Safe Speed Forums

Red light controversy in St Albans continues
12:03 - 24 March 2010
THE controversy over timings on lights at a St Albans junction has taken a fresh turn, with residents condemning calls to change the sequence.
Motorists prosecuted for "jumping" the red light at the junction of Watsons Walk and London Road say the 16 seconds allowed before the lights change to red is not long enough.

But Paul Roberts, who has lived in Watsons Walk for 10 years, pleased safety cameras have been installed at the junction because he says he has seen dozens of near misses there.

The 44-year-old researcher said: "The standard of driving at that junction is appalling. Everyone who lives around here has seen the way people jump the lights all the time.

"I have seen people overtake each other as the lights change. I don't think increasing the amount of time before the lights change from green to red would improve matters. It's just human nature that people get frustrated having to wait and get tempted to go for it."

His views are supported by John Metcalf, of nearby Cunningham Hill Road, who said: "We should be pleased if the threat of prosecution deters motorists from offending.
"Pedestrians and other road users need the protection of the law to stop reckless motorists driving through red lights and putting lives at risk.
"We tell our young grandchildren to cross when the green pedestrian light is showing. When they do so, we don't want them mown down by a driver going through the red light."

Motorist Vernon Unsworth is one of those drivers who intend to fight his penalty notice in court because he believes the traffic light sequence is set incorrectly.
He pointed out the prevalence of convictions of other people prosecuted at the same spot: "The lights change so quickly there's no way you can get across that junction on the green light."

A spokesperson for Herts police said the Watsons Walk safety camera went live in October 2006. In the three years leading up to it a total of 10 personal injury collisions had occurred at the site, of which two were serious, but in the subsequent three year period up until the end of December 2008 this figure had reduced to two collisions.
She said: "The safety camera would thus appear to be an unqualified success."

Maximum timings for lights staying green on London Road and nearby junctions are set between 36 to 44 seconds depending on time of day.

"We tell our young grandchildren to cross when the green pedestrian light is showing.

A spokesperson for Herts police said the Watsons Walk safety camera went live in October 2006. In the three years leading up to it a total of 10 personal injury collisions had occurred at the site, of which two were serious, but in the subsequent three year period up until the end of December 2008 this figure had reduced to two collisions.
She said: "The safety camera would thus appear to be an unqualified success."

Maybe you should tell them to look before they cross and never assume the way ahead is clear (not that that excuses RJLing).

A spokesperson for Herts police said the Watsons Walk safety camera went live in October 2006. In the three years leading up to it a total of 10 personal injury collisions had occurred at the site, of which two were serious, but in the subsequent three year period up until the end of December 2008 this figure had reduced to two collisions.
She said: "The safety camera would thus appear to be an unqualified success."

Agree again completely.

Agree that perhaps RTTM is a factor, or that it actually is a factor?

Perhaps it's not a factor?

Agree that perhaps RTTM is a factor, or that it actually is a factor?

Perhaps it's not a factor?

Seems to me that there needs to be an engineers report on the lighting sequence - the positioning of the lights, the variable sequencing, to approach roads and vision, roadside furnishings, and so on ...

-comes under courtesy -something learners should be exposed to - UK driving suffers from a lack of education and courtesy and an excess of might is right ( either from the Government or bully drivers).

I was astonished in Canada to find that the "WALK" light merely gave the pedestrian priority over the motorist without requiring the motorist to stop if there were no pedestrians crossing. That only works because the motorists there are courteous - wouldn't work in this country

Would that be their equivalent of our zebra crossings?

Not really. Unlike Zebra crossings they are light controlled and have a red "NO WALK" phase when pedestrians have to wait - under threat of penalty.

So in terms of being "wedded to absolute priorities", aren't our zebra crossing actually better?

So in terms of being "wedded to absolute priorities", aren't our zebra crossing actually better?

There's a zebra crossing on the Embankment in London, I pass it most days. If I stop for somebody on my side I always say to them to be very careful. Very often as they are using the crossing (there are four lanes to cross) people using the carriageway will still thunder thorough it, that's even if the person who wants to cross gets to step on it in the first place, I've literally seem somebody standing by it from several hundred meters away, and them still be waiting when I get there despite 20 or 30 vehicles passing.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 1,,0,22.47

IMO a PELICON would be a much more suitable installation there, but that's only because the behavior of the carriageway users; it's a bit of a race track frankly,

In principle, yes.

But it takes a great deal of courage for a pedestrian to establish their priority when the traffic is moving quickly

But it takes a great deal of courage for a pedestrian to establish their priority when the traffic is moving quickly - which is why PELICANs are now preferred.

A pelican (I’ll use the more prevalent term) eliminates that lack of knowledge as drivers in both lanes will be able to see at least on eof the red stop lights on either side.

Can you substantiate that claim?

I've literally seem somebody standing by it from several hundred meters away, and them still be waiting when I get there despite 20 or 30 vehicles passing.

If you were in lane two and saw traffic stopped in lane one with a zebra crossing in front of you what (and presuming you can't see the ped that's stepped onto it) would you do?

1. continue to travel at whatever speed you were doing (and along there it's 30mph+ if the lane is clear)
2. slow down and be prepared to stop?

I can tell you on that section of road for most drivers it's normally option one which is very sad and indicative of their attitude.

I can:

What's the difference between that and a driver stopping (for other reasons such as dropping off, collecting passengers) or turning left? Do you always slow down when a driver in another lane is turning off or stopped?

Kinda muddies the water there doesn't it!

(for example: you also think most drivers are speeding, which has already been proven wrong in a different thread

What if that particular pedestrian wasn't clear with the signalling of their intent, or wasn't even at the crossing when you first saw them "from several hundred meters away"?

Isn't either of those much more likely given that it was apparently the only occurrence of this that you saw?

And critically, what has that got to do with the "courage"? Again you try to convey the notion that you properly addressed the question without having actually done so.