|
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
"mookie89" wrote in message
y.com... FWIW, here in the States there was quite a controversy when the idea was first floated for Right Turn on Red. The nay-sayers complained of the hundreds of thousands of pedestrians that would perish. There was, in fact, quite a learning curve (no pun intended) and there were some tragic crashes at first, but all-in-all it seems to work just fine now. As for a dedicated right turn lane (left in the UK), while we do have some, the bulk of intersections have none. Therefore if car #1 goes straight and car #2 wants to turn, car #2 waits for the traffic signal to change. What would really help here in the USA is British style roundabouts. I love driving in your country because the roundabouts at least keep traffic somewhat flowing as opposed to what someone else in this thread said about waiting for signals to change when not a cross traffic or pedestrian is in sight. BTW, if we want to turn left (in the USA) on to a one-way street that only goes to the left and we are also on a one-way street, we can legally turn left. What would be worth importing is the US "Stop 4-ways" system. Far better than the mini-roundabouts which infest our roads. I also like the Dutch idea, where a road with 2 lanes in each direction changes to 3 and one at traffic lights, one for right turn, one for straight ahead and one for left turns, all synchronised to allow turns without conflicting movements. -- Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society 75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm E-mail: URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/ |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
In article , Helen Deborah
Vecht writes I think there's a similar one in Hemel Hempstead.... No, that's just 5 mini roundabouts in close succession similar to those outside Hatton Cross tube station. -- Andrew Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this communication can not be guaranteed. Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not associations or companies I am involved with. |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
Andrew P Smith wrote:
In article , Helen Deborah Vecht writes I think there's a similar one in Hemel Hempstead.... No, that's just 5 mini roundabouts in close succession similar to those outside Hatton Cross tube station. IIRC there are 6 mini roundabouts, placed around a central island. This is an exactly similar configuration to the Swindon one, except that Hemel has 6 roads entering instead of 5, and the central island is bigger. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
"Richard J." wrote in message ... Andrew P Smith wrote: In article , Helen Deborah Vecht writes I think there's a similar one in Hemel Hempstead.... No, that's just 5 mini roundabouts in close succession similar to those outside Hatton Cross tube station. IIRC there are 6 mini roundabouts, placed around a central island. This is an exactly similar configuration to the Swindon one, except that Hemel has 6 roads entering instead of 5, and the central island is bigger. I thought the roundabouts at Swindon were placed randomly rather than regularly around a central roundabout. Certianly they appear fairly random when you drive around them. |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
Martin Underwood wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message ... Andrew P Smith wrote: In article , Helen Deborah Vecht writes I think there's a similar one in Hemel Hempstead.... No, that's just 5 mini roundabouts in close succession similar to those outside Hatton Cross tube station. IIRC there are 6 mini roundabouts, placed around a central island. This is an exactly similar configuration to the Swindon one, except that Hemel has 6 roads entering instead of 5, and the central island is bigger. I thought the roundabouts at Swindon were placed randomly rather than regularly around a central roundabout. Certianly they appear fairly random when you drive around them. If you look at the photo on the page that I referred to originally in this thread*, you'll see that there is a mini-roundabout at the point where each of the 5 roads enters the Magic Roundabout, forming a more-or-less regular pentagon. * http://www.swindonweb.com/life/lifemagi0.htm -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
"Richard J." wrote in message
