Transport for London (TfL) is to trial ‘green man authority’ on ten pedestrian crossings in the capital. The signal strategy gives pedestrians priority, relying on detectors to pick up any oncoming vehicles.
The July 2018 TfL Walking Action Plan states: “‘Green man’ authority is a radical technique where the traffic signals show a green signal for pedestrians continuously, until vehicular traffic is detected, at which time the pedestrians are stopped on a red signal, and vehicles are given a green light to proceed.
“This technique has previously only been used at two locations in London, on bus-only streets in Hounslow and Morden. TfL has identified the next 10 new locations where this approach will be set up, where it would significantly benefit pedestrians, with very little detriment to traffic.”
TransportXtra reports that the ten crossings to be treated are:
- Newham: Endeavour Square (Westfield Avenue by Southern Boulevard; Westfield Avenue by Middle Crossing; and Westfield Avenue by International Way)
- City of London: Millennium Bridge (Queen Victoria Street by Distaff Lane)
- Southwark: Guy’s Hospital (St Thomas Street by Weston Street East; and St Thomas Street by Weston Street West)
- Southwark: The Shard/Guy’s Hospital (St Thomas Street by Joiner Street)
- Westminster: Wardour Street (Wardour Street by Brewer Street)
- Hammersmith and Fulham: Imperial Wharf Station (Imperial Road by Fulmead Street)
- Merton: Wimbledon Shopping Centre (Queens Road by South Park Road)
A TfL spokesperson said the signal controller will be set with minimum and maximum times for vehicle green periods, and a minimum time for people walking.
“In times when traffic flows are busier, the benefits of green man authority may not be as evident, because whilst we are trying to strike a better balance, we do not want to create excessive congestion on the roads.”
The spokesperson added: “This is a pilot phase where we want to understand the operational impacts and benefits of this type of traffic light configuration.”
An obvious question from a cyclist’s perspective is whether the technology will detect those on bikes.
Responding to a Freedom of Information request in August 2018, TfL said: “As part of the development, a requirement will be the detection of oncoming bicycles at Green Man Authority sites.
“The current overhead vehicle detectors used by Transport for London (TfL) do detect oncoming bicycles. Evaluation of our detection equipment used on the network has shown that cyclists are detected.”
59 thoughts on “TfL to pilot default green man signal at ten pedestrian crossings”
Just good, maybe motorists
Just good, maybe motorists should have to wait a couple of minutes after pressing a button.
I do hope that they have their detectors set up better than Reading, there are detectors on some cycle specific crossings that fail to detect my bicycles.
ktache wrote:
I’ve always thought it rather odd that those sitting in a warm dry box, requiring no physical effort on their own part in order to move, are given priority, in terms of both time and distance, over those that are out and exposed in all weathers and have to move with their own effort. There are several examples locally where the route for motor vehicles is shorter and more direct than that for bicycles and pedestrians that are sent on contorted excursions around the motor vehicle route.
The worst, and most prevalent
The worst, and most prevalent, and easiest to fix, is where there is a default delay between a pedestrian pressing the button and the lights changing. Mostly what happens is the button is pressed, the default 60 seconds (or so) delay kicks in, during which the pedestrian grows impatient and nips across at any random gap in the traffic flow. Finally, the lights change forcing the traffic to stop for an empty crossing.
These should be reprogrammed so the delay counts down from the last change to (pedestrian) red, so that any crossing activated after it has been unused for a while will change immediately in favour of the pedestrian.
Or it should be made an
Or it should be made an offence to press the button (normally without even looking!) and then cross against a red
mikepridmorewood wrote:
Why?
don simon fbpe wrote:
At a guess, ‘because car drivers pay road tax’ or something equally idiotic.
don simon fbpe wrote:
Because you’ve just held up the traffic for no reason!
If you need help to cross the road, press the button and wait for the lights to change.
If you are able to crosss the road on your own when there’s no traffic, don’t press the button and just cross the road…
mikepridmorewood wrote:
But what about the other pedestrian who walks up to the crossing just after you’ve crossed against a red man? Haven’t you made *their* life a little bit easier, because they’ll have to wait less time to cross…
IME most urban areas have been designed to Keep the Traffic Flowing (TM), and not to make life easier for anyone not in a car.
mikepridmorewood wrote:
(a) I’m far from convinced that much of the time those buttons even do anything.
(b) when the person presses the button there probably is traffic, it’s just that because they are set to wait several days before actually changing the lights, a gap in the traffic occurs long, long before the green man appears, so the pedestrian then crosses and the light eventually changes about a week after they’ve gone.
(c) if motorists would show some courtesy or concern for others they’d stop for the person waiting (who, after all, was probably there long before they were), and the lights wouldn’t be necessary in the first place. So the issue you describe is the fault of the motorists anyway.
mikepridmorewood wrote:
Except that ‘traffic’ does not have any ‘right’ to get around at any particular speed or in any particular delay.
That’s one of the big problems with British drivers *: the sense of entitlement and the belief that they’re somehow on the road ‘by right’.
They aren’t.
* the other problem is that they’re basically arrogant, gobby, selfish, sociopathic c**ts.
mikepridmorewood wrote:
And?
mikepridmorewood wrote:
I had some nutter scream something similar at me recently. He was standing at the crossing when I walked up, but the button hadn’t been pressed. I pressed it, then ten seconds later there were no more cars within sight, so I crossed. He followed me and started some barely comprehensible rant about my holding up traffic, therefore harming the economy, and continued shouting through the door of the bank I went into to use the cash machine.
mikepridmorewood wrote:
You could just jump the red light like all the cyclists do in your head.
srchar wrote:
I mustn’t have explained this very well, must I?
I ride a bike, I don’t go through red lights, so please stop assuming things!
my comment was about the one pedestrian that just presses the button without thinking about the 20 people that now have to wait at a red light after thay have crossed the road without actually needing to stop the traffic as there was none there when they pressed the button
mikepridmorewood wrote:
You explained it fine, we just disagree with you
mikepridmorewood wrote:
So should the person wanting to cross not bother pressing the button and instead wait for a gap?
Or press the button, wait for the lights to change before crossing? But they would STILL hold up any drivers, so the only person additionally inconvenienced is the one waiting to cross. But that’s OK because they’re only a pedestrian and the drivers remain contented because they can see a person using the crossing.
The person doesn’t do it “without thinking”. Their need is to cross the road, not to make drivers happier less frustrated because – god forbid – they are expected to slow or stop for someone crossing the road.
— mikepridmorewoodThat’s a nice binary world you live in. Most people press the button because there ARE vehicles approaching. If a gap subsequently appears – because the delay before the lights change is long, as it often is – then a lot of people are just going to cross. Some will wait.
These types of crossings have proliferated because drivers won’t respect zebra crossings, where they are supposed to stop for pedestrians (as well as the huge growth in the volume of motorised traffic). So drivers have created the problem. You seem to be perpetuating that idea. Thanks a bundle.
This entitlement thing about drivers having priority really has become deeply embedded in the psyche of much of the population in this country.
mikepridmorewood wrote:
Sometimes I press the button on pedestrian lights and then run away giggling as all the cars have had to stop and I don’t even want to cross the road.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think it’s time to stop this wild generalisation, by pointing out that the UK already has light controlled crossings with detectors, that cancel a pending green if there are no pedestrians waiting. Sadly, none of the crossings that I use are like that. Even more sadly, I expect to see a driver ignore a red light, while a pedestrian is crossing, about once a week. The best answer is to dig tunnels exclusively for motor vehicles.
janusz0 wrote:
Ah, is that a thing?
There are a couple of crossings I use, where I know that if I don’t press the button then there won’t be a pedestrian crossing phase, where I have to keep pressing the button because the red light around the button which indicates that it knows it’s been pressed keeps going off. I wonder if that’s what’s going on (that a sensor thinks that I’m no longer standing there so it cancels the call…)
janusz0 wrote:
Tunnels exclusively for motor vehicles? Do you really think anything good will come of yet more infrastructure dedicated to motor vehicles and from which pedestrians and cyclists (not to mention other activities) are banned?
Bmblbzzz wrote:
I wasn’t suggesting banning humans and human powered vehicles from the surface level. So, yes I do!
About 50 years ago there was a serious suggestion to tunnel the A12* under Ipswich. Think about how nice Ipswich could have become, especially if the project continued and was adopted elsewhere.
* maybe it was the A14 (née A45) or both?
janusz0 wrote:
There was no indication of banning anyone or anything from the surface. Sure, if you sent all the cars down into a tunnel and didn’t allow them up again (at least till they were out of town), that could make towns a lot nicer. But it didn’t read as if that was your idea.
My take on it was that creating additional facilities exclusively for motor traffic could only lead to an increase in driving, by making it more convenient (like motorways etc).
Bmblbzzz wrote:
Oh, I was assuming the idea was the tunnels wouldn’t have any exits to the surface. They boy-racers could zoom around down there to their heart’s content, on the understanding they never emerge again.
Though I suppose a moderate “centrist” version might allow for pedestrian entraces and exits, with only the vehicles themselves staying down there. But I fear it would be abused and they’d abduct active travellers from the surface to drag them down to be sacrificed to their dark four-wheeled Gods.
mikepridmorewood wrote:
I do see what you are on about – the pedestrian who willy-nilly presses the button even though the coast is clear, proceeds to cross in conflict with the process they have just initiated. But I was illustrating the far more prevalent scenario where a “fully aware” pedestrian, wishing to cross a busy road, justifiably presses the button. Then they are made to wait a mandatory default period, even if this is the first time the button has been pressed in the whole day. Inevitably, if a gap in the traffic materialises during the enforced wait they will cross, leaving the crossing empty when finally the lights change.
I think many pedestrians, especially if they are in “auto-pilot” on a regular daily route, act out of habit and press the button as an “each-way bet” to cross in the shorter of two delays. The set up reinforces such behaviour.
My suggestion would fix this problem, and the one you describe, make the crossing safer and less annoying for all road users. And it is a reprogramming job only.
mikepridmorewood wrote:
The button is almost always (if not always) only there to trick people into waiting, it doesn’t actually affect the timing of the lights.
I suggested such a system
I suggested such a system about a decade ago, and friends looked at me as if I were stark raving bonkers.
But look, maybe I’m negative about these things, but this will never work. The same drivers who think that cyclists and pedestrians should cede passage to them at all times (i.e. about 95% of drivers) are going to wait for a couple of seconds and then force their way through the crossing pedestrians.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
I think most motorists would still be too afraid to go against the red lights when there are people crossing (not saying that a few won’t try it) but most of the issues from drivers are from either laziness, or lack of fear of getting caught. There’s quite a big difference between driving through a light that’s changing to red when there aren’t people on the road vs already being halted and choosing to drive before the road is clear.
If more systems were introduced like this to shift the priority away from motorists it might help to change the mindset of a few, either that or annoy them so much that they find other ways to travel because driving just isn’t worth the hassle to them.
Coming down the hill from
Coming down the hill from Reading Uni into town, Southampton Street at the junction with Crown Street, admittedly not just a pedestrian crossing, there is an enforcement camera, oddly enough don’t see many ambler gamblers there.
This is one of those
This is one of those innovations that will be so obvious in a few years we’ll wonder how it was any other way in lots of city centre locations. Default green for traffic is one of the many hidden ways where we’ve subconsciously forced people into driving.
Bring it on, I can think of 10 places in my local area alone where this should be the default.
Prosper0 wrote:
Really?
Prosper0 wrote:
Really?
Playing devils advocate….
Playing devils advocate….
To reduce fuel consumption and therefore Co2 output, we need car traffic to be as smooth as possible. I suppose if this discourages driving, the outcome could be better. If it discourages cycling, that’s bad.
Playing devils advocate….
Playing devils advocate….
To reduce fuel consumption and therefore Co2 output, we need car traffic to be as smooth as possible. I suppose if this discourages driving, the outcome could be better. If it discourages cycling, that’s bad.
Expand capacity to smooth traffic flows > more traffic > expland capacity > more traffic etc etc
The only effective way to reduce congestion and pollution is to restrict traffic and provide attractive alternatives.
This is good, it will finally
This is good, it will finally make motorists realise that they do not own the road!
If this works, then it should
If this works, then it should also help enforce speed limits. No point rushing up to a red light at 35 mph when it will only change to let you through without having to stop if you amble up at a nice leisurely 30 mph.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Nice idea – let’s extend it by correlating the waiting time with the amount by which the speed limit was broken as the vehicle approached. For example, travel at 40mph in a 30 zone, breaking the limit by 10mph, and you’ll wait ten times longer at the next red light. I can’t actually think of a better way to enforce speed limits.
I know that junction well.
I know that junction well. It’s right across from Berners Street, from where the pic was taken, unless I’m mistaken. I used to work in that street. Bought my mobile from the Vodafone shop in the picture. Got a camera tripod from the Jessops that’s right next to it. I used to come down there and turn left to go home. Oxford Circus is to the right. That junction is right next to a Nando’s, a small Sainsbury’s and of course is right on Oxford Street. So it’s really, really busy all the time. Even when you have the green, the peds are crossing in front of you all the time.
One evening in the winter, I left work as usual and turned left on the green. Pedestrian was crossing (the crossing is actually to the right of the junction), and I slowed to let her across. But behind her (and concealed from me) was another person, towing a small girl of about maybe seven or eight years. I slammed on the brakes, did a stoppie and when I came back down, my foot went on top of the little girl’s lower leg and pushed her to the ground. Genuinely thought I’d broken her leg. She was OK, and they both just continued on their way without a word, and without acknowledging my earnest apologies (yes, I know, but I’m British, innit?)
I think pedestrians will still cross at places where it’s dangerous to do so.
mikepridmorewood wrote:
That’s a nicely simplistic world you live in.
Most people press the button because there ARE vehicles approaching. Otherwise they’d just cross the road! If a gap subsequently appears – because the delay before the lights change is long, as it often is – then a lot of people are just going to cross if they feel it’s safe enough. Some will wait.
Simon E wrote:
That’s a nicely simplistic world you live in.
Most people press the button because there ARE vehicles approaching. Otherwise they’d just cross the road! — mikepridmorewood
That’s just the point though, they often don’t – although maybe most of the people I see pressing the button do it because there’s traffic approaching, it seems like an increasing amount of people just walk up to the crossing and press the button without even looking. Sometimes it seems that’s because their head is stuffed in their phone, but often I see folk amble up, looking at the other side of the road – no left or right glance – and just hit that ol’button regardless of how full or empty the road is. Sometimes you see people look at the road, see no traffic, hit the button and wait anyway – adults i’m talking, not folk with kids (which makes a degree of sense) – what the hell is that about ? Nerves, ignorance, lack of awareness ? Dunno, riles me though ….
I’d like it if we had simple
I’d like it if we had simple zebra crossings (just black and white paint – no need for the lights) at every road junction so that pedestrians have priority and motorists get used to properly giving way when turning into a road. Also, it would help with those shitty cycle paths that are interrupted by side roads.
I am remarking about the
I am remarking about the selfishness of affecting someone else when it wasn’t necessary, not a sense of entitlement!
I would never do anything that would have an adverse effect to someone else without a necessity or benefit
Situation:
Pedestrian presses button and walks across as there was no traffic. Benefit to them of pressing the button = NONE
Lights change and traffic that has now appreared has to stop = Negative effect on them, more noise,emissions etc
Result = No positive, only negative
However, I’m more than happy to be stopped at a red light for someone that is prepared to consider the consequence of stopping the traffic and NEEDED to do that in order to cross safely. There would be a POSITIVE in that!
mikepridmorewood wrote:
I don’t know about you, but I can’t see the future…
If I press the button now because there is motor traffic on the road now, I have to wait several minutes before the lights change.
I don’t know whether that traffic will all pass in the next few minutes, meaning that the road is clear so I needn’t have pressed the button at all (because now I can just walk across).
If I do just walk across, I’m not going to feel guilty about it because for all I know, even though the button-pressing didn’t help me, it might help other pedestrians who are a distance behind me and come up to the crossing after I’ve crossed. After all, now maybe they don’t have to wait as long to be able to cross.
There would be a positive in that!
mikepridmorewood wrote:
So you’re saying that they deliberately press the button knowing that they can cross anyway?
Humans are selfish, it’s a precondition of survival. We have to be trained to behave otherwise.
Mike, we understood
Mike, we understood completely where you were coming from the first time.
ktache wrote:
Apparently not everyone!
I’m not one for pressing the
I’m not one for pressing the button when there is no need to and I can cross the road without the assistance of traffic lights. Why make someone else’s day more inconvenient at even the most trivial level just because you can? Exception is when someone is waiting with a child, I’ll not set a bad example by crossing when the ped lights are not green. Just call me St Mungecrundle.
Another fun game is to press
Another fun game is to press the button and wait for the traffic to stop. Take a step or two into the road, look at your watch suddenly and then turn around and go a different way.
On a more serious note.
On a more serious note.
Default red might mean that drivers are more likely to check before proceeding.
Wareham toddler crossing death lorry driver jailed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-48066113
I hate those lazy f*ckers who park on the zig zag lines, usually to nip in for their take away curry or to get cash from the bank or other vital purpose. Also, why are lorries not fitted with blind spot cameras or at least parking sensor type …sensors at the front and back to warn of things (people) that the driver cannot directly see?
Why has the court denied the death by dangerous driving charge? That car hardly appeared from nowhere, regardless of how illegaly parked. Surely the lorry driver should have had the wit to stop at a distance where he could see the crossing from his cab, let alone check the lights had not changed before proceeding.
But hey ho, 4 year old kid on balance bike so 6 months inside, trivial driving ban and back to business as usual.
Mungecrundle wrote:
The guy didn’t see the lights had turned red as he was swearing and gesticulating at the driver on the other side of the crossing, who he thought had stopped to let him through.
He had murdered his wife by strangling 15 years ago and was out of prison on licence, so he obviously has an anger management problem and really should never drive again.
Mike, are too many people
Mike, are too many people pushing your buttons?
Mike, are too many people
Double post
RIP Tiny Cyclist.
RIP Tiny Cyclist.
My deepest symathies to the family and friends of Jaiden Mangan.
What gets me most in this
What gets me most in this appalling story is the idea that the colour of the light was in any way relevant, there was a young family crossing at a pedestrian crossing quite legally and with the apparent protection of the law, in front of this vehicle. Not only did this convicted murderer fail to check the lights, he couldn’t be bothered to check the pedestrian crossing in front of his massive vehicle.
And the warning to cyclists that covers the back of the killers beheamoth just takes the piss, perhaps after this horrific case, Sainsbury’s should forget their branding, paint the entire vehicle in hi viz yellow, and place warnings to all those who might happen to be anywhere near it that this vehicle will kill you. Or maybe just the inside of the cab, for it’s drivers to use those massive windows, and mirrors and check around their death machine.
In addition to “head in phone
In addition to “head in phone” and other forms of obliviousness, I can think of at least two reasons why people might press the button even when there’s not any traffic. One is that some people, especially if they walk slowly or are frail or have had previous bad experiences on crossings, value the security that the green man gives them. The other is that over the past decade or so, most pelicans with big green/red man symbols on the far side of the road have been replaced with puffin crossings, which have little men in a box next to your shoulder or elbow – often placed just where they obscure the oncoming traffic. Even when not placed quite so stupidly, it’s impossible to look at these and check the road simultaneously, as it with the big, clear symbols of the old skool pelicans. So yet another way in which we’re training a generation of kids to look at lights, not at traffic or people. (London and a couple of other cities are the exception, with the far side lights plus timers.)
Whilst at a London Cycling
Whilst at a London Cycling Campaign meeting, I thought that we needed something like this… and a couple of weeks later here it is! Excellent news.
This technique seems to be aimed at roads with only occasional traffic, there also needs to be a technique for where there are lots of pedestrians, but the traffic also needs to be able to flow when a main junction’s lights go green – for example on shopping streets.
MarsFlyer wrote:
very impressive. We should give you a whole list of things to think!
in built-up areas the majority of the road space should be given to pedestrians rather than just a couple of narrow strips at the side and should be one way only. All traffic signs and signals should be removed. Any motor (or bicycle for that matter) traffic allowed in should be required to pick its way slowly and gently through the people.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Do you mean like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
Sriracha wrote:
very impressive. We should give you a whole list of things to think!
in built-up areas the majority of the road space should be given to pedestrians rather than just a couple of narrow strips at the side and should be one way only. All traffic signs and signals should be removed. Any motor (or bicycle for that matter) traffic allowed in should be required to pick its way slowly and gently through the people.
— ConcordeCX Do you mean like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space— MarsFlyer
Unfortunately, shared spaces don’t work so well for most people, especially those with disabilities.
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/shared-space-schemes-labelled-dangerous-in-lords-report/8686930.article
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/shared-spaces-stopped-because-danger-1841385
I also found this little gem from https://bristolcycling.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Bristol-Shared-Ped-Cyc-Space-Main-Report-March2015.pdf that is to do with cyclists and pedestrians sharing space
I was assuming more of a
I was thinking more of a Morlock type thing.
Elon Musk has laughingly been developing a car tunnel thing. Why is it Space-X seems quite good, but everything else has massive faults?