Right, I've asked this before about another junction, but I am still a bit confused, so please bear with me.
Here is the junction
tinyurl.com/2co36ar
Now, imagine that I am in the location indicated by streetview and heading forward. I entered the junction from entrance directly behind, and when I did so the lights had just turned amber, but by the time I reach the crossing in front of me, they are red.
My understanding is that the set of lights ahead of me are "repeaters" for the set of lights that I passed to enter the junction and, because I have already crossed the stop line at the first set of lights and because there is no further stop line before the repeaters I can proceed past the red lights and over the crossing.
That is my understanding from asking this question before.
But, is that right?
Also, what I really still don't understand is, do pedestrians have the right of way on the crossing and how do the traffic lights correlate with the green man that the pedestrians on the crossing will see?
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Mon 21 Jun 10 at 08:45
|
|
The traffic lights in front of you in your link are a pedestrian crossing, not repeater lights. Pedestrians have absolute priority.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 21 Jun 10 at 09:00
|
I would assume (and hope) the pedestrian lights are so phased to be green when the traffic lights are red. Probably while all traffic lights are red. Thats the implication I get from there not being a stop line at the far lights.
|
>> I would assume (and hope) the pedestrian lights are so phased to be green when
>> the traffic lights are red
...although in the streetview link they are on amber ie. just changing to red with the camera vehicle approaching, so it looks like it will have to stop in the junction.
|
>> The traffic lights in front of you in your link are a pedestrian crossing, not
>> repeater lights. Pedestrians have absolute priority.
Thanks OldNavy, but if they are linked to the pedestrian crossing, shouldn't there be a stop line?
|
If it were a pedestrian crossing, there would be a stop line and a traffic light on the left hand kerb - wouldn't there?
I think it is, as you say, a repeater light for the junction.
|
>> If it were a pedestrian crossing, there would be a stop line and a traffic
>> light on the left hand kerb - wouldn't there?
>>
>> I think it is, as you say, a repeater light for the junction.
>>
There are pedestrian push buttons on the posts, it wouldn't be the only illegal crossing or parking signage by a long way.
|
|
It is most certainly a pedestrian crossing. Arguments about phasing of lights and stop lines are irrelevant. If you fail to stop, you could probably be in trouble.
|
My first reaction was same as others, a separate 'pelican' type crossing. However closer examination and rotation of the streetview to take in the whole scene suggests that the crossings are in fact part of a more complex phased junction. On the 'approach' side in both directions there are very clear stop lines and ASL boxes for us cyclists. So I think Steel's view that they're repeaters is right.
I'll bet plenty of folks come out of Tesco's and stop at the red though!! There's a similar set up by the car park exit at Watford Junction station - about one phase in three the whole lot stops up 'cos some numpty stops for the repeater.
|
I'm with Bromptonaut, it is indeed as the OP thinks, a secondary light for the through traffic on Southbury Road.
I'd have thought it would make more sense to put that secondary light on the nearside just after the cycle box as I agree, lots of will no doubt come out of Tesco's and stop!
As for the pedestrians, I doubt they'll have a 'green man' until well after the offending secondary light has turned red.
However, strange creatures pedestrians at lights, any sign of hesitation from the driver and they're off onto the roadway, further contributing to the confusion.
There's a small town near me with lots of raised sections to act as 'traffic calming' but many, if not all pedestrians, think they are crossings and walk onto 'em without a care and equally many motorists now encourage the practice.
|
Here is the other question that I asked, which is where I got the understanding about repeater lights, although I am not sure if the two junctions are comparable.
tinyurl.com/36bgmfb
|
|
I would suggest you negotiate it as you feel appropriate but dont hit anyone,
|
|
It is a repeater light (also to carry the right filter light) because there is only one of them and there is no stop line.
|
>> negotiate it as you feel appropriate but dont hit anyone,
My very thought. Priority is a secondary consideration. Just pussyfoot, unless as in the street view link there's no traffic of any description in sight. If it's like that you can do handbrake turns and wheelies and doughnuts and things, get out of your car and make a speech in mid-turn, have a quick pee and then just complete the turn.
OK? Looks pretty simple to me.
|
>> OK? Looks pretty simple to me.
Thanks AC, no doubt good advice, but are you saying that I can go through the red light? I would have thought yes, and a lot of people seem to be saying yes, but it seems that others have doubts.
The one thing for sure is that everybody here has driven much more than me, so I am sat on the sidelines, hoping that at some point there is agreement. Yes, I know it would be a first :)
|
|
If you want to go through a red light that has a pedestrian button on it feel free, I certainly won't. I know of several crossings that are immediately after junctions. Daft location from a drivers viewpoint, but anti car policy puts pedestrians first.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 21 Jun 10 at 12:02
|
>> If you want to go through a red light that has a pedestrian button on
>> it feel free, I certainly won't. I know of several crossings that are immediately after
>> junctions.
I'll be happy to go through it if, it is safe to do so and legal to do so. I can figure out the former at the time, but I don't understand the latter.
>> Daft location from a drivers viewpoint, but anti car policy puts pedestrians first.
As I have said before, I think that it is a sneaky anti-pedestrian policy. Confuse the drivers enough and wipe out a few pedestrians :)
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Mon 21 Jun 10 at 12:06
|
Don't stop for the red light.
If there is someone crossing then stop for them, but not for the red light.
If you do all you are likely to get is someone crashing up your rear end. And you wouldn't want that!
|
It seems to me to be purely a pedestrian crossing...you can see clearly the lines of studs across the road if you go on a click.
If you go on a click further and look back you can see the studs facing the direction of the first picture.
I would stop. It seems that it is changing to red, yet nobody is around to push the button.
There are a few light controlled crossings round here that change with nobody in sight. I always stop for them.
There's no harm in stopping.......drivers behind you will see the red and realise why.
Better than a fine for jumping a stop light.
Ted
Last edited by: silence of the cams on Mon 21 Jun 10 at 12:28
|
>> are you saying that I can go through the red light?
Ah, I see what you mean now, and thanks for not taking offence at my frivolity.
I know a couple of places like that. One of them is near the Bristol showroom in Hammersmith Road, or rather beside it in Holland Road or whatever it's called, and another is in Harrow Road near here, by the junction with Ladbroke Grove.
I tend to go through them, as many but not all others do. So far I haven't run over anyone at either of them.
There ought to be special stocks for traffic engineers so that they could be punished with showers of rotten fruit for crossings like that, or the light-controlled crossing on the A24 at the south end of Dorking, just on top of a roundabout that the unwary may regard as light-controlled.
|
Look at the junction from another view.
tinyurl.com/2826mtf
(Edit. you will need to drag it about 50m to see the whole junction.)
It is clearly the pedestrian crossing as part of a typical junction, albeit a rather stretched one, and not a separate pedestrian crossing.
Consider the traffic coming out of Tesco. That would not stop at that light or it would just block the junction.
Last edited by: crocks on Mon 21 Jun 10 at 13:02
|
>> >> I would have thought yes, and a lot of people seem to
>> be saying yes, but it seems that others have doubts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
It would seem so, I despair, on a motoring forum too!
Primary traffic lights are the ones to be obeyed and they are only found to the left of each and every Stop Line, all other traffic lights are secondary and are there to give information about the status of the primary light.
Stopping at the this or any other secondary light simply because you can see it is red would, without a doubt, result in a fail on a driving test.
|
>> I despair, on a motoring forum too!
>>
>> Primary traffic lights are the ones to be obeyed and they are only found to
>> the left of each and every Stop Line, all other traffic lights are secondary and
>> are there to give information about the status of the primary light.
I have been driving for some time, and I have never heard anywhere that it's OK to go through a red light due to some difference between "primary" and "secondary" traffic lights. Is this in the Highway Code somewhere?
|
IMO clearly a repeater light. It even repeats the "No Left Turn" sign on the main lights.
J.
|
|
SS - try asking the local council?
|
|
I should try asking a policeman.
|
I have done a search of the Highway Code and can find no mention of this alleged distinction between primary and secondary traffic lights.
Where is the official reference to them?
How, if you join at a point in between the primary and secondary lights, are you supposed to know whether the lights now facing you are primary or secondary?
Is there a time limit for the primary/secondary function to apply? eg should a slow moving vehicle continue to disregard the secondary red, or is there a point at which it has to be considered "trapped" and obliged to stop?
It seems to me to be an absurd and potentially dangerous concept to apply to traffic rules - that there are red lights you MUST stop at and others you are obliged to ignore.
Obvious question: what is the purpose of the secondary light, if both red and green mean "go"?
|
Strikes me as a two part question.
Part one - Is there anyone in the way ?
Part two - Is there anyone looking ?
No to both = go.
|
As far as am aware there is no such thing as a secondary traffic light. It is an offense to cross a stop line when the traffic light is red but there is no legal necessity for a stop line to exist or be visible. For example if the the line is worn away by traffic. You must stop at a red light whether or not a line exists. At a temporary light the "Stop Here" sign serves the purpose of a white line.
So in the case in question you must stop at the light, if red
|
GCN, you are quite correct except that there is such a thing as secondary signals.
I quote from the Traffic Signs & General Directions 2002 (TSRGD):-
"secondary signals" means light signals erected on or near the carriageway facing traffic approaching from the direction of the primary signals but sited beyond those signals as viewed from the direction of travel of such traffic; "
Thou shallt not cross the stop line when the signal shows red - the primary and secondary signals will always show the same colour at the same time. As you say, the stop line may not always be there.
|
>> Thou shallt not cross the stop line when the signal shows red - the primary
>> and secondary signals will always show the same colour at the same time. As you
>> say, the stop line may not always be there.
I can see that as true, but I still can't see any case for crossing the "second" light on red - unless the OP crosses the first one on late amber (which, incidentally and anyway, means "STOP"!).
|
>> I have done a search of the Highway Code and can find no mention of
>> this alleged distinction between primary and secondary traffic lights.
Agreed.
>> Where is the official reference to them?
Don't know. But I believe traffic engineers use that terminology.
But the important thing is the stop line. All the lights, both primary and secondary, relate to the stop line.
>> How, if you join at a point in between the primary and secondary lights, are
>> you supposed to know whether the lights now facing you are primary or secondary?
The primary light is at the stop line. If you have crossed the stop line then any other light is a secondary.
>> Is there a time limit for the primary/secondary function to apply? eg should a slow
>> moving vehicle continue to disregard the secondary red, or is there a point at which
>> it has to be considered "trapped" and obliged to stop?
I would say No, subject to common sense and experience.
>> It seems to me to be an absurd and potentially dangerous concept to apply to
>> traffic rules - that there are red lights you MUST stop at and others you
>> are obliged to ignore.
You comply with all red lights by stopping at the stop line.
>> Obvious question: what is the purpose of the secondary light, if both red and green
>> mean "go"?
Purpose is to improve visibility for all drivers. At large multi-lane junctions it would be difficult for all drivers to see a single light at the left hand end of the stop line.
|
secondary traffic lights
www.fixmystreet.com/report/69375
google street view tinyurl.com/25gcq6h
notice that the repeater secondary light is after the pedestrian marked zone.
Last edited by: John H on Mon 21 Jun 10 at 18:30
|
Crocks is right here. Think of a traffic light as a switchable stop line. You don't stop at the light, you stop at the line it controls. No stop line, no stop.
There's a junction I used to pass a lot that caused similar erratic behaviour among the ignorant and the over-cautious. The lights control a junction where a side road joins the main road from the left, and there's a similar secondary light on the far side for traffic on the main road.
tinyurl.com/32atj2j
On a few occasions I've seen a driver emerge from the side when that light was green, turn left, see the secondary light, which is, of course, red for the main road, and stop dead, despite there being no stop line. It cannot make sense - or be correct under the HC - to stop in this position.
There are pedestrian lights here too, but these are green for crossing only when all the lights for traffic are red. As in the OP's case, a pedestrian on the crossing would have priority only by virtue of being there first; he wouldn't have the lights in his favour. Sensible pedestrians don't cross here anyway - you have to wait for ages for a green man.
A separate pedestrian crossing, which is what Oldnavy seems to be mistaking the OP's lights for, would have stop lines in both directions. There's one in my Streetview link if you scroll on about 200 metres and the road markings are very clear and quite different.
|
'emerge', ptui!
If anything like that can happen you just observe due caution.
Some people talk - in fact a lot do including those who ought to and do know better - as if hazards, cyclists, little pink toddlers and so forth can materialise out of the air in the middles of empty junctions, on deserted lengths of industrial pavement, etc. What an absolute galloping pain in the fundament.
What is this, the real world or nursery school? Tchah!
|
you stop at the line it controls. No stop line, no stop.
Exactly wrong. The stop line indicates the point inf front of the lights where you must stop. In the absence of a stop line it is still an absolute offence to pass a red traffic light
|
If it's my 'emerge' you're objecting to, AC, I don't see why. It doesn't imply anything unexpected - it just means 'come out' as when a butterfly emerges from its cocoon.
And, CGN, I think you're wrong about the lights. I'll gladly change my mind if you can provide a citation from the HC, but my view is that fixed lights always have a stop line and temporary ones a 'When red light shows, wait here' (or recently, 'Wait here until green light shows') board.
HC 175:
You MUST stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop might cause a collision.
HC 176
You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care.
In each case, it's line, not the light, that you must not pass.
|
>> And, CGN, I think you're wrong about the lights. I'll gladly change my mind if
>> you can provide a citation from the HC, but my view is that fixed lights
>> always have a stop line and temporary ones a 'When red light shows, wait here'
>> (or recently, 'Wait here until green light shows') board.
The law relating to this issue is contained in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 .. Section 5 Article 43, Meaning of stop Line and reference to Light Signals.
Paragraph 2 states
(3) Where no stop line has been provided in conjunction with light signals or the stop line is not visible, references in relation to those signals to the "stop line" are -
(a) in a case where the sign shown in diagram 7011, 7011.1 or 7027 is placed in conjunction with the light signals, to be treated as references to that sign; and
(b) in any other case, to be treated as references to the post or other structure on which the primary signals are mounted
Thus in the case in question the stop line is defined in sub paragraph (b)as the post on which the primary signals are mounted.
|
>> you stop at the line it controls. No stop line, no stop.
>>
>> Exactly wrong. The stop line indicates the point inf front of the lights where you
>> must stop. In the absence of a stop line it is still an absolute offence
>> to pass a red traffic light
>>
Oh come on!
If that was 100% true, then traffic would never pass through a junction!
most traffic lighted junctions have a set of lights on the far side of the junction (not as far as the OP's i'll admit) but if it was an 'absolute offence to pass a red traffic light' then you could NEVER clear a junction as you would have to stop halfway through your manoeuvre at the red light.....
|
>...you could NEVER clear a junction as you would have to stop halfway through your manoeuvre at the red light.
I'll wager you've passed a red traffic light when completing a right turn, CGN. Was that an 'absolute offence'?
|
>> >> In the absence of a stop line it is still an absolute offence
>> >> to pass a red traffic light
>>
>> most traffic lighted junctions have a set of lights on the far side of the
>> junction (not as far as the OP's i'll admit) but if it was an 'absolute
>> offence to pass a red traffic light' then you could NEVER clear a junction as
>> you would have to stop halfway through your manoeuvre at the red light.....
But, as mentioned by someone, these sort of lights function as one - if you are treating the lights correctly (amber=stop) then you will have ample time to pass the junction.
|
>> >> you would have to stop halfway through your manoeuvre at the red light.....
>>
>> But, as mentioned by someone, these sort of lights function as one - if you
>> are treating the lights correctly (amber=stop) then you will have ample time to pass the
>> junction.
>>
Not if you are turning right, where the lights are green for you.... you HAVE to pass a red light - meant to be red for the traffic to your left/right, but you still have to pass it at red.
|
>> if you are treating the lights correctly (amber=stop)
What if you haven't time to stop (behind the stop line)? That's always a possibility, no matter how slowly you're going.
Last edited by: Focus on Tue 22 Jun 10 at 06:40
|
>> Think of a traffic light as a switchable stop line. You don't stop at the light, you
>> stop at the line it controls. No stop line, no stop.
No, that's really silly. Should you come up to a temporary system, e.g. at road works - you stop, but there's no "stop line". People have been "pinched" for not stopping. "The "stop line" "don't enter into it!".
Where is the law, in the Highway Code or any other place, that says it's OK to go through a red light, for the normal driver, in normal circumstances?
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Mon 21 Jun 10 at 22:26
|
|
OK, FT, let me put it another way. In the OP's case, under 175, he has already crossed the stop line when the red light appears, so he is clear to proceed through the junction. There is no second stop line, so there is nowhere for him to stop.
|
Surely though, not just WdeB but Fothers and others too, life is far too short to worry about the awful silly often-wrong letter of the law as it affects various sorts of not-very-busy junction?
I mean this stuff might be interesting to a first-year law student who had it in for the automobile, but what actual driver would give a fish's tit as my father used to say when seriously irritated? They would all be long gone with no risk to man or beast.
Honestly chaps. I'm horrified.
|
...life is far too short...
It certainly is, AC - but part of the fun here is that we discuss some amazingly footling questions; whether, when and where you are required to stop when a light turns red seems a lot less trivial than some.
}:---)
|
Right or wrong, footling or not, the fact is there is some confusion in some road users' minds and it is causing congestion (look at the example posted above, from a website dedicated to public reporting of traffic problems).
So it would he helpful to get a definitive statement from somewhere authoritative.
|
>> >> if it was an 'absolute
>> >> offence to pass a red traffic light' then you could NEVER clear a junction
>> >> as you would have to stop halfway through your manoeuvre at the red
>> >> light.....
>>
>> But, as mentioned by someone, these sort of lights function as one - if you
>> are treating the lights correctly (amber=stop) then you will have ample time to
>> pass the junction.
Is it really the case that you couldn't safely stop for an amber, you could always clear every junction before red? You might not be going very quickly into the amber, but have someone very close behind for example. Also, the junction might not be clear, but of there is no box I would typical enter it anyway, and still leave it on a red.
It seems an important point to me, because it is the most obvious example where adhering to the later red seems to not make sense.
If there wasn't a pedestrian crossing the original case, it would never have occurred to me that you might stop for the red light at the exit to a junction. The whole point of the red lights would seem to be to stop you entering the junction, not exiting it.
|
Another junction here, Gray's Inn Road and High Holborn just round the corner from where I'm sitting.
tinyurl.com/3xqmyt3
Of course the red lights govern entry to the junction. The secondary or repeater lights are there to improve visibilty of the light's aspects. Nothing else. Obviously, if you've passed the stop line and a pedestrian wanders onto the crossing you'd stop for them but the idea that you must stop at the second set or face a charge is absurd.
|
|
Stop for a pedestrian in London? Have the local rules changed since I was last there?
|
Junction near me: tinyurl.com/3ywc9ed
You can see it's quite a distance from the stop line to the repeater lights (above the red Micra). A lot of people don't worry about going through the primary lights on red so it doesn't seem to be an issue.
|
>> Stop for a pedestrian in London?
Obviously he didn't really mean 'stop'. But 'clip the pedestrian's toes/heels with an irritable chirp of tyres' is inconveniently long for a quick post.
:o}
|
>> Obviously he didn't really mean 'stop'. >> :o}
As a yokel who 's only here to push a pen the mysteries of 'driving' in the metropolops are beyond me :-y
|
Another day, another junction - Old Navy
