|
New signage paradigm
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. There are currently large banned left and right turn signs on metal easels, but these are obviously temporary and seem to be an admission that TPTB know that the lack of the permanent signs is confusing. I am doubtful that you could be prosecuted for turning when the temporary signs are gone and the green arrow light is all that remains. The only other indication that the turns might be banned is that both lanes approaching the junction have a forward arrow painted on them, but I know that these have no legal force and can also be found at junctions where the right turn is only banned part time. So, is the new signage legal? it seems like a backward step to me. |
New signage paradigm
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. There are currently large banned left and right turn signs on metal easels, but these are obviously temporary and seem to be an admission that TPTB know that the lack of the permanent signs is confusing. I am doubtful that you could be prosecuted for turning when the temporary signs are gone and the green arrow light is all that remains. The only other indication that the turns might be banned is that both lanes approaching the junction have a forward arrow painted on them, but I know that these have no legal force and can also be found at junctions where the right turn is only banned part time. So, is the new signage legal? it seems like a backward step to me. It might be worth bringing this to the attention of the local council highways dept, see what they say. -- Paul - xxx "You know, all I wanna do is race .. and all I wanna do is win" Mark Cavendish, World Champion 2011. |
New signage paradigm
In message , 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. [...] I am doubtful that you could be prosecuted for turning when the temporary signs are gone and the green arrow light is all that remains. The green arrow only gives you authority to move in that direction. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ading/light-si gnals-and-warning-lights/made and scroll down to paragraph 36. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
New signage paradigm
Clive D. W. Feather wrote on 30 October 2011 08:20:10 ...
In , 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. [...] I am doubtful that you could be prosecuted for turning when the temporary signs are gone and the green arrow light is all that remains. The green arrow only gives you authority to move in that direction. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ading/light-si gnals-and-warning-lights/made and scroll down to paragraph 36. There are some junctions where traffic gets a green arrow in one direction first, then later a full green. In those cases no other signs are needed or would be appropriate. At Exhibition Road I agree that it would be helpful to have a white-on-blue arrow as well, but maybe the current restriction is temporary. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
New signage paradigm
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:49:17 +0000, Richard J. put finger to keyboard and
typed: Clive D. W. Feather wrote on 30 October 2011 08:20:10 ... In , 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. [...] I am doubtful that you could be prosecuted for turning when the temporary signs are gone and the green arrow light is all that remains. The green arrow only gives you authority to move in that direction. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ading/light-si gnals-and-warning-lights/made and scroll down to paragraph 36. There are some junctions where traffic gets a green arrow in one direction first, then later a full green. In those cases no other signs are needed or would be appropriate. At Exhibition Road I agree that it would be helpful to have a white-on-blue arrow as well, but maybe the current restriction is temporary. Or maybe the lack of permanent signs is temporary. Mark -- Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk |
New signage paradigm
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. time. So, is the new signage legal? it seems like a backward step to me. They are legal. In principle you are disobeying the lights by turning. The lack of signs showing the prohibitions is a very good defence. |
New signage paradigm
On 2011\10\30 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. After a little googling, it seems that is the norm for forced forward across a two way road (except Oxford Street, curiously), whereas the blue arrow is the norm for forced forward because both side roads are no entry. Perhaps the distinction is to help police cars etc. know that it's okay to ignore the former but you have to be bloody careful when ignoring the latter. I've always thought that there should be some distinction between banned turn because of no entry and banned turn because it's a banned turn, to help police cars driving at speed. |
New signage paradigm
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. Colin Bignell |
New signage paradigm
On 30/10/2011 16:42, Basil Jet wrote:
After a little googling, it seems that is the norm for forced forward across a two way road (except Oxford Street, curiously), whereas the blue I've not been for years, but I assume Oxford Street in London is no entry except buses and taxis? So still not technically a prohibit turn. |
New signage paradigm
On 2011\10\30 17:06, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 30/10/2011 16:42, Basil Jet wrote: After a little googling, it seems that is the norm for forced forward across a two way road (except Oxford Street, curiously), whereas the blue I've not been for years, but I assume Oxford Street in London is no entry except buses and taxis? So still not technically a prohibit turn. Although taxis are always allowed to enter Oxford Street from the ends, they are banned from turning into it at most junctions. At night and on Sunday, all cars are allowed to enter from the ends, but are still banned from turning in at most junctions. |
New signage paradigm
