Transport focus wants bad road signs

[whole diary]

[eXPassenger]

Forgive me if I am going off topic slightly, but puffin crossings are all badly-signed by design. How anyone could possibly imagine that putting the signal on the post where you wait is a good idea defies reason: on crossroads, this often makes it unclear which crossing the lights refer to. On top of that, the pedestrian lights appear to be deliberately angled so that you can't see them until you are stood right at the crossing, which just makes life that little bit harder.

The theory behind having the pedestrian signals on a post on the right hand side of the crossing is that you are looking toward approaching traffic while watching for the green man. That's supposed to be safer than looking across the road. Having the red/green man closer to pedestrians also aids the visually impaired. It's easier for them to see the lights than if they are on the other side of the road.

Thanks.  I have no problem with a repeater for visually impaired people.  I do have a problem with a set of lights at waist height that are not in my eyeline when looking for traffic and are blocked if there are a number of people waiting to cross.

A set of high lights across the road is the obvious place.

[Surrey 455]

Forgive me if I am going off topic slightly, but puffin crossings are all badly-signed by design. How anyone could possibly imagine that putting the signal on the post where you wait is a good idea defies reason: on crossroads, this often makes it unclear which crossing the lights refer to. On top of that, the pedestrian lights appear to be deliberately angled so that you can't see them until you are stood right at the crossing, which just makes life that little bit harder.

The theory behind having the pedestrian signals on a post on the right hand side of the crossing is that you are looking toward approaching traffic while watching for the green man. That's supposed to be safer than looking across the road. Having the red/green man closer to pedestrians also aids the visually impaired. It's easier for them to see the lights than if they are on the other side of the road.

Thanks.  I have no problem with a repeater for visually impaired people.  I do have a problem with a set of lights at waist height that are not in my eyeline when looking for traffic and are blocked if there are a number of people waiting to cross.

A set of high lights across the road is the obvious place.

I too dislike these lights because my instinct is to look in front of me which is where I have always looked in years gone by. I do normally look to my right (then left) but that's me obeying the Green Cross Code. I don't always see the green / red man because someone is standing in front of it and often walk across not realising it's a light controlled pedestrian crossing. After all there are many traffic lights that are for vehicles only with pedestrians having to guess when it is safe to cross.

However....

Concerns have been expressed that Puffin crossings may be less safe than Pelican crossings due the nearside indicator not being visible while crossing, and being at a different focal length, reducing traffic awareness. However, a 2005 study commissioned by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) found that Puffins were safer than Pelican crossings with fewer pedestrian accidents and fewer involving cars, despite confusing pedestrians. Transport for London decided to stop installing Puffins in 2014, as they prefer the far side indicators. Birmingham Council also dislike the low level indicators at busy city centre crossings

[stuving]

Maybe it's a bit of topic stretch - but I've been grappling with "them" over road signs half the day.

Late last night a big "Motorway Maintenance" flatbed full of cones and signs stopped on the road past my house, doing something I couldn't see. When I went out today I found a couple of big yellow diversion signs (with a sticker naming Chevron Traffic Management) blocking the pavement. I wasn't impressed, but I had no idea what was closed. Eventually, after I'd been out later on part of the route, I worked out it's King Street Lane in Winnersh, where Highways England are working on the M4 overbridge. Though that closure is not until tomorrow, and for three days.

So I sent an e-mail to HE and chevrontm.com (not really expecting a quick response), stating why I thought the signs were not right:

Re: Diversion signs at Wokingham station (B3349/A329) - repeat message with picture

Last night Chevron TM^‡(resolve) puts out diversion signs near my house for - I think - tomorrow's closure of King Street Lane. The diversion route runs up the B3349 (Barkham Road) and across the level crossing to run left into the A329(A321) Station Approach. But:

1. The signs here are misleading. They are before the left turn before the level crossing (Oxford Road), thus direct a turn here. This is a much smaller road, and has a weight restriction so is not suitable for diverted traffic (though does come out on the correct route).

2. The signs here are not needed. For traffic that has not turned left into Oxford Road, there is no alternative to the desired route. At the junction after the level crossing, where the route goes left, straight on is no entry (it is one way outwards), and turning right is banned and in any case obstructed by the junction layout.

3. The signs obstruct the pavement, almost completely. This is in part because they are big ones, sized for use on trunk roads, and far bigger than the other road signs used on B-roads. And it is a narrow pavement. And they should not be there anyway!

There has been little traffic following the signs, presumably because the road closure is not in place yet. However, I have seen at least one HGV signal left into Oxford Road and then think better of it on seeing the weight restriction sign.  No doubt there will be a lot more tomorrow and Tuesday.

I then phoned Chevron - office closed until Monday - and HE. They did at least have an "advisor", in Birmingham, who didn't really know anything (she couldn't even pick out the right icon on the Elgin (one.network) map we were both looking at, hiding underneath a longer-term partial closure one). And she was certain she knew the signs were needed, even before she'd dug out my e-mail and seen the picture. But of course positioning signs is not her job! Finally I rang Wokingham Borough's urgent line, and was told someone would be told and would phone me.

In fact, within an hour or so I saw a pick-up parked outside, and it (and a van) turned out to be from WBC (or WSP, who do roads stuff for them). These two guys had already concluded the signs were wrong, and agreed with me entirely about why - including that they should not block the footpath. (Note that Chevron TM work for WBC as well as HE, and none of use knew who was their principal for this job.) So they moved them out of the way ... and we'll see what happens next!

[stuving]

My post was about something that wasn't very important at the time but ... my word hasn't it shrivelled into insignificance since then! But something did happen next, so:

I found a Facebook page for the council's roads office, which told me that the closures at Winnersh were only overnight (two nights) anyway. So that's a shortcoming of the one.network (Elgin) maps - the pop-up for the road works gives the overall duration of the works, but nothing tells you when the road is actually closed! The signs were left leaning on the gates into a development site, and then got put back facing the traffic but not blocking the footpath. Not knowing who did that, I thought I'd try to find out what was going on (this was the 12th). Later I worked out it was a couple of site visits by the developers.

Ringing the council was not a success. Traffic said it was street works on option 6, but that was the switchboard who said they could only ring their office and no-one was in.  And any attempt to find someone in Traffic who liaised with the likes of HE and Chevron was firmly resisted. So I gave up - I mean, I was only trying to help, and by now something else had cropped up! The signs were collected, during the day, several days later (Monday 16th).

Then on 23rd I got an e-mail from HE (though it identifies as OPSSE BMT). It reads like a personal reply, though with stock sentences dropped in. It doesn't prove they took much notice, but it was still a surprise by that date.

Finally, one more example of Chevron's outstanding professional expertise in the art of signing diversions, from the same route. The entry to the right is Sainsbury's car park.

[Bmblbzzz]

Forgive me if I am going off topic slightly, but puffin crossings are all badly-signed by design. How anyone could possibly imagine that putting the signal on the post where you wait is a good idea defies reason: on crossroads, this often makes it unclear which crossing the lights refer to. On top of that, the pedestrian lights appear to be deliberately angled so that you can't see them until you are stood right at the crossing, which just makes life that little bit harder.

The theory behind having the pedestrian signals on a post on the right hand side of the crossing is that you are looking toward approaching traffic while watching for the green man. That's supposed to be safer than looking across the road. Having the red/green man closer to pedestrians also aids the visually impaired. It's easier for them to see the lights than if they are on the other side of the road.

Thanks.  I have no problem with a repeater for visually impaired people.  I do have a problem with a set of lights at waist height that are not in my eyeline when looking for traffic and are blocked if there are a number of people waiting to cross.

A set of high lights across the road is the obvious place.

These lights can be even worse when they are in your eyeline. Some are positioned so that when you're standing next to them, they obscure your view of oncoming traffic.