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.

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]

"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.

"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]

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.

In article , Mark Brader
writes
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;
[...]
I haven't driven enough in British cities to know whether the mirror-
image of this is a common pattern there.

I wouldn't call it "common", but it's not that unusual.

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.

The mirror image statement is true here.

(Other meanings of
flashing green exist in other places, notably the province of British
Columbia.)

Do tell.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Mark Brader:
(Other meanings of flashing green exist in other places, notably
the province of British Columbia.)

Clive Feather:
Do tell.

Off-topic. See http://www.roadfan.com/mtrfaq.html#110.

ObOn-topic version: indicates that none of the next *four* signals is red,
intended to authorize speeds above 125 mph...
--
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.

In article ,
Mark Brader wrote:
Off-topic. See http://www.roadfan.com/mtrfaq.html#110.

ObOn-topic version: indicates that none of the next *four* signals is red,
intended to authorize speeds above 125 mph...

You got me there

Nick, envisaging doing 125mph down the Euston Road if you get a flashing green
--
"My objective at this stage was to work about 3 days per week"
-- Richard Parker in http://web.ukonline.co.uk/richard/cv78.html

"Mark Brader" wrote in message
...
Mark Brader:
(Other meanings of flashing green exist in other
places, notably the province of British Columbia.)

Clive Feather:
Do tell.

Off-topic. See http://www.roadfan.com/mtrfaq.html#110.

ObOn-topic version: indicates that none of the next *four*
signals is red, intended to authorize speeds above 125 mph...

Why would speeds above 125mph be on-topic in uk.transport.london? ;-)

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In article , Mark Brader
writes
Mark Brader:
(Other meanings of flashing green exist in other places, notably
the province of British Columbia.)

ObOn-topic version: indicates that none of the next *four* signals is red,
intended to authorize speeds above 125 mph...

Next *three*; the fourth can be red: FG, G, YY, Y, R.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: