OT: Four in every five sets of traffic lights should be removed, report claims

[Tim Streater]

Oh is that what it means? I assumed it was anti-skid like you see at some bends.

[The Natural Philosopher]

It is.

[Tim Streater]

Yes, everyone stops in sequence and the throughput is low, because there is only one car in the junction at any one moment. Roundabouts are better.

[kipg]

It's far from clear that they do actually see higher volumes of traffic move on those roads than lights do on the roads that have lights in the UK.

IMO it makes a lot more sense to have one of the roads with priority over the other one.

[tabbypurr]

ml

Traffic lights are real time wasters. But let's not forget they proliferate d for a reason; things beforehand were anarchic, and problems resulted.

If you want to see how shared space works, just look for videos of busy str eets in say 1910 or 1920. Total anarchy, with almost continuous near misses and unavoidably slow un-dense progress. The only thing that stopped such s treets being crash central was the inability to do more than something like 10mph, and I expect that the accident rate was high even so.

The solution? Traffic lights that turn to yellow instead of red, meaning th e other people have priority over you. Simple, best of all worlds. The need for this has been obvious for as long as I've been driving, and surely far longer. The follies of those in charge of road schemes never cease to amaz e me. We've had a string of mad implementations round here over the years.

NT

[The Natural Philosopher]

I just wondered if people agree or not. I have to say I do.

ER no, actually they were not.

And they didn't.

Take a local town. No traffic lights on a given junction clear priority, no accidents.,

In go lights, result? journey times increase traffic jams ensue, still no accidents?

I take it you have never driven in italy..

[The Natural Philosopher]

Or go for mini-roundabout priority rules. One of the sanest bits of road law (lore) ever.

As opposed to 'priorité à droit, which has to be the least sane..

[T i m]

+1.

We have such a roundabout locally and it's interesting to note that it all generally flows much more freely when all the lights are out,

*except* at the peak of rush hour (the lights are normally on 24/7).

However, I think some yellow boxes might stop those people who simply must pull across the lights and then foul the roundabout so that no one can move?

Cheers, T i m

[kipg]

We had the exact opposite, quite a few accidents before the lights, none after the lights. No traffic jams at all with the lights.

Yes, the traffic doesn?t move as quickly but you also don?t end up waiting for what can be a very long time when you arrive at the junction on one of the low priority roads.

[damduck-egg]

Is that it's primary purpose? or it just happens to be used for better grip at danger points and if any one happens to use the red colour as a warning it is a bonus. Seems strange to adopt a system that could hardly be seen at night especially Red, now if it was dayglo orange or yellow it might get noticed.

G.Harman

[Huge]

Yes.

[NY]

I never knew that red tarmac indicated "dangerous junction". They kept that one very quiet! I knew that pale cream tarmac that emits an aromatic smell is used for extra grip on sharp bends on high-speed roads, and at traffic lights for extra grip when slowing down or accelerating away.

One of the problems with marking junctions as dangerous is that traffic on the major road slows down on the approach, which traffic on the minor road interprets as "he's giving way to me", so converting the *possibility* of someone pulling out ahead of traffic on the major road into a *certainty* :-(

I favour the use of a clear signal (headlamp flashing or else something else) from the driver on the major road, and traffic on the minor road should not assume that the major road traffic intends to let them out unless such a clear signal is given. That allows traffic to slow down *in case* someone pulls out without actually encouraging them to do so.

When I'm driving on a fast road with side roads joining, I will occasionally ease off my speed very slightly on the approach to a side road to create a nice big gap to let someone out into, and then give them a clear flash to confirm that this is my intention; I expect that if someone then does pull out, they will do me the courtesy of accelerating up to the general speed of the traffic ASAP instead of dawdling.

Too many people on a major road drive bumper to bumper and you can be sitting at a minor road for minutes on end, waiting for a gap. At the end of my road, even if I want to turn right onto the main road, I will often turn left, drive for a couple of hundred yards and do a U turn in a side road on my RHS as this is quicker and safer in heavy traffic than trying to turn right. Quite often I will pull up alongside someone who is turning right, do my U turn manoeuvre and drive past them on the main road when they are still sitting there waiting to turn. If it's safe to do so and I'm feeling charitable I may even flash them to let them pull out ahead of me:

I follow the green route rather than the normal red route at busy times.

[tabbypurr]

Italian traffic is nothing like here, thank god

NT

[T i m]

Same with headlights and speed bumps (miss-read as an indication to pull out etc).

Whilst I understand and use that ITRW, isn't it only supposed to be used as a warning?

Or until it's proven to be safe by the car on the main road slowing sufficiently or stopping etc?

Quite.

+1. Often not the case though. Or when you drop back approaching a merging slip-road to allow space for someone to merge and they then don't 'get on with it'. ;-(

The 'London' solution to that is just to pull out into the traffic anyway, even if there is no complete clear exit.

Yup, done that at a couple of local junctions a few times (I tend to drive down the side road and do a 3 point turn).

I am also quick to allow anyone out / across when not-doing so will inevitably hold up more traffic (like allowing someone to turn right into a side road across the front of me because of the traffic they are holding up).

What I hate are those who often choose say the outside lane approaching a roundabout because it's free flowing and then turn left across those who have been queuing in the left lane legitimacy going straight across. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[Dave Plowman (News)]

They are, of course, socialist. Equal opportunity for every driver regardless of race, creed or class.

No wonder turnip hates them.

[R D S]

claims.html

'They' have made a right bollocks of the traffic around here, while trying to 'improve'* it.

I cannot think of a junction locally that doesn't benefit from the lights being out. I often approach junctions mindful that they are unseemingly quiet, and this will be the reason.

*Improving it always seems to follow the same pattern, shut a load of roads, make a load one way, make traffic follow a route it wouldn't have normally meaning there are more cars on any given stretch of road at any given time, waffle on about how it will all be better when even more improvements are made and they are all synced together.

Chorley seems to work quite well though, a two lane ring road in the centre of town with loads of roundabouts on it.

[NY]

I don't do that, but I may sometimes approach a roundabout in the right hand lane and go all the way round in order to turn left if the turn-left queue is very long. While it might not be entirely fair, at least it's a perfectly safe manoeuvre.

[R D S]

They will probably be texting. I have a premises at a lighted junction and spend all day listening to frustrated horn blowing, the driver at the front often looking at their lap.

[charles]

when I was young, red tarmac indicated that you wer driving in Lanarkshire

- nothing more and nothing less.

[The Natural Philosopher]

no.