please empty your brain below
I'd say that was the fault of the pedestrian, not the puffin. Crossing against the red is wrong no matter where the light is, and relying on drivers is rarely a good idea. If you can't see you shouldn't cross.

The old pelican crossings were easily blocked by traffic - I've often been stuck on one side of the road while a bus or van has completely hidden the other side of the road. The pedestrians are completely unaware of what's going on and that's when people start wandering across when they shouldn't.

We have been conditioned to look across the road, but as the Puffin crossings come in, we'll be conditioned to look to our side instead...

Scott | Homepage | 13.12.12 - 7:09 a.m. | #

The new one at Mile End no longer bleeps when it is safe consequently blind people have to wait for someone to guide them across, which I'd have thought was an equal opportunities issue.

Richard | 13.12.12 - 7:12 a.m. | #

No bleep: doesn't it have a vibrating lump underneath the push button box?

Andrew | 13.12.12 - 7:28 a.m. | #

I agree that these crossings are potentially dangerous. They are also frustrating. The lack of audible signal that it is safe to cross, the fact that the green man changes straight back to red, but quite some time before the lights change to green for traffic - this inevitably encourages pedestrians (rightly or wrongly) to keep crossing.

The frustrating bit comes when you press the button to signal that you want to cross, often it doesn't register and you end up standing there stabbing the button repeatedly. Other times the display indicates that you have indicated that you want to cross only for it to switch off some time later.

Mile End is made worse by the bus stop on the underground station side of the crossing is just past the crossing and is used for driver changes on route 25. Frequently this leads to queues of buses at that stop which block the crossing.

Stephen Brown | 13.12.12 - 8:11 a.m. | #

And the speeding red car. Illegal to overtake at a crossing. Illegal to go at more than 30mph. Sadly both those things are so common as to not even be mentioned.

Having said which, we have to deal with life as it is, rather than how it ought to be, so it is probably inevitable that we look for ways of avoiding speeding red cars, rather than ways of preventing them.

Malcolm | 13.12.12 - 9:07 a.m. | #

What a great post, these new style crossings and the lack of visibility on the other side of the road of the green/red man are far more dangerous than the previous version.

I will join my voice with those above regarding Mile End. With big crowds of people waiting you lose visibility of the green/red man indicator on the post. I generally stand so I can what the actual traffic light is doing before deciding to cross.

Vicki | 13.12.12 - 9:08 a.m. | #

Civil servants haven't just deemed puffins safer, there has been considerable research observing actual data and this has showed consistently the risk of accident is lower for Puffin crossings.

In a TfL report comparing Puffin and Pelican crossings it did show pedestrians found Pelicans were marginally easier to use but pedestrian reported far more problems of not having enough time to cross with Pelicans meaning people feel safer with Puffin crossings. There is no suggestion that either crossing is more likely to have pedestrian non-compliance. One key issue highlighted was that pedestrians at Puffin crossing reported obstruction of the pedestrian signal but in the research there no obvious areas for improvement.

All the above confirms your observation.

Overall, Puffin crossings offer an improvement on Pelican crossings but neither is without risk.

Flare | 13.12.12 - 9:11 a.m. | #

My observation of "puffin" crossings is they are a lot easier to understand.

The problem with the "red man on the far side" is that this works fine when you have a single crossing with nothing else around.

But when you have multiple crossings, it becomes hard to work out which "far light" is which.

The new crossings have the red/green man at eye-level in the direction of the oncoming traffic - where you are still required to look, whatever the crossing type, before you step out.

Briantist | Homepage | 13.12.12 - 10:03 a.m. | #

You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28

This law is rarely if ever enforced and there is precious little education about it. It is, to my mind, one of the most important rules to observe when driving.

The local police have plenty of time to stop cyclists without lights, they NEVER spend time catching drivers for this or any other of the really dangerous common driving mistakes.

Mike Chalkley | 13.12.12 - 10:11 a.m. | #

"The local police have plenty of time to stop cyclists without lights"

You say this like this is a bad thing, if a cyclist is riding without lights at night he is putting him or her self at risk.

Richard | Homepage | 13.12.12 - 10:14 a.m. | #

I hate these crossings. It feels counter-intuitive to look to the side to learn if it is clear to cross in front. I usually stand in a position so I can see the road traffic signals and use those as a guide.

Steve | 13.12.12 - 11:21 a.m. | #

I don't like just having the light close by. They could at least have kept the light in the normal place opposite as well.

