Traffic engineers: braindead?

"LSMike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Shirley that is the wrong solution? I would have thought that the amber
period should be changed if necessary, which then allows strict
interpretation of red light rules and fines.

See my reply to Tony.
If the amber phase is increased it just creates a bigger window for amber
gamblers. I say increase the red phase and fine those who cross the line on
red, not those caught in the junction.
Personally I'd like to see more traffic light cameras. IMO more danger can
be created at a junction by light runners than by people exceeding the
posted limited by a small amount on some, often the same, roads.

Pete

LSMike said:

Shirley that is the wrong solution? I would have thought that the amber
period should be changed if necessary, which then allows strict
interpretation of red light rules and fines.

Logically you are correct. However one has to remember the title of
this thread.

--
Tony

"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought" Lord
Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 11:22:25 +0100, "wafflycat"

waffles*AT*v21net*DOT*co*DOT*uk said:

There are no logical explanations apart from "braindead" and "from another
planet"

Cheers, helen s

Wot Helen said.

dkahn400 said:

A pity they don't combine the best elements of both styles so that the
main carriageway has no cycle lane, then starting at 20 metres from the
roundabout a section of no cycle lane, with no cycle lane on the
roundabout itself, to be followed 20 metres from the roundabout exit
with no cycle lane.

🙂
New keyboard please, it was good drinking whisky too!
🙂
--
Terry Duckmanton.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/terry.duckmanton
A website mostly dedicated to cycling

Terry D said:

dkahn400 said:

A pity they don't combine the best elements of both styles so that the
main carriageway has no cycle lane, then starting at 20 metres from the
roundabout a section of no cycle lane, with no cycle lane on the
roundabout itself, to be followed 20 metres from the roundabout exit
with no cycle lane.

🙂
New keyboard please, it was good drinking whisky too!
🙂

Terrible waste - sorry about that.

--
Dave...

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells

"Peter B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"LSMike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Shirley that is the wrong solution? I would have thought that the amber
period should be changed if necessary, which then allows strict
interpretation of red light rules and fines.

See my reply to Tony.
If the amber phase is increased it just creates a bigger window for amber
gamblers. I say increase the red phase and fine those who cross the line

on

Quoted message said:

red, not those caught in the junction.

At some sets of lights which are placed on major highways there are warning
lights, some hundreds of metres ahead. These are in the middle of large
signs which indicate that when they flash amber, the light ahead is about to
turn from green. The timing is such that an automibile driver would have to
be going _very_ fast to make the green light if he sees the warning ambers.

Adrian Boliston said:

Unless the lights are amber or red there should not be any need to slow down
for each set if they are correctly timed on the amber phase, in relation to
the prevailing speed limit.

Ha ha ha and, moreover, ha.

Here in Reading they are phased so that you get stopped at each arm of
the roundabout as you drive round, unless you drive at below walking
pace (literally) or something well above the speed I'm prepared to
chance going round a roundabout.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Rich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I had the misfortune to go to the local cycle forum last night, and

I asked

Quoted message said:

a question about why the traffic lights on a roundabout couldn't be

fitted

Quoted message said:

with louvres so that they could only be seen by the drivers in the

lanes

Quoted message said:

they applied to. The response from the traffic engineers was that

this

Quoted message said:

couldn't be done for safety reasons because drivers might slow up

as they

Quoted message said:

approached the lights.

<sound of head hitting brick wall, repeated until unconciousness>

Pardon me, but isn't that what the Highway Code says you should do

as you

Quoted message said:

approach traffic lights? i.e. be prepared to stop?

Why the F**k are we paying cretins like this? and how the hell did

they get

Quoted message said:

jobs with any kind of responsibility in the first place?

Well, if it was a cycling forum, I suppose that you got the special
kind of traffic engineers that design our cycling facilities.

Jeremy Parker

Al C-F <[email hidden]> whizzed past
me shouting

Quoted message said:

Jeremy Parker said:

Quoted message said:

Why the F**k are we paying cretins like this? and how the hell did

they get

Quoted message said:

jobs with any kind of responsibility in the first place?

Well, if it was a cycling forum, I suppose that you got the special
kind of traffic engineers that design our cycling facilities.

Local authorities exist to provide employment to the otherwise
unemployable.

I've worked in the private sector, it's like the Dilbert Zone. The only
reason the companies survive is their competitors are just as bad.