... Martin Underwood wrote: "Richard J." wrote in message ... Andrew P Smith wrote: In article , Helen Deborah Vecht writes I think there's a similar one in Hemel Hempstead.... No, that's just 5 mini roundabouts in close succession similar to those outside Hatton Cross tube station. IIRC there are 6 mini roundabouts, placed around a central island. This is an exactly similar configuration to the Swindon one, except that Hemel has 6 roads entering instead of 5, and the central island is bigger. I thought the roundabouts at Swindon were placed randomly rather than regularly around a central roundabout. Certianly they appear fairly random when you drive around them. If you look at the photo on the page that I referred to originally in this thread*, you'll see that there is a mini-roundabout at the point where each of the 5 roads enters the Magic Roundabout, forming a more-or-less regular pentagon. * http://www.swindonweb.com/life/lifemagi0.htm You're absolutely right! I've looked at the aerial photo and I can't work out why this one appears so confusing and random when you're driving round it whereas the one in Hemel seems more organised. How many exits does the Hemel one have: is it six? I think I still prefer a nice simple arrangement with one big roundabout, they you only have to gave way ONCE, as you're entering the roundabout, rather than having to be prepared to stop at every roundabout on your route. |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
In s.com,
Martin Underwood typed: I think I still prefer a nice simple arrangement with one big roundabout, they you only have to gave way ONCE, as you're entering the roundabout, rather than having to be prepared to stop at every roundabout on your route. I lived in Hemel before the mini-roundabouts were put there. The problem was that the big roundabout was so big that traffic already on it was able to travel at such a speed that it was impossible for other traffic to join; hence huge queues built up. After the changes were made, speed through the junction lessened considerably but so did the length of the queues. Overall the time spent getting through the whole queue/junction was much shorter. I suppose it can be likened to the variable speed limits on the M25 - reduce the traffic speed and more traffic gets through the area in a given time. Bob |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 08:22:23 +0100, "Bob Wood"
wrote: After the changes were made, speed through the junction lessened considerably but so did the length of the queues. Overall the time spent getting through the whole queue/junction was much shorter. I suppose it can be likened to the variable speed limits on the M25 - reduce the traffic speed and more traffic gets through the area in a given time. I wonder how the usual option - traffic lights on the roundabout - would perform in comparison? I can think of a couple of roundabouts in Milton Keynes (other than the one that already has lights) which could do with some slowing of the traffic, as it sometimes approaches and negotiates the roundabout at dangerous speeds (50mph is not impossible - the roundabout is so wide that if there's very little traffic it's possible to take an almost straight path across it so there is little need to slow down). If anyone's interested, the main one concerned is the V11-H8 roundabout by the Kingston Centre. I've almost come to grief a few times there - it's quite possible for traffic to approach up the H8 near the speed limit (70mph) and not be visible to someone waiting on the V11 north side (due to the layout) until it is almost on the roundabout. At that sort of speed, this is far too late and often results in emergency braking being necessary (my car hasn't got enough go to safely accelerate out of the way). Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK To e-mail use neil at the above domain |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
In article , Richard J.
writes Andrew P Smith wrote: In article , Helen Deborah Vecht writes I think there's a similar one in Hemel Hempstead.... No, that's just 5 mini roundabouts in close succession similar to those outside Hatton Cross tube station. IIRC there are 6 mini roundabouts, placed around a central island. This is an exactly similar configuration to the Swindon one, except that Hemel has 6 roads entering instead of 5, and the central island is bigger. Yes, Hemel has 6, Hatton Cross has 5, but neither are anything like the Magic Roundabout in Swindon IMO. -- Andrew Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this communication can not be guaranteed. Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not associations or companies I am involved with. |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:57:03 +0100, Andrew P Smith
wrote: In article , Helen Deborah Vecht writes I think there's a similar one in Hemel Hempstead.... No, that's just 5 mini roundabouts in close succession similar to those outside Hatton Cross tube station. No its the same format - there is even the special road sign as you approach it. I think the Hemel one came first, as well. |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 23:35:25 +0100, Andrew P Smith
wrote: Yes, Hemel has 6, Hatton Cross has 5, but neither are anything like the Magic Roundabout in Swindon IMO. But the Hemel one, at least, has the special sign as you approach it. I've not used the others but the one in Hemel certainly *is* like the Swindon one is described, only bigger and more complicated. So maybe its the Swindon one that not a real "magic roundabout" :-) |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
"Rajesh Kakad \(BT\)" wrote in message ...
Would it not be easier to have the same rule as in the USA, where they can turn right on a red signal? So we should be able to turn LEFT at a RED light. Of course the pedestrians and other cars on the green, have priority. This would save time, reduce pollution (whilst waiting) and get traffic moving, instead of sitting idle. What does London say ? In New York it does NOT work well. The number of times I and other people were nearly run over crossing the road by cars turning on a red light was great. Im sure if in London it was introduced it would be another nail in the coffin for the most effective form of public transport, walking. |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
gs wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 May 2004 13:45:43 +0000 (UTC), Rajesh Kakad (BT) wrote: Would it not be easier to have the same rule as in the USA, where they can turn right on a red signal? So we should be able to turn LEFT at a RED light. Of course the pedestrians and other cars on the green, have priority. This would save time, reduce pollution (whilst waiting) and get traffic moving, instead of sitting idle. What does London say ? Whilst we at it can we have flashing Amber traffic lights meaning give way on traffic lights that are not as important during late evening and early morning? Like they do in Italy How many times have you sat at a red light and nothing has passed through before the light has gone green again? also switch off pelican crossings after say 00.30 as people have a habit of pressing the button as the pass them not intending to cross anymore ideas? All these ideas are in favour of the motorist. What about the pedestrian? Not everyone in life will drive but everyone will walk. |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
If enough drivers just start turning left through red lights anyway the police aren't going to take any notice and it will become normal. It'll be just like law the forbidding people to use their mobile phones whilst driving which has become a complete JOKE. Another example is cyclists riding being 'allowed' to ride through red lights. Freddy Everyone speeds depsite its illegal and they get fined. This is not the soloution to the problem as the autorties will simply put a camera on every single traffic light and send you a £50 snap everytime people go through one. And ask for mobile phone users in cars I think your find most police forces are having a trial period for the new law before cracking down. I think your find people are being fined for using mobile phones while driving but at the moment the police are letting the new law establish itself before getting tough. Also like all driving laws some people get away with it. Some don't. |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
"Rajesh Kakad \(BT\)" wrote in message news:c97fq7
So we should be able to turn LEFT at a RED light. In general, I agree, but we do have a sort-of system where this is allowed: green filter arrows. This isn't the same can-turn-left-on-red-by-default but it's close and it allows more flexibility: you can disable it if the traffic/ junction makes it unsafe to do so, and/or can change the timing at certain times. Do the USAns have filter arrows, or is it a Europe-specific thing ? Aside: does anyone know why some traffic signals here show a green filter arrow *AND* a solid green light simultaneoulsy, given that the latter allows a superset of the filtered traffic to "go". ? Richard [in PO7] |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
gs wrote in message ...
Whilst we at it can we have flashing Amber traffic lights meaning give way on traffic lights that are not as important during late evening and early morning? anymore ideas? Like the idea. Traffic lights are too "hard" in this country: they have either a STOP or a GO aspect, with nothing in between. There are many situations in which a STOP is just being overcautious for the sake of it. All this STOP/GOing (rather than a generally lower speed overall) increases pollution and vehicle-wear. We could have a system where a flashing RED preceeds a full RED at the next junction, warning people to slow down because they're going to have to stop soon. This would have to be arranged so that if the flasher unit failed, it would default to solid red. We could have variable speed limits: "slow to 15mph because the signal ahead of you is RED" (and if you don't slow, a carstop comes out of the road to apply the brakes) also switch off pelican crossings after say 00.30 as people have a habit of pressing the button as the pass them not intending to cross We could have "cancel" buttons on pedestrian crossings in case the crosser manages to get across before the lights turn in their favor. I'm somewhat surprised by this statement of yours though: it's been a long time since I saw any vehicle stop at a RED pedestrian crossing where there were no pedestrians. In fact, I've noticed a general trend over the past twenty years or so to treat some traffic signals as "less serious" than other ones, (except in the paragraph below): We could also have blue lights to augment the R/G/A ones, meaning "emergency service using this lane" in order to get the idiots to move out of the way when an Ecnalubma is trying to get past a bunch of people who won't cross a red light to let it past despite the fact that all the conflicting traffic has stopped specifically to let the Ecnalubma through. Richard [in PO7] |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
Annabel Smyth wrote in message
Wouldn't it, just! I would die of frustration if I had to drive in the USA, where every single intersection, no matter how minor, has its traffic lights..... (on ordinary streets, not motorways, of course - but Brooklyn or New York.... yikes!). Do they not have roundabouts in the USA, then ? I admit I've never seen one but I wasn't looking anyway. Roundabouts in the UK don't work as well as they ought: where I live (in PE12) there is a huge A-road which carries about 3600 vehicles/hour, which juncs with three minor roads (about 10 vehicles/hour). The traffic from one axis of the A-road to the other is continuous, so the traffic from the minor roads never gets a look-in: you just have to hope to find a slow-coach on the A-road and belt across like a mad persun. Not ideal, but otherwise there's no way out (literally: there's no other exit from the villages). Many roundabouts now have traffic signals, which rather defeats the object. Some roundabouts are bidirectional and have two levels of feeder roundabouts, and about three sets of traffic sigs in 100m. I can't see the Americans putting up with that ! Then, of course, there are French roundabouts, where joining traffic seems to have priority. Richard [in PO7] |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
Rajesh Kakad:
So we should be able to turn LEFT at a RED light. Richard Willis: In general, I agree, but we do have a sort-of system where this is allowed: green filter arrows. ... Do the USAns have filter arrows, or is it a Europe-specific thing ? In North America, arrows are mostly used for protected left [= UK right :-)] turns -- that is, the left-turning traffic has the right of way, and all conflicting traffic has a red light. Perhaps the most common way this is used is for straight-ahead traffic to have a red light in all directions, while left turns in both directions from one of the two streets have a green left arrow; in some jurisdictions a yellow arrow is used to warn of the end of this phase; it is typically, but not always, followed either by the regular green or by a green light that does not apply to left-turning traffic. It works best when there is room for a a separate lane to be designated for left-turning traffic approaching the intersection. I haven't driven enough in British cities to know whether the mirror- image of this is a common pattern there. Aside: does anyone know why some traffic signals here show a green filter arrow *AND* a solid green light simultaneoulsy, given that the latter allows a superset of the filtered traffic to "go". ? In North America, the combination of a green left arrow and an ordinary green means that all moves are permitted, but the left turn is protected. In Ontario and several other Canadian provinces, a flashing green is used instead of this combination, with effectively the same meaning; but this aspect is now being phased out, at least in Ontario. (Other meanings of flashing green exist in other places, notably the province of British Columbia.) This response may, of course, be completely irrelevant to Richard's question. If the meaning of the signal combination really is exactly the same as the regular signal, maybe it is used just in case there are people who think it might not be, and would not turn when the arrow was dark. -- Mark Brader, Toronto "C and C++ are two different languages. That's UK policy..." -- Clive Feather My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
"mookie89" wrote in message news:IPkvc.5247
Also, our emergency vehicles have what's known as an OptiCon System on board. Basically it is a very specific white high intensity strobe lamp aimed slightly upward. At many USA intersections a little periscope appearing apparatus is mounted just above the traffic light. That's the Don't you get boy-racers, and other miscreants, attempting to synthesize the correct light-frequency and thus give themselves priority at junctions ? We'd get that sort of thing here. My last job involved telemetry via UHF radio. Other European countries apparently used it to give emerg vehicles priority but it was apparently rejected for the UK, because nefarious persuns would be able to defeat it, even when we proposed a 200-years-to-break challenge-acknowledge protocol (it was two-way) ! |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
Michael Hoffman wrote in message
Solid green means that non-emergency vehicles may not legally cross the road you are on (although they can turn right/left on red). Are you sure about that ? In Brentford, where the A4 joined the Ealing Road, the traffic signals were arranged so that two conflicting flows would both get a green simultaneously. This was some time ago and it was the first I'd ever seen. I don't know how common conflicting greens are. A green doesn't mean that you *CAN* go; it just means "go if it's clear" (i.e you should behave (when green) as if there were no traffic sig there at all, and only proceed if you could see there was no oncoming traffic) Richard [in PO7] |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
"Richard M Willis" wrote in message
om... Do the USAns have filter arrows, or is it a Europe-specific thing ? Not usually, but they often have arrows above the lanes which are supposed to go that way. Aside: does anyone know why some traffic signals here show a green filter arrow *AND* a solid green light simultaneoulsy, given that the latter allows a superset of the filtered traffic to "go". ? The green arrow shows that it is safe to turn as the oncoming traffic has been stopped by a red light. -- Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society 75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm E-mail: URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/ |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
Richard M Willis wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote in message Solid green means that non-emergency vehicles may not legally cross the road you are on (although they can turn right/left on red). Are you sure about that ? He was talking about US practice. In Brentford, where the A4 joined the Ealing Road, the traffic signals were arranged so that two conflicting flows would both get a green simultaneously. This was some time ago and it was the first I'd ever seen. I don't know how common conflicting greens are. That's no different in principle from any other cross-roads where right-turning traffic can be in conflict with other traffic which also has a green light. It's just that the Brentford example looks different because the layout is that of a small roundabout rather than an open cross-roads. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
"Richard J." wrote in message news:MGsxc.1702
He was talking about US practice. Ok. I thought I was going mad. Richard [in PO7] |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
Robin May wrote in message
[about my "superfluous green arrow" question] I can think of one traffic light where a green light means you can go forward and turn right if no traffic is coming from the opposite direction, but a green light *and* green arrow mean that there is a red light for traffic coming the opposite direction so you can turn right without needing to worry about oncoming traffic. Yes, I know that's the case in practice: a green arrow meaning that the opposing flow is on RED. However, my point is that there is no legal distinction between "solid" and "solid+arrow": the driver facing those aspects should behave the same in both cases (i.e. assume nothing about conflicting flows and know only that he is not compelled to stop by the signal alone). The presence of this superfluous combination of signals causes far too many people to think that they must stop UNLESS they have a filter, i.e. that the solid green applies only to movements that don't have a filter even if that filter is currently dark. Who ever thought traffic lights can be so interesting and varied ! We've had examples from various US States, various Canadian provinces, the two Germanies, Italy, France, Holland and several of those seem to conflict. Perhaps we should allow overtaking on the left as well. The USAns seem to manage it. Richard [in PO7] |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
Richard M Willis wrote:
Robin May wrote in message [about my "superfluous green arrow" question] I can think of one traffic light where a green light means you can go forward and turn right if no traffic is coming from the opposite direction, but a green light *and* green arrow mean that there is a red light for traffic coming the opposite direction so you can turn right without needing to worry about oncoming traffic. Yes, I know that's the case in practice: a green arrow meaning that the opposing flow is on RED. However, my point is that there is no legal distinction between "solid" and "solid+arrow": the driver facing those aspects should behave the same in both cases (i.e. assume nothing about conflicting flows and know only that he is not compelled to stop by the signal alone). There's a general need for caution at junctions in case other drivers behave unpredictably, but nevertheless it is reasonable to assume that when the green arrow is shown it is safe to turn right provided that any oncoming vehicle would be able to stop in time to avoid colliding with you (i.e. not storming towards you at 50 mph with no sign that it will stop). I was amazed to find that there is nothing in the Highway Code about the green solid+arrow indication. The presence of this superfluous combination of signals causes far too many people to think that they must stop UNLESS they have a filter, i.e. that the solid green applies only to movements that don't have a filter even if that filter is currently dark. Can't say I have noticed that, but then London is a different driving experience to rural Hampshire. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
In message , Richard J.
