Does going through temporary lights count as RLJ...?

[another_dave_b]

There's a single lane bridge over a railway line, just south of Reading, where the timer is set such that drivers often THINK I've jumped a red light, when in fact I'm just slooowww.

 

[Cab]

Its a difficult one. I'm sure we've all been stuck at temporary lights that were clearly knackered, you've got a car behind you getting all impatient because you don't take the initiative and just go for it, then when you do go he'e impatient to be past you... If they're working, if the 'within the rules' option is viable, then going through at red is clearly a mistake. Regrettably, sometimes the world doesn't play fair with us...

 

[domd1979]

I think its fair to say the application of temporary lights is sometimes entirely arbitrary.

An example from the National Grid gas works here: barrier off one side of the road at a blind bend (90 degrees, house on the corner so you can't see round), for the best part of a week, force vehicles to come round on the wrong side of the road (I found that hairy in the car!!) - apparently no need for temporary lights despite the obvious safety issue!! Elsewhere they'd coned off one side of the road for 40 yards or so on a straight bit of road, and just bunged a keep left sign in leaving traffic to sort itself out - that seemed sensible enough to me, but in a lot of instances like that you'd probably find lights being used.

I go through temporary traffic lights on occassion. Only if they are really short road works though, and you can see if any cars are coming. I always stop at proper lights, but can't see the point of some road works. Some imes there is more of an obstruction with parked cars all down the road, so why they think we need traffic lights when the road works are only a couple of car lengths long is beyond me.

 

[Terminator]

There's a single lane bridge over a railway line, just south of Reading, where the timer is set such that drivers often THINK I've jumped a red light, when in fact I'm just slooowww.

Hmmmmmmmmm I get this as well sometimes and with cyclists reputations it's not surprising motorists come to this conclusion.

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

By far the worst aspect of temporary traffic lights is the way that a good 5 or 6 cars RLJ the end of the sequence jamming up those waiting on their now green light for all the morons to get out of the way, this makes the queue worse so people do it the other way and round and round in a vicious circle until the traffic light colour is totally meaningless until traffic volume drops.

As with all traffic congestion problems, if people would just relax and follow the rules, everyone would get where they are going faster, safer and less stressed.

 

[Cab]

By far the worst aspect of temporary traffic lights is the way that a good 5 or 6 cars RLJ the end of the sequence jamming up those waiting on their now green light for all the morons to get out of the way, this makes the queue worse so people do it the other way and round and round in a vicious circle until the traffic light colour is totally meaningless until traffic volume drops.

As with all traffic congestion problems, if people would just relax and follow the rules, everyone would get where they are going faster, safer and less stressed.

Simple goes for all of the crossings with big hatched areas. They never really work in busy places because if the motorist at the front when the lights change doesn't break the rules, someone else going the other way will and he'll just get stuck. It guarantees complete snarl ups.

The simple solution is effective enforcement. Doesn't happen though, because most people don't really view this behaviour as wrong.

 

[LeeW]

no aspect showing - assumed they were just bust and carried on.

Just wondering, are you a train driver?

 

[Paulus]

Just wondering, are you a train driver?

I am, If no aspect is showing where there should be one, it is a danger signal and the train should be brought to a stop immediately and the signaller for that area contacted. The driver should then act on the signallers instructions.

 

[thomas]

Once there were temp lights, massive que...after 5 minutes got to the front...waited another 10 minutes. Then I read a note that the road workers had left - "light doesn't work".

Really fudging helpful! I had to point to the note really obviously and then all the cars twigged and followed me. If I hadn't pointed they'd of probably thought I was just RLJing.

Could be quite dangerous as you'd have no idea when it was your right of way, or when it wasn't.

 

[hackbike 666]

I am, If no aspect is showing where there should be one, it is a danger signal and the train should be brought to a stop immediately and the signaller for that area contacted. The driver should then act on the signallers instructions.

Rule book gold.

 

[purplepolly]

That was my thought. Temporary traffic lights are usually there because one side of the road is closed off. Ignoring a red light would usually mean you'll be meeting oncoming traffic with very little room for manoeuvre.

Yes, but, those kind of lights are usually timed for motorised traffic. Which is alright if you're capable of doing 25mph, otherwise you leave on green and end up meeting the oncoming traffic anyway.

 

[LeeW]

I wonder why the lights on train signals are called "aspects"?
And why is the red normally at the bottom?

 

[Cab]

While this thread is up here again, theres some road works at the exit to the new shiny cycle/pedestrian bridge over the Cam. You get over the bridge and theres a sign at the very end of the cycle path saying 'cycle path closed' and one saying 'cyclists dismount'. Trouble is that the cycle path is not close, what they really mean is that there are roadworks blocking you on to the cycle path that you can go around if you want (riding on the pavement for all of two feet or so) and straight on to the road, which is of course open.

Trouble is, the road has temporary traffic lights either end of the roadworks, neither set being visible from the cycle path. So I presume what the engineers intended was for cyclists to dismount and push their bikes all of the way; in other words 'its only cyclists, we don't need lights for them make them get off and push their bikes, they don't matter like cars do'.

Guess how many cyclists I've seen dismount there. Go on, guess.

 

[4F]

Guess how many cyclists I've seen dismount there. Go on, guess.

2745.5 ?

 

[thomas]

I wonder why the lights on train signals are called "aspects"?
And why is the red normally at the bottom?

On the old signals stop used to be when the pole was down...Originally it was the other way around, but when they broke the pole would fall down as if it say "go". At least then if it broke and it was down, even if it was meant to be up, trains would stop.

I guess it may be something to do with that??