Councils don't always get it right.

[RichardM]

Following on from the excellent discussion regarding traffic signals and signs from this thread.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/166695-traffic-penalty-notice-cctv.html

 

I've noticed several other locations in the Newport area where the council have perhaps unwittingly, misused direction arrow green traffic signals instead of normal green aspects.

 

Consider this photograph. Is the driver of the green vehicle committing an offence under section 36f or the TSRGD?

 

(f) save as provided in sub-paragraphs (g) and (h), the green arrow signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may, notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals, proceed beyond the stop line only in the direction indicated by the arrow for the purpose of proceeding in that direction through the junction controlled by those signals;

 

[Steve__M]

From my experience, where you are allowed to turn left, the bus lane usually ends a few metres prior to the stop line. In this case, the bus lane is continuous.

 

People who turn left would therefore have to do so across the bus lane (with potential of buses coming through at full speed.

 

So it looks to me like the car is doing an "illegal" maneouvre. As I don't know the road, it's hard to tell how illogical my interpretation is.

 

If the council really meant this, they ought to have had a no left turn arrow as well as it's not a common configuration.

[RichardM]

Steve.

 

I was thinking more at the traffic signal indication than the bus lane. You are correct, of course, that turning left from the outside lane at that point is an accident waiting to happen, as the bus lane continues on the other side of the junction. Fortunately, the number of buses that actually use it is extremely small.

[Steve__M]

Yes, I'm suggesting that the signal could be correct in that you are not permitted to turn left. I was just using the bus lane markings to support my view that the junction designer intended that this turn would not be permitted for cars.

 

Presumably the sign means that buses are not permitted to turn left either though - so why is the road there!

 

For my sins, I spent two years in a job surveying hundreds and hundreds of road junctions and roundabouts all over the country for traffic safety studies. So I know that I'd really have to be there to decide whether the signs make sense or are stupidly dangerous and unclear.

[RichardM]

Great to have a professional viewpoint before I tell the council they are a bunch of idiots, again;). Clearly the traffic signals do not allow the left turn at the junction since all cars must continue straight on until clear of the junction.

 

I won't say where that road leads to and how I know that it is a council cock-up until Lamma and a couple of others have had a look. They may want to add something to the conversation later.

[Hungrydoug]

I would agree that the signal should either be a green ball to allow the turning movement or the arrows should have an ahead only arrow (possibly with a bus / cycle exemption) for clarity, but the signals comply with the TSRGD (Diagram 3000.8 )

[RichardM]

They comply with the TSRGD, agreed, but the "straight ahead only" is contravened about 1000 times a day. There would be uproar if a no left turn was enforced.

 

You see, on the left is the only access to:

Newport High Street Railway Station short term car park and pick up/set down area.

The busiest taxi rank in Newport City Centre

The office of the largest taxi company in Newport, and possibly South Wales.

Private parking spaces for the British Transport Police vehicles who obviously haven't noticed this themselves!!!

 

Enforcement would result in nobody being able to stop a car to drop off anywhere near the station (nearest short term street parking is at least 600 yards away), the entire length of the dual carriageway being no loading/unloading at any time.

Edited January 9, 2009 by RichardM

[Steve__M]

So all they need is CCTV and Newport Council are in the money

[Raykay]

(f) save as provided in sub-paragraphs (g) and (h), the green arrow signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may, notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals, proceed beyond the stop line only in the direction indicated by the arrow for the purpose of proceeding in that direction through the junction controlled by those signals;

 

The regulations only say that traffic may proceed, not must proceed, in the direction of the arrow. If it is the council's intention to prohibit left turns, how could it be enforced without the necessary prohibition signs?

Or are they just pedestrian traffic lights?

[RichardM]

If they were only there for the pedestrian crossing, they shouldn't have directional arrows on the anyway.

 

In so far as the direction is concerned, it does say "may proceed...only in the direction shown by the arrow for the purpose of proceeding in that direction through the junction."

 

Clearly, there is a junction immeadiately ahead of the signals. There is only one direction arrow provided. Despite the lack of prohibition notice, in theory, you cannot pass the white line in order to turn left at the junction.

 

In reality the council could not prosecuate anyone, since a TRO does not exist to prohibit left turns, but it does demonstrate that often the council install these things and get it totally wrong. I even came across a set the other day, with exactly the same indications (ie straight on arrows only), and a sign 10 yards before them warning of a risk of grounding for lorries turning left!

[Raykay]

In so far as the direction is concerned, it does say "may proceed...only in the direction shown by the arrow for the purpose of proceeding in that direction through the junction.

 

'Notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals', and as there is no other indication given by the signals, as far as they are concerned, you could go in any direction.

 

I agree it is confusing and if there is not a restriction on turning, they should be green balls, if there is a restriction there should be 'No Left Turn' signs or blue 'Ahead Only' signs.

 

It looks to me that it is just a staggered pedestrian crossing, there looks like another stop line in front of the white van, the red tarmac seems to cross the road and then turn right and then left across the other carriageway, and the traffic light pole for the other direction is too far past the junction.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Raykay

[RichardM]

There is a staggered pedestrian crossing incorporated into the layout, but it is not pedestrian operated (ie does not only show a stop signal when a pedestrian wishes to cross).

 

The layout on the other side of the carriageway is similar, in that it has a bus lane on the inside lane, and a left hand junction immediately beyond the crossing. The only difference is that the bus lane has an independent set of priority lights.

 

 

As you can see, there are still the same direction arrows provided, but in this instance, they must be intended to give definite information on the direction of travel, since any left turn at the junction will put you on a one way street in the wrong direction. Looking back towards the junction, you can see just how reliant they are on those green arrows. Note the lack of ANY prohibition signs on the entry to the road or on the traffic signals.

 

 

By the same token, the lights on the side road also provide a mandatory direction of travel, again without any reference to prohibition signs. The only other indication that a right turn is not permitted at this point is the blue directional instruction on the central reservation of the dual carriageway.

 

 

The council have used green arrows in the lights on one side of the carriageway to give mandatory instructions regarding the permitted direction and have provided no other directional signeage. It should, therefore, be assumed that the same meaning should be associated with the same signal on the opposite side of the carriageway.

[Raykay]

Filter lights are not mandatory, all all they indicate is that you may proceed in the direction of the arrow notwithstanding the indication given by other signals, (if there are no other signals, signs or other prohibition, you could go in any direction) they do not mean that you must proceed only in the direction of the arrow. In the first picture they are correct in that you may go ahead in the outside lane when the filter arrow is showing, regardless of the red signal for the nearside lane

 

If all your pictures are of the same set of signals, the stop lines are too far back from the actual junction to be controlling it, it still looks like a staggered pedestrian crossing across the dual carriageway and a another pedestrian crossing across the one way street.

[RichardM]

If all your pictures are of the same set of signals, the stop lines are too far back from the actual junction to be controlling it, it still looks like a staggered pedestrian crossing across the dual carriageway and a another pedestrian crossing across the one way street.

 

Sorry but in that respect you are definitely incorrect.

 

If approaching the junction from the side road, they will remain at red until such time as both sets of lights controlling the flow on the main road are at red. They will then show a proceed aspect. If your theory was correct and that the lights on the side road were simply a pedestrian crossing, those lights would be predominantly showing a green aspect and there would be a give way sign/lines at the junction. Note the absence of ANY lines where the two roads meet.

 

The pedestrian crossing is merely incorporated into the junction layout and traffic control. The traffic control is there to determine the flow of traffic across the junction from the three flows, ie bus lane, side road and outside lane. If this were merely a pedestrian crossing, there would be no requirement have a separate traffic control for each lane on the dual carriageway.

 

I also believe that you are incorrect in the assertion that you can travel in any direction if only one arrow is displayed. This thread arose because of a prosecution in Camden referred to in the thread in my OP where the traffic is only permitted to travel in one direction despite a very logical left turn being available. I believe that you are misreading the meaning of the "not withstanding the indication given by other signals". That would normally mean that traffic with a green arrow displayed for the direction they wish to proceed in can pass a traffic signal otherwise showing red in the main signal aspect.

[Raykay]

Sorry but in that respect you are definitely incorrect.

 

If approaching the junction from the side road, they will remain at red until such time as both sets of lights controlling the flow on the main road are at red. They will then show a proceed aspect. If your theory was correct and that the lights on the side road were simply a pedestrian crossing, those lights would be predominantly showing a green aspect and there would be a give way sign/lines at the junction. Note the absence of ANY lines where the two roads meet.

 

Yes, I can see what you mean, the stop lines seem a long way from the junction though.

 

 

I also believe that you are incorrect in the assertion that you can travel in any direction if only one arrow is displayed. This thread arose because of a prosecution in Camden referred to in the thread in my OP where the traffic is only permitted to travel in one direction despite a very logical left turn being available. I believe that you are misreading the meaning of the "not withstanding the indication given by other signals". That would normally mean that traffic with a green arrow displayed for the direction they wish to proceed in can pass a traffic signal otherwise showing red in the main signal aspect.

 

They can, the idea of filter lights is that you may proceed in the direction of the arrow regardless of what is displayed by the other signals - if there are no other signals or signs (as in your first picture) there is no prohibition in giong in any direction.

The green arrow is not mandatory, it is usual to find them at junctions where there is a prohibition, but the prohibition is shown by a 'No Left (or Right) Turn, or a blue 'Ahead Only' (or Turn Right or Turn Left Only)

The prosecution you refer to would not be for failing to comply with the filter arrow, it would be failing to comply with a 'No Left (or Right) Turn' or a blue 'Arrow' sign.

 

Edit: I've just found the thread you refer to, the matter was failing to comply with a blue 'Ahead Only' sign, nothing to do with the green arrows.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Raykay

[RichardM]

But by your argument, on the side of the road that I highlighted this afternoon, I can turn left despite the fact that I would be turning into a one way street contrary to the normal flow of traffic.

 

After all, there are no "no left turn signs" on the lights and no "no entry" signs on the junction. The only thing enforcing the straight on move is the green arrow on the traffic signal.

 

However, they actually have this signalled correctly, as the green arrow indicates that you may "proceed beyond the stop line only in the direction indicated by the arrow"

 

Unfortunately, the highway codde does not clearly demonstrate this, as the only example they give is coupled with a green arrow and red light, indicating

 

"A GREEN ARROW may be provided in addition to the full green signal if movement in a certain direction is allowed before or after the full green phase. If the way is clear you may go but only in the direction shown by the arrow. You may do this whatever other lights may be showing."

UKmotorists.com does provides a definition of the meaning of the single arrow, which does indicate that my inital query regarding the legality of the left turn into the station was correct. They say

"If movement is allowed in one direction only, the full green signal is normally replaced by a green arrow. This may be supplemented by a sign to reinforce the message."

Link: Traffic Signals

[Raykay]

As with all traffic lights, Red and Amber mean Stop, Green means you may proceed, a Green filter arrow means you may proceed in the direction of the arrow irrespective of what the other signals are showing.

 

Green arrows have no mandatory or prohibition function, they do not give directions.

 

Where there is a prohibition or a mandatory route it must be by a prescribed sign. Where there is a prohibition and signs at traffic lights, there is often a green arrow rather than a green ball but it is the signs that you must comply with, the arrows are just advisory.

 

The 'Straight on' arrows as in your first picture are often used rather than green balls where you can only go ahead, but they have no regulatory power, only advisory.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Raykay

[RichardM]

I think we are going to have to disagree on this, since your definition is not what the highway code is saying, nor the description on the website that I linked to.

 

I am still of the opinion that the arrows are giving mandatory instructions and directions. How else can you interpret the wording "but only in the direction shown by the arrow" if not as a direction.

 

I would also have to disagree that they have no regulatory power. Since they are since they are an acceptable variation for the solid green , they have the same regulatory status as the green signal, except that their significance is prescribed in sections 36(f) and (g) rather than section 36(d)

 

Maybe someone else would like to step in and clarify for both parties.

Edited January 12, 2009 by RichardM

[lamma]

Highway code is not law. The TSRGD is, stick to the TSRGD. Signs a mess, if we can't agree on them here then it is evident that the signs re at the least confusing and unclear. Needs Richard Bentley or similar maybe.

[seylectric]

(f) save as provided in sub-paragraphs (g) and (h), the green arrow signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may, notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals, proceed beyond the stop line only in the direction indicated by the arrow for the purpose of proceeding in that direction through the junction controlled by those signals;

 

The regulations only say that traffic may proceed, not must proceed, in the direction of the arrow. If it is the council's intention to prohibit left turns, how could it be enforced without the necessary prohibition signs?

Or are they just pedestrian traffic lights?

 

Yes but they also say ONLY in the direction of the arrow which suggests to me that you MUST go in that direction:

 

"...traffic may, notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals, proceed beyond the stop line only in the direction indicated by the arrow..."

 

 

There was a similar classic one a couple of years ago when the council pedestrianised the town centre. The main road into the town centre suddenly "ended" at the pedestrianised part, marked by a sign which said "Buses and taxis only". The only place for traffic to go was left into a side street, but there was a "No left turn" sign so legally the only thing you could do was a U-turn....errr, no you couldn't do that either because it was a one-way street!

 

There's also a small cul-de-sac with no houses or businesses or buildings of any kind in it, with a "No entry except for access" (to what exactly?) sign at the start of it, and double yellow lines all the way around it.

 

Total farce, you couldn't make it up.

[RichardM]

Where there is a prohibition or a mandatory route it must be by a prescribed sign. Where there is a prohibition and signs at traffic lights, there is often a green arrow rather than a green ball but it is the signs that you must comply with, the arrows are just advisory.

 

 

Found what I was looking for to confirm my suspicions in this document.

 

General principals of Traffic Control by Traffic Lights. Issued by the DfT in March 2006

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/signsandsignals/tcbls/ralprinciplesoftrafficco4102.pdf

 

On Page 3.

 

GREEN ARROW LIGHT SIGNAL DISPLAYS

The significance of a green arrow is that drivers can proceed

only in the direction of the arrow (assuming no other green

signal) and continue through the junction in that direction.

See TSRGD6 for the legal definition. If there are other

green signals these will have separate meanings.

When green arrows are used, drivers have come to expect

an exclusive right of way. It is therefore strongly

recommended that when green arrows, especially for

turning traffic, are displayed there should be no conflicting

movements.

 

Page 5.

 

Regulatory

There is no requirement for erecting a sign to diagram 606 (blue circle with direction arrow) where an exclusive traffic movement is required at the signals, as indicated by a substitute green arrow.

However, if there is a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) associated with the junction it must be signed. Regulatory signs may be used in conjunction with signal displays to indicate movements that are restricted. TSRGD6 refers to the type, illumination requirement and position of the signs

 

 

[Raykay]

How else can you interpret the wording "but only in the direction shown by the arrow" if not as a direction.

 

Green filter arrows are used in conjunction with traffic lights, the regulations are that you may proceed in the direction of the arrow irrespective of the other signals, if you go in any other direction than shown by the arrow, the offence is failing to comply a Red Traffic Signal, not failing to comply with a green arrow. If there is a restriction on turning there must be a prescribed sign and the offence is failing to comply with the sign (as in the Camden case referred to a blue arrow sign) not a green arrow.

 

They are often used, as in the first picture in one way streets etc. where you can only go in one direction, they do not create any restrictions or directions - the one way street etc. will have its own regulations.

[patdavies]

Green filter arrows are used in conjunction with traffic lights, the regulations are that you may proceed in the direction of the arrow irrespective of the other signals,

 

But we aren't dealing with filters here. What we have is directional arrow green aspect (as opposed to green orb). You are confusing these with green arrow aspect when they are used in conjunction with other light signals - it that case they are filter signals.

 

if you go in any other direction than shown by the arrow, the offence is failing to comply a Red Traffic Signal, not failing to comply with a green arrow.

 

The offence is failing to obey a mandatory signal. The actual offence is the same as for any mandatory sign. Crossing the stop line with any part of the vehicle against a red aspect traffic light is but one example of the offence.

 

If there is a restriction on turning there must be a prescribed sign and the offence is failing to comply with the sign (as in the Camden case referred to a blue arrow sign) not a green arrow.

 

Not so

 

They are often used, as in the first picture in one way streets etc. where you can only go in one direction, they do not create any restrictions or directions - the one way street etc. will have its own regulations.

 

Again, not so. They do provide a mandatory direction of travel.

 

This is from the TSRGD

 

(f) save as provided in sub-paragraphs (g) and (h), the green arrow signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may, notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals, proceed beyond the stop line only in the direction indicated by the arrow for the purpose of proceeding in that direction through the junction controlled by those signals;

 

(g) where more than one green arrow is affixed to light signals in accordance with regulation 34(1)(b), vehicular traffic, notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals, may proceed beyond the stop line only in the direction indicated by any one of the green arrows for the purpose of proceeding in that direction through the junction controlled by those signals; and

 

(h) where the green arrow signal is displayed at the same time as the green signal, vehicular traffic may proceed in the direction indicated by the green arrow in accordance with sub-paragraph (g) or in any other direction in accordance with sub-paragraph (d).

 

I have included paras (g) and (h) for completeness, but they do not apply here as there are no other green signals.

 

Para (f) applies though, and provide the mandate of "only in the direction indicated by the arrow". The "notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals" does not apply, as there is no other indication given.

[RichardM]

Reply to Raykay, not PatDavies

 

Sorry, but are you now disagreeing with the DfT advice to councils that I posted immeadiately above your last post.

 

This is not a green filter arrow that we are talking about. This is a direct replacement for the solid green signal as allowed for under reg 34.1(a) of the TSRGD. Their meaning is covered by reg 36(f).The traffic signals you refer to as "filters" are covered under reg 34.1(b). Their meaning is covered by regs 36 (g) and (h)

 

You cannot be found guilty of failure to obey a red signal unless a red signal is displayed. What started this thread was a set of primary and secondary lights which display only a straight on arrow as an accepted variation to a solid green. When displayed, there are no other signals illuminated. That has it's own meaning. You may ONLY proceed in the direction that it is showing providing that it is safe to do so. "May" is not an invitation to do whatever you please, it replaces the word "must" because that word does not allow for any discretion in terms of safety of the move. Ignore the part about nothwithstanding any other signals. There are no other signals to obey.

 

Failure to comply with the signal and move in a direction not indicated is a contravention of section 36(f) of the TSRGD. That is shown as the applicable regulation in diagram 1001.2 of the TSRG. It also shows that Section 10 of the TRSGD is applicable, which states that failure to comply is a breach of section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

 

Finally, as stated above, a prohibitory sign is required IF THE JUNCTION HAS A TRO WHICH PROHIBITS SUCH A MOVE. Clearly the Westbound side requires a "no left turn sign" since there will be a TRO which prohibits turning into a one way street. I know for a fact that no TRO exists for the Eastbound (station) side (I saw the TRO for Queensway when published), since it was not intended to prohibit vehicles from turniing left. That is a council cock-up, but the signals still make the turn illegal.

Edited January 12, 2009 by RichardM
Pat got in first..

[Raykay]

But we aren't dealing with filters here. What we have is directional arrow green aspect (as opposed to green orb). by the signals" does not apply, as there is no other indication given.

 

Thank you, I understand the difference now you have explained it.