Discriminatory timing on traffic lights

[ian]

Yesterday one woman motorist who has been delayed by the protesters said: 'They're acting like pillocks, what they're doing is pointless and annoying ordinary drivers.'

I suspect that opinion would be changed if I started driving an articulated lorry back and forth past her front door.

Like the shit they put out for cycling facilities, I figure the people who design this crap probably do know what they're doing, but they just can't be bothered. Pedestrians are just a nuisance. It'd be better all around if they'd just go away. Why can't they drive like normal people? What's the matter with them?

But the result is an environment that encourages driving because walking (and cycling) are unpleasant. You want to walk from my house to the station, you have to navigate endless parked cars on the pavement and a narrow road with aggressive drivers bulleting down the middle. It's a nightmare if you have a pushchair. And don't bother if you're disabled or have restricted mobility. You get to the town centre, and it's cars, cars, cars. The council are about to do a consultation on improving the town centre. They, of course, want it to be an idyll of pavement cafes, bijou stores with artisan goods, and happily families clutching ice creams. But that won't happen with a main road through the middle and parked cars clinging limpet-like to any and every fucking flat surface. Instead it's convenience stores and vacant store charity pop-ups.

[Kim]

The council are about to do a consultation on improving the town centre. They, of course, want it to be an idyll of pavement cafes, bijou stores with artisan goods, and happily families clutching ice creams. But that won't happen with a main road through the middle and parked cars clinging limpet-like to any and every fucking flat surface. Instead it's convenience stores and vacant store charity pop-ups.

Nahh, some nice new setts and stainless steel bollards and job's a good'un.

[jiberjaber]

Perhaps this should be in "Politics and Other Big Issues" now given the move of topic.....    

[ian]

The council are about to do a consultation on improving the town centre. They, of course, want it to be an idyll of pavement cafes, bijou stores with artisan goods, and happily families clutching ice creams. But that won't happen with a main road through the middle and parked cars clinging limpet-like to any and every fucking flat surface. Instead it's convenience stores and vacant store charity pop-ups.

Nahh, some nice new setts and stainless steel bollards and job's a good'un.

Probably. That's the problem really, councils are scared. They think the key to growth and improvement is unhindered access for cars and they're utterly terrified there won't be enough parking.

I'm unconvinced. Yes, some people need to drive, it's a semi-rural area on the edge of London, and sure we drive to the supermarket. But there's two ample car parks (both free) and I've never seen either of them full. Yeah, there may be walking involved, but how did we get to a situation where people plan their lives around avoiding walking a hundred or so metres (and likely less) because it's too much of an inconvenience.

The reality is that that many people simply drive straight through or if they do stop it's to grab a lottery ticket or cigarettes from a convenience store. That's what it encourages. You can't have the idyllic town centre they aspire to and a unhindered main road through the middle of it.

[Diver300]

See also this thread.
wherein it appears that there is a mandatory wait for pedstrians etc.
Maybe we should just walk down the middle of the road, seeing as we don't need a licance to do so.  As I do on the road I live on.  So far OK, apart from a death threat when I didn't jump out of the way quickly enough.  There was a child in the back of said car ...
Don't get me started on pedestrian crossings that take you mumble yards away from the pedstrian desire line so as not to inclonvenience the motons.

You mean the roundabout 5 minutes walk towards the centre of Coventry from the OP roundabout?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.43357,-1.4340728,3a,75y,132.62h,84.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-DoiRy7kyvSxZ4GD_Q_qEA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Where the extra walk is 2.5 mins + 2 crossing delays?
(Google Earth seems to think that you can walk the desire line)

[Cudzoziemiec]

We seem to invest a lot of time and effort in ensuring pedestrians know they're second class.

A recent discussion elsewhere on speed limits got a bit lively when someone suggested this problem could be solved if all 'road users' were viewed the equally in the eyes of the law - so speed limits would apply to both cyclists and pedestrians, but both groups would be in a better position to assert their rights to be on the road.

The fundamental problem I have with this idea is that in law, pedestrians already have more rights than motorists, so it would actually be a reduction of their rights.

Would speed limits for pedestrians give you the right to run at 70mph on the motorway?

Yesterday one woman motorist who has been delayed by the protesters said: 'They're acting like pillocks, what they're doing is pointless and annoying ordinary drivers.'

I suspect that opinion would be changed if I started driving an articulated lorry back and forth past her front door.

I expect her change of opinion would extend no further than her own street.

The council are about to do a consultation on improving the town centre. They, of course, want it to be an idyll of pavement cafes, bijou stores with artisan goods, and happily families clutching ice creams. But that won't happen with a main road through the middle and parked cars clinging limpet-like to any and every fucking flat surface. Instead it's convenience stores and vacant store charity pop-ups.

Nahh, some nice new setts and stainless steel bollards and job's a good'un.

Probably. That's the problem really, councils are scared. They think the key to growth and improvement is unhindered access for cars and they're utterly terrified there won't be enough parking.

Kind of. They are, but I think what they're really scared of is the voting power of disgruntled motorists. No parking no votes, as Bob Marley never sang. Some of them (and not just the Greenies) can see the problem but they don't have the resources to really deal with it.

[ian]

I'm not sure about the votes. A lot of people are passing through on their to other places. There's a lot of noise from drivers but ultimately they don't want to live in the places they make. There just doesn't seem much effort to challenge those voices. We need more militant pedestrians. I don't understand why we stand cowed at the roadside waiting for permission to cross and squeeze apologetically between obstructively parked cars.

Interestingly I'm reading the baseline reports* for our town's masterplan as I read this (don't let it be said that I don't lead an exciting life). They all pretty much outline the issue of a traffic and car-dominated town centre (two of them to be precise) where much of that traffic is people going somewhere else? Is there a will to change that. We did all this at previous place we lived (Brockley Cross). Consultants reports, etc. etc. Nothing changed (I was there the other weekend), there was ultimately no money and little will from Lewisham to interfere with the traffic flows through the area.

A shame if they don't do something, it's actually a fairly affluent place that ought to have decent townscape and culture to capture some of that affluence, but really you're unlikely to linger after you've left the station. Though I'm hoping to get made redundant so I can open a micropub and craft beer emporium opposite the station (you'll drink it all says my wife, somewhat reasonably).

*I like the comment about cycling: The local topography undoubtedly acts as a discouragement to all but the most dedicated cyclists (that's me!), but provision of new cycle infrastructure would help make cycling a more attractive proposition for those who would consider making journeys by cycle. After noting, of course, that there is no cycling infrastructure at all. Not even the joke type. OK, the TfL London Cycling maps offer a route out of the town that climbs up a 25% hill which I'm sure made someone laugh.

[Jaded]

OK! The thread has gone beyond timing on crossings, but here goes. Looking at getting transport planning more in line with communities.

We've got community support for a 20mph limit, parish wide. Including a trunk road (that does have two other 20mph limits).

What I've found in putting together the case, which we started after frequent complaints from the public about traffic in the town, was that if you engage with the public directly they are 90% in favour. If you do it indirectly via the internet, they are 50% in favour.

Engaging directly, the message was "this is a town, it is for everyone, not just drivers". Only rabid petrolheads disagreed.
Online, the trite old arguments that you find on anti-20mph websites were rolled out. My experience  with Paul Smith was useful here...

Pancho helped me see that to get need to think sideways, think differently from the hegemony. And to persevere.

Our 20mph limit? Stuck in the molasses that is the TRO mechanism. Fingers crossed.

[ian]

I'm not sure it's off-topic, it's all on the same spectrum, and illustrates the ways in which we let poor decisions and minority views have such a profound negative influence on our urban environment.

And I think you're right, those angry voices that pipe up each time are a minority of over-entitled whiners.

[hubner]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/maximum_pedestrian_crossing_wait

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/waiting_times_for_pedestrian_cro

It seems to be 90 sec to 2 min, more importantly it seems priority is always given to motor vehicles.

The Mayor has made it clear that traffic
signals should be re-phased to take into account the needs of all road
users, and that the safety of pedestrians should never be compromised.
However, where it makes sense, timings can be altered to
favour motorists instead of pedestrians, or vice versa. This is about
making junctions more efficient. It is not about favouring motorists over
any other form of transport.

my bold.

I guess "more efficient" means more vehicle flow.

[ian]

There we go, it never takes long to surface, like a poorly flushed turd, the usual 'balance the needs of all road users' bollocks. Call it what it is, priority for traffic over everything else, including safety. The words belong in the mouth of lying, disingenuous shitmonkeys that peddle this nonsense.

[Jaded]

^ wot 'e said

[citoyen]

Making driving more difficult would be very much a good thing in my book.

To get back on topic, when I'm in charge, I shall standardise all crossings to be fitted with sensors so they activate within 10 seconds when a pedestrian/cyclist approaches. Regardless of whether the pedestrian/cyclist actually intends to cross the road.

[Basil]

I'd connect all lights to a speed sensor a little up road.  Drive too fast and you'll get an awful lot of red lights.

[Jaded]

I'd connect all lights to a speed sensor a little up road.  Drive too fast and you'll get an awful lot of red lights.

They have those in the Iberian peninsula.

Although many of the ones I drove past in the last few weeks appeared not to be working.

And there is one in Scotland. I looked into us having one in my town. Given it has taken over a year to not yet have our 20mph TRO even published, I felt that a speed control red light would have been a bridge too far.

[Wanlock Dod]

The reality is that that many people simply drive straight through or if they do stop it's to grab a lottery ticket or cigarettes from a convenience store. That's what it encourages. You can't have the idyllic town centre they aspire to and a unhindered main road through the middle of it.

Just in case you are not already aware of it you may find this interesting http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/transport/roads/item/4542-the-impact-of-road-projects-in-england

The following is extracted from the summary on the economic impacts of road building:

Where a road scheme was justified on the basis that it would support regeneration of an area with a struggling economy, it was common for economic development following completion of the road scheme to be slower than expected, or not to materialise at all, or to be of a type which offered little benefit to the area concerned.
Where a road scheme was justified on the basis that it was needed to cater for current and future traffic in a ‘pressure cooker’ area with a buoyant economy, it was common for the scheme to be followed by much development in car-dependent locations, causing rapid traffic growth and congestion on both the road scheme and the pre-existing road network.
Some road schemes were justified on the basis that by reducing journey times, they would increase the number of jobs that were accessible to local people, or increase the potential workforce able to access major employment sites, or create thousands of new jobs. There was no evidence of measurable economic benefit from these schemes.

[MikeFromLFE]

I'd connect all lights to a speed sensor a little up road.  Drive too fast and you'll get an awful lot of red lights.

They have those in the Iberian peninsula.

Although many of the ones I drove past in the last few weeks appeared not to be working.

My very brief experience is that they are even found in very rural areas            where the locals ignore them with impunity.


Tapatalk puts this signature here, not me!

[The Family Cyclist]

I have to cross a road which for some reason has separate buttons for cyclists and pedestrians. Obviously it may be coincidence and down to where in the cycle the lights are but I'm sure the pedestrian button gets the green lights for pedestrians and cyclists quicker then the cyclist one.

[Pete Owens]

You have to wait at SEVEN separate toucan crossings to get across this junction following the Birchwood-Sankey cycle route in Warrington requires SIX separate toucan crossings (OK 6 as 4&5 can usually be taken as one). https://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/57027557/#balanced
I think Cyclestreets estimate of 44s is a tad optimistic!

[Jaded]

Find a reason to meet a councillor responsible for traffic blx.

Arrange to meet them the wrong side of everything, then say 'Ooops, sorry, the meeting is over there."

Chat/No Chat during the saunter across....

[SA_SA_SA_SA]

Those are the Puffin crossings mentioned by Kim. The logic of putting the light on the box is that the man can go red after a certain time, so people arriving at the kerb won't start to cross, while the red light for traffic can be simultaneously extended in order to allow slower pedestrians ...

The Southern Irish can use a farside amber standing figure rather than blackout at 'dumb' fixed period crossings, but  as the Dft now use amber countdowns for this, an amber walking figure could thus perhaps be used to indicate the (extendable) blackout at UK smart farside crossings (Old style smart Toucans/ One-cans). The Near-side-onlyless of Puffins is completely unnecessary  IMO) .  Or they could perhaps make smart countdown crossings, trickier but I sent an idea to tfl....

Also wide Puffin  crossings can have a mid crossing island request panel* (which is blacked out when pavement ones are red but traffic is held at red (except perhaps for a few second all red period). I suggest most medium  Puffins could be slightly improved by fitting these (a stopgap).


* for people marooned when Puffin crossing times out on them (for taking too long to cross) and gives priority back to traffic... 

[Cudzoziemiec]

Maybe. I think in practice mid-way islands would mean the crossing getting chopped in two, with what is currently one crossing getting treated as two separate crossings needing two separate waiting times. That seems to be the UK way (not only UK, of course). But amber stickmen meaning "finish crossing but don't start" should work, unlike countdowns they don't commit to an end time so in theory can be extended until everyone who's on the crossing when they come on, has got onto the pavement.

[SA_SA_SA_SA]

Maybe....

Definitely
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120606202850/http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/tal-1-02/tal-1-02.pdf
http://www.ukroads.org/webfiles/tal01-02.pdf

From page 2:

Only two indications are given: the 'green walking man' is shown to indicate the start of
the pedestrian period (with the meaning "You May Start To Cross"); and the 'red standing
man', which is shown at all other times and means "Do Not Start to Cross". The only
exception is where a crossing is installed with a central refuge island. The pedestrian
signal in the central refuge area (only) switches to a blackout (neither red man nor
green man illuminated) during the clearance period.

Page 4 lower right shows such (single)  'Crossings with a central refuge'


As you say an amber walking figure would nice....

[rogerzilla]

You have to wait at SEVEN separate toucan crossings to get across this junction following the Birchwood-Sankey cycle route in Warrington requires SIX separate toucan crossings (OK 6 as 4&5 can usually be taken as one). https://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/57027557/#balanced
I think Cyclestreets estimate of 44s is a tad optimistic!

I'm glad I moved house in 2014 because my old commute past the hospital now requires EIGHT toucan crossings where it used to be a mere five.  The timing of the three new ones is on the "is this thing actually working?" scale.  These things are put in to meet sustainable design requirements but are then configured for cars and cars only.  However, if you moan to the council they can usually tweak them.