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)