[TCUG] Re: Pedestrian Detection at Puffin Crossings
- From: "Peter Heath" <P.Heath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 14:32:37 +0100
I believe TR2179 requires the detector to detect down to a speed of 0.5m
per sec with a minimum object height of 1m. Obviously this does not
include yorkshire folk stopping to pick up coins! Seriously though you can
only work to the requirements of the HA spec.
Conversely after Ian Routledge's comments at JCT seminars we've now use
reduced on crossing extension times of 0.6 sec. This certainly visibly
improves the overall operation of the crossing so I would be inclined
against increasing the extension times for such rare occurrences.
Peter Heath
Senior Engineer
Greater Manchester Urban Traffic Control
Tel: 0161 247 3162
Mobile: 07876 218272
"Stewart, Ian (ENV)" <Ian.Stewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: tcug-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
01/10/2004 14:07
Please respond to tcug
To: "'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc:
Subject: [TCUG] Re: Pedestrian Detection at Puffin Crossings
In Preston we had difficulty with pedestrians persisting with crossing to
the centre and then stopping, as we had removed a centre island when the
pelican was converted to a puffin. Only re-education can overcome this.
As for very brief pausing, you can increase the extension time of the
on-crossing detector to account for this.
Ian M. Stewart
-----Original Message-----
From: james.buckley@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:james.buckley@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 01 October 2004 13:51
To: tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [TCUG] Pedestrian Detection at Puffin Crossings
Could I ask the group if anyone else has had a problem with pedestrians
being `lost' by the on-crossing detection at Puffins?
Our problem seems to relate to the minimum ped speed threshold. It
appears
that very slow pedestrians could
be missed completely and that if someone pauses on the crossing, for
instance to pick up a dropped item, the detection assumes that the
crossing
move has been completed.
We have observed these problems during tests of the detector coverage, but
are not aware of
any conflicts in real life. Has anyone else has come across this issue?
********************
This e-mail contains information intended for the addressee only.
It may be confidential and may be the subject of legal and/or professional
privilege.
If you are not the addressee you are not authorised to disseminate,
distribute, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment to it
The content may be personal or contain personal opinions and unless
specifically stated or followed up in writing, the content cannot be taken
to form a contract or to be an expression of the County Council's
position.
LCC reserves the right to monitor all incoming and outgoing email
LCC has taken reasonable steps to ensure that outgoing communications do
not contain malicious software and it is your responsibility to carry out
any checks on this email before accepting the email and opening
attachments.
********************
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses.
Please contact internet.administrators@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with any queries.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
Other related posts:
