| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:10:55 on Sun, 24 Jul 2005, Nick Leverton remarked: There's a nice illustrated copy of the box junctions section of the Highway Code at http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/16.htm#150 Which shows a car waiting in the box, because the exit road to his right is clear. But what happens when an oncoming car turns left and it's no longer clear? IANAL but in the spirit of uninformed speculation on Usenet, I'd say he was still in the right. He didn't enter the box when his exit wasn't clear. Of course whether a box junction camera would be equipped for this situation is another matter. I suppose it could be done with an induction loop in the exit lanes. Nick -- http://www.leverton.org/ ... So express yourself |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
If you are caught by a cam on a DC (assuming national speed limits), it
follows that you are driving at more than 70mph. But that (DCs being NSL) is a big assumption in today's world. Many entirely rural dual carriageway roads with modern alignments and few junctions have had their speed limits reduced below the NSL. |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
"Richard Bullock" wrote in message ... If you are caught by a cam on a DC (assuming national speed limits), it follows that you are driving at more than 70mph. But that (DCs being NSL) is a big assumption in today's world. Many entirely rural dual carriageway roads with modern alignments and few junctions have had their speed limits reduced below the NSL. And then you turn off down a narrow country lane and find that you are allowed to go faster than you were on the dual carriageway. Makes you wonder what various council transport departments are on sometimes. Dave. |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
Peter wrote:
snip / We may have a 'problem' with these cameras, but it doesn't justify breaking the law. Doing 80mph along a road is illegal whether there's a camera or not! The sad thing is that the country is full of people who have no respect for the law. I think that is slightly untrue. The majority of people have respect for the majority of laws. The fact that speeding *in certain locations* is one of the few laws where a significant minority from all cross-sections of the community don't have respect for, suggests that the law in those locations needs rethinking. Also is funny that those laws often aren't set by parliament, but by local councillors. Sean |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
|
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:33:50 +0000, McKev wrote:
Conor wrote: In article , McKev says... Get a ****in grip - dont you think that this govmt screws enough cash out of us??? Domations to cameras are completely voluntary. Sure, drivers dont always obey the rules and it is sad to see but to penalise by cameras and fines....no ****in way. It's called BREAKING THE LAW. Surely you believe that people who break the law sgould be punished? Not at every turn though Conor (for motoring) - what the **** kind of nation are we coming to here? One the penalises the selfish. Box junction blocking causes congestion. McKev |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
Box junction cameras are for my benefit, and the benefit of those who
want to get around town! Those fools who block box junctions cause conjestion and delay everyone. I'm delighted if they get a £100 fine because maybe they might think again before doing the same thing again. Bring on more box junction cameras I say. Top Gear had a feature where they hid near a box junction, and when people stopped in it blocking other, a troupee of dancers pounced on them to make them aware of what they had done. Fantastic! |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
... I think it is likely you should have anticipated the pedestrians. They hardly jumped out from behind something in those numbers, after all. Actually, I was making a generalization. The incident concerned was at Dalston Junction, and involved a string of four cyclists who had cycled straight through a red light. If I had been going slightly faster then they would simply have been flattened, more's the pity. |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:45:35 +0100, steve
wrote: One the penalises the selfish. Box junction blocking causes congestion. It does. *But*, often, the box junctions are poorly-designed such that it is easy, by a slight misjudgement, to end up being stuck in the box inadvertently. That needs the junction to be redesigned, not for lots of people to be fined. My personal view is that I am against traffic enforcement cameras, and would rather see more police officers out enforcing the law, and using discretion as appropriate. An increase in the level of fines would go some way to funding this. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
Neil Williams wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:45:35 +0100, steve wrote: One the penalises the selfish. Box junction blocking causes congestion. It does. *But*, often, the box junctions are poorly-designed such that it is easy, by a slight misjudgement, to end up being stuck in the box inadvertently. I agree. I think many of the boxes are larger than necessary, filling the whole space between the stop lines on either side of the junction, rather than just leaving a gap in the middle. The result is that drivers realise that there are parts of the box that can be occupied without affecting traffic flow, and that the capacity of the junction would be reduced if the law was rigidly observed. If we're going to have zero tolerance of yellow box offences, then the boxes need to be more sensibly drawn. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:00:58 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Chris Tolley remarked: But while you are waiting to turn right, oncoming traffic turns left and jams up the side road that was previously clear. You are then stuck on the yellow box. This happens frequently at a particular junction in Chiswick. If this does indeed happen frequently, then it's time to make it into a roundabout. So that's the excuse you'd give to the court, is it? In a court, I would, of course, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14345671.html (A signalbox miles from the nearest railway - Hartington, 2005) |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:47:53 GMT, Richard Bullock wrote:
