Safe Speed Forums

/I will bet those were the ones at Astley. Red lights scam at Astley with a /non-existent amber setting. The one at Worsley (A575 -- before the M60 /J14 slip) and the one at Moorside as you exit J14 onto A580 have 3 second /amber which is fine.

Yes, you were spot on - I was suprised how short it was - do you know if the traffic light cameras here are working or not?

This is very strange.

Let's be 100% clear about this.

If the amber isn't 3 seconds [+/- some small tolerance] then it isn't legally a set of traffic lights.

I can't ever remember noticing lights where the amber was too short, and I'm amazed to see so many reports of faulty traffic lights. Maybe some idiot councils don't know the regulations?

If there's a red light camera and the amber is less than 3 seconds, then you can't be (properly) convicted because it isn't legally a set of traffic lights.

If anyone knows of convictions taking place at a set of lights where the amber is too short, then gentlemen, we have a story for the press.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

[quote="SafeSpeed"]I'm worried about red light cameras. We have to look at the different reasons that folk go across on the red.

Type 1: Never sees the red light, or sees it too late to react to it.

Type 2: Recklessly ignores the red light

Type 3: Goes through early in the red phase having misjudged the lights changing (the amber gambler).

Type 4: Treats the red light as a give way, and goes when he thinks it is clear to do so.

Types 1 and 2 are highly dangerous, yet are not affected by red light cameras.

Types 3 and 4 may be caught by red light cameras, but then they were not dangerous and if amber gamblers are a problem then an all red phase will make the situation safe at a particular junction.

Changing the length of the amber is a very bad idea - we need to know how long it is in order to judge if we can brake or not. All UK Ambers are 3 seconds.[/quote]

I'm not worried about red light cameras. Bring 'em on, as long as they aren't abused in the same way speed cameras are. I believe that there should be some sort of information campaign to show the dangers of jumping red lights.

I've been taught by professional driving instructors that the correct sequence for traffic lights is red, red & amber, green, amber, red. When the lights change to red and amber, you must stop, but only if you can do so safely. And one more tip I recieved from an instructor-the lights are at their most dangerous when they're at green.

Further on Mike ... we noted it when William was learning to drive over the summer.

Not sure about Astley - seen them flash once .. but know the others are very much "live..."

If you get a NIP over it ... I would video these lights and challenge - the sequence is highly dangerous. Have written to the authorities about it twice as well ... but no acknowledgement...

Gents - we've had the discussions and arguements over red and amber .
Unless i've missed it no mention of green
Can't find any mention of the phrase in the latest edition of the Highway Code, but i always use the old idea -"Green means go only if safe to do so
At lights, when they change, i check before entering the junction area that it is safe to do so.
Can't go straight on/turn left - stop and don't block junction area.
Turning right - enter and turn when safe to do so


Another old idea- given to me by my driving instructor (this was in days of the rubber strip a short distance before the lights) was that if you got in this area and you felt that the lights might change and you might get to the lights as they went amber and be caught in a dangerous situation - change down and accelerate - the extra means that even if the lights change in your face you'll clear the junction safely.(Proviso - again only if safe to do so - )
At 30 mph =44 feet per sec - amber time =3 secs - those lights will still have about 2 secs left .

Rather than worrying about how long each colour is sequenced for, we could just switch a large number of the things off. Or at least use them a lot more intelligently than we currently do.

The road I live on has a set of lights controlling a T junction, that causes up to 1/3 mile of queuing in two directions and nearly that long on the third for about 14 hours a day. This means from the direction I travel that it takes 4 or 5 sequences of lights to get through them. But for one week there was a problem with the lights - they were switched off. So what happened? Did we have gridlock? Did we have accidents? Off course not. What we had was a whole week of bliss where drivers we allowed to think for themselves. As a consequence everybody slowed down for the junction and people let each other out, and at no point (that I saw) was their more than 3 vehicles waiting from any direction. Normally it is 100+ past my house, 30 - 40 from the side and 30 - 40 from the opposite side. Then they "fixed" the lights and the queues and delays re-appeared.

Is it too much to ask for traffic lights to be properly reassessed to make sure that they are actually improving things? Or for lights to have intelligence such that they don't stop traffic unless road users are actually approaching from the side roads?

SEE MY BIT ABOUT GREEN SIGNALS

Our wonderful state government have now decided to introduce 78 red light/speed cameras around Melbourne.

So if you tried speeding up a little to ensure safe passage and you managed to exceed the speed limit by 3kph (2mph) you would be fined for speeding. and if you don't and your rear wheels cross the line as the red comes on you get fined for running a red light.

Soooo, slam on the brakes and get rear-ended, at least you will not be booked and you are obviously a much safer driver.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!