Alwyn what do you mean coming to a town near you. Its here.
Quote from the part 2 of the above article.
"The real-world translation here is that according to 1976 practices, an 80-foot-wide intersection with a 35 mph approach on a 2.6 percent downhill grade would warrant a five-second yellow light interval. But according to 1999 formulas, it is considered acceptable to allot the same intersection a 4 second interval"
Road near me, dual carriageway NSL ie potential 70 mph approach, yellow light interval = 2.3 seconds!!!
Installed is a red light camera on a hair trigger. I don't exaggerate I've seen it fire at incidents even the hardest traffic cop wouldn't look twice at.
I slow right down at these lights now as I know from personal experience that an approach at a bit under 60, if the timing of the amber is unfortunate, stopping behind the line can mean a full on ABS triggered anchors out episode. The roads not too grippy either, just to make it worse.
regds,
S
|
S,
Yes, I knew it was here, but perhaps spreading.
Recall the discussion about the new RL cameras in Cardiff with newly installed inductive loops buried in the road on approach?
It is alleged to have a "fast amber" and, I understand, it is catching many drivers out and can in fact be causing accidents.
Full story on scameras in USA here.
freedom.house.gov/auto/rlcreport.asp
|
|
|
S,
Another interesting report here on "Can't go......dilemma zone.....Can't stop"
freedom.house.gov/auto/rlcreport3.asp
|
|
|
Flat in Fifth wrote:
>
> >
> I slow right down at these lights now as I know from personal
> experience that an approach at a bit under 60, if the timing
> of the amber is unfortunate, stopping behind the line can
> mean a full on ABS triggered anchors out episode. The roads
> not too grippy either, just to make it worse.
>
> regds,
> S
But should'nt we be doing that anyway?. Basic defensive driving would treat the light controlled junction as a hazard not just because the lights may change but also the possiblity of crossing traffic slipping over the stop line. Never mind the potential presence of pedestrians.
|
Simon,
I don't disagree with a word you say, either in fact or in principle but let me try and put this in context as I know the layout and I guess you cannot reasonably be expected to know this junction.
Its a TL controlled junction between a dual with single, basically in the middle of not much. Limit on the dual is NSL, as is one single, I forget the other one. The width of the junction north to south is very wide, 50m+ at a guess.
The road from the left is access from a trading estate which is set well back ~150m+ from the main road, RHS is from some sports ground. No other properties, never seen a pedestrian, footpath set back by the trading estate anyway, good visibility of any traffic on all roads if heading south, if heading north the visibility of cross traffic is a bit iffy due to trees.
Hence if heading south and there is no cross traffic waiting or approaching then I slow down a bit and trundle across at about 55-60 usually without a problem. However heading north and if there is cross traffic then I slow down quite a bit more.
But here comes the rub, OK so you are driving defensively and slow down because of the reasons above. The geezer behind closes up because, well what are you slowing down for? no turn signal! green light! its a 70! what are you messing about at? Then you get the amber, do you stop and risk a rear ender, or do you keep going and risk a £60?
Of course what you try and do is control the situation so that you have both your stopping distance, and that of the joker behind, and that of the joker behind him all in hand. Or you hope that you are making such a nuisance of yourself that they overtake. I know I'm making light of it, but I think it's an issue.
Somebody might like to correct my mathematics but lets say you are approaching at the legal 70. Whether you and I consider it wise to do so is irrelevant for this purpose.
The light changes to amber and you have 2.3 seconds before it turns to red. At 70 in that time you will cover 71.5 m approx, by which time you have to be over the white line and across the junction over all the inductive loops. Or you have to brake and stop behind the white line.
If.....*If* you can achieve 1g deceleration, which lets face it is a full on anchors out, you will cover 45.6 metres and take 3.2 seconds. Now can you make that sort of judgement accurately, every time with a £60 bet riding on it, never mind the points issue. Well that is why I slow down and give myself more space and time.
By the way note I said stop behind the white line, the first loop is 6" over, and it triggers even if someone just rolls over at 5mph, if I had not seen it with my own eyes I wouldn't believe it either. Obviously I have no idea whether anyone has had a prosecution from this camera, but why else would it be there?
Also I find it interesting that the side they put the camera on, is not from the direction where a red light shoot is most dangerous and conflicting traffic is closest together, but on the side where its most open and people are liable to go quickest.
Now tell me that camera placement and amber timing is not cynical. I'm willing to be persuaded, and more than willing to hear of another strategy.
best regards,
Stuart
|
Flat in Fifth wrote:
>
>
> Now tell me that camera placement and amber timing is not
> cynical. I'm willing to be persuaded, and more than willing
> to hear of another strategy.
>
> best regards,
> Stuart
If true this is a variation on the mentality that gave us the Ladbroke Grove rail crash. Speed cameras on straight roads for the cash take are one thing but here it is a real safety issue. One can only hope that if they are stupid enough to mess with traffic light timings for revenue generation some clever lawyer catches them out.
Simon
|
|
so what are the rules on amber light timing ?
|
|
|
|
|
Fair point, Simon, but the point was that the timing is not adequate to allow you to stop safely from the legal limit on that road.
If the legal limit is too high, that is another matter.
At a particular set of lights I have gone over on red when on the bike because the timing was short for the limit (50 mph) and I chose to risk a fine than to attempt an emergency stop and possibly come off and suffer personal injury and damage to the bike way in excess of the fine.
|
|
|
Another aspect to going over a red is that you can find you don't 'only' get the points and a fine. One of my colleagues found out the hard way that our company regards jumping a red as a 'serious' traffic offence warranting disciplinary action, he is now on a final warning, next stop dismissal. If he now comes across one of these 'quick' ambers he could be out of a job, at least with speed cameras he could tot up 12 points before he loses his licence and hence his job because speeding is regarded as 'minor'.
IMHO shortening the amber period on these junctions is just purely revenue generation, where is the safety benefit in a shorter amber?
IIRC some EU countries don't even have amber phases on their TL's, they just seem to rely on all lights being red for a given period to create the safety gap. Whether this is better or not I don't know, but it would create an interesting puzzle for our revenue collectors to solve.
|
|
|
Cockle
On the Continent there is no a red/amber phase, lights go from red direct to green.
Much safer IMHO.
It is not only scamera-equipped lights that have short timings, the nearest lights to us, on a T junction, only just give you enough time to get round before the traffic on the main road gets a green if you are in a car or on a motorcycle. I would hate to try it on a pushbike unless up to Tour de France standard!
|
|
|
In the south (Curitiba) they have installed these traffic lights with more than one green light.
There is a red, and then about 5 greens. When they first go green all five are on, and then they gradually switch off until the red comes on as the last green goes off.
I always thought it was rather a good system. There is now one of these in Rio, and it seems to be working just as well.
|
|
|