writes Can't say I have noticed that, but then London is a different driving experience to rural Hampshire. London is a different driving experience to anywhere. -- Clive |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 at 12:15:04, Richard M Willis
wrote: Then, of course, there are French roundabouts, where joining traffic seems to have priority. Nonsense, all the signs, as you approach the roundabouts, firmly tell you that you don't have priority! "Vous n'avez pas la priorité", they exclaim, very loudly.... The thing about French roundabouts is that they never put the signposts until you have just roared past the exit you needed, so you always end up having to go round twice! As for traffic lights on roundabouts here, they are so that traffic on minor roads does get a chance, at peak periods, to get through. And often, if lots of traffic turns left, they have slip-roads round to the left so that you don't have to negotiate the roundabout. -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 6 June 2004 |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
|
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 at 21:31:43, Robin May
wrote: I can think of one traffic light where a green light means you can go forward and turn right if no traffic is coming from the opposite direction, but a green light *and* green arrow mean that there is a red light for traffic coming the opposite direction so you can turn right without needing to worry about oncoming traffic. Indeed, I think there's one on Clapham Common North Side, isn't there? -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 6 June 2004 |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
Peter Beale writes:
On a recent trip it struck me that in the USA there is far more actual reading than here... Quite true. This comes from being a country with one dominant language and not having signs harmonized with other countries with other languages. Canadian signage is mostly like the US, but with greater use of symbols. - although they do use arrows and other symbols, there is much of "LEFT TURNS MUST TURN LEFT", Would you believe "LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT"? "WRONG WAY", "RIGHT HAND LANE ENDS IN 100 FEET" and the like. Also that they tend to use "feet" rather than "yards" for horizontal distances ... Well, sure. Yards are for football. In real life people use feet (unless they're Canadian and use metric). Ob London Transport: for the first-time North American visitor to London, the most amusing commonly seen sign is probably "WAY OUT". -- Mark Brader "It is considered a sign of great {winnitude} Toronto when your Obs are more interesting than other people's whole postings." --Eric Raymond My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:35:49 -0000, Mark Brader wrote:
Ob London Transport: for the first-time North American visitor to London, the most amusing commonly seen sign is probably "WAY OUT". Friend sent me a pic of a sign on an American beach that read "Dont be a tosser - take your litter with you" Totally innocent if you are a Yank, priceless if you are British -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
|
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
Peter Beale wrote:
In article , (Mark Brader) wrote: Ob London Transport: for the first-time North American visitor to London, the most amusing commonly seen sign is probably "WAY OUT". I saw a sign while in the States (not a highway one) which read "NO TRESPASSING WITHOUT PERMISSION". I am not sure where one obtains permits to trespass. You can't. Trespass implies lack of permission. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
|
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
(Peter Beale) wrote the following in:
o.uk In article , (Terry Harper) wrote: Do the USAns have filter arrows, or is it a Europe-specific thing ? Not usually, but they often have arrows above the lanes which are supposed to go that way. On a recent trip it struck me that in the USA there is far more actual reading than here - although they do use arrows and other symbols, there is much of "LEFT TURNS MUST TURN LEFT", "WRONG WAY", "RIGHT HAND LANE ENDS IN 100 FEET" and the like. Also that they tend to use "feet" rather than "yards" for horizontal distances (we have "feet" for vertical, though). Even the speed limit signs say "SPEED LIMIT 30" or whatever, instead of just a 30 in a red circle. -- message by Robin May. Inimitable, but would you want to anyway? "GIVE IN! IT'S TIME TO GO!" - The NHS offers a high standard of care. http://robinmay.fotopic.net Spelling lesson: then and than are different words. |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
