News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Traffic signal

Started by Tom89t, January 14, 2012, 01:01:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Amtrakprod

Roadgeek, railfan, and crossing signal fan. From Massachusetts, and in high school. Youtube is my website link. Loves FYAs signals. Interest in Bicycle Infrastructure. Owns one Leotech Pedestrian Signal, and a Safetran Type 1 E bell.


SignBridge

Many bicyclists won't even pay attention to those things, and they probably won't work right half the time anyway.

jakeroot

Quote from: SignBridge on December 03, 2018, 09:15:37 PM
Many bicyclists won't even pay attention to those things, and they probably won't work right half the time anyway.

Apparently not a fan of off-topic discussions nor bike signals, eh? :-D

There's not really anything to "pay attention" to. The only new thing in the video is the tiny alert signal, which does not have to be visually acknowledged to work.

Bike detection systems are important for lengthening the minimum green time, so slower cyclists can clear the junction in time. Plus, they keep them from having to hop off and hit the ped button, since typical traffic light detectors can't "see" cyclists.

SignBridge

#2078
Well, I too have apologized for straying off-topic on occasion. LOL

My issue with bicyclists is that they don't follow the law which in New York designates them as vehicles subject to the usual traffic laws. A few months back I almost got run over by one who blew thru a red light in NYC near Ground Zero, while I was crossing with the pedestrian "walk" signal. A common problem in NYC.

kphoger

Quote from: SignBridge on December 03, 2018, 10:44:57 PM
bicyclists ... who blew thru a red light ... A common problem in NYC all over everywhere.

FTFY.

(Don't get some people on here started about cyclists or pedestrians acting like they own the road.  It can get pretty heated.)
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Amtrakprod

Quote from: kphoger on December 04, 2018, 01:11:23 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 03, 2018, 10:44:57 PM
bicyclists ... who blew thru a red light ... A common problem in NYC all over everywhere.

FTFY.

(Don't get some people on here started about cyclists or pedestrians acting like they own the road.  It can get pretty heated.)
I noticed
Roadgeek, railfan, and crossing signal fan. From Massachusetts, and in high school. Youtube is my website link. Loves FYAs signals. Interest in Bicycle Infrastructure. Owns one Leotech Pedestrian Signal, and a Safetran Type 1 E bell.

jakeroot

I guess I'm in a party of one here, but cyclists do not bother me at all. Even if they are ignoring traffic laws, at least they're not in my way doing it. If they blow through a red light, and I almost hit them, then there's a problem. But, if they stop at a red light, don't see anybody, and go, I don't care. It makes no difference to me. Slow vehicles bother me a lot more then aggressive, quick vehicles

if they are riding slowly, then just overtake them. The same as you would any other vehicle. If they are riding in the middle of the lane, that is them trying to preserve what little safety they have, by avoiding manholes, debris, and quite often car doors. All they ask is that you overtake them in the next lane.

Here in Seattle, it's common for traffic to scoot over to accommodate oncoming traffic passing a cyclist. This should be practiced in all cities, if it's not already.

Just remember this, guys: cyclists are moving way too fast to ride on a sidewalk. If a pedestrian walks out of a building, and gets whacked by a cyclist, there's a very high chance of injury. Cyclist travel much closer to the speed of traffic on city roads. In suburban areas, I can see riding on sidewalks, but it may not be legal, since bicycles are usually considered vehicles.

Amtrakprod

Quote from: jakeroot on December 04, 2018, 09:21:24 PM
I guess I'm in a party of one here, but cyclists do not bother me at all. Even if they are ignoring traffic laws, at least they're not in my way doing it. If they blow through a red light, and I almost hit them, then there's a problem. But, if they stop at a red light, don't see anybody, and go, I don't care. It makes no difference to me. Slow vehicles bother me a lot more then aggressive, quick vehicles

if they are riding slowly, then just overtake them. The same as you would any other vehicle. If they are riding in the middle of the lane, that is them trying to preserve what little safety they have, by avoiding manholes, debris, and quite often car doors. All they ask is that you overtake them in the next lane.

Here in Seattle, it's common for traffic to scoot over to accommodate oncoming traffic passing a cyclist. This should be practiced in all cities, if it's not already.

Just remember this, guys: cyclists are moving way too fast to ride on a sidewalk. If a pedestrian walks out of a building, and gets whacked by a cyclist, there's a very high chance of injury. Cyclist travel much closer to the speed of traffic on city roads. In suburban areas, I can see riding on sidewalks, but it may not be legal, since bicycles are usually considered vehicles.
You're not a party of one, I love to bike and since I don't own a car it's how I get around. I stop at red lights unless it's a walk phase.
Roadgeek, railfan, and crossing signal fan. From Massachusetts, and in high school. Youtube is my website link. Loves FYAs signals. Interest in Bicycle Infrastructure. Owns one Leotech Pedestrian Signal, and a Safetran Type 1 E bell.

kphoger

Quote from: jakeroot on December 04, 2018, 09:21:24 PM
I guess I'm in a party of one here, but cyclists do not bother me at all. Even if they are ignoring traffic laws, at least they're not in my way doing it. If they blow through a red light, and I almost hit them, then there's a problem. But, if they stop at a red light, don't see anybody, and go, I don't care. It makes no difference to me.

Same here.

I feel the same way about cars too (I don't care if a driver stops and then goes at a red light), but I might be more a party of one on that topic.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

jakeroot

Quote from: kphoger on December 05, 2018, 02:07:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 04, 2018, 09:21:24 PM
I guess I'm in a party of one here, but cyclists do not bother me at all. Even if they are ignoring traffic laws, at least they're not in my way doing it. If they blow through a red light, and I almost hit them, then there's a problem. But, if they stop at a red light, don't see anybody, and go, I don't care. It makes no difference to me.

Same here.

I feel the same way about cars too (I don't care if a driver stops and then goes at a red light), but I might be more a party of one on that topic.

No, actually I'm there with you. Traffic lights only exist because of the sheer number of movements through an intersection. Late at night, or during mid-day when no one is out, a signal's purpose diminishes greatly. While I'm not advocating widespread red-light ignorance, if there's no one around, it's not going to bring harm to anyone.

Here in WA (and in several other places), the only times you cannot go on red are straight-ahead movements, and left-turns to two-way streets. To conclude:

right turn: ✔
left turn from one-way to one-way: ✔
left turn from two-one to one-way: ✔
straight ahead: ❌
left turn to two-way: ❌

There are more movements that permit movements on red than not. What's a couple more? :-D

Amtrakprod

Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2018, 04:24:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 05, 2018, 02:07:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 04, 2018, 09:21:24 PM
I guess I'm in a party of one here, but cyclists do not bother me at all. Even if they are ignoring traffic laws, at least they're not in my way doing it. If they blow through a red light, and I almost hit them, then there's a problem. But, if they stop at a red light, don't see anybody, and go, I don't care. It makes no difference to me.

Same here.

I feel the same way about cars too (I don't care if a driver stops and then goes at a red light), but I might be more a party of one on that topic.

No, actually I'm there with you. Traffic lights only exist because of the sheer number of movements through an intersection. Late at night, or during mid-day when no one is out, a signal's purpose diminishes greatly. While I'm not advocating widespread red-light ignorance, if there's no one around, it's not going to bring harm to anyone.

Here in WA (and in several other places), the only times you cannot go on red are straight-ahead movements, and left-turns to two-way streets. To conclude:

right turn:
left turn from one-way to one-way:
left turn from two-one to one-way:
straight ahead:
left turn to two-way:

There are more movements that permit movements on red than not. What's a couple more? :-D
I agree with the rules besides:
left turn from two-one to one-way:
That's seem very stupid especially for an intersection with high traffic and a dual left turn lane:


iPhone
Roadgeek, railfan, and crossing signal fan. From Massachusetts, and in high school. Youtube is my website link. Loves FYAs signals. Interest in Bicycle Infrastructure. Owns one Leotech Pedestrian Signal, and a Safetran Type 1 E bell.

jakeroot

#2086
Such a maneuver is technically permitted in WA, OR, ID, MI, and BC, regardless of the number of turn lanes. I don't think it's a problem, as visibility is good without an oncoming left turn. Note in your screenshot the ample view of oncoming traffic that the left turn has, even though there's two lanes.

I have a thread on double permissive left turns here. Technically, all the states above have a ton of them, just that they require a stop first.

Here's a video I made a while back (with accordingly poor quality) showing the legal maneuvers you can make on red in those states, except ID I believe since turns on red arrows aren't permitted there.

https://youtu.be/2Qa7vD0_TkY

TheArkansasRoadgeek

Can anyone figure out the movement the RYG signal on the back is controlling?: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7834667,-92.3774233,3a,15y,119.72h,91.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKTR0recd4zxVZIEyON1oSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Here is one in Fort Smith with a more obvious purpose: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2935114,-94.4234506,3a,15y,172.9h,93.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ-ScNVdVel94StkwdzruGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 - Both five section are mounted on the backs of the mast arms.


See, I thought the one on Robinwood was controlling a movement or either an advance notice of some sort or a study place blind corner thing. But, it seems they just had an extra signal laying around.
Well, that's just like your opinion man...

roadfro



Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on December 15, 2018, 11:28:01 PM
Can anyone figure out the movement the RYG signal on the back is controlling?: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7834667,-92.3774233,3a,15y,119.72h,91.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKTR0recd4zxVZIEyON1oSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

...

See, I thought the one on Robinwood was controlling a movement or either an advance notice of some sort or a study place blind corner thing. But, it seems they just had an extra signal laying around.

I think it's just a supplemental signal for the through movement. The other through signals are on the inside edge of the road curve. So this one signal placed on the back of the mast arm for the other direction is a bit more visible further back from the stop line, so drivers can better react to a changing signal.

Here's a similar situation in Vegas:
https://goo.gl/maps/CwNbae4UqiQ2
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

MNHighwayMan

As roadfro said, it's there for better signal visibility along the curve.

Sometimes, though, you can have signal heads facing a way where no vehicular traffic should be coming from. This one, at US-69 and E Court Ave in Des Moines, is in lieu of a pedestrian head. There used to be one on the other corner too, but that has since been replaced with an actual pedestrian signal head. You can see it if you go back in time in GSV.

US71

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 16, 2018, 03:33:21 AM
As roadfro said, it's there for better signal visibility along the curve.

Sometimes, though, you can have signal heads facing a way where no vehicular traffic should be coming from. This one, at US-69 and E Court Ave in Des Moines, is in lieu of a pedestrian head. There used to be one on the other corner too, but that has since been replaced with an actual pedestrian signal head. You can see it if you go back in time in GSV.

Downtown Uniontown, PA has traffic signals used for pedestrians.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

ErmineNotyours

Quote from: US71 on December 16, 2018, 09:53:51 AM

Downtown Uniontown, PA has traffic signals used for pedestrians.

Same with Pioneer Square in Seattle.  You don't have a flashing Don't Walk to judge how soon the light will change, but most pedestrians ignore that anyway.

Amtrakprod

Does anyone know why louvered backplates are used?


iPhone
Roadgeek, railfan, and crossing signal fan. From Massachusetts, and in high school. Youtube is my website link. Loves FYAs signals. Interest in Bicycle Infrastructure. Owns one Leotech Pedestrian Signal, and a Safetran Type 1 E bell.

roadfro

Quote from: Amtrakprod on December 16, 2018, 06:04:46 PM
Does anyone know why louvered backplates are used?


iPhone
Backplates can act like a sail. Several signal heads with backplates can cause quite the strain on a span wire or mast arm in high wind conditions. The louvers allow some of the wind to pass through instead of blowing against the backplate, decreasing wind resistance on the setup.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jakeroot

roadfro, maybe you can explain to me how this works.

At Sharlands Ave & Robb Dr in Reno, the left turn from westbound Sharlands to southbound Robb has a flashing yellow arrow. The right turn from eastbound Sharlands to southbound Robb has a double right turn that's fully signalized.

Satellite: http://bit.ly/2USHWK3
westbound Sharlands: http://bit.ly/2LjfTit
eastbound Sharlands: http://bit.ly/2S69SIe

Assuming the right turn goes at the same time as eastbound Sharlands, this would mean that the oncoming traffic turning left onto Robb (towards I-80) would have a flashing yellow arrow concurrent with a right turn green arrow (for the oncoming right turn).

