wrote:
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 don't either, Colin - at most of the crossings of this type, that I've
seen, there are buttons and lights on both sides of the crossing, so it's
just as likely that the pedestrian is looking away from the approaching
traffic (as is the case on the one-way system outside our office, with four
lanes of traffic to contend with).

In article , (Jack
Taylor) wrote:

wrote:
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 don't either, Colin - at most of the crossings of this type, that
I've seen, there are buttons and lights on both sides of the
crossing, so it's just as likely that the pedestrian is looking
away from the approaching traffic (as is the case on the one-way
system outside our office, with four lanes of traffic to contend
with).

Common Cambridge practice is buttons both sides but lights one side only.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Jack Taylor wrote:
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.

It doesn't even need a milling throng. My habit at the older crossings
if I was the first pedestrian was to press the button and then lean on
the pole while waiting for the green man. If I do that on the new ones,
no-one can see the lights.

--
Phil

wrote:

Common Cambridge practice is buttons both sides but lights one side
only.

Actually that matches what I've seen elsewhere in Cambridgeshire. Perhaps
it's a cost thing - or a decision made on volume of pedestrians expected.

In article , (Jack
Taylor) wrote:

wrote:

Common Cambridge practice is buttons both sides but lights one side
only.

Actually that matches what I've seen elsewhere in Cambridgeshire.
Perhaps it's a cost thing - or a decision made on volume of
pedestrians expected.

No, it's the standard setup from the DfT, AIUI.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:

No, it's the standard setup from the DfT, AIUI.

Except in London (clearly!). ;-)

In article , (Jack
Taylor) wrote:

wrote:

No, it's the standard setup from the DfT, AIUI.

Except in London (clearly!). ;-)

Even there I think. Certainly on the Upper Richmond Road near East Putney
station.

--
Colin Rosenstiel