[TCUG] 'Close associated' signals
- From: mervyn.hallworth@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:03:20 +0100
We seem to be moving increasingly towards installing 'close associated'
secondary signals for traffic on all junctions - not simply where split
traffic phasing dictates this to avoid confusing right turners or peds!.
There does not seem to be a need for this on simple junction approaches
(i.e. where there is no split phasing for opposing flows and where turning
in gaps is allowed) since arguably in such cases everyone benefits from
having sight of a secondary head on the far side of the junction.
Does anyone still routinely install secondaries in the 'classic' position
for such simple sites (i.e. heads sited on the far side of the junction
within an arc of 30 degrees to the right of driver at the stop line)?
If not, can anyone point to accident studies which suggest that we should
always be using 'close associated' signals?
Mervyn
Leeds 2476750
________________________________________________________________________
The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the
intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient,
please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please
delete this email (and any attachment) from your system.
Service of legal documents is not accepted by email
________________________________________________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
Other related posts:
