Would reducing trafflic lights make roads safer for cyclists

DonDaddyD

Would reducing the number of traffic lights to get motorised vehicular traffic moving make the roads safer for other road uses e.g. cyclists?

Basically my commute was hindered by a shite load of traffic. I honestly can't remember a section of clear free moving traffic for more than 30secs or so.

What this means is endless long queues of traffic. Cars pulling out from side roads frustrated as cars on the main road won't let them in.

Consealed oncoming cars turning right into side roads (potential right hooks)

Peds stepping out as they think its safe as 'traffic' isn't moving.

Constant filtering and permamnently in the car door zone as you ride beside vehicles stuck in traffic. Contest between cyclists and mopeds/motorcycles trying to get through traffic. People frustrated because the traffic lights not giving them enough time to get through leaves them prone to revving and zooming off at lights causing further potential danger for cyclists.

I can't help but think that if they reduced the number of traffic lights and lengthened the green phases or shorted the red and amber phase on the many others in an effort to get traffic moving the roads would be safer all round.

What say you?

CyclingBantam

I am pretty sure traffic lights speed up traffic over all as opposed to slow it down however, I think, hypothetically at least, that reducing traffic lights would be a good thing.

I worry the more regulated driving gets, with drivers being told what to do at every point, the lower the standard is because drivers stop having to think. In a way, if there were fewer road rules, like that German town tried out (Speed limit and drive on the right/give way to the right were the only rules/traffic measures), drivers would have more to think about and therefore concentrate more.

Might not actually happen in practice though or it would certainly take a few years before driving habits changed for the better. I imagine it would be chaos as some drivers would not be able to think for them selves for a while.

tobermory

The amount of pedestrian crossings does seem excessive in some area's of London some seem about 200 yards apart,i wonder if it's some scheme to infuriate motorists so much they give the car a miss and use other forms of transport

DonDaddyD

CyclingBantam wrote:

I am pretty sure traffic lights speed up traffic over all as opposed to slow it down however, I think, hypothetically at least, that reducing traffic lights would be a good thing.

Only at junctions where traffic crossing the path of traffic heading in another direction needs to be regulated. Standard ped crossing - with lights does nothing but slow traffic down. Too many and the sheer volume of traffic means it can grind to a halt - as I see too often through Colliers Wood to Clapham.

You also don't see many zebra crossings anymore. Those were great.

rick_chasey

It wouldn't.

Seperate lights for bikes (idealy in a seperate lane) would however.

notsoblue

Very rarely on my commute, traffic lights at certain junctions stop working. It always amazes me that the junctions do actually still function quite smoothly. Also, cars do seem to be more aware when they're negotiating their way through.

davmaggs

When the lights fail the traffic seems to flow really well in places that don't really need them.

I do seem to remember (thinking back to Ken's time) that the idea did come in to start making the roads more miserable for users to try and force them out of their cars. It certainly seems to have been implemented in places

jds_1981

DonDaddyD wrote:

or shorted the red and amber phase on the many others in an effort to get traffic moving the roads would be safer all round.

Think the problem with this is all of the amger gambler car drivers. Worse for cyclists who gamble as tend to go slowly.

roger_merriman

for ped crossings zebras are nicer I find for crossing and on the road. no waiting for the light to finally change or being held by a red, as the ped has given up waiting and crossed any way.

same goes for big traffic light crossings, I prefer roundabouts, off peak I don't have to wait for it to change.

daviesee

tobermory wrote:

The amount of pedestrian crossings does seem excessive in some area's of London some seem about 200 yards apart,i wonder if it's some scheme to infuriate motorists so much they give the car a miss and use other forms of transport

+1. Except that generally there is not enough public transport to cope if everyone gave up their cars. Public transport won't be increased until there is demand. There won't be demand until public transport is increased. It certainly seems to be one of Edinburgh Councils main policies to eradicate cars.

Another point to confirm the OP. One roundabout that I use has part time traffic lights that operate during the rush hours. The traffic always flows better when the lights fail :shock:

shouldbeinbed

DonDaddyD wrote:

I can't help but think that if they reduced the number of traffic lights and lengthened the green phases or shorted the red and amber phase on the many others in an effort to get traffic moving the roads would be safer all round.

