Cycling friendly pedestrian crossing...

Deedsie

I am a cycling commuter in Dublin... Rock Road, Merrion Road, Pembroke Road etc

Now there are many things I'd like to complain about, cyclists running red lights, mentalist motorists cutting in front of me... Loads and loads of annoying stuff.

Anyway, one of the really annoying things that I think could easily be solved is phantom pedestrian crossings. How many times I have had to stop at a set of pedestrian crossing lights with no sight not sound of a pedestrian within 50 metres of the crossing on either side of the road.

My suggestion is a sensor plate on either side of the road at the traffic lights. If the pedestrian doesn't stand on the sensor plate to wait for the lights to go red the lights will remain green for the traffic.

I have no problem stopping for pedestrians but when I have to stop for fresh air to cross in front of me it's very frustrating especially when other rules of the road breaking cyclists just spin past me and break the lights.

mitosis

If you look carefully you will find a 10 year old boy nearby who thought it was funny to press the button as he walked by.

Deedsie

mitosis wrote: »

If you look carefully you will find a 10 year old boy nearby who thought it was funny to press the button as he walked by.

Well the sensor plate will surely solve that unless he wants to wait around standing there for the lights to change

mitosis

Deedsie wrote: »

Well the sensor plate will surely solve that unless he wants to wait around standing there for the lights to change

He would have been on the plate to push the button, or would you make the peds stay on the plate while they wait?

Deedsie

mitosis wrote: »

He would have been on the plate to push the button, or would you make the peds stay on the plate while they wait?

Ya, you have to stay standing on it while you wait... If you step off it the crossing system will cancel thinking the pedestrian moved on leaving traffic to continue to flow with no disruption...

We have put a man on the moon, a cheap sensor on a pedestrian crossing can't be that complicated...

ThisRegard

Deedsie wrote: »

Ya, you have to stay standing on it while you wait... If you step off it the crossing system will cancel thinking the pedestrian moved on leaving traffic to continue to flow with no disruption...

Doesn't sound very workable. But does sound very expensive.

Doctor Bob

After a request to cross (by button press) a kerb-side detector monitors the pedestrian's presence at the crossing. Should the pedestrian cross prematurely, walk away from the crossing, or wait outside the detection area, the pedestrian's request to cross could be automatically cancelled so traffic is not halted unnecessarily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffin_crossing

Mucco

This annoys me too, as a ped, cyclist and motorist.

The solution is much easier though. When the button is pressed, the light should change straight away.
Maybe on busy roads, there might need to be a time-gap between the green man to allow traffic to pass, but I'd prefer pedestrian priority on most roads, even in these cases.

M

magicbastarder

i don't see much difference between this and a traffic light running on a timer; how often have you found yourself sitting at a junction at a red light, with no other traffic around?

Deedsie

Doctor Bob wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffin_crossing

Brilliant, Dun Laoighre Rathdown, Dublin City and Fingal county council take note and invest in these as a matter of urgency.

Deedsie

Mucco wrote: »

This annoys me too, as a ped, cyclist and motorist.

The solution is much easier though. When the button is pressed, the light should change straight away.
Maybe on busy roads, there might need to be a time-gap between the green man to allow traffic to pass, but I'd prefer pedestrian priority on most roads, even in these cases.

M

The aforementioned 10 year old funny man would make this unworkable surely?

galwaycyclist

The main problem in this country is over use of "traffic light crossings" at many locations where a zebra crossing would be better.

magicbastarder

better for whom? a lot of irish motorists simply don't understand the significance of a zebra crossing.

techdiver

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The main problem in this country is over use of "traffic light crossings" at many locations where a zebra crossing would be better.

I used to think this too.

But as a responsible cyclist myself, I see far too many gob****e cyclists who would just plow pedestrians out of it, thus making all cyclists even more hated!

Deedsie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The main problem in this country is over use of "traffic light crossings" at many locations where a zebra crossing would be better.

Great point... I agree, a lot of the pedestrian crossing I have to cycle through would be perfectly serviced by a zebra crossing. This wouldn't be suitable in all cases though so I think the sensor plate is still a good idea

@techdiver... You are probably right about rogue cyclists. They don't seem to even think as they continue through a red light or break the rules of the road. Tossers

buffalo

Mucco wrote: »

This annoys me too, as a ped, cyclist and motorist.

The solution is much easier though. When the button is pressed, the light should change straight away.
Maybe on busy roads, there might need to be a time-gap between the green man to allow traffic to pass, but I'd prefer pedestrian priority on most roads, even in these cases.

M

I've only come across one of these in Ireland, and it's in Dublin. Guess which building it's outside?

Doctor Bob

buffalo wrote: »

I've only come across one of these in Ireland, and it's in Dublin. Guess which building it's outside?

The Martello tower on Sandymount Strand.

What do I win?!

(I suspect you mean Leinster House to Molesworth Street. That true, but it's not the only one.)

Stark

mitosis wrote: »

If you look carefully you will find a 10 year old boy nearby who thought it was funny to press the button as he walked by.

The gob****es I see doing this are usually a lot older than that. Seen adults doing it countless times.

00112984

That sensor at Leinster House is not for pedestrians though. It detects vehicles approaching on Molesworth St. and changes the lights to red, holding traffic on Kildare St. so the Molesworth St. traffic won't get delayed. I've watched it in action; it's almost the exact opposite of what the OP is looking for.

Back on topic, my pet peeve is people who see nothing coming, press the button out of habit but cross straight away anyway. Given the inevitable time delay, pedestrian is well down the road by the time the lights change and everyone else is waiting at the red light for nobody.

ULMarc

This is one of those situations where no solution is likely better than any solution. And the most sensible way to deal with it for anyone involved is to observe for any pedestrians intending to cross and to continue forward safely. I don't understand why this needs to be black and white.

Note: I completely understand the need for the law to state it in black and white. But discretion is available to anyone with common sense.

Lumen

ULMarc wrote: »

This is one of those situations where no solution is likely better than any solution. And the most sensible way to deal with it for anyone involved is to observe for any pedestrians intending to cross and to continue forward safely. I don't understand why this needs to be black and white.

Just to be clear, are you advocating that road users proceed through red lights at pedestrian crossings (not traffic junctions, obviously) when there are no pedestrians crossing?

galwaycyclist

ULMarc wrote: »

This is one of those situations where no solution is likely better than any solution. And the most sensible way to deal with it for anyone involved is to observe for any pedestrians intending to cross and to continue forward safely. I don't understand why this needs to be black and white.

Note: I completely understand the need for the law to state it in black and white. But discretion is available to anyone with common sense.

The problem is that it will be judged in black and white - particularly in the "media".

Can you suggest a legal formula that would allow for common sense and discretion?

mp31

Great design & outcome:

Puffin and Pelican crossings can also be fitted with speed detecting approach radar or other types of detectors to set the lights for the traffic to red if a speed violation is detected. This forces speeding traffic to halt for a period which varies according to the local speed limit. Once drivers are made aware of this function, the incidence of speeding is significantly reduced.

monument

The push buttons on all/most crossings should be replaced by sensors over time.

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The problem is that it will be judged in black and white - particularly in the "media".

Can you suggest a legal formula that would allow for common sense and discretion?

As you say, use zebra crossings. The nice things about zebra crossings is that cyclists rarely need to stop at all (slowing down to make it clear to the pedestrian that you're yielding is often all what you need to do). A win-win situation really.

beauf

Unless the Pedestrian has a helmet, hi viz, bell, and paid road tax they shouldn't be allow to cross the road.

steve-o

ULMarc wrote: »

This is one of those situations where no solution is likely better than any solution. And the most sensible way to deal with it for anyone involved is to observe for any pedestrians intending to cross and to continue forward safely. I don't understand why this needs to be black and white.

Note: I completely understand the need for the law to state it in black and white. But discretion is available to anyone with common sense.

I don't see any sensible reason why cyclists shouldn't be allowed to cross or go through all pedestrian crossings at low speed, while always yielding to pedestrians. There are an increasing number of crossings in Dublin with shared space for pedestrians and cyclists. They need a few tweaks, but on the whole they seem to work well. It's funny how what's illegal at one crossing is legalised at the next because the council has invested a vast amount of money in fancy lights.

NS77

Mucco wrote: »

The solution is much easier though. When the button is pressed, the light should change straight away.

This is a significant part of the problem!

It's also an issue on cyclist requested crossings - e.g. on the Grand Canal cycleway at Inchicore. I've often have to wait 3-4 minutes for the lights to allow me to proceed.

Dublin can be a very unfriendly city towards both cyclists and pedestrians sometimes

Lawr

I run at 6am every morning. I press the crossing buttons because automobiles in my area are exceeding the speed limit by at least 15kph, including articulated trucks. How long do you think it takes one of those suckers, fully loaded, to stop when they're doing 65 to 70 kph in a 50 kph zone? The delivery trucks are the worst. I hit the pedestrian crossing button because they swing off into side roads at tremendous speed, assuming there would not be anyone in the crossing when they come through a corner around which they are not able to see. It is mad. People who use the road to make their living apparently view pedestrians and cyclists as collateral damage; otherwise, they wouldn't behave so recklessly with others' lives.

I recommend that there should be a platform on the road, just before the cycle launching area. Most road users seem to be unaware that the stop line precedes the cycling launching area, thinking instead that the crossing boundary lines are the stop lines. I've seen cars straddling the crossing while waiting for the light to change. So put the pressure sensor in the road behind the cycle launching area. The light should remain red as long as there is no pressure on the sensor. Once there is pressure, the lights would go through its cycle, allowing enough time for pedestrians to complete their crossing before acknowledging the road user and switching the light to green.

The Bishop Basher

So why is it that when motorists moan about being stuck behind a group of cyclists for a couple of miles the response is always the same....

"So you get held up for a couple of minutes of your day, get over it !!"

Yet when the shoe is on the other foot we have cyclists advocating a change in the law to allow them break lights at their own convenience.

Maybe the answer is a lot simpler then that. Its no more then 30 seconds out of your day on the rare occasion it happens. Take your own advice and get over it.

enas

Swanner wrote: »

So why is it that when motorists moan about being stuck behind a group of cyclists for a couple of miles the response is always the same....

"So you get held up for a couple of minutes of your day, get over it !!"

Yet when the shoe is on the other foot we have cyclists advocating a change in the law to allow them break lights at their own convenience.

Maybe the answer is a lot simpler then that. Its no more then 30 seconds out of your day on the rare occasion it happens. Take your own advice and get over it.

Because it's not the same thing maybe. The important bit is the bold bit. We're not complaining about having to wait at a red light for pedestrians, that's the way it is. Similarly, a car stuck behind some cyclists simply has to wait as long as required, that's life. The question is, do we really need to make cyclists stop at pedestrian red lights. Similarly, as a cyclist, I couldn't be happier to be provided with a good alternative that will remove me out of cars way. The main difference is that the first one has a quick fix, while the second is a whole different league.

Then there's the bigger picture, of prioritising pedestrian and cycling traffic in places where cars shouldn't be prioritised, to make cities more liveable and to encourage people to cycle and walk, etc. etc.

buffalo

ULMarc wrote: »

This is one of those situations where no solution is likely better than any solution. And the most sensible way to deal with it for anyone involved is to observe for any pedestrians intending to cross and to continue forward safely. I don't understand why this needs to be black and white.

Note: I completely understand the need for the law to state it in black and white. But discretion is available to anyone with common sense.

I'm trying to decide if this pun about zebra crossings was intentional or unintentional...

beauf

I don't see why cyclists can't wait at lights. You don't get held up by traffic so waiting at lights isn't going to add that much time. I use them to take a breather myself.

There is a problem with lights though. You get a lot which take minutes to change, for no good reason as they aren't sensor controlled. I avoid junctions if I know they have a long light sequence. Some that are, cyclists don't trigger the sensor.

dave_o_brien

Swanner wrote: »

So why is it that when motorists moan about being stuck behind a group of cyclists for a couple of miles the response is always the same....

"So you get held up for a couple of minutes of your day, get over it !!"

Yet when the shoe is on the other foot we have cyclists advocating a change in the law to allow them break lights at their own convenience.

Maybe the answer is a lot simpler then that. Its no more then 30 seconds out of your day on the rare occasion it happens. Take your own advice and get over it.

While this is an excellent point, and cyclists should exercise the same patience they (justifiably) demand of other road users, this specific discussion could easily be about motorists who have to stop for a ghost to cross. Unlike waiting for a safe time to pass slower moving traffic, this is a traffic-flow issue that can be addressed through design that will have a positive impact on everyone.

I'm especially interested in the use of radar sensors to control speeding traffics progress. Sounds great to me!

The Bishop Basher

dave_o_brien wrote: »

While this is an excellent point, and cyclists should exercise the same patience they (justifiably) demand of other road users, this specific discussion could easily be about motorists who have to stop for a ghost to cross. Unlike waiting for a safe time to pass slower moving traffic, this is a traffic-flow issue that can be addressed through design that will have a positive impact on everyone.

I'm especially interested in the use of radar sensors to control speeding traffics progress. Sounds great to me!

That's a far more reasonable approach to the same debate and one I think all road users would agree with.

Deedsie

dave_o_brien wrote: »

While this is an excellent point, and cyclists should exercise the same patience they (justifiably) demand of other road users, this specific discussion could easily be about motorists who have to stop for a ghost to cross. Unlike waiting for a safe time to pass slower moving traffic, this is a traffic-flow issue that can be addressed through design that will have a positive impact on everyone.

I'm especially interested in the use of radar sensors to control speeding traffics progress. Sounds great to me!

This is exactly what I meant in the OP, the sensor would benefit all traffic cyclist, motorists and pedestrians. No one, motorist or cyclist wants to be stopped at a pedestrian crossing if no pedestrian is actually there. I am a motorist also and it annoys me just as much when in a car.

A couple of posters have said things like "I don't see why cyclists can't wait"... Just to be clear I follow the rules of the road to the best of my ability everyday, it's gotten to the stage where I want the Gardaí to catch the cyclist who are breaking red lights or in general being A-holes on the road. They give every cyclist a bad name and in my opinion in Garda cycling checkpoints should be welcomed by law abiding cyclists.

ULMarc

beauf wrote: »

I don't see why cyclists can't wait at lights. You don't get held up by traffic so waiting at lights isn't going to add that much time. I use them to take a breather myself.

There is a problem with lights though. You get a lot which take minutes to change, for no good reason as they aren't sensor controlled. I avoid junctions if I know they have a long light sequence. Some that are, cyclists don't trigger the sensor.

I take a judgement call if there's a red light.

I wait at any junctions. I take a left where there is plenty of space to do so. And I continue through lights that are at pedestrian crossings if there's nobody around to cross. Basically taking the opportunity when it doesn't affect anyone.

Macy0161

Mucco wrote: »

This annoys me too, as a ped, cyclist and motorist.

The solution is much easier though. When the button is pressed, the light should change straight away.
Maybe on busy roads, there might need to be a time-gap between the green man to allow traffic to pass, but I'd prefer pedestrian priority on most roads, even in these cases.

M

It might work at some, but not all. At some crossing's it'd be at constant red for traffic, obviously including buses and cyclists (there's more than just cars on the road).

Also, some pedestrian lights are in sequence with the traffic lights - there was chaos the other night when the pedestrian crossing between trees road and the old stillorgan road on the N11 was out of sequence with the traffic lights.

Maybe there should be a clampdown on jaywalking pedestrians who push the button and cross on a red man anyway? :cool:

Dismount.

Walk across crossing.

Remount.

Problem solved.

Once you're on foot walking the bike, you're a pedestrian.

monument

Macy0161 wrote: »

Maybe there should be a clampdown on jaywalking pedestrians who push the button and cross on a red man anyway? :cool:

We need to start addressing problems and not just dealing with the symptoms over and over.

Iwannahurl

Or complaining about the symptoms while ignoring, or worse, defending the causes...

BofaDeezNuhtz

This time next year Rodney.....we'll be millionaires!!!

Macy0161

Just to come back to this - is there a reason that flashing amber isn't in the sequence for more pedestrian lights?

TommiesTank

How sensitive would the plate be? Would a raccoon for example trigger it? Assuming the raccoon was able to press the button.

Doctor Bob

Macy0161 wrote: »

Just to come back to this - is there a reason that flashing amber isn't in the sequence for more pedestrian lights?

Flashing amber for pedestrians, or for traffic? Pedestrians never get a flashing amber man, traffic only gets a flashing amber light in limited circumstances. (Cyclists get a flashing amber bike signal on the Grand Canal cycle track, after the red and before the full green, but the legality of this is suspect.)

Where a pedestrian crossing is provided as part of a signalised junction, it has the three-aspect pedestrian signals (RPC 004) and the sequence for the lights is:

red figure, green figure, amber figure, red figure.

Where it is provided as a mid-block/isolated pedestrian crossing, i.e. not associated with any other signal-controlled traffic movements, it can be either conventional, with RPC 004 sequenced as above, or Pelican, with a two-aspect (no amber figure) pedestrian signal (RPC 003), with the sequence:

red figure, steady green figure, flashing green figure, red figure

While for traffic:

the standard full red/amber/green traffic signal (RTS 001) is used at pelican crossings, with a circular amber aspect which can be steady or flashing. The sequence is red, flashing amber, green, amber, red. The flashing amber signal indicates that vehicles may proceed if the crossing is clear. However, if there are pedestrians on the crossing, vehicles must continue to yield to them.

Flashing amber is only used at mid-block crossings due to the lack of opposing or conflicting traffic movements.

See Section 9.7 and 9.8 of the Traffic Signs Manual: http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/12971-TSM_CHAPTER_9-12.PDF

Stark

wrote:

Doctor Bob wrote:

Flashing amber for pedestrians, or for traffic? Pedestrians never get a flashing amber man

I think you just answered your own question there.

Doctor Bob

Stark wrote: »

I think you just answered your own question there.

Not really.

A flashing amber figure isn't currently permitted, but Macy0601 might have been suggesting it as an option worth considering. It wasn't clear from the phrasing of the question, hence my query.

Cookie_Monster

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Not really.

A flashing amber figure isn't currently permitted, but Macy0601 might have been suggesting it as an option worth considering. It wasn't clear from the phrasing of the question, hence my query.

there's plenty of zebra crossings with flashing amber lights.

Fighting Irish

Deedsie wrote: »

I am a cycling commuter in Dublin... Rock Road, Merrion Road, Pembroke Road etc

Now there are many things I'd like to complain about, cyclists running red lights, mentalist motorists cutting in front of me... Loads and loads of annoying stuff.

Anyway, one of the really annoying things that I think could easily be solved is phantom pedestrian crossings. How many times I have had to stop at a set of pedestrian crossing lights with no sight not sound of a pedestrian within 50 metres of the crossing on either side of the road.

My suggestion is a sensor plate on either side of the road at the traffic lights. If the pedestrian doesn't stand on the sensor plate to wait for the lights to go red the lights will remain green for the traffic.

I have no problem stopping for pedestrians but when I have to stop for fresh air to cross in front of me it's very frustrating especially when other rules of the road breaking cyclists just spin past me and break the lights.

I know, it's ****ing ridiculous, same in carlow town

Macy0161

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Not really.

A flashing amber figure isn't currently permitted, but Macy0601 might have been suggesting it as an option worth considering. It wasn't clear from the phrasing of the question, hence my query.

I meant for vehicles, with a flashing green man for pedestrians. For example the pedestrian crossing in Donnybrook by the Spar.

Not at junctions, but a pedestrian crossings only, it would aide traffic flow imo. There's a couple of pedestrian only crossings on the Merrion Road (as mentioned in the op now I check) which are regularly red for vehicles with no one crossing (them having crossed when the traffic was stopped), or out around Loughlinstown on the N11, and I thought it might be a more practical and cost effective solution than sensors to make sure there's actually a pedestrian waiting to cross. All new crossings I've seen do not have flashing amber in the sequence - which just seems a bit odd, as they're always respected in my experience.

Spook_ie

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Flashing amber for pedestrians, or for traffic? Pedestrians never get a flashing amber man, traffic only gets a flashing amber light in limited circumstances. (Cyclists get a flashing amber bike signal on the Grand Canal cycle track, after the red and before the full green, but the legality of this is suspect.)

<snipped>

Would seem to be legal according to this

(3) Traffic sign number RTS 007 shall consist of a set of 3 lamps and comply with the conditions set out in paragraphs (a), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-article (2) and with the following conditions:


(a) one lamp, when lit, shall show a symbol of a pedal cycle in green on a black background, indicating that pedal cyclists may cross the road;


(b) a second lamp, when lit, shall show a symbol of a pedal cycle in amber on a black background indicating that pedal cyclists may not cross the road unless they have already begun to do so while the lamp described in paragraph (a) was lit;


(c) when the second lamp described in paragraph (b) is lit on an intermittent basis, it indicates that pedal cyclists may only proceed past the cycle traffic lights provided that right of way is yielded to any pedestrian who has already begun to cross the roadway or cycle track;


(d) a third lamp, when lit, shall show a symbol of a pedal cycle in red on a black background, indicating that pedal cyclists shall not cross the road;


(e) the lamps referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) shall be arranged vertically, the lamp showing a display in red, when lit, being uppermost and the lamp showing a display in green, when lit, being lowermost;


(f) subject to paragraph (g), when the lenses of the lamps have a diameter that is between 200 millimetres and 215 millimetres, the lower edge of the lowermost lamp shall be not less than 2.1 metres and not more than 3.05 metres above the surface of the ground in the immediate vicinity and, when the lenses of the lamps have a diameter that is between 80 millimetres and 110 millimetres, the lower edge of the lowermost lamp shall be between 1.5 metres and 1.7 metres and not more than 3.05 metres above the ground in the immediate vicinity;


(g) where traffic sign RTS 007 is provided at a place where roadworks are being carried out or is provided for other temporary traffic management purposes, the lower edge of the lowermost lamp shall not be less than 1.1 metres and not more than 3.05 metres above the surface of the ground in the immediate vicinity.