Routemasters (again)

"Truebrit" wrote in message
...

Because of this, it is not regarded as an offence to go through an amber
light. The amber phase is necessary to make red enforceable because only
with it is the road user given sufficient warning that he will be able to
stop before the red light.

Going from green to amber I would tend to agree with you but when the
lights are in the opposite sequence and are going from green to amber
there are far to many cowboys who look upon that amber light to get their
clog down.
I much prefer our system here in N America where our lights go from red to
green with no amber in between and that green does not appear until the
red in the cross direction has been lit for five seconds after showing the
warning amber.

There are people who set off on amber instead of waiting for green, although
at least the red is also illuminated during this time to send a "stay
stopped" message. I wonder whether the amber warning of green was partly
included originally to say "time to put move the gear lever from neutral to
first (or neutral to drive in the case of automatic)" so people were not
left doing this when the light went green - which could lead to rear-end
shunts if the car behind is already prepared to set off and doesn't
notice/expect that the car in front isn't ready yet.

Turning left/right (delete as applicable) is probably a good one. What do
pedestrian lights show during this time? Green/walk? It needs pedestrians to
be aware that cars will turn, even if they (cars) *should* give way to them.

In message , Truebrit
writes
Because of this, it is not regarded as an offence to go through an amber
light. The amber phase is necessary to make red enforceable because only
with it is the road user given sufficient warning that he will be able
to stop before the red light.

Truebrit" wrote:
Going from green to amber I would tend to agree with you but when the
lights are in the opposite sequence and are going from amber to green
there are far to many cowboys who look upon that amber light to get their
clog down.
I much prefer our system here in N America where our lights go from red
to green with no amber in between and that green does not appear until
the red in the cross direction has been lit for five seconds after
showing the warning amber.

"NY" wrote: There are people who set off on amber instead
of waiting for green, although at least the red is also illuminated during
this time to send a "stay stopped" message. I wonder whether the amber
warning of green was partly included originally to say "time to put move
the gear lever from neutral to first (or neutral to drive in the case of
automatic)" so people were not left doing this when the light went green -
which could lead to rear-end shunts if the car behind is already prepared
to set off and doesn't notice/expect that the car in front isn't ready yet.

Turning left/right (delete as applicable) is probably a good one. What do
pedestrian lights show during this time? Green/walk? It needs pedestrians
to be aware that cars will turn, even if they (cars) *should* give way to
them.

The pedestrian has the right of way in such instances and has a green "walk"
sign. As I said the driver can only proceed and make the turn after coming
to a FULL stop and only then when it is safe to do so.
Truebrit.

"Turn right on red" is common in most of the USA. Sometimes this is on
the basis of "common knowledge" that it is allowed in a particular State
or area, and there may be no signs to show that you can do it. In some
places, it is generally forbidden, except when there's a sign
specifically allowing it. It's an eminently sensible idea, and I wish we
could adopted a similar "turn left on red" generally in the UK (perhaps
in exchange for our mini-roundabout system).

It seems that some European now also have a limited implementation of
"turn right on red", so can Britain be far behind?. [Correct answer is
almost certainly "Yes".]
--
Ian

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:38:53 -0400, "Truebrit" wrote:

snip

Going from green to amber I would tend to agree with you but when the lights
are in the opposite sequence and are going from green to amber

Oh dear : not bright

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
It seems that some European now also have a limited implementation of
"turn right on red", so can Britain be far behind?. [Correct answer is
almost certainly "Yes".]

As long as we don't get the STUPID IDIOTIC roundabout rules they have in the
Netherlands where traffic on the roundabout has to give way to traffic that
is joining, leading to roundabouts getting clogged with traffic. Almost as
absurd as France's (former?) priority to the right rule where traffic on a
major road at high speed has to give way to a farm tractor pulling out of a
farm track. Whose ill-conceived idea was that?

If we get turn left on red, I'd favour a separate set of lights and filter
lane for that traffic, with (for example) flashing amber displayed to say
"you may go if it is safe, but you must still give way to traffic and
pedestrians - you do not have priority over anyone".

The problem with mini roundabout is that they are usually positioned so that
everyone, even on what used to be the straight-on major road, has to slow to
a crawl to negotiate a VERY tight left-right-left turn to get round the
roundabout. I'd prefer it if *all* mini-roundabouts were painted on the road
so you could drive across them, taking the line that you would if it was a
normal T junction, with the roundabout there solely to establish priority
and not to deviate traffic from the normal line that it would take.

Oh and I'd like to torture, very very slowly, the person who first thought
of speed humps as a way of slowing traffic down ;-) Use speed cameras if
you really must, but not a mechanism which penalises everyone (to a greater
or lesser extent). All law-enforcement methods should be as invisible as
possible to the people who abide by the laws and only affect those who
don't.

In message , NY
writes




As long as we don't get the STUPID IDIOTIC roundabout rules they have
in the Netherlands where traffic on the roundabout has to give way to
traffic that is joining, leading to roundabouts getting clogged with
traffic. Almost as absurd as France's (former?) priority to the right
rule where traffic on a major road at high speed has to give way to a
farm tractor pulling out of a farm track. Whose ill-conceived idea was that?

