On 15 Jan, 20:23, wrote:
In article , (Jack



Taylor) wrote:
Cheeky wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:28:11 +0000, Stuart
wrote:

... they've all got the green man/red man lights next to the button
rather than in the traditional and logical place on the opposite
side of the road.

Anyone know why? It doesn't make much sense (especially the ones
near me where there are 2 sets of lights one slightly higher than
the other)

Apparently it's to prevent pedestrians panicking half-way acress the
road if the ped light changes from a green man to a red man!!
Ridiculous given that if you approach crossings from certain angles
you now often can't even see a light...

I still maintain that the damned things are dangerous. In crowds
no-one can see the indicator through the milling throngs. It only
takes one person to step out into the road, on a 'red man', and the
sheep follow - it'll only be a matter of time before a number of
people get mown down. At the very least there should be a repeater
at or above head height, even if it is on the same side of the
road.

If that is a risk at a crossing there should be a second, separate,
indicator at higher level to be visible over the crowd. There's an example
near me in Cambridge. I still agree that the loss of lights on the far
side of the crossing is a major loss. The logic is that users see the
lights when they look towards the traffic and it is therefore safer but I
don't agree.

I find the audible "beeper" at such crossings compensates a lot for
the loss of the lights on the far side. (Though I know not all
crossings have beepers).

PaulO