I fucking ABHOR protected left turn arrows

[KEK Inc.]

You want flashing yellow lights.
And NE2's right -- bikes have a hell of a time trying to trip a protected green arrow, even when the sensor wires are obvious and even when the city paints where the bike's supposed to go.

I think Idaho stops should be legal.  (Treat stop signs as yield signs on a bike; treat red traffic lights as stop signs). 

Bikes have a harder time to accelerate, so if they get a head start before the light turns green if it's safe and then pull into the bike lane, it doesn't clog car traffic as much.  Washington just passed a new law citing that bikes can legally run reds only if it's safe and they waited 2 minutes.  Personally, as a driver and a cyclist, I think that's a bit ridiculous.   

[roadman65]

I just had one instance where the OP was talking about and more.  Not only did I have to wait to turn left indefinitely to go from WB FL 50 to the Florida Turnpike ramp in Oakland, FL with no other traffic, but when the light did turn red for the other side of the road was when traffic finally approached the intersection on the opposite side.

Basically I not only had the chance to go freely while waiting for the light, but the other vehicles approaching had to stop unnecessarily as well.  If the light turned green for me when no one was approaching, we would have made the cycle and it would have been green for those other vehicles as well.

The problem is the fact that everyone thinking that timing long greens is like law of the land, so they carelessly set the lights as well to give long greens for any arterial with high traffic counts.  Now that sounds easy, but the thing is the when part.  It may have high numbers, but you can break that down evenly over time being traffic is not steady all day long in some areas.

Yes, at rush hour or roads that have steady traffic flow the long green will work for busy arterials.  During the other times when you have gaps in flows especially on high count roads where the gaps can last longer than 20-30 seconds at certain time periods, they can program the signals green time much shorter.  Or better yet, how about letting the computer do the thinking!  If the detector loops figure out that the amount of vehicles within x amount times is low, then automatically cut the green time!

[Zzonkmiles]

I've found this to be a pretty annoying problem at interstate off ramps that don't receive a lot of traffic. People making right turns can easily yield, but people making left turns have to wait and wait and wait even though there are no cars coming. I suppose it's technically not quite the same thing since no protected lights are involved, but really, for the most part and depending on the kind of interchange involved, if you exit the interstate and are not turning right, you're going to turn left.

[swbrotha100]

It is ridiculous to sit in the left lane of an urban street with no traffic coming in the opposite direction for miles and not being able to make a left turn until the lights cycle. I can understand why the DOTs disallow left turns without the arrow in heavy traffic, but why not program the signals to have a regular green light from, say, 10pm to 7am. Yes, I have been the victim of the dreaded no turns on red light many times and yes, I've blown through them many times. The law should be written that if there is time to make the turn safely, then make the turn. I would go even further and say the state legislatures should ban left turn arrows except on dangerous intersections and only during the day.

You need to drive in Tucson more. Tucson does things differently than most cities, in that it's a rarity to have a protective left turn signal anywhere in the city limits. There are any intersections where there are dual left turn lanes that have permissive/protected left turns 24/7.

[UCFKnights]

I'm more bothered by the lack of protected left turn arrows at intersections that need them.  Traffic is so heavy there's no chance to turn left during the green phase, so people wanting to turn run the yellow and collide with oncoming traffic also running the yellow.

If currently there is no protected left phase, I'd imagine adding a permissive green arrow would do the trick without going full on protected. Would be much more efficient.

Around here, it seems sometimes its tied to when the intersection traffic signal is installed. If they're put up one at a time, they seem satisified with permissive lefts. For the ones that get added during a road expansion, its usually a protected left. No idea why.

I personally don't think protected lefts with immediate change at night is a good solution. I find myself all the time going straight at the speed limit, an empty road ahead, except one pesky car just pulling over the sensor as I'm going straight, and I end up having to stop at every light. A permissive left would probably allow them to go in front of me without stopping, or at least go behind me with a very simliar stopping time to what the light is causing. I noticed in Palm Beach County, several lights either require stacking of 2-3 cars to trigger a green arrow (for both left and right turn lanes), or require a car to be waiting for a certain amount of time, usually about 10 seconds, or both combined. I found that worked very well.

[riiga]

Alternative solution is for sensors to automatically trip the signal the moment a car (or bike) hits the sensor during the overnight phases.

That's how it's done, for the most part, in California where the vast majority of left turns are protected.

That's how it's done in most of Europe too. Are automatic/dynamic signals really that uncommon in the US?

[jeffandnicole]

Alternative solution is for sensors to automatically trip the signal the moment a car (or bike) hits the sensor during the overnight phases.

That's how it's done, for the most part, in California where the vast majority of left turns are protected.

That's how it's done in most of Europe too. Are automatic/dynamic signals really that uncommon in the US?

They are...to a point.  If the thru route also has an active walk signal, the signal can't simply turn yellow/red once someone enters the left turn lane or side street.  The signal has to cycle down to complete the walk phase first.

Same thing if someone has just used the left turn lane and another car enters it after the turn light goes red...the straight signal isn't going to go green for just a few seconds; it has to complete its cycle again.

If none of these factors exist, and a car pulls up, then yes the signal will instantly trip if it's programmed to do so.

[NE2]

They are...to a point.  If the thru route also has an active walk signal, the signal can't simply turn yellow/red once someone enters the left turn lane or side street.  The signal has to cycle down to complete the walk phase first.

Don't forget who's to blame for this: drivers who don't bother to let pedestrians finish crossing.

[riiga]

They are...to a point.  If the thru route also has an active walk signal, the signal can't simply turn yellow/red once someone enters the left turn lane or side street.  The signal has to cycle down to complete the walk phase first.

Yeah, same here. Pedestrian signals need to finish their cycle if they're in use. Walk signals aren't part of every cycle though, they're on-demand by pushing the button, which would allow a short dynamic left turn if no one needed to cross in the current cycle.

Same thing if someone has just used the left turn lane and another car enters it after the turn light goes red...the straight signal isn't going to go green for just a few seconds; it has to complete its cycle again.

If there are no cars using the straight lane it would change back to red here, and allow the left lane to turn. That's the beauty of dynamic signals and cycles.

[roadman65]

Do what people do in NYC. Ignore the WALK and just cross!

[Pete from Boston]

Do what people do in NYC. Ignore the WALK and just cross!

Requiring drivers to do what drivers therefore have to do in NYC–ignore pedestrians just a few feet away from the car and just turn.

[vdeane]

Yep.  In NYC (upper Manhattan especially), if you don't cut off the opposing direction of traffic and mow down any pedestrians crossing, people will blare their horns at you continuously.

[Scott5114]

Alternative solution is for sensors to automatically trip the signal the moment a car (or bike) hits the sensor during the overnight phases.

That's how it's done, for the most part, in California where the vast majority of left turns are protected.

That's how it's done in most of Europe too. Are automatic/dynamic signals really that uncommon in the US?

Problem with these is that during low traffic periods, you often have one car coming in the green direction, a car pulls up to the red light and it cycles to stop the first car. Even more frustrating when the second car is turning right and could have just gone after the first car passed. We have an expressway in Norman configured like this and it's annoying to have to come to a complete stop from 50 mph so one random person can turn right.

If the lights are set to flash, it eliminates unnecessary stops.

[texaskdog]

Norman has the opposite problem. We have a bunch of intersections that go to FYA during peak hours when a protected left would be really handy. So you get one car creep into the intersection, get stuck there while tons of oncoming traffic passes, and then either finally go in the last few seconds of the cycle once the herd passes, or else have to book it out of the intersection when the light turns red and cross traffic gets a green. It's especially maddening because green arrows are present in the signal heads, they just never come on.

Maybe it would work but you always get behind some douche who can't drive and is scared to death of making a turn that takes 3 seconds when they have a 10 second break.  So tired of people who can't drive.

[cl94]

Do what people do in NYC. Ignore the WALK and just cross!

Requiring drivers to do what drivers therefore have to do in NYC–ignore pedestrians just a few feet away from the car and just turn.

Even if pedestrians followed the signals, you'd never be able to turn if you stopped whenever a pedestrian was in the crosswalk because there's always someone in the crosswalk

[jeffandnicole]

They are...to a point.  If the thru route also has an active walk signal, the signal can't simply turn yellow/red once someone enters the left turn lane or side street.  The signal has to cycle down to complete the walk phase first.

Don't forget who's to blame for this: drivers who don't bother to let pedestrians finish crossing.

