(Richard M Willis) wrote the
following in: om

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". ?

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.

--
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.

"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/

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)

"Richard J." wrote in message news:MGsxc.1702
He was talking about US practice.

Ok. I thought I was going mad.

Richard [in PO7]

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]

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)

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

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

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).

--
Peter Beale

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