I'm not sure if European old-fashioned 'give way to the right' is still
used except on the relatively small roads. Most roundabouts are now
'sensible', and those which aren't usually have a sign saying "You do
not have priority".

However, I still have memories of being a new visitor to Europe, in the
early 70s, and being in a car driven at an alarming speed through the
grid-iron, narrow cobbled streets in Ostend. I thought the driver was a
lunatic, but he explained that all he had to do was to give way to the
right when the roads crossed (which they did frequently). If anyone hit
HIM from the left, it would be THEIR fault. The system seemed to work.

I also recall driving around (several times around!) the Place de la
Concorde (Arc de Triumphe) roundabout in Paris. That was (and probably
still is) one of the 'Hotel California' roundabouts, where you can enter
it any time you like, but you can never leave.




--
Ian

On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:13:55 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
It seems that some European now also have a limited implementation of
"turn right on red", so can Britain be far behind?. [Correct answer is
almost certainly "Yes".]

As long as we don't get the STUPID IDIOTIC roundabout rules they have in the
Netherlands where traffic on the roundabout has to give way to traffic that
is joining, leading to roundabouts getting clogged with traffic. Almost as
absurd as France's (former?) priority to the right rule where traffic on a
major road at high speed has to give way to a farm tractor pulling out of a
farm track. Whose ill-conceived idea was that?

If we get turn left on red, I'd favour a separate set of lights and filter
lane for that traffic, with (for example) flashing amber displayed to say
"you may go if it is safe, but you must still give way to traffic and
pedestrians - you do not have priority over anyone".

The problem with mini roundabout is that they are usually positioned so that
everyone, even on what used to be the straight-on major road, has to slow to
a crawl to negotiate a VERY tight left-right-left turn to get round the
roundabout. I'd prefer it if *all* mini-roundabouts were painted on the road
so you could drive across them, taking the line that you would if it was a
normal T junction, with the roundabout there solely to establish priority
and not to deviate traffic from the normal line that it would take.

Oh and I'd like to torture, very very slowly, the person who first thought
of speed humps as a way of slowing traffic down ;-) Use speed cameras if
you really must, but not a mechanism which penalises everyone (to a greater
or lesser extent). All law-enforcement methods should be as invisible as
possible to the people who abide by the laws and only affect those who
don't.

Of course the great benefit with speed cameras over humps is the
revenue generating potential of cameras. Motorists who want to donate
to local authority coffers can do so by exceeding the speed limit,
while those who don't want to can simply obey the law.

On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:40:24 +0100
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Truebrit
"Turn right on red" is common in most of the USA. Sometimes this is on
the basis of "common knowledge" that it is allowed in a particular State
or area, and there may be no signs to show that you can do it. In some
places, it is generally forbidden, except when there's a sign
specifically allowing it. It's an eminently sensible idea, and I wish we
could adopted a similar "turn left on red" generally in the UK (perhaps
in exchange for our mini-roundabout system).

While it obviously aids traffic flow I'm not too keen on it as it won't be
long before we have the "sorry mate, didn't see you" from a driver as a
pedestrian lies squashed on the road. There are too many idiot drivers in the
UK for this to work.

NJR

On Thursday, 1 August 2013 11:14:11 UTC+1, wrote:

While it obviously aids traffic flow I'm not too keen on it as it won't be
long before we have the "sorry mate, didn't see you" from a driver as a
pedestrian lies squashed on the road. There are too many idiot drivers in the
UK for this to work.

Yes. Pedestrians already have right of way over a vehicle turning into a side road, but it's a perilous right to exercise.

On 2013\08\01 11:14, wrote:
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:40:24 +0100
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Truebrit
"Turn right on red" is common in most of the USA. Sometimes this is on
the basis of "common knowledge" that it is allowed in a particular State
or area, and there may be no signs to show that you can do it. In some
places, it is generally forbidden, except when there's a sign
specifically allowing it. It's an eminently sensible idea, and I wish we
could adopted a similar "turn left on red" generally in the UK (perhaps
in exchange for our mini-roundabout system).

While it obviously aids traffic flow I'm not too keen on it as it won't be
long before we have the "sorry mate, didn't see you" from a driver as a
pedestrian lies squashed on the road. There are too many idiot drivers in the
UK for this to work.

There are too many pedestrians for this to work. In large parts of the
USA you are considered mentally unstable if you walk 100 yards.

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 11:50:26 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2013\08\01 11:14, wrote:
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:40:24 +0100
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Truebrit
"Turn right on red" is common in most of the USA. Sometimes this is on
the basis of "common knowledge" that it is allowed in a particular State
or area, and there may be no signs to show that you can do it. In some
places, it is generally forbidden, except when there's a sign
specifically allowing it. It's an eminently sensible idea, and I wish we
could adopted a similar "turn left on red" generally in the UK (perhaps
in exchange for our mini-roundabout system).

While it obviously aids traffic flow I'm not too keen on it as it won't be
long before we have the "sorry mate, didn't see you" from a driver as a
pedestrian lies squashed on the road. There are too many idiot drivers in the
UK for this to work.

There are too many pedestrians for this to work. In large parts of the
USA you are considered mentally unstable if you walk 100 yards.

Half of them would end up physically unstable if they walked 100 yards
carrying all that blubber.

NJR