Safe Speed Forums

The M27/M271 debacle is all about someone not being able to admit they were wrong. This is the price we pay for our "scapegoat" society.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

thts silly, in cities they might be a problem but imagine roads that cross dual carridgeways! Going around 60-70mph they are not going to stop just because a car wants to cross the road! Also without signs, you wouldnt know when too slow down and look for traffic and pedrestians...

it could be argued that dual carriageways should not have traffic lights, just roundabouts.

(regardless, there are plenty of places where roads cross DCs without traffic lights)

Martin Cassini, another SIF = Single Issue Fanatic.

What we need to improve road safety is to:
"Have lots of traffic lights."
"Get rid of all traffic lights"
"Put a speed camera on every street"
"Have roundabouts on every corner"
"Blah, blah, blah, etc."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/20 ... ights.html
A poster on the BBC comments page makes a good point:
* At 01:51 PM on 14 Jan 2008,
* Peter Hughes wrote:

I am appalled at the naivety displayed by the writer. Example: an 'anarchy' roundabout near a Tesco supermarket. I can wait ten minutes for the 'equal status' traffic stream from my right to let me onto the roundabout. The Leazes Bowl roundabout in Durham is even worse. Contrast: new traffic lights at Shincliffe crossroads - vastly improved traffic flow and substantially reduced accidents. Lose the anarchy. Keep the lights!

Clearly some lights should be removed, as they are not used to increase safety but slow traffic.

And how does Mr Cassini think that pedestrians will cope?

See, it is all very well people saying: "Ooh, the traffic flows really well if the lights fail!"

But if the flow does not stop and pedestrians can't cross the road, is that fair on all road users? And if the traffic lights are not working, and people on a main road refuse to stop for traffic coming from a minor road, what then?

Mini roundabouts everywhere? Well, maybe. But if nobody stops for pedestrians...

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

"But if nobody stops for pedestrians..."

Hey, some intersections NEED traffic lights. There's no doubt about that.

It's also incredibly obvious - to non-control freaks - that most of the ones that are only necessary at certain times of certain days should operate differently at other times.

It may be less obvious that there are certain places where traffic lights are simply unnecessary.

In neighborhoods like the one where I live, traffic lights are needlessly replacing stop signs - but not if you ask the many elderly people in those neighborhoods. (Neighborhoods that don't have a significant elderly population [yet] don't have this problem [yet], and yes, I said problem.)

Strangely, the elephant in the room that everyone seems to be ignoring is that they are the very same demographic that was getting killed on Queens Boulevard in the mid / late 90s: foreign elderlies.
(Feel free to read about the Boulevard of Death).
(And don't get hung up on the foreign part, by the way. Their Amerikan born children and grandchildren are now playing chicken crossing the streets in alarming numbers.)
Where was I?
Their upbringing never included "Green Cross Code", "Cross on the Green, not in between", or any such things. An increasing number of people are actually brazen enough to put up a hand - as in, "stop for my hand" - while crossing without looking, expecting any oncoming vehicles to stop several car lengths behind the stop line. [Or worse ... some, after looking, and seeing an approaching vehicle, then proceed to step out and put up that same hand.]

[I have come to the conclusion that] there seem to be three populations that clamored to replace the stop signs with traffic lights:
1) The elderly people who fail to get across the street on the first or second try (without looking, only to be 'surprised')
2) Those whose hands don't seem to work well enough (some of these people even go so far as to stop in the middle of the crosswalk AND the oncoming cars' path to make the point about their hand)
3) Anyone else who witnessed a child who nearly got struck by a vehicle that actually had the right of way to begin with

Of course, upon replacing the stop sign with a traffic signal, they proceed to do the very same thing that got them killed on Queens Blvd: cross against a red light, without looking, with an upturned palm, while their progeny hone their 'traffic chicken' game.

Rule #7: Learn to cross the street without playing chicken.
Also, see Rule # 5 again.

In my teens, I remember pushing about one person (that didn't have the right of way) out of the way of an oncoming vehicle (that did have the right of way) monthly.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Are traffic lights too simple to warrent concentration or too hard for the average road user to understand? Is removal of lights an admission of inadequacy or a short term solution only to become another problem as complacency sets in?

The presence of a working traffic signal does encourage a certain type of complacency. Drivers seem to interpret its presence as permission to assume that everyone else is also going to play by the rules, as if the traffic light were a referee to which all drivers must submit to and abide by.

If the referree is going to decide for you, then it might seem pointless to assess the intersection's conditions. Just wait for the green, and then go, right?

That sacrifice is offered in the hope that, for at least a while, traffic can flow thru that intersection at a much greater speed than if it were absent. When there is enough traffic to warrant its presence and activity, the only thing left to decide is its pacing, phasing, and timing. [However, I am strongly of the opinion that] It should have some ability to modify its operation to suit changes in traffic conditions, and should be designed with the unique needs of that particular intersection in mind.

There are, of course, many intersections where traffic lights may be necessary for much of the day, but not all of it. Perhaps during those times when there is not enough traffic to warrant its standard operation, it could switch to a 'light to no traffic' mode - such as flashing yellows and reds - which would place the onus of responsibility on drivers to make observations of the intersection prior to crossing it.
In the alternative, why can't the traffic signal simply be shut off when it isn't necessary? Again, each driver is now required to make an individual decision which requires that the situation be assessed prior.

Those intersections which do not require traffic lights most of the time (not enough traffic) could be controlled by less electrically intensive traffic signs which, again, force the driver to assess the situation and create their own instruction based on that unique moment.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

They have fairly recently switched off one useless traffic light.

On the A1 Archway Road north-bound, there is a bus lane and lanes for the main traffic. At one point there was a traffic light supposedly there to allow the bus to merge in, but the bus-lane continues way beyond that point anyway so it doesn't have to merge in with anything.

I am not sure if originally when the traffic light was installed, the bus lane might have ended at that point.

It also serves no purpose for pedestrians who have no access to that section of the A1. If they tried crossing they would hit a wall.