What say you?

just a bit of obvious pedantry & i assume you mean extend the phasing for the major route at the junction, but if you lengthen the green phase and shorten the red of one flow, by default you are lengthening the red phases and shortening the green at the other point(s) of the juntction. This in turn will lead to more amber gamblers and cars leaping out early catching more unwary cyclists who are amber gambling themselves, quick at starting off or 'just a bit' RLJ ing.

the only comparitive e.g. I can give round here supports your stance though. they TL'd a busy but free flowing junction a couple of years back because the queues to get onto the bigger busier route were getting up to 7-10 cars at peak times. now at rush hour there are always 20-30+ cars inching their way towards the lights and queued traffic on the larger route too. This has the knock on effect of removing the regular small gaps for the odd vehicle to pop into further along the road. I've taken to avoiding it altogether when riding.

greg66_tri_v2.0

CyclingBantam wrote:

I am pretty sure traffic lights speed up traffic over all as opposed to slow it down however, I think, hypothetically at least, that reducing traffic lights would be a good thing.

I worry the more regulated driving gets, with drivers being told what to do at every point, the lower the standard is because drivers stop having to think. In a way, if there were fewer road rules, like that German town tried out (Speed limit and drive on the right/give way to the right were the only rules/traffic measures), drivers would have more to think about and therefore concentrate more.

Might not actually happen in practice though or it would certainly take a few years before driving habits changed for the better. I imagine it would be chaos as some drivers would not be able to think for them selves for a while.

Agree with all but the highlighted part. Traffic lights almost always slow traffic down. No question about it.* Knock out a set of lights and watch the traffic flow more freely. You need to get to very high volumes of traffic before an out-of-order traffic lit junction gets jammed.

The increase in free flow of traffic comes at the expense of convenience for pedestrians. Watch a junction in a built up area and see how the ped crossing phase is almost always much longer than it needs to be.

Smart lights, that adjust to traffic and ped volumes, would be very welcome.


*ETA: see also Upper Street in the People's Democratic Republic of Islington. Peppered with lights; designed to be hateful for drivers.

DonDaddyD

shouldbeinbed wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I can't help but think that if they reduced the number of traffic lights and lengthened the green phases or shorted the red and amber phase on the many others in an effort to get traffic moving the roads would be safer all round.

What say you?

just a bit of obvious pedantry & i assume you mean extend the phasing for the major route at the junction, but if you lengthen the green phase and shorten the red of one flow, by default you are lengthening the red phases and shortening the green at the other point(s) of the juntction. This in turn will lead to more amber gamblers and cars leaping out early catching more unwary cyclists who are amber gambling themselves, quick at starting off or 'just a bit' RLJ ing.

The red-amber light sequence at some ped crossings need to shorter and the green needs to be longer to keep traffic moving.

Junctions are juntions and more often than not need some for of traffic regulation system, be that roundabout or lights.

But there are far too many ped crossings with far too long a red light phase in London and that is what I reckon causes jams.

greg66_tri_v2.0

tobermory wrote:

The amount of pedestrian crossings does seem excessive in some area's of London some seem about 200 yards apart

I sometimes ride from work to my mother's house, just inside the M25 heading SE. It takes about an hour. When I last did it I counted 59 sets of lights on the route. On average, one per minute. This is a route that includes College Road over Crystal Palace and a large part of Bromley Common (lights relatively infrequent on both). 59/hour is ridiculous.

tobermory wrote:

,i wonder if it's some scheme to infuriate motorists so much they give the car a miss and use other forms of transport

Wasn't there some story about Ken screwing up the traffic light phasing pre the congestion charge being implemented, then fixing it when it came it to support claims that traffic was flowing freer? Lights are an easy way in increase congestion.

DonDaddyD

Also, what's wrong with Zebra crossings? Why does it always have to be traffic lights?

bails87

I'd be happy with shorter green phases on ped crossing, but a big spiky metal barrier should rise up from the road when the green man is on. To stop RLJers. There's a crossing outside a primary school that I walk past on my way to work, I've had to jump out of the road three times for an XC90, a Merc ML and a Range Rover all flying through a light that's been red for a long time at about 45mph. Kids might not be as quick to react.

On a serious note.....I think roundabouts should be more 'continental'. ATM they encourage drivers to drift from lane to lane, to 'straight-line' the turn and get through as quickly as possible. If we made the turns onto them much tighter cars would have to slow down and it would be easier (as a cyclist and a driver who stays in the correct lane) to hold the lane. Maybe they should put down rumblestrips to mark out the lanes, rather than just the dashed paint that's used now.

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

Also, what's wrong with Zebra crossings? Why does it always have to be traffic lights?

Absolutely nothing. But I bet somewhere in the Dept of Transport there's a report that concludes that zebra crossing are not as safe for pedestrians as traffic-light controlled crossings.

CyclingBantam

Sorry, I clearly didn't think about lights for ped crossings!

I still think lights speed traffic up round where I am but I bow to the consensus and accept I may be talking bunkum.

It is a shame we have to have them but it is like everything, the population as a whole us unable to behave reasonably if they are not told what to do therefore lights are needed (clearly not in all cases though).

PedalPedant

DonDaddyD wrote:

Also, what's wrong with Zebra crossings? Why does it always have to be traffic lights?

If the one near our local school is anything to go by the problem with zebra crossings is the number of drivers who drive straight through them regardless of the people waiting to cross (or in some cases already walking over the crossing).

The other issue with zebra crossings is that in busy areas with a steady flow of pedestrians once cars stop they can find that they never get moving again.

PP

kieranb

I agree with PedalPedant on the second point regarding zebra crossings, but see http://www.ealingcycling.org.uk/SubjectPages/Reports/zebraVpelican.html concerning the relative safety of crossings.

Oh, 200 yards for a ped is a long way if it is not in their direction of travel and having less crossings would probably encourage 'jay' walking.

DonDaddyD

Put camera's on Zebras. Anytime there is a Ped waiting and the car doesn't stop and could have done so. Then issue the driver with a fine. Zebra crossings up to Zone 3 maybe 2 (London) would still see traffic moving a lot more freely.

asprilla

Cars don't have to stop if a pedestrian is waiting. They only have to give way once the pedestrian has stepped onto the crossing.

Headhuunter

Rick Chasey wrote:

It wouldn't.

Seperate lights for bikes (idealy in a seperate lane) would however.

I've always thought this was a good idea. Spending millions on blue paint (AKA cycle superhighways, many of which have since been dug up anyway by utility companies) is a waste of time. Most accidents appear to happen at junctions with cyclists getting left hooked or crushed against junctions by turning lorries. How about lights that go green for bikes before cars move off? Perhaps not at all traffic lit junctions but at the most complicated and busiest. Just as peds have the green man, there should be a green cycle. this coupled with actual police enforcement of ASLs would surely reduce danger for cyclists. However of course it would be more expensive and would involve more than a cyclist box ticking "paint the gutter blue" exercise....

Initialised

The key is probably more traffic sensing at junctions/across the affected area, less dumb junctions, more advanced traffic management.

snailracer

One advantage of roundabouts and zebra crossings is that it's usually obvious who is at fault if an accident happens.

bails87

Asprilla wrote:

Cars don't have to stop if a pedestrian is waiting. They only have to give way once the pedestrian has stepped onto the crossing.

But pedestrians won't step out until they're sure the car that's approaching is going to stop. Which it won't do until they step out. Which they won't until the car stops. Which it won't do until they step out. Which they won't until the car stops. Which it won't do until they step out. Which they won't until the car stops. Which it won't do until they step out. Which they won't until the car stops. Which it won't do until they step out. Which they won't until the car stops. Which it won't do until they step out. Which they won't until the car stops. Which it won't do until they step out. Which they won't until the car stops. Which it won't do until they step out. Which they won't until the car stops. Which it won't do until they step out. Which they won't until the car stops.

The law is an ass. In this one, specific case.

bdave262000

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Also, what's wrong with Zebra crossings? Why does it always have to be traffic lights?

Absolutely nothing. But I bet somewhere in the Dept of Transport there's a report that concludes that zebra crossing are not as safe for pedestrians as traffic-light controlled crossings.

Nothing except that road users are less likely to stop to let people cross at zebra crossings or start driving off into you before you have reached the middle of the road. They have taken to installing a CCTV camera by the zebra crossing outside my sons primary school due to the number of drivers and cyclists that barge through, even forcing the old lollypop man to jump out of the way.

bails87

How much training do lollypop men and women have?

There's a primary school on my way to work with a very elderly lollypop lady stopping traffic so people can cross from a car park on one side of the road, to the cul-de-sac on the other side of the road, the school is down the cul-de-sac.

So at peak time there's loads of people trying to cross. But the lollypop lady won't move out of the road to give traffic a chance to move if there are peds within 10-15 seconds jogging distance of where she is.

Which means you can spend 3 or 4 minutes sitting stationary, while watching people running from 50 yards away to get to her before she lets traffic go. I'd have thought they get some training on letting traffic through when there's a gap in the peds.