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.

Basil Jet :
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. The result is that if you arrive at the
junction when the light is red, you may not know that the turns are
banned until the light turns green, and since most people start moving
when the amber comes on, that seems a bit late to me.

What about cyclists? You can hardly expect them to wait for the green
light.

--
Mike Barnes

On 30/10/2011 21:00, Bruce wrote:
wrote:
On 30/10/2011 17:35, Bruce wrote:
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. The result is that if you arrive at the
junction when the light is red, you may not know that the turns are
banned until the light turns green, and since most people start moving
when the amber comes on, that seems a bit late to me.

Amber still means stop, so they shouldn't be moving until the green
light comes on, by which time the indication is clear.


Theoretically correct, but only theoretically.

People breaking the law cannot expect traffic signs to be adapted to
suit their particular illegal actions.


Where did I say they could, or should?

Please read - and think - before replying.

You might do well to take your own advice.

Colin Bignell

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.

Colin Bignell

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.

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. 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.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

In message , at 02:26:39 on
Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Basil Jet remarked:
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.

Near where I live there's an old set of traffic lights with three lanes
for left, right and ahead, which has the same directional control of
lane markings and green arrows, but no "forced left/right" signs (by
which I assume you mean the blue arrows).
--
Roland Perry

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 2011\10\30 18:29, Mortimer wrote:

Surely lack of Traffic Order means that the restriction cannot be
applied until the TO is in effect. Incorrect or inadequate sign-posting
means that the order is not legally enforceable. And I'd expect the
signs at *all* banned turns to be consistent, and not to conform to
different standards based on what, for most drivers, is a technicality.
There is no harm in telling people essentially the same thing in more
than one way (green arrow and no turn left/right signs) - there are no
prizes for being minimalist and reducing the level of signage. If
"redundant" signs reduce accidents and maybe even save lives, they are a
good thing.

Maybe it's a power saving measure... some sustainability guru has worked
out how much power is used by having a white on blue arrow lit up all
night, when traffic is banned from moving half the time anyway.


As a general rule, where there are prohibitions and restrictions, I prefer
signs that tell me what I *can't* do rather than what I can do: if I come up
to a junction and want to turn left, it is better if I am told "you can't do
something that you were about to do" rather than "you can do something that
you weren't intending to, and by *implication* you can't do anything else" -
in other words, make the sign more immediately relevant. When some signs
give a prohibition and others give a permission that excludes everthing
else, it gets confusing.

In other words, convert all blue-backed signs at junctions into the opposite
red-circle signs, or at least supplement them with red-circle signs.

"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.

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
Basil Jet :
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. The result is that if you arrive at the
junction when the light is red, you may not know that the turns are
banned until the light turns green, and since most people start moving
when the amber comes on, that seems a bit late to me.

What about cyclists? You can hardly expect them to wait for the green
light.

Eny fule no that there are *no* traffic signs that apply to cyclists: they
will ignore whatever you prohibit them from doing on the basis that "traffic
signs only apply to cars and lorries, and bicycles are exempt".

Well, that applies to almost every cyclist that I've seen in the road. I'm
probably in the minority in cycling as if I was a human-powered car, obeying
all the same rules of the road that I would as a car-driver.