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\10\30 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. After a little googling, it seems that is the norm for forced forward across a two way road (except Oxford Street, curiously), whereas the blue arrow is the norm for forced forward because both side roads are no entry. Perhaps the distinction is to help police cars etc. know that it's okay to ignore the former but you have to be bloody careful when ignoring the latter. I've always thought that there should be some distinction between banned turn because of no entry and banned turn because it's a banned turn, to help police cars driving at speed. I wonder if the problem is that the necessary Traffic Orders were not applied for in time? Traffic engineers would then be left to install the lights with green arrows and hope that people obeyed them while the Traffic Orders were obtained and the mandatory white-on-blue 'ahead only' arrows eventually added to the junction. Problems would occur if, when the green arrow was showing, the pedestrian signals on the crossing of the side road were showing the green walking man. There would be a risk of a driver turning left or right (against the lit green arrow but not illegal because the mandatory white-on-blue instruction sign was missing) colliding with a pedestrian on the crossing. |
New signage paradigm
Nightjar 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. |
New signage paradigm
On 2011\10\30 17:01, Nightjar 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. Crashes will occur. People will pull off to turn left, notice the green arrow and stop while they think and get rear-ended. You might say people shouldn't do this, but the golden rule of driving is don't confuse other road users, and this signage will confuse and will cause crashes. It might have already happened, it would explain why the temporary easel signs have been put in. |
New signage paradigm
"Bruce" wrote in message
... Basil Jet wrote: On 2011\10\30 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. After a little googling, it seems that is the norm for forced forward across a two way road (except Oxford Street, curiously), whereas the blue arrow is the norm for forced forward because both side roads are no entry. Perhaps the distinction is to help police cars etc. know that it's okay to ignore the former but you have to be bloody careful when ignoring the latter. I've always thought that there should be some distinction between banned turn because of no entry and banned turn because it's a banned turn, to help police cars driving at speed. I wonder if the problem is that the necessary Traffic Orders were not applied for in time? Traffic engineers would then be left to install the lights with green arrows and hope that people obeyed them while the Traffic Orders were obtained and the mandatory white-on-blue 'ahead only' arrows eventually added to the junction. 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. |
New signage paradigm
"Mortimer" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message .. . Basil Jet wrote: On 2011\10\30 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. After a little googling, it seems that is the norm for forced forward across a two way road (except Oxford Street, curiously), whereas the blue arrow is the norm for forced forward because both side roads are no entry. Perhaps the distinction is to help police cars etc. know that it's okay to ignore the former but you have to be bloody careful when ignoring the latter. I've always thought that there should be some distinction between banned turn because of no entry and banned turn because it's a banned turn, to help police cars driving at speed. I wonder if the problem is that the necessary Traffic Orders were not applied for in time? Traffic engineers would then be left to install the lights with green arrows and hope that people obeyed them while the Traffic Orders were obtained and the mandatory white-on-blue 'ahead only' arrows eventually added to the junction. 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. I agree completely. But I suspect what may have happened is that the work has gone ahead anyway, and the traffic engineers felt they had to implement something. This is pure surmise, however. |
New signage paradigm
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. |
New signage paradigm
On 30/10/2011 17:45, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\10\30 17:01, Nightjar 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. Crashes will occur. People will pull off to turn left, notice the green arrow and stop while they think and get rear-ended. You might say people shouldn't do this, but the golden rule of driving is don't confuse other road users, and this signage will confuse and will cause crashes. It might have already happened, it would explain why the temporary easel signs have been put in. 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. Colin Bignell |
New signage paradigm
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. Colin Bignell |
New signage paradigm
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 Sings 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. Colin Bignell |
New signage paradigm
Nightjar 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. |
New signage paradigm
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. |
New signage paradigm
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 |
New signage paradigm
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 |
New signage paradigm
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 |
New signage paradigm
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. |
New signage paradigm
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 |
New signage paradigm
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 |
New signage paradigm
"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. |
New signage paradigm
"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. |
New signage paradigm
"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. |
New signage paradigm
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 |
New signage paradigm
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 |
New signage paradigm
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 |
New signage paradigm
"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. |
New signage paradigm
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 |
New signage paradigm
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 |
New signage paradigm
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". |
New signage paradigm
"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. |
New signage paradigm
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 |
New signage paradigm
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 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:39 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk