Stop at 2nd set of lights on a really wide crossing?

[LetMeEatCake]

Where I live there are a handful of wide pedestrian crossings (usually sited where a road bisects a pedestrianised road) with two sets of lights. The general setup is that there's a pedestrian crossing with lights, a gap of 20 metres or so, then another pedestrian crossing with more lights. There are crossing studs at both sets of lights. Despite there being two sets of lights it's effectively one crossing - the lights activate simultaneously and it's normal for pedestrians to cross at any point between the two sets of lights. Here's an example in Glasgow.

So - my question for the hive mind is - if the lights change when you're half way through, should you stop at the second set?

[Full disclosure - got beeped at last night for stopping by the vehicle following me, then started wondering who was right...]

 

[mjr]

It depends... if the second set of lights are independent of the first, vehicles on the carriageway must stop at the line, or before the light itself if there is no line. If the second light is a so-called far-side repeater of the first, then if you have crossed the first line on green, then I don't think you have to stop because the first light's line is also the second light's line. I think the Glasgow example is a far-side repeater.

Far-side repeaters are crap because they encourage motorists not to stop far enough back that they can see the first light easily, which means they're closer to the pedestrian crossing and intimidating people walking. The UK seems to love them far more than most countries. It doesn't surprise me that they have other problems like this too.

Edit: I thought you were going to ask about wide toucans which have a central island with displays and placebo pushbuttons but no stagger like this one in King's Lynn - when cycling or walking across such things, the red man/bike is merely a warning/give-way and not compulsory. If you wait for all of the green bikes, you'll average 3.6mph - and if you complain, you will be told that they won't retime the signals or make the pushbuttons do anything because people aren't obliged to wait for them. Then motorists get the hump when people are in the habit of ignoring crossing lights - or even crossings entirely

 

[LetMeEatCake]

far-side repeater

I love this place - always learn something new. In some ways, it does make more sense to pass the 2nd set, even if the lights have changed, as stopping there obstructs pedestrians trying to cross. It just feels so wrong.

 

[mjr]

Law on traffic lights http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/part/1/paragraph/5/made

Law about missing stop lines http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/part/1/paragraph/30/made

Law about secondary/far-side repeater signals http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/part/1/paragraph/31/made

Law on red/green man/bike showing it's a "should not/may" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/part/1/paragraph/9/made

 

[mjr]

I love this place - always learn something new. In some ways, it does make more sense to pass the 2nd set, even if the lights have changed, as stopping there obstructs pedestrians trying to cross. It just feels so wrong.

On the one hand, there are some of us on here who have read these flipping things far too often already, either through reading consultation drafts (me) or being former police. The laws do change sometimes, it never hurts to ask, and I think you did the right thing by stopping when in doubt because a mistaken stop in that location seems lower risk than mistakenly jumping a red light - the honking nobber behind can go boil his head.

On the other hand, this hasn't changed substantially for a while and we should know this before being licensed to drive. Our driving test system sucks, doesn't it?

 

[LetMeEatCake]

Well, basing the theory test on a comprehensive knowledge of the actual legislation would certainly cut down the number of new drivers to near zero (and the number of existing drivers, myself included, if it were retrospectively applied - I did try to read your links). I wonder if road safety would improve if the remaining traffic was 80% lawyers in Audis?

It's weird from the ped's point of view too, I guess. They get a green light to cross, but traffic (well - up to three cars) isn't prevented from continuing over the marked crossing area.

 

[mjr]

You're probably right on the comprehensive bit but I'm pretty sure those laws are summarised on http://highwaycode.info/using-the-road-159-to-203 except maybe for the nuance of what happens if the white line is missing. Always good to reread.

It's weird from the ped's point of view too, I guess. They get a green light to cross, but traffic (well - up to three cars) isn't prevented from continuing over the marked crossing area.

The signal timings (and I could probably fish them out but let's not have more dry links!) should mean that three cars have time to clear the crossing before people walking get a green light. One should not drive onto a crossing if the exit from it is not clear. Similar to a yellow box if you're not turning right.

 

[LetMeEatCake]

have time to clear the crossing

You're right, of course (unless it's me, on my bike, and it's windy!) And if traffic's not flowing, then the guidance to keep the crossing clear should suffice.
Thanks mjr!

 

[mjr]

unless it's me, on my bike, and it's windy!

Yeah, signal timings aren't set for bikes, especially into headwinds. Because of the obnoxious timings and placebo pushbuttons, I sometimes cycle on the carriageway through that mahoosive (8 lanes on one arm, 7 on another, 5 on the rest) junction I linked earlier and I now know that if I'm in the last three vehicles to enter from the northeast arm before a red light, traffic from the southeast arm may be released before I've finished cycling across.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

@LetMeEatCake Buchanan Street crossing St. Vincent street, isn't it?
I think you were right to stop, what can one do? Run down pedestrians that have started to cross?

 

[HLaB]

Legally if you've passed the primary on / stopline on green and the secondary goes red you still continue and clear the crossing (as per the posted rule 192); following vehicles will not expect you to stop if it clear. However as it a busy pedestrian crossing you may have no choice but to stop if you don't want to mow a pedestrian down.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

if the lights change when you're half way through, should you stop at the second set?

As you've already passed the stop line, you should continue through unless there are people already crossing in front of you. If a safe gap appears I'd resume cycling through.

The added problem with the example you posted is that St Vincent Street is crossed there by Buchanan Street which, although it is a pedestrian precinct, could have delivery vehicles wanting to travel across the part where you stopped.

What did the nobber behind you expect you to do, ride over people?

 

[LetMeEatCake]

I think there are a couple of things going on. One - for some reason, there being no road junction blinded me to the obvious fact that it's just like the lights on any road junction - I wouldn't ever consider stopping at the 2nd set of lights on a standard junction. And two, these crossings are normally really busy with pedestrians, so you normally don't have the option of continuing (unless you really want to anger a crowd of Glaswegians, something I'd counsel against), so I'd never really thought about it before.

What did the nobber behind you expect you to do, ride over people?

Annoyingly, on reflection, the nobber was right in this case - no one had started to cross, and I should have continued through. My sincerest apologies to the nobber

 

[mjr]

Annoyingly, on reflection, the nobber was right in this case - no one had started to cross, and I should have continued through. My sincerest apologies to the nobber

The nobber was still wrong. Shouldn't honk for that and mustn't while stationary.