Unfair traffic lights.

Judith Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:23:48 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

"Judith Smith" wrote in message
It may be that the local authority decide that some junctions will NOT
detect cyclists. If the authority have decided that "your" lights
will not detect a cyclist - and it was a design and implementation
consideration then tough.
Do you seriously believe that the relevant department of a local council sit
down and decide that some junctions will be designed to detect cyclists and
some junctions will be designed not to detect cyclists?



Yes

Many junctions on trunk roads will not be triggered by a cyclist
coming out of a side road - but would be triggered by a car.

The cyclists will have to wait until the next time switched change.


Department for Transport Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/06:

"The primary purpose of traffic control by light signals is
to separate conflicting traffic by the division of time,
within the available road space, in a safe, efficient and
equitable manner. The term 'traffic' includes all road
users: vehicles, (including cycles), pedestrians and
equestrians. Conflict at a junction is manifested as an
increase in delay and/or accident rate.

"At a signal-controlled junction, vehicular traffic is
permitted to flow in a strictly controlled manner. The
traffic flows, available road space, layout and stage
sequences will all affect delay. The successful installation
will impose the minimum delay on all traffic, consistent
with safety."

In the surprisingly lax legislative world of traffic management, TAL's
are the nearest thing their is to a mandate. The government expects
highway authorities to follow the guidance laid down in them.

There are many junctions where the lights only change when triggered by
the presence of a vehicle. If no vehicle is present, the light on that
particular entrance to the junction will never turn green. If a vehicle
is present, the light should be triggered. In law, the definition of
"vehicle" includes pedal cycles.

Andy Key wrote:


In the surprisingly lax legislative world of traffic management, TAL's
are the nearest thing their is to a mandate. The government expects
highway authorities to follow the guidance laid down in them.


Did I really write "their" instead of "there"?. How embarassing.

Andy Key wrote:
Andy Key wrote:


In the surprisingly lax legislative world of traffic management,
TAL's are the nearest thing their is to a mandate. The government
expects highway authorities to follow the guidance laid down in them.


Did I really write "their" instead of "there"?. How embarassing.

Shame on you!

Brimstone wrote:
Andy Key wrote:
Andy Key wrote:

In the surprisingly lax legislative world of traffic management,
TAL's are the nearest thing their is to a mandate. The government
expects highway authorities to follow the guidance laid down in them.

Did I really write "their" instead of "there"?. How embarassing.

Shame on you!


... And now I've mis-spelt "embarrassing"...

On 13 May, 20:15, Judith Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:32:20 +0100, Phil W Lee

Do you think a sensor on traffic lights on a trunk road *- say the A1
- will have sensors *on the side roads so that the A1 traffic will be
stopped so that a cyclist can join the main or cross the main flow.

I have driven the entire length of the A1 and don't think I have seen
a single traffic light on it which would stop the traffic. Most
junctions are roundabouts and side roads with Give Way lines. In fact,
I have cycled on the A1 at Blyth and just joined the traffic via a
slip road.

--
Simon Mason

Adam Funk wrote:
On 2009-05-12, JNugent wrote:

Adam Funk wrote:
On 2009-05-12, JNugent wrote:

Dave Larrington wrote:
If a sensor-controlled light fails to pick up the presence of a vehicle it
is not working.
Only if it is *meant* to pick up the presence of a bike (especially one with
as little magnetic material as the one described).

There isn't really a problem in any event. The cyclist can dismount and
become a pedestrian without breaking the law.
Are you aware of any junctions where motorists are expected to get out
and push their cars through?
Is there a point to that question?

You're suggesting that having the the cyclist dismount and push is the
solution to this traffic problem. Would you consider that an
acceptable solution for motorists too?
Not legal.
Driver is still under control of a motorised vehicle (it's the
'motorised' bit) and as such has to keep where they are.
The cyclist becomes a pedestrian once they are off thier bike.

Andy Key wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Andy Key wrote:
Andy Key wrote:

In the surprisingly lax legislative world of traffic management,
TAL's are the nearest thing their is to a mandate. The government
expects highway authorities to follow the guidance laid down in
them.
Did I really write "their" instead of "there"?. How embarassing.

Shame on you!


.. And now I've mis-spelt "embarrassing"...

Dear me.

On Mon, 11 May 2009 11:07:38 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

On my commute, I encounter no fewer than 27 sets of traffic lights, the vast
majority of which do not sense my bike, probably as it is nearly all carbon.
Because of this, I find myself waiting at many sets of lights as they show
red, whereas if I was in a car, there would be enough metal to trip the
lights.

Get yourself a proper bike made of steel - or fit a really strong f*ck
off magnet* or a chunk of aluminium below the bottom bracket.

* something like
http://www.first4magnets.com/f4999n-...rbore-71-p.asp


--

"Judith Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:23:48 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:


"Judith Smith" wrote in message
It may be that the local authority decide that some junctions will NOT
detect cyclists. If the authority have decided that "your" lights
will not detect a cyclist - and it was a design and implementation
consideration then tough.

Do you seriously believe that the relevant department of a local council
sit
down and decide that some junctions will be designed to detect cyclists
and
some junctions will be designed not to detect cyclists?



Yes

Many junctions on trunk roads will not be triggered by a cyclist
coming out of a side road - but would be triggered by a car.

The cyclists will have to wait until the next time switched change.

Or else wheel the bike past the lights which is likely to be quicker (no
brainer really).

On 2009-05-13, Andy Key wrote:

Department for Transport Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/06:

"The primary purpose of traffic control by light signals is
to separate conflicting traffic by the division of time,
within the available road space, in a safe, efficient and
equitable manner. The term 'traffic' includes all road
users: vehicles, (including cycles), pedestrians and
equestrians. Conflict at a junction is manifested as an
increase in delay and/or accident rate.

"At a signal-controlled junction, vehicular traffic is
permitted to flow in a strictly controlled manner. The
traffic flows, available road space, layout and stage
sequences will all affect delay. The successful installation
will impose the minimum delay on all traffic, consistent
with safety."

Thanks for finding that out.