Last I checked, permissive lefts cannot be used when they are against green arrows. This is especially misleading in this scenario, since traffic turning left wouldn't be likely to expect the slip lane traffic to have the ROW. Perhaps a double right turn yield might be in order? Similar to the nearby westbound 80 off-ramp.

I will say that, in the street view images, it seems like Sharlands runs split-phase, but I could be wrong.

roadfro

#2095
Quote from: jakeroot on December 16, 2018, 10:08:13 PM
roadfro, maybe you can explain to me how this works.

At Sharlands Ave & Robb Dr in Reno, the left turn from westbound Sharlands to southbound Robb has a flashing yellow arrow. The right turn from eastbound Sharlands to southbound Robb has a double right turn that's fully signalized.

Satellite: http://bit.ly/2USHWK3
westbound Sharlands: http://bit.ly/2LjfTit
eastbound Sharlands: http://bit.ly/2S69SIe

Assuming the right turn goes at the same time as eastbound Sharlands, this would mean that the oncoming traffic turning left onto Robb (towards I-80) would have a flashing yellow arrow concurrent with a right turn green arrow (for the oncoming right turn).

Last I checked, permissive lefts cannot be used when they are against green arrows. This is especially misleading in this scenario, since traffic turning left wouldn't be likely to expect the slip lane traffic to have the ROW. Perhaps a double right turn yield might be in order? Similar to the nearby westbound 80 off-ramp.

I will say that, in the street view images, it seems like Sharlands runs split-phase, but I could be wrong.
I used to live near there and would go through that intersection daily.

Sharlands runs leading protected lefts. This allows the eastbound protected right turn to go simultaneously with eastbound through. Robb also runs leading lefts (and U-turns are prohibited northbound), so the eastbound right turn also overlaps the northbound left turn in one continuous phase.

It has been about a year since I've gone through there regularly. However, I'm fairly certain that the FYAs on Sharlands are never displayed. Due to the curve, the sight distance isn't too great (especially with the 40mph speed limit eastbound). I always wondered why they bothered installing them there...
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jakeroot

Ahh, thanks for the info. Figured that it might not be running with FYA, since I couldn't find it in street view.

I really want to like the concept of such an installation, but the only way I can see it working would be if the double right turn had a right-facing flashing yellow arrow, with a supplemental "yield to traffic from left" sign. Such a phase would only activate during the parallel through phase.

roadfro



Quote from: jakeroot on December 16, 2018, 11:53:48 PM
Ahh, thanks for the info. Figured that it might not be running with FYA, since I couldn't find it in street view.

I really want to like the concept of such an installation, but the only way I can see it working would be if the double right turn had a right-facing flashing yellow arrow, with a supplemental "yield to traffic from left" sign. Such a phase would only activate during the parallel through phase.

And I would not see that happening (flashing yellow arrow for eastbound right turn), at least not without a policy change. Nevada, as far as I'm aware, does not currently allow dual permitted signalized turns in either direction. (The nearby I-80 westbound off ramp to Robb Dr is one of two locations in Nevada I can think of with an dual right turn using yield control, and they're both unsignalized.)

And besides, for the Sharlands/Robb intersection, there is far less traffic for the westbound left turn than the eastbound right, such that an EB right turn FYA could significantly increase intersection delay (especially during the am peak).
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jakeroot

Even in WA, while there is a fair few double permissive left turns, there are many double permissive right turns, where drivers yield to peds. This would be slightly different, but not significantly so. Are there no signalized double rights turns with pedestrian yields in NV? Something like this: http://bit.ly/2A3TvFa

There's also roundabouts, where the entire concept is "yield to traffic from left". They're not signalized, but the entire concept (beyond the two existing double right yields that you've mentioned) isn't exactly foreign. For left turns? Definitely more unusual, but not so much for right turns.

US 89

I got a slightly better look at this thing today, on the Mountain View Corridor (UT 85) and South Jordan Parkway:



As is obvious, the top of the doghouse is a red bicycle. The upper left of the lower part is a bicycle as well, while the lower left indication was a straight arrow. Both indications on the right were right arrows.

I would love to see how it functions, but I've never been down there long enough to observe anything other than the red bicycle on top.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.