You certainly can put louvres on traffic lights, there's a pelican
crossing in Reading (Christchurch Green shops) where you can only see
the lights from one small section of road - pedestrians on the crossing
get used to dodging cars that don't see the lights are there at all, and
cyclists who are trying so hard to see what colour the lights are that
they ride blindly over the crossing.
Apparently the idea is to hide the crossing lights from traffic waiting
at the junction just upstream, but they're too well hidden!

You can't win with road traffic, it does the daftest things and it's
always got an excuse handy.

--
Sue ];(🙂

What goes down must come up again - Confucius' Law of Mountain Biking

Colin Blackburn said:

Cycling to Durham station last night I went across a junction that has
been redeveloped. My approach road now has an ASL---which is to be
welcomed. What they have done is to add the ASL beyond the original stop
line, in fact it encroaches over the studs that mark the pedestrian
crossing. This means that once you are in the box you can't see the
lights. No worries, there are light on the opposite side of the
junction. Except there is just one set of lights and from the ASL on and
upright there are directly behind a street sign!! So, now cyclists may
get cars pipping them for not going through a green.

I will be writing to the cycling officer.

But luckily I hadn't got around to it. Yesterday the junction was closed
and today the lights have all been repositioned to remove the visibility
problems.

However, the have added a cycle lane and ASL on the opposite approach
road. The lane is very narrow and there are a couple of sunken drains
within it. What is the minimum recommended width? And, is that from the
kerb or from the good side of the gutter?

Colin

On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:10:11 +0100 someone who may be Sue White
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

You certainly can put louvres on traffic lights, there's a pelican
crossing in Reading (Christchurch Green shops) where you can only see
the lights from one small section of road - pedestrians on the crossing
get used to dodging cars that don't see the lights are there at all, and
cyclists who are trying so hard to see what colour the lights are that
they ride blindly over the crossing.
Apparently the idea is to hide the crossing lights from traffic waiting
at the junction just upstream, but they're too well hidden!

Usually only the green lights have louvres over them. If some
official has put louvres over the other lights then they deserve to
be roasted on a spit.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"Sue White" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You certainly can put louvres on traffic lights, there's a pelican
crossing in Reading (Christchurch Green shops) where you can only see the
lights from one small section of road - pedestrians on the crossing get
used to dodging cars that don't see the lights are there at all, and
cyclists who are trying so hard to see what colour the lights are that
they ride blindly over the crossing.
Apparently the idea is to hide the crossing lights from traffic waiting at
the junction just upstream, but they're too well hidden!

Those lights are f&^$*&g horrendous, practically impossible to see unless
you are at a very specific place in the road. I thought it was a sunlight
thing, but they had overdone it but I see what you mean about the junction
beforehand (by the uni?).

Quoted message said:

You can't win with road traffic, it does the daftest things and it's
always got an excuse handy.

The traffic engineers around here are braindead, for example they have just
changed a large roundabout where i live, putting in a cycle lane for those
going left (where I have never seen a problem), but (IMHO) making it
significantly more dangerous for both cyclists and motorists who are turning
right by narrowing the lanes and forcing everyone to move to the right hand
lane for a right turn which they didnt have to do before as there were 3
lanes. So lots of people move over at the last minute, just saw a near miss
there earlier today. There will be accidents there when there were none till
now. They need a good slapping.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:10:11 +0100 someone who may be Sue White
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

You certainly can put louvres on traffic lights, there's a pelican
crossing in Reading (Christchurch Green shops) where you can only see
the lights from one small section of road - pedestrians on the crossing
get used to dodging cars that don't see the lights are there at all, and
cyclists who are trying so hard to see what colour the lights are that
they ride blindly over the crossing.
Apparently the idea is to hide the crossing lights from traffic waiting
at the junction just upstream, but they're too well hidden!

Usually only the green lights have louvres over them. If some
official has put louvres over the other lights then they deserve to
be roasted on a spit.

all of 'em IIRC. will check at the weekend. been like that for a long time.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

On Thu, 19 May 2005 21:37:27 +0100 someone who may be "Tumbleweed"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Usually only the green lights have louvres over them. If some
official has put louvres over the other lights then they deserve to
be roasted on a spit.

all of 'em IIRC. will check at the weekend. been like that for a long time.

That is utterly ridiculous. The aim of louvres is usually so that
people do not read through (to use a railway expression), in other
words see a traffic light ahead but fail to notice the one close by.
Seeing a green one in the distance rather than a red one close by is
generally dangerous. Seeing a red one in the distance rather than a
green one close by is rather less dangerous.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.