Yellow Box of Peril

[Rick101]

Yes, I thought that was the line that applied for vehicle type?

[Vaux]

Rick101 said:

Yes, I thought that was the line that applied for vehicle type?

If you're approaching a green light and it turns amber/red stop before the first line if you can (HC 178).
Your light was green so I'd have moved off and stopped at about 12 secs. If the traffic to the left cleared, carry on (if safe). If the lights had cycled and the way wasn't clear, traffic from the right shouldn't enter the YBJ so you're not bothering anyone.
The ped. crossing isn't technically a Puffin so I don't think it's part of the pedestrian crossing regulations (it doesn't have zig zags); even if it was, HC 192 says you "should" keep the crossing clear, not MUST.

[Rick101]

Ah, good point.

Do you know what that type of crossing is?

[TooMany2cvs]

Rick101 said:

I am at the stop line (at speed) ...

Consider though I'm in a large and heavy old Volvo with a slushbox. My camera does not record speed but I have certainly got the vehicle moving and would be unlikley to come to a nice smooth controlled stop as you are supposed to do in AD. I could of course have slammed on at the stop line but I would probably end up the recipient of a rear shunt.

You don't move off until damn near 4 sec, and you're three car lengths back from the line, for the love of gawd... In a busy urban 30 limit, in the wet.

[Vaux]

Rick101 said:

Ah, good point.

Do you know what that type of crossing is?

Google tells me something like "Traffic Signal Controlled Pedestrian Facilities"

From here: http://www.traffic-signal-design.com/pedestrian_fa...

I found some archived stuff that goes into more detail how they're set up:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120607...

Found this: "Traffic Light Controlled Crossing" at 8:08:
https://youtu.be/JxFbDIQmI0k

Edited by Vaux on Friday 17th November 22:43

[p1esk]

To my mind the problem with a lot of box junctions is that they are far too big.

I've no quarrel with the principle of them, but the objective could be met quite satisfactorily by making them just big enough to maintain a through route for crossing traffic. If they were to be set out on that basis it is much less likely that drivers would be trapped into stopping in the box.

[Cliftonite]

p1esk said:

To my mind the problem with a lot of box junctions is that they are far too big.

I've no quarrel with the principle of them, but the objective could be met quite satisfactorily by making them just big enough to maintain a through route for crossing traffic. If they were to be set out on that basis it is much less likely that drivers would be trapped into stopping in the box.

Do they not have to reach the kerbs at the corner of the junctions? This must fix the sizing.

More importantly, a smaller box would yield less revenue from fines.

[p1esk]

Cliftonite said:

p1esk said:

To my mind the problem with a lot of box junctions is that they are far too big.

I've no quarrel with the principle of them, but the objective could be met quite satisfactorily by making them just big enough to maintain a through route for crossing traffic. If they were to be set out on that basis it is much less likely that drivers would be trapped into stopping in the box.

Do they not have to reach the kerbs at the corner of the junctions? This must fix the sizing.

More importantly, a smaller box would yield less revenue from fines.

I really don't know what criteria are used in determining the size of the box, but I do think they ought to be reconsidered. Surely the box size could be considerably reduced and still the basic objective would be achieved.

[mko9]

Cliftonite said:

p1esk said:

To my mind the problem with a lot of box junctions is that they are far too big.

I've no quarrel with the principle of them, but the objective could be met quite satisfactorily by making them just big enough to maintain a through route for crossing traffic. If they were to be set out on that basis it is much less likely that drivers would be trapped into stopping in the box.

Do they not have to reach the kerbs at the corner of the junctions? This must fix the sizing.

More importantly, a smaller box would yield less revenue from fines.

No, they don't need to stretch to the kerbs. They actually only need to be large enough to ensure that crossing traffic can flow through unimpeded when the lights change, as that is their purpose.

[watchnut]

I'm loving the talk of large and small "boxes"

The OP will be looking a little further around the corner at his "limit" point from now on, maybe reflections on windows and other vehicles could give a clue on slowing cars not in sight.

On watching it in "fast" time I bet most of us would have done the same thing hindsight is always great......I liked the sigh of frustration at yourself.....we all make mistakes, and you want perfection.....no one is...even reg local will admit mistakes and try to improve

I agree the shape of the junction is not very helpful

[PF62]

Vaux said:

The ped. crossing isn't technically a Puffin so I don't think it's part of the pedestrian crossing regulations (it doesn't have zig zags); even if it was, HC 192 says you "should" keep the crossing clear, not MUST.

But "should" means you should at least try.

[FlyingFin]

You could have stopped before entering the Box, but as the traffic was still moving forward, as you were, albeit slowly, you didn't breach the rules.

Don't beat your self up about it.


Just be aware for next time.