If you are caught by a cam on a DC (assuming national speed limits), it follows that you are driving at more than 70mph. But that (DCs being NSL) is a big assumption in today's world. Many entirely rural dual carriageway roads with modern alignments and few junctions have had their speed limits reduced below the NSL. Clarification: the assumption was only so that I could put a figure later in the sentence. It wasn't an assumption that all DC's are NSL. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9680074.html (73 121 on a freight working in 1985 - can you name the location?) |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:54:23 GMT, Richard J. wrote:
Chris Tolley wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:06:37 GMT, Richard J. wrote: While you are waiting to turn right, oncoming traffic turns left and jams up the side road that was previously clear. You are then stuck on the yellow box. This happens frequently. If this does indeed happen frequently, then it's time to make it into a roundabout. Really? I had no idea the solution was that simple. Well, really it is you who deserve the credit for describing the situation so comprehensively. With such a clear description, anyone can arrive at simple solutions quickly. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9680314.html (83 005 on the move at London Euston in 1980) |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successfulpilot
Neil Williams wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:45:35 +0100, steve wrote: One the penalises the selfish. Box junction blocking causes congestion. It does. *But*, often, the box junctions are poorly-designed such that it is easy, by a slight misjudgement, to end up being stuck in the box inadvertently. That needs the junction to be redesigned, not for lots of people to be fined. I disagree. Most of the prats that go out into box junctions with their exit blocked know exactly what they are doing and just don't give a damn. Ditto for the ones that run red lights (and I would like to see very much tougher penalties for that offence which endangers life). Ideally the cameras should cover both if they are installed. My personal view is that I am against traffic enforcement cameras, and would rather see more police officers out enforcing the law, and using discretion as appropriate. An increase in the level of fines would go some way to funding this. Box junctions help make traffic flow freely and prevent congestion. I have lived in countries where they do not have this concept at all. Traffic utterly ignores traffic lights at rush hour and a solid herringbone of interlocked vehicles develops. They needed 2 or 3 policemen on every junction in the city for 2 hours morning and evening to try and prevent complete gridlock. They spend most of their time flailing arms uselessly in the air and blowing whistles. It is funny to watch... Regards, Martin Brown |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
Often caused by a bad junction, usually one with 2 traffic lights close
together. The second light is red far too long, and so traffic from one phase of the first light fills up all the available space and traffic from the second phase can never move. |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
In message .com, at
04:18:50 on Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Earl Purple remarked: Often caused by a bad junction, usually one with 2 traffic lights close together. The second light is red far too long, and so traffic from one phase of the first light fills up all the available space and traffic from the second phase can never move. I've seen that in Central London. A junction on a one-way street where a road joins from the left. The road ahead fills up with traffic emerging from your left, and there's no gap between the rear of the last car to emerge, and the box. The traffic then sits there, stationary, all the time your light is green. Just as it starts to move, and leave you a gap to escape into across the box, your light goes red. The gap then fills up with traffic emerging from your left. Rinse and repeat. -- Roland Perry |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
"Conor" wrote in message
t... Domations to cameras are completely voluntary. Councils will decrease the frequency with which box junctions are repainted, once they realise that faded box junctions bring in more revenue. -- 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 |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
In article , McKev
says... Not at every turn though Conor (for motoring) - what the **** kind of nation are we coming to here? One where people think it's OK to break the law and as long as it's in a car, you're not a "proper" criminal. -- Conor -You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python) |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
In article , Neil Williams says...
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:45:35 +0100, steve wrote: One the penalises the selfish. Box junction blocking causes congestion. It does. *But*, often, the box junctions are poorly-designed such that it is easy, by a slight misjudgement, to end up being stuck in the box inadvertently. ********. If in doubt, stay out. -- Conor -You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python) |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
In article , Sean says...
The fact that speeding *in certain locations* is one of the few laws where a significant minority from all cross-sections of the community don't have respect for, suggests that the law in those locations needs rethinking. Bull****. You can extend that to a vast amount of things. -- Conor -You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python) |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
"Mizter T" wrote in news:1122215511.747360.127750
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: Before reading this, I always thought I was technically in the wrong But did it anyway. -- MrBitsy |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
David from Oz wrote: Coincidence - that is one junction in my area that I have nominated in my letter to the council. On more than one occasion the North Circ has been blocked here! I guess they will put up yellow signs "Do not block the junction" when they first introduce the cameras to give the motorists warning. I seem to remember seeing these somewhere before. Unlikely the council can do anything there, the North Circular Road is controlled by Tfl. That junction should be grade-separated, of course, but failing that at least having no right turns at all sides would ease the congestion there. Only Northbound traffic from the Wood Green end of the A105 would have to take any real diversion - they could go ahead then right into Oakthorpe Road. Larger vehicles should use Lordship Lane then join the A1080 and A10, or go ahead then turn right into the A111 Hedge Lane. Traffic from the A406 coming West should turn off at the Great Cambridge roundabout then head along A111 Hedge Lane. Smaller vehicles could optionally "rat-run" instead through Melville Gardens, but then you wouldn't get as much traffic using that road who genuinely want to remain on the North Circular. Other traffic certainly doesn't need to turn right there - there are loads of other routes. |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
"Earl Purple" wrote in message
oups.com... Only Northbound traffic from the Wood Green end of the A105 would have to take any real diversion - they could go ahead then right into Oakthorpe Road. Larger vehicles should use Lordship Lane then join the A1080 and A10, or go ahead then turn right into the A111 Hedge Lane. This would go against planning principles. A better solution would be to create w/b to e/b u-turning loop west of the junction - I am pretty sure there is enough room there for it. Any traffic from the south to the east would turn left at the junction and then u-turn. Traffic from the A406 coming West should turn off at the Great Cambridge roundabout then head along A111 Hedge Lane. Or use the u-turning loop and then do a left. -- 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 |
Box Junction cameras to be rolled London wide following successful pilot
John Rowland wrote: "Earl Purple" wrote in message oups.com... Only Northbound traffic from the Wood Green end of the A105 would have to take any real diversion - they could go ahead then right into Oakthorpe Road. Larger vehicles should use Lordship Lane then join the A1080 and A10, or go ahead then turn right into the A111 Hedge Lane. This would go against planning principles. A better solution would be to create w/b to e/b u-turning loop west of the junction - I am pretty sure there is enough room there for it. Any traffic from the south to the east would turn left at the junction and then u-turn. Traffic from the A406 coming West should turn off at the Great Cambridge roundabout then head along A111 Hedge Lane. Or use the u-turning loop and then do a left. There is some space in Bowes Road but I don't really think there'd be enough for a U-turning loop there, plus it has the disadvantage that some of the right-turning traffic must negotiate the junction twice, thus increasing the volume on the junction. Plus the U-turning loop would have to be signal-controlled, and would be too close to the junction and two signal-controls close together spell bad news (the main problem of the Great Cambridge junction - I know I was planning to push more traffic onto it. However it's on the North Circular I'm trying to increase the flow). Remember it's the lorries that would be using it - the small cars are more likely to use Oakthorpe Road. Your solution might work though if built well, i.e. the A406 gets a longer green. (Without right-turns, the A105 would not require such a long green). |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:35 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk