrow indicating the only permitted direction of travel is
the correct choice of sign. At uncontrolled junctions, either that or
two signs, showing no left turn and no right turn are acceptable.

But why do they make a distinction based on something which is supremely
irrelevant to most drivers? Why not make the signage consistent in both
situations: make them both say "no left or right turn" since it is
better to tell people that they cannot do something that were intending
to and which is therefore uppermost in their mind at that instant,
rather than say "you can (only) go straight ahead" to people who weren't
planning to go straight ahead.

It has been found that too many signs or signal creates confusion, so
the aim is to ensure that no more than two, or occasionally three, are
mounted on the same post or on different posts at the same place. The
lights count as one sign for this purpose, so there should, if possible,
be no more than one more sign at a lights controlled junction while at
an uncontrolled junction there can be two.

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 31/10/2011 05:24, Neil Williams wrote:
Amber doesn't just mean stop, as if it did we would be the same as
everywhere else and go straight to green.

There is a fairly good case for us doing just that these days. The red and
amber sequence had some merit in the days when everyone put the vehicle in
neutral and applied the handbrake when stopped at lights, but it it is
increasingly irrelevant to modern driving and removing it could reduce
accidents caused by drivers starting off before the green.

Do you mean that people are being taught nowadays *not* to put the car into
neutral and apply the handbrake whenever they are stationary? Or is that
just due to bad habits?

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I *always* put the car into neutral and apply
the handbrake when I'm stopped at lights or a junction, and I never ever
ever keep my foot on the footbrake because the brake lights would dazzle the
driver behind, especially at night.

And I certainly never try to hold the car on an uphill by slipping the
clutch while applying a bit of power - I've got too much sympathy for my
clutch plates, and I know that it's all too easy for your clutch foot to
move slightly after a long wait, which would either make you roll back into
the car behind or shoot forward into the car in front.

In message , at
11:04:54 on Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Mortimer remarked:
Amber doesn't just mean stop, as if it did we would be the same as
everywhere else and go straight to green.

There is a fairly good case for us doing just that these days. The
red and amber sequence had some merit in the days when everyone put
the vehicle in neutral and applied the handbrake when stopped at
lights, but it it is increasingly irrelevant to modern driving and
removing it could reduce accidents caused by drivers starting off
before the green.

Do you mean that people are being taught nowadays *not* to put the car
into neutral and apply the handbrake whenever they are stationary? Or
is that just due to bad habits?

Automatic transmission is what makes the difference.
--
Roland Perry

On 31/10/2011 11:04, Mortimer wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 31/10/2011 05:24, Neil Williams wrote:
Amber doesn't just mean stop, as if it did we would be the same as
everywhere else and go straight to green.

There is a fairly good case for us doing just that these days. The red
and amber sequence had some merit in the days when everyone put the
vehicle in neutral and applied the handbrake when stopped at lights,
but it it is increasingly irrelevant to modern driving and removing it
could reduce accidents caused by drivers starting off before the green.

Do you mean that people are being taught nowadays *not* to put the car
into neutral and apply the handbrake whenever they are stationary? Or is
that just due to bad habits?

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I *always* put the car into neutral and
apply the handbrake when I'm stopped at lights or a junction, and I
never ever ever keep my foot on the footbrake because the brake lights
would dazzle the driver behind, especially at night.

And I certainly never try to hold the car on an uphill by slipping the
clutch while applying a bit of power - I've got too much sympathy for my
clutch plates, and I know that it's all too easy for your clutch foot to
move slightly after a long wait, which would either make you roll back
into the car behind or shoot forward into the car in front.

You obviously still drive a manual transmission car. Putting the car
into neutral is to reduce wear on the bearings that would result if you
simply keep the clutch down. Neither that nor 'slipping the clutch'
apply when driving an automatic.

Colin Bignell

On 2011\10\31 09:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 31/10/2011 02:26, Basil Jet wrote:

More data: the brand new layout at Palmers Green has separate lanes for
turning left and right off the North Circular, and the same thing has
been done, i.e the going forward lanes have no signage apart from the
green arrow (and lane markings), and the turning right lanes have a no
u-turn sign but no forced right sign apart from the green arrow. So it's
not a temporary cock up but a systemic failure IMO.

Different junction type and different guidance applies. In the first
case you mentioned, turning is prohibited, so a straight ahead only
arrow would be appropriate.

In this case, turning off the main road is not prohibited, so it would
not be correct to put up signs that show that it is, which direction
arrow signs would do. The road markings are the correct signs to show
that a particular lane is dedicated to a particular direction of
movement and they can be supplemented by an advance warning (get in
lane) sign, if required. In any case, to avoid confusion, there should
be no more than two (or, rarely, three if there are no supplementary
plates) regulatory signs at one spot and there is already a no-U turn
sign at these lights.

Sorry - when I said "separate lanes for turning left and right" I should
have said "dedicated slips for turning left and right".

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 31/10/2011 11:04, Mortimer wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 31/10/2011 05:24, Neil Williams wrote:
Amber doesn't just mean stop, as if it did we would be the same as
everywhere else and go straight to green.

There is a fairly good case for us doing just that these days. The red
and amber sequence had some merit in the days when everyone put the
vehicle in neutral and applied the handbrake when stopped at lights,
but it it is increasingly irrelevant to modern driving and removing it
could reduce accidents caused by drivers starting off before the green.

Do you mean that people are being taught nowadays *not* to put the car
into neutral and apply the handbrake whenever they are stationary? Or is
that just due to bad habits?

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I *always* put the car into neutral and
apply the handbrake when I'm stopped at lights or a junction, and I
never ever ever keep my foot on the footbrake because the brake lights
would dazzle the driver behind, especially at night.

And I certainly never try to hold the car on an uphill by slipping the
clutch while applying a bit of power - I've got too much sympathy for my
clutch plates, and I know that it's all too easy for your clutch foot to
move slightly after a long wait, which would either make you roll back
into the car behind or shoot forward into the car in front.

You obviously still drive a manual transmission car. Putting the car into
neutral is to reduce wear on the bearings that would result if you simply
keep the clutch down. Neither that nor 'slipping the clutch' apply when
driving an automatic.

It's also so you aren't at risk of catapulting forward if your foot slips
off the pedal after staying like this when waiting a long time at a
junction.


I don't drive automatics much - I far prefer being in control of when the
gear change takes place (even though I accept that automatics can achieve a
smoother change than I can), because automatics tend to favour low gear over
higher gear and wider throttle when accelerating gently out of a
roundabout - and the unexpected change of gear after I've selected the
amount of throttle is most unwelcome! [2]

But when I've driven them, I've always put the selector into neutral and
applied the handbrake at a junction, exactly as for a manual, so as to be
able to remain stationary without my foot on the footbrake, blinding the car
behind with my brakelights. [1] It's only recently that I've learned that
shifting into neutral is not advised with automatic, though I've never seen
it actually documented in any user manual for a car.


[1] As I was taught both for my normal and IAM tests: "footbrake to slow the
car down and bring to a stop; handbrake to *keep* it stopped; *never* sit at
lights with your foot on the footbrake". That was the advice in 1980 and
1990 respectively. And I curse drivers in front of me who don't do this,
especially when shuttling forward in a long queue of traffic and I start
seeing spots before my eyes after a few minutes.

[2] I had a very bad experience in an auto Ford Focus hire car on a trip
from work, which decided that it wouldn't go faster than 50 mph: I could
have 50 in any of 4th, 3rd or 2nd gear depending on how much throttle I gave
it, but it was very reluctant to stay in top gear and let me go any faster.

On 31/10/2011 14:44, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\10\31 09:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 31/10/2011 02:26, Basil Jet wrote:

More data: the brand new layout at Palmers Green has separate lanes for
turning left and right off the North Circular, and the same thing has
been done, i.e the going forward lanes have no signage apart from the
green arrow (and lane markings), and the turning right lanes have a no
u-turn sign but no forced right sign apart from the green arrow. So it's
not a temporary cock up but a systemic failure IMO.

Different junction type and different guidance applies. In the first
case you mentioned, turning is prohibited, so a straight ahead only
arrow would be appropriate.

In this case, turning off the main road is not prohibited, so it would
not be correct to put up signs that show that it is, which direction
arrow signs would do. The road markings are the correct signs to show
that a particular lane is dedicated to a particular direction of
movement and they can be supplemented by an advance warning (get in
lane) sign, if required. In any case, to avoid confusion, there should
be no more than two (or, rarely, three if there are no supplementary
plates) regulatory signs at one spot and there is already a no-U turn
sign at these lights.

Sorry - when I said "separate lanes for turning left and right" I should
have said "dedicated slips for turning left and right".

That is what I presumed you meant.

Colin Bignell

On 31/10/2011 15:39, Mortimer wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 31/10/2011 11:04, Mortimer wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 31/10/2011 05:24, Neil Williams wrote:
Amber doesn't just mean stop, as if it did we would be the same as
everywhere else and go straight to green.

There is a fairly good case for us doing just that these days. The red
and amber sequence had some merit in the days when everyone put the
vehicle in neutral and applied the handbrake when stopped at lights,
but it it is increasingly irrelevant to modern driving and removing it
could reduce accidents caused by drivers starting off before the green.

Do you mean that people are being taught nowadays *not* to put the car
into neutral and apply the handbrake whenever they are stationary? Or is
that just due to bad habits?

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I *always* put the car into neutral and
apply the handbrake when I'm stopped at lights or a junction, and I
never ever ever keep my foot on the footbrake because the brake lights
would dazzle the driver behind, especially at night.

And I certainly never try to hold the car on an uphill by slipping the
clutch while applying a bit of power - I've got too much sympathy for my
clutch plates, and I know that it's all too easy for your clutch foot to
move slightly after a long wait, which would either make you roll back
into the car behind or shoot forward into the car in front.

You obviously still drive a manual transmission car. Putting the car
into neutral is to reduce wear on the bearings that would result if
you simply keep the clutch down. Neither that nor 'slipping the
clutch' apply when driving an automatic.

It's also so you aren't at risk of catapulting forward if your foot
slips off the pedal after staying like this when waiting a long time at
a junction.

I've not come across that explanation before and I don't ever recall
waiting at a junction long enough for it to be likely.

I don't drive automatics much - I far prefer being in control of when
the gear change takes place (even though I accept that automatics can
achieve a smoother change than I can), because automatics tend to favour
low gear over higher gear and wider throttle when accelerating gently
out of a roundabout - and the unexpected change of gear after I've
selected the amount of throttle is most unwelcome! [2]

You need to try a better automatic car, or maybe one with better sound
insulation. I cannot tell when mine changes gear, nor would I expect to.
The engine is not audible and the pedal on the right only tells the
computer whether I want to go faster or not. It is up to the car how it
sorts that out for itself, although I can tell it whether to prioritise
economy or performance.

But when I've driven them, I've always put the selector into neutral and
applied the handbrake at a junction, exactly as for a manual,so as to
be able to remain stationary without my foot on the footbrake, blinding
the car behind with my brakelights. [1] It's only recently that I've
learned that shifting into neutral is not advised with automatic, though
I've never seen it actually documented in any user manual for a car.

There is no advantage to selecting neutral and, as it permits the car to
move under its own weight, it gives you less control. Selecting Park has
the same effect as selecting neutral and applying the parking brake, but
involves fewer actions to do and undo.

[1] As I was taught both for my normal and IAM tests: "footbrake to slow
the car down and bring to a stop; handbrake to *keep* it stopped;
*never* sit at lights with your foot on the footbrake".

Again, advice for a manual transmission. Park applies a transmission
brake that is as effective.

That was the
advice in 1980 and 1990 respectively. And I curse drivers in front of me
who don't do this, especially when shuttling forward in a long queue of
traffic and I start seeing spots before my eyes after a few minutes.

[2] I had a very bad experience in an auto Ford Focus hire car on a trip
from work, which decided that it wouldn't go faster than 50 mph: I could
have 50 in any of 4th, 3rd or 2nd gear depending on how much throttle I
gave it, but it was very reluctant to stay in top gear and let me go any
faster.

Sounds like a get you home mode had cut in after it detected a fault.

Colin Bignell