gs wrote the following in:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:35:49 -0000, Mark Brader wrote: Ob London Transport: for the first-time North American visitor to London, the most amusing commonly seen sign is probably "WAY OUT". Friend sent me a pic of a sign on an American beach that read "Dont be a tosser - take your litter with you" Totally innocent if you are a Yank, priceless if you are British I must see that picture! -- message by Robin May. Inimitable, but would you want to anyway? "GIVE IN! IT'S TIME TO GO!" - The NHS offers a high standard of care. http://robinmay.fotopic.net Spelling lesson: then and than are different words. |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
(Richard M Willis) wrote in
m: The presence of this superfluous combination of signals causes far too many people to think that they must stop UNLESS they have a filter, i.e. that the solid green applies only to movements that don't have a filter even if that filter is currently dark. As I understand it, you DO have to stop if the filter isn't showing in one situation: if the filter light is to the immediate left or right of the main light, rather than underneath it. I was led to believe that the law regarding filter arrows is thus: * If the filter arrow is below the main green light, then if the main light is illuminated but the filter isn't, you may proceed across the stop line and wait to turn when it is safe to do so. Once the filter arrow illuminates you can assume it IS safe to do so as the oncoming traffic will now be on a red. * If the filter arrow is beside the main green light, then if the main light is illuminated but the filter isn't, you must not cross the stop line, even if it is safe to turn. You must wait for the filter to illuminate before you can even begin to make the turn. Interestingly enough I can't find anything in the Highway Code to back up this belief, despite the fact that a few years back a friend failed his car test and the examiner told him that one of the faults was to edge forward at a beside-the-main-light filter. -- Iain | PGP mail preferred: pubkey @ www.deepsea.f9.co.uk/misc/iain.asc ($=,$,)=split m$"13/$,qq;13"13/tl\.rnh r HITtahkPctacriAneeeusaoJ;; for(@==sort@$=split m,,,$,){$..=$$[$=];$$=$=[$=];$@=1;$@++while$=[--$= ]eq$$&&$==$?;$==$?;for(@$){$@--if$$ eq$_;;last if!$@;$=++}}print$..$/ |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
Iain wrote:
(Richard M Willis) wrote in m: The presence of this superfluous combination of signals causes far too many people to think that they must stop UNLESS they have a filter, i.e. that the solid green applies only to movements that don't have a filter even if that filter is currently dark. As I understand it, you DO have to stop if the filter isn't showing in one situation: if the filter light is to the immediate left or right of the main light, rather than underneath it. There is no such rule (see below). I was led to believe that the law regarding filter arrows is thus: * If the filter arrow is below the main green light, then if the main light is illuminated but the filter isn't, you may proceed across the stop line and wait to turn when it is safe to do so. Once the filter arrow illuminates you can assume it IS safe to do so as the oncoming traffic will now be on a red. Correct. * If the filter arrow is beside the main green light, then if the main light is illuminated but the filter isn't, you must not cross the stop line, even if it is safe to turn. You must wait for the filter to illuminate before you can even begin to make the turn. If the traffic light looks like this: Red Amber Green Green-arrow then you are free to move if the solid green is lit. It would be absurd to expect drivers to notice the position of a light which is not lit, especially at night. Interestingly enough I can't find anything in the Highway Code to back up this belief, despite the fact that a few years back a friend failed his car test and the examiner told him that one of the faults was to edge forward at a beside-the-main-light filter. That was probably a junction where there is a separate complete traffic signal controlling turning traffic. In other words, you have something like this: Red Red Amber Amber Green Green-arrow In that case, the two clusters control different lanes. Perhaps your friend was waiting in the right-hand lane, and moved forward when the left lane's green was lit, thus passing a red light for his lane. Do you know which junction it was? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Reduce Traffic - Turn left on a RED
Richard J.:
That was probably a junction where there is a separate complete traffic signal controlling turning traffic. In other words, you have something like this: Red Red Amber Amber Green Green-arrow Just by the way, the analogous layout in *some* jurisdictions in North America would use arrows for all three lights on the left-turn signal. -- Mark Brader, Toronto | There is no step function between "safe" and "unsafe". | -- Jeff Janes |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk