Run that Red Light!
Discussion
BBC
BBC said:I'm not sure how much I trust other road users to do this right (and it would certainly stuff red-light-cameras, but it seems like some progressive thinking.
Left turns at red lights proposed
The plan is based on the US where drivers can turn right at red lights Drivers should be able to turn left at red lights in a bid to ease congestion, the Conservatives have proposed.
No way. The yanks are used to it, we're not - won't work. If a junction can stand such a left turn then a sign to that effect could be placed at that juction only to allow said behaviour. In the States, it's the other way round, the sign tells you when you can't turn right on a red light. Here, we'd just get lots of tw@ts using it as an excuse to jump the red light in the left hand lane and then go another direction. CRUNCH SNAP SPLATT !
victormeldrew said:
I don't see anything wrong with that. I can think of a few places where there are nonsensical red lights where such a freedom would be great - which way do you always turn onto roundabouts again?
Whose idea to put a device to stop traffic on top of one designed to make traffic flow!??? 
Anyway, presumably you'll only be able to turn against a red if you've got a 'phone in your hand...
...and who stops at a red (or amber) light these days anyway
...and (been to Brentwood for the last few weeks) in some places people don't know what a "No Entry" sign means and it seems common enough to drive the wrong way up one way streets, so Highway Code changes are a bit superfluous
...and................Ooo don't get me started!!!!
They work perfectly well in the US - even though people don't follow the correct proceedure. They're supposed to treat them like our STOP signs, but generally they're treated as Give-Way.
There's several sets of lights that I drive through regularly where there's no reason at all not to turn left on red, and sometimes I do.
There's several sets of lights that I drive through regularly where there's no reason at all not to turn left on red, and sometimes I do.
Doesn't make too much sense to me......
A red light is a red light. If you're going to have to give way, then you may as well have sensors on the lights so that they aren't red when they don't need to be.
If they're just going to sort out the timing and phasing, that's got to be a good thing. They seem to have got worse over the last few years to the point of ridicule. I've seen more than one junction, with maybe four or five feeder roads, where everybody is sitting looking at a red light for an eternity. When the bloomin lights go green, two ar three cars can move before the lights go red again.
Who dos the timing on these junctions, I don't know, bt they ought to be strung up and shot.
A red light is a red light. If you're going to have to give way, then you may as well have sensors on the lights so that they aren't red when they don't need to be.
If they're just going to sort out the timing and phasing, that's got to be a good thing. They seem to have got worse over the last few years to the point of ridicule. I've seen more than one junction, with maybe four or five feeder roads, where everybody is sitting looking at a red light for an eternity. When the bloomin lights go green, two ar three cars can move before the lights go red again.
Who dos the timing on these junctions, I don't know, bt they ought to be strung up and shot.
Bizarrely, around here we used to have such a system - managed with filter arrows.
In a bid to increase congestion and therefore justify a congestion charge [1], Bristol City Council has been merrily going around removing perfectly good filter lanes and filter arrows on the lights.
In a bid to increase congestion and therefore justify a congestion charge [1], Bristol City Council has been merrily going around removing perfectly good filter lanes and filter arrows on the lights.
[1] The only reason I can see for doing it, anyway...
Why not just create filter lanes? I'm sure the amount it would cost would be nothing compared to the insurance costs of all the accidents it would cause.
Maybe they could grab the insurance companies by the nuts and make them pay for it on the basis that it'll save them money in the long run
Theres too many morons in this country to cope with being able to go through red lights. The ammount of times people pull out infront of me on regular junctions is amazing.
And mini roundabouts cause chaos round here as people seem to completely forget that its still a roundabout and you still need to giveway to the right, not accelerate and drive straight over it...
There'd be carnage left right and centre!
A lot of cross roads round here have pedestrian crossings as well, which are synchronised with the traffic lights, they'd have to change all of those too. think it would cost too much tbh
Maybe they could grab the insurance companies by the nuts and make them pay for it on the basis that it'll save them money in the long run
Theres too many morons in this country to cope with being able to go through red lights. The ammount of times people pull out infront of me on regular junctions is amazing.
And mini roundabouts cause chaos round here as people seem to completely forget that its still a roundabout and you still need to giveway to the right, not accelerate and drive straight over it...
There'd be carnage left right and centre!
A lot of cross roads round here have pedestrian crossings as well, which are synchronised with the traffic lights, they'd have to change all of those too. think it would cost too much tbh
Edited by Epiphany on Monday 5th June 13:17
agent006 said:
God help any pedestrians, mothers pushing pushchairs or cyclists trying to cross the road.
Yes, heaven forbid that they might have to pay attention.
You try crossing a road if you've got drivers going through the red as well as worrying about traffic turning into the other lane. It's not a case of not paying atttention but you would end up with a situation where a mother with a pram say is stuck in the middle of the road when the lights go green again. Not an ideal situation I'm sure you'll agree.
Works fine in the States.
a) Pedestrians crossing have right of way. Turning left (R in US) on red, you give way to pedestrians crossing, same as in the highway code here for junctions.
b) Its not the same as filter lanes; filter lanes here are 'uncontested' in that there will be no other traffic moving into the target of the filter lane; with L or red, it is the same as a give way, because there will/may be traffic going the same way.
c) The other US control which we should adopt is the flashing yellow/red on lights at non-peak hours, which turns it into a give way/stop respectively, so when there's no traffic about don't have to wait for 2 minutes of nothing before continuing.
a) Pedestrians crossing have right of way. Turning left (R in US) on red, you give way to pedestrians crossing, same as in the highway code here for junctions.
b) Its not the same as filter lanes; filter lanes here are 'uncontested' in that there will be no other traffic moving into the target of the filter lane; with L or red, it is the same as a give way, because there will/may be traffic going the same way.
c) The other US control which we should adopt is the flashing yellow/red on lights at non-peak hours, which turns it into a give way/stop respectively, so when there's no traffic about don't have to wait for 2 minutes of nothing before continuing.
Lived in the States for the last 6 years, and can confirm that both the right turn on red and the blinking yellow (caution - proceed with care) and blinking red (bring your vehicle to a complete stop, assess, and continue when safe and appropriate) work very well. The key here to remember is that all vehicles have to come to a complete stop, give right of way to all other users, by US law, and then assess whether they should turn right on red. Police regularly pull motorists who roll through stop signs and red lights (known as doing a "California"
and hand out fines...
Ash
and hand out fines... Ash
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff