[TCUG] Re: Red lamp monitoring
- From: "Haig, Dave" <Dave.Haig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:10:02 +0100
The monitoring also inhibits the tactile cone, don't forget we are talking
about blind/partially sighted people - in this respect maybe ped inhibits
are a necessary evil? We limit the intergreen extension to 2 seconds but
don't tell anyone if this isn't allowed!
As for not worrying about vehicle conflicts, I guess peds are generally a
little more vulnerable.
Regards
Dave Haig
Senior Engineer - Traffic
* tel: 01302 734594
* fax: 01302 735028
* Doncaster Metropolitan Borough
Council
Neighbourhood Services
Scarborough House
25 Chequer Road
Doncaster
DN1 2DB
* dave.haig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This message is private and confidential, please ensure it is treated as
such. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify
the sender as soon as possible.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hulson [mailto:dave.hulson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 09 October 2003 15:48
To: TCUG (E-mail)
Subject: [TCUG] Red lamp monitoring
I have just been reading a recent contribution regarding BV165 which refers
to red lamp monitoring and states that it is a "good safety feature". This
got me wondering how many people do feel that red lamp monitoring really is
a good think and how many people have reservations about it.
I have seen the confusion caused to pedestrians when two red lamps were out
and a pedestrian phase was inhibited (the pedestrians continued to cross but
no longer had any indication of the safest time to cross). I have also seen
the effects that an increased intergreen can have at a junction where there
had been a single red lamp failure (traffic that was used to following
another stream was held for an additional 5 seconds which led to them moving
off on red and pedestrians trying to cross when they saw no-one moving). As
a consequence I am no longer sure that red lamp monitoring is as useful a
safety feature as we are led to believe.
I would be interested to hear the views of others on this matter.
Finally, if two red lamp failures require us to disable conflicting
pedestrian phases, why do we treat conflicting traffic phases as though
nothing had happened?
Dave Hulson
Traffic Signal Design
Nottingham City Council
######################################################################
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
views which are not the views of Nottingham City Council unless specifically
stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system,
do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance
on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that Nottingham City
Council monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will
signify your consent to this.
######################################################################
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
Other related posts:
