.... 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)

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.

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 believe one reason is that it encourages peds to look at the traffic.

Significant nos of serious crashes occur because peds see the opposite
light and walk towards it without looking at the traffic when light
turns green.
With 'nearside' lights the peds are more likely to check on if motor
vehicles are jumping the red by looking both ways.
Several years ago I was at a crossing with 'opposite' lights when an
elderly lady started to cross on the green despite a vehicle approaching
at speed. I grabbed her shoulders, and stopped her. We were both shaken,
but I don't believe the driver ever realised he went through a red light
at a pedestrian crossing.
For similar reasons the 'opposite' lights at many road junctions have
gone. Once you've crossed the stop line, you should drive on the road
conditions, not assume you've a clear path and right of way.
Remember GREEN means 'you may go if the way is clear' (HC page 102)

Jim Chisholm

On 15 Jan, 10:30, "J. Chisholm" 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 believe one reason is that it encourages peds to look at the traffic.

Whatever the good intentions, I don't think it works that way. At
least with opposite side lights, pedestrians are looking towards the
road, and not down at something to their side.



Significant nos of serious crashes occur because peds see the opposite
light and walk towards it without looking at the traffic when light
turns green.
With 'nearside' lights the peds are more likely to check on if motor
vehicles are jumping the red by looking both ways.
Several years ago I was at a crossing *with 'opposite' lights when an
elderly lady started to cross on the green despite a vehicle approaching
at speed. I grabbed her shoulders, and stopped her. We were both shaken,
but I don't believe the driver ever realised he went through a red light
at a pedestrian crossing.
For similar reasons the 'opposite' lights at many road junctions have
gone. Once you've crossed the stop line, you should drive on the road
conditions, not assume you've a clear path and right of way.
Remember GREEN means 'you may go if the way is clear' (HC page 102)


But in this case a total lack of regard is shown to pedestrians who
have to cross in front of both the traffic and the only lights.

At junctions without pedestrian signals, pedestrians need to be able
to see if the lights are changing, and they can't if there are no
opposite lights. A junction I always used to have trouble with was
the crossroads with New Oxford Street and Bloomsbury Street where
there were no lights visible to pedestrians (don't know if it has
changed).

(Actually, in general, you seem to be proposing to do away with lights
so that everyone judges the conditions, but I don't think that could
work in practice.)

In message
, at
03:23:15 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, MIG
remarked:
I believe one reason is that it encourages peds to look at the traffic.

That is the reason tptb quote.

Whatever the good intentions, I don't think it works that way. At
least with opposite side lights, pedestrians are looking towards the
road, and not down at something to their side.

With one-way streets, it's unpredictable which direction to look for the
side-lights, and they are very often obscured by other pedestrians
waiting. At least two generations of road user have been heavily
conditioned to look for the "green man" across the road (or worse, to
only stop if they see a *red* man across the road), and this new style
of crossing design simply beggars belief.
--
Roland Perry

"MIG" wrote in message
...

(Actually, in general, you seem to be proposing to do away with lights
so that everyone judges the conditions, but I don't think that could
work in practice.)

We know it wouldn't work but it's a great shame.

Every time traffic lights break down the traffic flows more freely and there
are no queues, but pedestrians, of course, suffer.

Ian

In article ,
Paul Scott wrote:

Latest DfT standard design, following on from Zebra, Pelican, we now have
'Puffin', and although recent, they aren't exactly new. They include
pedestrian detection. Once the pedestrians are clear of the crossing, the
road traffic lights change, so the flashing amber phase isn't needed.

Cambridge is full of the bloody things. The "once pedestrians are
clear bit" appears to be an entirely theoretical aspect of their
design.

On 15 Jan, 11:57, "Ian F." wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

...

(Actually, in general, you seem to be proposing to do away with lights
so that everyone judges the conditions, but I don't think that could
work in practice.)

We know it wouldn't work but it's a great shame.

Every time traffic lights break down the traffic flows more freely and there
are no queues, but pedestrians, of course, suffer.

They've recently replaced a traffic light/pedestrian crossing near my
home. It was a T junction with a fairly minor road, and pedestrian
lights across the 3 gaps.

It's now a mini roundabout with a zebra across two of the gaps. It's
increased vehicle throughput of the junction, and reduced the time
spent waiting

They are supposed to be replacing the lights at a buisier junction
nearby. Currently, if you wait for a green man, it takes 6 minutes to
cross the 40 yards from one corner to the other. Again It's s standard
T junction, but with islands between lanes

| |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ /| |
/ / | |
/ / | |--| |
/ / C | |D | | E
--/ /----+ |__| +---------


/----\
--- B |
\----/


--------------------------------
A


To get from A to E when traffic is fairly heavy, without hoping you
can run between traffic, you
1) Wait for traffic from right to go past to the left
2) Wait for traffic from top to go past to the left
3) Cross to B -- traffic still coming from left to right
4) Wait at B
5) Wait for traffic to go from top to left
6) Cross to C
7) If you run you can get to D, but you don't get very long once you
factor in late-turning Right-to-top people
8) Wait while traffic goes from left to right (and right to top)
9) Wait for traffic to go from top to left/right
10) Cross to D
11) Wait for traffic to go from left to right
12) Cross to E

You end up having 3 full cycles to cross the road. If you are daring
and going A-E, you can cross from further up, as most traffic goes
from Top to Left, and you can see if people are *turning* left. Coming
back you can't, as you can't see the traffic. There is a fork about 20
yards off to the right of the image which means you can't cross
further up without having to cross twice.

The junction always allows traffic to pass through, pedestrians are an
afterthought. Roll on zebra crossings.

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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