Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at
23:45:56 on Thu, 3 Nov 2011, Nick Finnigan remarked: You could argue that you're not forced to use the lanes for any given direction. So long as a leftwards arrow is lit and you drive with appropriate care, you can turn left from any lane. Even if that means passing a red light (because the middle lane in question isn't yet showing a "straight ahead" green arrow)? Yes, provided the lanes are just white lines, not kerbs. The one I'm thinking of has a small traffic island, but you could turn left past it; in other words you are saying the silver hatchback here could immediately turn left (despite being in the wrong lane and facing a red light): http://tinyurl.com/6kkff8b No, because there are separate stop lines for the two sets of lights. Does it require a physical barrier like the traffic island to create *separate* stop lines - or could paint achieve it as well? Dunno, I'd need to see an example. I'm thinking of junctions like Cross Street (A56) and Dane Road in Sale. 4 1/2 lanes, markings for left, ahead, ahead, right but only one stop line (+two 'advance' stop lines), no kerbs / separate slip roads. However, two complete sets of lights to allow turning on a filter, from any lane. OK, so in that case you are saying it's legal to (say) turn left from the "straight ahead" lanes, because the lane markings are perhaps only advisory and you are crossing the same "Stop" line whichever lane you are in. With a filter-left you have to cross the Stop line, and that it doesn't matter which part of the stop line. I suppose my question is this: although there's just one Stop line, there are arguably four separate advanced stop lines. If not four, definitely two. Combined with the lane markings, do those constitute "separate" Stop lines (either in the case where the is an advanced box, or in the more general case in the absence of such a box). Or is the "One stop line" defined by the position on the traffic lights, such that anywhere between two lights showing red is one single stop line irrespective of paint. -- Roland Perry |
#62
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 04/11/2011 08:11, Roland Perry wrote:
I suppose my question is this: although there's just one Stop line, there are arguably four separate advanced stop lines. If not four, definitely two. Combined with the lane markings, do those constitute "separate" Stop lines (either in the case where the is an advanced box, or in the more general case in the absence of such a box). Advance stop lines don't matter when there is a green light. Or is the "One stop line" defined by the position on the traffic lights, such that anywhere between two lights showing red is one single stop line irrespective of paint. Probably, but there will be some wacky layouts around. |
#63
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Roland Perry
wrote: The one I'm thinking of has a small traffic island, but you could turn left past it; in other words you are saying the silver hatchback here could immediately turn left (despite being in the wrong lane and facing a red light): http://tinyurl.com/6kkff8b It's facing a red light with a green arrow (well, if it wasn't forward of the line it would be). So I think it's legal. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
#64
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 05/11/2011 15:12, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In message , Roland Perry wrote: The one I'm thinking of has a small traffic island, but you could turn left past it; in other words you are saying the silver hatchback here could immediately turn left (despite being in the wrong lane and facing a red light): http://tinyurl.com/6kkff8b It's facing a red light with a green arrow (well, if it wasn't forward of the line it would be). So I think it's legal. Taking a step forwards, we can deduce that the light to the right has a green arrow for turning right - and so the silver hatchback could certainly have forked right when that was showing. |
#65
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at
22:08:34 on Sun, 6 Nov 2011, Nick Finnigan remarked: The one I'm thinking of has a small traffic island, but you could turn left past it; in other words you are saying the silver hatchback here could immediately turn left (despite being in the wrong lane and facing a red light): http://tinyurl.com/6kkff8b It's facing a red light with a green arrow (well, if it wasn't forward of the line it would be). So I think it's legal. Taking a step forwards, we can deduce that the light to the right has a green arrow for turning right - and so the silver hatchback could certainly have forked right when that was showing. Not until it shows, of course. The right-turning light (which is actually a solid green rather than an arrow) is the last of the three lanes to get the go-ahead, some time after the middle lane gets a green light. To complicate matters, the light for the middle lane has a green forwards arrow, so maybe that's another reason why you couldn't filter left; but to pick up a point from much earlier in the thread, you won't know that [it's a forward-only light] if all you can see is a *red* light (that you believe you can pass in order to filter left). -- Roland Perry |
#66
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
... In message , Roland Perry wrote: The one I'm thinking of has a small traffic island, but you could turn left past it; in other words you are saying the silver hatchback here could immediately turn left (despite being in the wrong lane and facing a red light): http://tinyurl.com/6kkff8b It's facing a red light with a green arrow (well, if it wasn't forward of the line it would be). So I think it's legal. If you back up on the street view it's clear that the intention is to have one lane each for left turn, straight on and right turn. On the continent they do things better because the red (and possibly amber) lights are arrows as well, so it's very clear which light is controlling each traffic flow. My favourite example of this stupidity is this junction: http://g.co/maps/ecedu There is a large sign saying RIGHT TURNS GO FIRST, but you still see people in lanes 1 and 2 taking off when the light for lane 3 changes. -- DAS |
#67
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 23:30:56 on Sun, 6 Nov
2011, D A Stocks remarked: The one I'm thinking of has a small traffic island, but you could turn left past it; in other words you are saying the silver hatchback here could immediately turn left (despite being in the wrong lane and facing a red light): http://tinyurl.com/6kkff8b It's facing a red light with a green arrow (well, if it wasn't forward of the line it would be). So I think it's legal. If you back up on the street view it's clear that the intention is to have one lane each for left turn, straight on and right turn. I'm aware of that (it's a junction I use at least once a week). However, we got here by considering the legality of turning from different lanes, and in particular whether the traffic lights are in any sense linked to the lanes, or whether they just say which way you can turn at that instant, from any of the lanes. On the continent they do things better because the red (and possibly amber) lights are arrows as well, so it's very clear which light is controlling each traffic flow. At the junction above it's clear which light is intended to control each lane, but the question is whether that's merely advisory (as long as the direction you want to go has a green). Similarly, the white arrows may be only advisory. My favourite example of this stupidity is this junction: http://g.co/maps/ecedu There is a large sign saying RIGHT TURNS GO FIRST, but you still see people in lanes 1 and 2 taking off when the light for lane 3 changes. And unlike the junction discussed above, the lanes there have "Ahead Only" and "Turn Right" painted on the road, not just an arrow. -- Roland Perry |
#68
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 06/11/2011 22:29, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:08:34 on Sun, 6 Nov 2011, Nick Finnigan remarked: The one I'm thinking of has a small traffic island, but you could turn left past it; in other words you are saying the silver hatchback here could immediately turn left (despite being in the wrong lane and facing a red light): http://tinyurl.com/6kkff8b It's facing a red light with a green arrow (well, if it wasn't forward of the line it would be). So I think it's legal. Taking a step forwards, we can deduce that the light to the right has a green arrow for turning right - and so the silver hatchback could certainly have forked right when that was showing. Not until it shows, of course. The right-turning light (which is actually a solid green rather than an arrow) is the last of the three lanes to get the go-ahead, some time after the middle lane gets a green light. In that case you can turn left or right or go ahead from the centre or right lane whilst the right most-light is showing green To complicate matters, the light for the middle lane has a green forwards arrow, so maybe that's another reason why you couldn't filter left; but to pick up a point from much earlier in the thread, you won't know that [it's a forward-only light] if all you can see is a *red* light (that you believe you can pass in order to filter left). At some points you will see a solid green and a red which may be dead. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
South West Trains platform signage. | London Transport | |||
Stratford Signage, National Rail -- DLR platforms | London Transport | |||
New London taxi signage with roundel | London Transport | |||
Signage for Bakerloo southern extension | London Transport | |||
Bombings - Problem Reaction Solution Paradigm | London Transport |