Where are the (smart) Farside alternatives to Puffins

[SA_SA_SA]

The 2015/16 Street signs etc consultation implied that even though Pelicans might go, smart* farside pedestrian crossings that formed an equivalent alternative to (nearside)Puffins existed:

but do they? I can find no evidence of them.
Is it allowed to install smart Farside figures Toucans with no cycle aspect?

Have the Dft duped everyone to increase the amount of Puffins?

*ie ones that detect crossing pedestrians and extend crossing time as necessary, and perhaps cancel requests when pedestrians press button and walk off.

[landsurfer]

Really, there's a bird spotting section in the CTC ... who would have thought it !!!

[Pete Owens]

*ie ones that detect crossing pedestrians and extend crossing time as necessary, and perhaps cancel requests when pedestrians press button and walk off.

ie civilised ones that actually give pedestrians enough time to cross at their own pace - thus entirely removing the need for those horrible get a move on flashing signs at the far side.

I really don't understand your obsession with far side signals. The only signal pedestrians need is one to indicate when to start crossing. Once you have started to cross you simply continue to cross and the vehicle traffic is held at red till you are safely at the other side. The last thing a little old lady needs when they are halfway across the carriageway is a flashing "get a move on signal".

Of course the best pedestrian crossings do have far-side signals - Large orange balls that flash slowly all the time.

[SA_SA_SA]

...I really don't understand your obsession with far side signals. The only signal pedestrians need is one to indicate when to start crossing. Once you have started to cross you simply continue to cross and the vehicle traffic is held at red till you are safely at the other side....

I have told you before, I want a visual confirmation as I cross (and it seems I am not alone).

[ian s]

I understood the flashing to mean "don't start crossing now, you won't have time to cross" rather than "hurry along now", though I suppose they could be interpreted that way. I also see little point in the crossing lights on the far side of the road once one has started crossing, one isn't going to turn back if the lights start to change

[Pete Owens]

I understood the flashing to mean "don't start crossing now, you won't have time to cross" rather than "hurry along now", though I suppose they could be interpreted that way.

I would guess that you are fit and capable of walking briskly across the crossing within the time allocated by the engineers. Now imagine you are an arthritic octogenarian who is half way across at the time the flashing light tells someone twice as fast that they do not have time to make the whole crossing.

I also see little point in the crossing lights on the far side of the road once one has started crossing, one isn't going to turn back if the lights start to change

Absolutely. The appropriate sign for "don't start crossing now" is a red man - which is what you see on near-side signals. The ONLY purpose of far-side signals is the "hurry up the lights are about to change" message to people on the crossing.

[Bmblbzzz]

The point I see in the far-side signals is that they are much easier to see as you walk towards the crossing. This is also one of their weaknesses; they can be seen by road traffic too, some of which might (does) take the sight of a red or flashing man, or other absence of green man, as a sign that pedestrians should no longer be on the crossing. This is, I think, the reason the flashing green man and flashing amber has been abandoned. With both Puffins and the far-side signals as used in London and a few other places now, there is no ambiguous (because it does not give clear priority to one user or the other) flashing amber light; road traffic sees the same light sequence as at standard traffic signals. Unfortunately this clarity for road traffic is not matched by clarity for pedestrians, with countdowns, where present, being used in different ways in different places, and some having a curious blank phase with no pedestrian light.

[landsurfer]

Perhaps the ability to safely use a crossing of any avian type is a pre-requirement to be able to cycle ...... a bit like getting dressed and putting your shoes on.
Surely being overwhelmed by flightless and flighted road crossings marks you out as not being safe to be in charge of a mighty bicycle ???

[MikeF]

Perhaps the ability to safely use a crossing of any avian type is a pre-requirement to be able to cycle ...... a bit like getting dressed and putting your shoes on.
Surely being overwhelmed by flightless and flighted road crossings marks you out as not being safe to be in charge of a mighty bicycle ???

Perhaps you don't walk much, but light controlled crossings are "geared" to allow as much road traffic through as possible. None is pedestrian friendly.
Far side signals are very useful, but of course, a pedestrian still needs to beware of red light jumpers - yes car drivers. The far side lights are usually shielded from drivers vision. Puffin crossings don't have far side signals - you need to look at your navel to see when to cross - something else designed by a non user .
Why we need so many different types of light crossings is a mystery to me. Pelicans, Toucans, Puffins, etc I'm never quite sure which is which. All now have an obligatory 30 seconds wait.

[landsurfer]

I walk a lot, but mostly up and down mountains .... not known for their pedestrian crossings, yet ...
And the only time i have ever been hit by a red light jumper was earlier this month in the centre of Birmingham ..... yes a cyclist ..... I was on the way to a cycle club meeting ...couldn't make it up

[ian s]

Mr. Owens wrote - The appropriate sign for "don't start crossing now" is a red man - which is what you see on near-side signals. The ONLY purpose of far-side signals is the "hurry up the lights are about to change" message to people on the crossing.

If this was to be adopted, then a slow person would be part way across the toad when the "red man" is illuminated, (to stop any others starting to cross), but would then have to finish crossing with the far side red man illuminated, which I understood from earlier posts to be exactly what is not required.

I suspect that, as in many things, it is impossible to please all people all the time

Incidentally, having done a little research, the intention of the flashing red man is to indicate "don't start to cross", not "hurry along there", much like (though not identical to) the amber aspect of traffic lights, but without the cost of the extra amber light

[mjr]

The point I see in the far-side signals is that they are much easier to see as you walk towards the crossing. This is also one of their weaknesses; they can be seen by road traffic too, some of which might (does) take the sight of a red or flashing man, or other absence of green man, as a sign that pedestrians should no longer be on the crossing.

It's easy to put hoods on the pedestrian signals and put the stop line far enough back that traffic can't see them. Road traffic can also deduce the state of puffin light boxes easily enough from illuminations (when dark), reflections or even the red lights around the button on secondary request boxes. If we don't want motorists to know what walkers are being shown, far-side signals with hoods are the best but still not 100%.

With both Puffins and the far-side signals as used in London and a few other places now, there is no ambiguous (because it does not give clear priority to one user or the other) flashing amber light; road traffic sees the same light sequence as at standard traffic signals.

Sadly, this seems to be giving false certainty and encouraging motorists to harass/abuse anyone who fails to meet the signal engineer's timing target and is still in the carriageway when motorists get a green light. This may be due to sensors not being configured correctly and being unable to spot someone well wrapped-up against the freezing weather, but it seems to happen an awful lot.

[Bmblbzzz]

Mike F puts it well: you need to look at your navel to see the nearside signals! In practice of course their height varies; sometimes it is literally navel-height, sometimes, even more annoyingly, face height. The first simply means you can't watch both the light and oncoming traffic together, the second means you can't see oncoming traffic at all (and often can't see the light either because of other people standing between you and it; a problem whatever its height).

Hoods that effectively obscure the farside lights from traffic? They might be possible but I've never seen them in use.

The most convenient design for pedestrians would surely be to have signals both nearside and farside simultaneously, as some prefer one and some the other, depending on vision, height, habit, etc.

[Pete Owens]

Incidentally, having done a little research, the intention of the flashing red man is to indicate "don't start to cross", not "hurry along there", much like (though not identical to) the amber aspect of traffic lights, but without the cost of the extra amber light

It is not at all like the amber light.
Pedestrians can stop or start at an instant - so can cope with an abrupt change from green to red.
Vehicles have momentum so need a significant warning (ie amber) in order to start braking sufficiently in advance to come to a stop by the time the lights have changed to red.

The reason for the flashing red on far-side signals is it needs to give two entirely different messages to different groups of pedestrians:-
1. For those on the kerb in means "stop" - and
2. for those already on the crossing it means "get a move on - the vehicles are just about to get a green light".
With puffins there is no need for the second message as vehicles are not given a green light until the pedestrians have cleared the crossing. This means that near- side signals can give a clear unambiguous message.

[mjr]

Pedestrians can stop or start at an instant - so can cope with an abrupt change from green to red.
Vehicles have momentum so need a significant warning (ie amber) in order to start braking sufficiently in advance to come to a stop by the time the lights have changed to red.

Mobility scooters and often cycles and e-cycles use such crossings too. Why don't they need such a warning?

And I'm pretty sure pedestrians have momentum, too.

With puffins there is no need for the second message as vehicles are not given a green light until the pedestrians have cleared the crossing.

It must be lovely living somewhere with only perfectly-working crossing sensors! Meanwhile, in the real world, it happens fairly often...