This doesn't even make sense for the situation.  If the pedestrian is in the walkway during the walk signal, the only cars prohibiting the peds from crossing would be right turning vehicles.  The left turning vehicles would still have a red left arrow until the ped phase is completed.  And even then, the opposing thru light would need to cycle yellow and red before the left arrow turns green.  It would have to be a steady stream of vehicles all ignoring the ped and their eventual red light for the ped not to be able to complete the crossing.

[NE2]

If drivers correctly waited, walk phases wouldn't need to be so long.

[jeffandnicole]

Huh?  The walk phase is pre-determined - either by default (Walk symbol is lit until cross traffic appears) or by specific time.  Once it goes into countdown mode, there's no turning back.  This is all determined by the length of the crosswalk and time calculated to cross that length of intersection. There's no sensor there to determine a walker is in the middle of a crosswalk.

[riiga]

Problem with these is that during low traffic periods, you often have one car coming in the green direction, a car pulls up to the red light and it cycles to stop the first car. Even more frustrating when the second car is turning right and could have just gone after the first car passed. We have an expressway in Norman configured like this and it's annoying to have to come to a complete stop from 50 mph so one random person can turn right.

If the lights are set to flash, it eliminates unnecessary stops.

You could have a right turn signal. Or a slip lane with yield signs. Or priority/far away detectors for the expressway.

[NE2]

Huh?  The walk phase is pre-determined - either by default (Walk symbol is lit until cross traffic appears) or by specific time.  Once it goes into countdown mode, there's no turning back.  This is all determined by the length of the crosswalk and time calculated to cross that length of intersection. There's no sensor there to determine a walker is in the middle of a crosswalk.

And if drivers were willing to wait for peds to clear, the time calculated to cross could be shortened, since not all peds cross at the same speed.

[kphoger]

To make it all the more clear, @NE2 has been referring to the cultural phenomenon of drivers not being willing to wait for late-coming or slow pedestrians to clear the crosswalk. This, his argument goes, is precisely why pedestrian countdown times are so long: we time them to make absolutely sure that a one-legged sloth can make it from curb to curb before cross traffic gets a green light. Were drivers more willing to wait longer on occasion, then two things could happen: (1) the preset countdown time could be reduced to a more average walking pace, and (2) we could possibly allow the countdown to be interrupted by the arrival of a vehicle on the cross street.

This is, if I'm on the same page s @NE2, what was meant in saying that it's drivers' fault that our stoplights are so un-dynamic. It's a general cultural thing.

[Pete from Boston]

And if drivers were willing to wait for peds to clear, the time calculated to cross could be shortened, since not all peds cross at the same speed.

Yes, if all users put aside their personal desires and could sort out the most effective way to prioritize the various needs of the various parties at the intersection, we wouldn't need traffic signals.

But we do.

[kphoger]

And if drivers were willing to wait for peds to clear, the time calculated to cross could be shortened, since not all peds cross at the same speed.

Yes, and if all users put aside their personal desires and could sort out the most effective way to prioritize the various needs of the various parties at the intersection, we wouldn't need traffic signals.

But we do.

If both pedestrians and drivers exercised simple common sense and common decency, then things like 20-30 second ped countdowns would be unnecessary.

[Pete from Boston]

And if drivers were willing to wait for peds to clear, the time calculated to cross could be shortened, since not all peds cross at the same speed.

Yes, and if all users put aside their personal desires and could sort out the most effective way to prioritize the various needs of the various parties at the intersection, we wouldn't need traffic signals.

But we do.

If both pedestrians and drivers exercised simple common sense and common decency, then things like 20-30 second ped countdowns would be unnecessary.

Perhaps we need pedestrian ed classes (ped ed?) alongside driver's ed in school.  And a flashing "don't be stupid" phase.

[jeffandnicole]

And if drivers were willing to wait for peds to clear, the time calculated to cross could be shortened, since not all peds cross at the same speed.

Yes, and if all users put aside their personal desires and could sort out the most effective way to prioritize the various needs of the various parties at the intersection, we wouldn't need traffic signals.

But we do.

If both pedestrians and drivers exercised simple common sense and common decency, then things like 20-30 second ped countdowns would be unnecessary.

Perhaps we need pedestrian ed classes (ped ed?) alongside driver's ed in school.  And a flashing "don't be stupid" phase.

Since the countdown is based on the speed of a slower-than-average walker, the only way to reduce the amount of time would be to only permit faster walkers to cross intersections.