Imagine that you are going through this junction from point A to point B, there are four sets of lights (1-4) facing you. There is some traffic so speed is fairly low, but there is no queue so it seems that you can clear the box junction.
preview.tinyurl.com/ybo67s7
You pass lights 1 and 2 on green, through 3 as it is just turns amber and then 4 turns red before you reach the second crossing.
Am I correct in thinking that you must stop before the second crossing, within the box junction, rather than clear the junction, because the red light is protecting the crossing?
The actual junction is here (looking from point A):
preview.tinyurl.com/yzwc5b5
Any thoughts appreciated.
Edited by SteelSpark on 11/11/2009 at 23:36
|
Am I correct in thinking that you must stop before the second crossing, within the box junction, rather than clear the junction because the red light is protecting the crossing?
Rather difficult to see from the photos but I believe there will be only one stop line, at signal 1.
Therefore I think you are incorrect. You should never stop within the box (except in emergency). There will not be a stop line at the second crossing.
Signal 4 is mainly for those turning right.
|
The traffic light no.4 is not protecting the crossing from traffic heading southwest. It is merely a repeater for traffic lights 1,2 and 3. Once safely on to the box junction with a clear exit I would say the traffic should keep moving until clear of the box junction AND the pedestrian crossing.
If you stop on the box junction (whilst heading southwest) to let pedestrians cross next to traffic light no.4, I should think you'd quite likely get a CCTV-generated FPN for stopping in the yellow box.
|
I agree with Dave_TD
No.4 is only a repeater for the earlier ones...you ignore that one.
You only have to stop for a red light if there is a solid white line in the road (other than temp lights etc).
|
|
There are similar junctions in my area some without the fourth repeater or even the third one. Even without the box markings it would make sense to clear the junction once you have started to cross.
|
Thanks for all of the advice.
I initially thought that light 4 was a repeater, but then I started to have second thoughts because it would seem to mean that the pedestrians on the second crossing could have a green man, but that vehicles could still be going over the crossing if they are not taking light number 4 into account.
Perhaps with the timing of the traffic/pedestrian lights, there would be sufficient delay to enable cars to exit the junction, but I had expected that pedestrian crossing lights would be more explicit than that (in the sense that if the pedestrian has a green light, there is always a corresponding red light stop traffic entering the crosssing).
I know that it is not clear, expecially because in one street view frame there are roadworks covering the road markings (they disappear if you move one step south) - but does it seem that light 3 is also a repeater? (as I think old crocks is suggesting)
Overall it seems strange to put pedestrian crossings directly either side of that junction, especially if there is no light directly protecting them from traffic, unless you happen to be a town planner who hates pedestrians! :)
|
Is there a solid white 'stop' line at that particular set of red lights?
If yes, you have to stop for a red.
If no, you can keep going, bearing in mind a green light = proceed if the way is clear
|
Is there a solid white 'stop' line at that particular set of red lights?
As far as I can tell there is not a stop line.
If no you can keep going bearing in mind a green light = proceed if the way is clear
Right, I guess that is really the important point. Now, if a pedestrian steps onto the crossing, I am obviously going to stop rather than hit them, but would I then be violating the box junction? You can probably predict, before you enter the box, whether you might get held up by traffic and prevented from exiting the box, but not whether a pedestrian might step onto the crossing.
Seems a bit harsh to punish a driver for stopping in the box, if they have to do so to avoid knocking down a pedestrian, but the more I drive the more I understand that road layouts are not as foolproof as I expected they would be! :(
|
SS,
Have a look at this link. I tried to look up the legislation, but a quick search didn't find it. I did find the link, which if the source is to be believed, suggests you'd commit no offence.
www.ticketfighter.co.uk/yellow.htm
Edited by Westpig on 12/11/2009 at 18:28
|
WP,
Thanks very much for taking the trouble to dig that out, I really appreciate it. They key point seems to be that you only commit an offence if the thing stopping you is a stationary vehicle.
However, I guess that the situation with the red light is still the same, that you don't have to stop for it, if there is no stop line. But at least if you do stop, you are not violating the bix junction rule.
I notice that at the bottom there is a link to the following news story:
preview.tinyurl.com/yfy6cmr
It relates to a junction I had some issues with recently. I happened to go back there, to observe how the lights works, and while I was there saw several situations where a whole lane of the dual carriageway was blocked by a car in the box junction. I don't know they having changed the junction so that they can now issue tickets again but, if they have, they must be making a fortune!
Thanks again.
|
|
|
![2021 Volvo XC40 1.5 T3 [163] R DESIGN 5dr Geartronic](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/b3d6419f14ce4bc1a1b12a40d5f68b12/9f3d5201b0dee2d4037b0d64f3330eaf.jpg)
