Continental-style traffic light junctions

[Bmblbzzz]

Also of note on the continent (Germany / Netherlands) is that motor vehicles have to give way to pedestrians / cyclists when turning at junctions.

Well, yes. This is the main point really, without which the idea of carriageway and crossing getting green together could not work.

[Cyril Haearn]

Just today I developed a new solution to nasty junctions and roundabouts, I have done it before occasionally
Instead of taking my chance going ahead when motors have green too I turn off, cycle down the side road to the first light-controlled crossing and cross there, go back on the other side, often this means I keep moving and spend less time waiting
Means I cycle a few hundred meters more, Plus One, costs a few seconds usually
"Feels" much safer

After crossing I wait a moment and press the button again so the next cyclists/walkers will not have wait so long

[Cyril Haearn]

Also of note on the continent (Germany / Netherlands) is that motor vehicles have to give way to pedestrians / cyclists when turning at junctions.
... .

In theory, in law
But in practice it is often ignored or they creep forward or miss one by a few cm, I never trust them
Particularly bad when buses going the other way turn across ones path

[thirdcrank]

... in the event of a collision it establishes automatic liability (the French have presumed liability as a default).

Is this something you can explain with a bit of detail?

[Mistik-ka]

in the event of a collision it establishes automatic liability.

Strangely I take little comfort from that thought.

[atlas_shrugged]

I first noticed the overtaking effects of presumed liability when cycling in Normandy. I noticed the drivers being very careful with overtaking giving plenty of room and even giving a quick warning with the horn. It was explained to me why the French should take such care and the reason of presumed liability was given. Any crash and the motorist is automatically held liable - unless the motorist can prove beyond doubt that the cyclist was at fault. I really noticed the effect of French motorists being careful, there were no close passes or punishment passes.

When turning at a junction in NL or D if the motorist even touches you then bang they are liable. It just means they are more careful than they would have been otherwise. It does not make them brilliant, it just makes them better and amen to that.

[thirdcrank]

a_s

Thanks for that. Perhaps I'm carrying too much baggage, but to me liability has a specific meaning connected with compo rather than criminal sanctions. Somebody - possibly vorpal - did once explain that in France, a single court at one sitting can resolve criminal and civil issues on one set of evidence.

IMO, one of our big problems originated in the CPS's reluctance to prosecute drivers for breaches of the advice in the HC, although it plays a major part in civil proceedings.

[mjr]

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/30/liab ... ive-safely

[thirdcrank]

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/30/liability-laws-will-make-people-drive-safely

I think that's worth quoting in full, although it quotes no sources.

The effects of strict (or presumed) liability laws on behaviour are exaggerated. These laws are simply insurance regulations, and have no bearing on criminal culpability. There is no evidence to suggest they have any effect on the behaviour of people driving, or on safety in general.

Many countries with low cycling rates (and high cycling casualty rates) also have such regulations, seemingly to little or no effect. The Netherlands didn't enact such regulations until the early 1990s, long after their cycling boom had begun.

Liability laws are a good thing in their own right, a post-trauma financial safety net to help provide support for victims of road collisions. But they're not intended to deter bad driving, nor are they a way to make cycling safe and attractive for all.

This isn't to say that the criminal law in other countries isn't better at protecting vulnerable road users. eg Somebody, (Brucey?) referred to a case in France IIRC where a driver colliding with a cyclist was prosecuted and convicted under the 1.5 metre clearance rule.

[Bmblbzzz]

The French like to hoot when overtaking anyway. They used to have a habit - don't know if it was actually official advice, let alone a rule - that a driver who wanted to overtake would flash their lights and if the vehicle in front reckoned it was safe or they were ready to be overtaken, they would hoot. They were certainly still doing this in the early 1990s. The flaws in this are obvious, but hey!

[StephenW]

Hello everyone

Some interesting points so far. If possible, I'd like to concentrate on discussing signal-controlled junctions, rather than drifting too far into the merits of strict liability.

I'd like to expand on my original post:

1. Signal-controlled and give-way junctions are two different things.
What works well for one does not necessarily work well for the other. Traffic lights are used in situations where there are greater volumes of traffic turning in and out of a side road. Therefore requiring drivers to give way in this situation may be less safe and effective than elsewhere. It is also harder to make the priority really clear, and force slow speeds through design, at traffic light junctions.

2. Familiarity and expectations
Just because something is unfamiliar, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. However, if you are changing something which will result in a lot of upheaval, you need to be sure that the thing which you are changing it to is really that much better, so that it is worth the upheaval. I'm not sure if continental-style traffic light junctions are a big enough improvement to justify the change.
Let's compare the changes resulting from a switch to this type of junction, versus the changes from introducing simultaneous green junctions. With the simultaneous green junction, nothing changes from the drivers' perspective, whereas with the "continental-style" junction, a change of behaviour is required. Traffic lights of the existing type have been in widespread use for a long time in the UK, so drivers may have quite fixed expectations. With the simultaneous green system, cyclists must get used to other cyclists approaching from all directions. However, since cycle-specific traffic lights are currently very rare, I do not think it would be a big problem to adapt to this. People have much less fixed expectations about this.

3. Different types of conflict
As I understand it, traffic light design is a compromise between separating conflicting movements, and extending the cycle time (and possibly reducing capacity). Within this, there are various possibilities for what conflicting movements to allow. All designs under discussion allow car/car conflicts. Existing UK junctions have no car/ped conflicts, and also do not allow car/bike or bike/bike conflicts where separate cycle infrastructure is provided. The "Continental-style" junction introduces car/ped and car/bike conflicts, although does not have bike/bike conflicts. The simultaneous green junction does not have car/ped or car/bike conflicts, but does allow bike/bike conflicts. To my mind, bike/bike conflicts are greatly to be preferred to car/bike or car/ped conflicts. Cyclists are likely to be able to move and negotiate past each other without colliding, and if they do the consequences will be less severe.

Notes
1. "continental-style" is probably not a very good name. Nevertheless, everyone seems to get what I mean.
2. I have presumed that people know what "simultaneous green" means. Here is a very positive blog post about it: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/se ... us%20green
Mark Wagenbuur is a bit more skeptical: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014 ... ling-city/

[Cyril Haearn]

Continental style?

There are many sorts of different junctions, the rules change and new ones are built differently, old ones are still in use that would be illegal to build now
Sometimes roundabouts are in, sometimes they are out

The central concern is capacity for motors
Plenty of new roads are still being built

[Bmblbzzz]

As I understand it, traffic light design is a compromise between separating conflicting movements, and extending the cycle time (and possibly reducing capacity).

I'm just thinking -- we all know what you mean, but particularly in the context of discussing cycle paths etc, the potential for confusion remains. Perhaps we need a new jargon, such as phase time?

[thirdcrank]

The history of traffic engineering in the UK has been based on paint in the form of GIVE WAY lines wherever possible. From a cyclists POV this is perhaps most obvious in the popularity of the roundabout. Traffic lights are a rationing device, tending only to be installed when there's no alternative eg no room for a roundabout or if traffic at an existing roundabout has begun to exceed its capacity.

Provision for vulnerable users has generally been to control ie ration their movement. IMO a good example has been the replacement of paint in the form of zebra crossings - where pedestrians' freedom to cross is restricted only by their bravery - with various light-controlled versions, which rarely stop traffic on pedestrian demand.

I fear that any change to this mentality is not imminent, except where there's no option. eg some urban areas have become so congested that restrictions on motor traffic have become inescapable. I detect little genuine belief among policymakers that cycling presents a viable alternative. Until that fundamental situation changes, the layout and phasing of traffic lights seems academic.

I don't think that the enforcement régime can be ignored. eg As part of the attempts to keep prohibited motor traffic off the so-called "bus box" in Leeds (the innermost of the four variously-named ring roads) light-controlled pedestrian crossings were set to default to red, with only brief green phases for traffic. Unless there's a sea of pedestrians in the carriageway, these lights are IME often ignored.

[Bmblbzzz]

zebra crossings - where pedestrians' freedom to cross is restricted only by their bravery - with various light-controlled versions, which rarely stop traffic on pedestrian demand.

It's really Hobson's choice, isn't it?
Zebra: the brave can cross any time but the meek must wait till some kind-hearted motorist takes pity on them.
Pelican (puffin etc): the meek and the mild get equal chances but all must defer to the motorists.