The crossing time at some crossings is very short. The light goes green and it's already red by the time you get to the other side. I don't know how those people get on who can't walk too fast.

There's another variation of the light high up crossing where the light just blanks out fo r half a minute(?) before showing red and it seems that the traffic lights go to green as soon as the crossing light goes red. Although wrong, instinct is still to cross when there's no light. The old way was better when it went from green to red.

There's also the problem when there's no light because the bulb's blown and there is no red / green indication. I've got caught by this in the past, especially when there's also no "cross now" light lit up on the yellow box on the post because the bulbs blown in that as well. This was a very common occurence at one time with it taking weeks to replace the bulbs.

Rogmi | 13.12.12 - 11:25 a.m. | #

My main problem with Puffins is that the indicator lights are in a position obstructed from view by pedestrians waiting at the crossing.

If Puffins had repeater indicators above head height, they'd be safer for me.

Giles Williams | 13.12.12 - 11:27 a.m. | #

I agree with Giles. It's usually impossible to see the pedestrian lights if there are a few people waiting. And I don't think we'll ever become conditioned to not looking at the far side of the road, whilst the rest of the world still uses that system!

Tim | 13.12.12 - 11:35 a.m. | #

All Flare has managed to prove is that Puffin crossings come with a range of technical improvements, all of which were introduced at exactly the same time as the decision to move the light onto the pole.

This is bad practice in scientific trials, because you're obfuscating the relative benefits and detriments of the individual features. To say that, overall, Puffin crossings are safer than Pelican crossings because every feature except the moved light is safer is utterly meaningless, when the fact remains that the new position of the light is unsafe.

Puffins may be safer than Pelicans when considered in their entirety, but that's no excuse not to make them even safer than they already are.

And by the way, the official assessment that moving the lights onto the pole means pedestrians will be looking in the direction of oncoming traffic is wrong. Those lights are positioned at waist height. Due to the requirement to press the button before crossing, most people will be standing immediately adjacent to the light, and therefore will be looking straight down. All they'll see is the two metres of pavement in front of them, and not the road in the distance. Far-side lighting is also an improvement in this respect.

swirlythingy | Homepage | 13.12.12 - 12:07 p.m. | #

Maybe we'll get used to them, but I came across another near-accident recently where puffin-style pedestrian lights are used at a crossroads. One of the approaches is slightly uphill. I came up there after dark, and saw, as I thought, a green pedestrian light on the far side of the road. As did a man in front of me, who strode across confidently, only to be nearly knocked down. We conferred afterwards and agreed that we had both been misled by the sideways-facing green light for pedestrians crossing at right angles to us on the far side of the crossing. Granted it's at a lower level than the old-style lights, but coming up a hill in the dark that was not very obvious.

Re Giles's point, at one place I know they have indeed put a repeater high on the pole, but it doesn't seem to have helped much. People still look across the road, see no light, assume the bulb has blown, and set off.

PeterCS | 13.12.12 - 12:11 p.m. | #

"Perfectly normal, utterly deliberate, the modern default" dead right - i.e. done on the cheap. The safety of the puffin crossing drastically diminished for the cost of 4 more lights - a red & green each side located where the waiting pedestrians can actually see them.
Yes stepping into the road when you can't see all the traffic is hazardous of course it is but we all do it. Any chance that the puffin crossing system has been licensed from just one supplier? Or has DoT designed it in house?
"Safer if used properly" how do they come up with that? Pilot schemes? Computer modelling? snafu

Sciurus Carolinensis Nemesis | 13.12.12 - 12:17 p.m. | #

Two lanes, one way. Don't start to cross if you can't see what might be coming in both lanes, or at least be careful before crossing into the second lane.

I usually try to see what the traffic lights are showing, to make sure, but then some people will jump the lights anyway.

How do Puffins interact with countdown timers, if at all?

Andrew | 13.12.12 - 12:34 p.m. | #

And then there's us continentals who keep looking the wrong way :-(

Pepe | 13.12.12 - 12:53 p.m. | #

I didn't realise what the new crossings were called! We have one in the middle of Peckham on a road so congested with buses that it was usually impossible to see the green man opposite, so I do think that it is an improvement. (Though I must admit that, this being S London, whenever the traffic is backing up from the next set of lights, everyone threads their way through the paused vehicles regardless...)

Nicholas | 13.12.12 - 1:09 p.m. | #

Is the myth that if when you're waiting for the pedestrian light to go green you hop from side to side and the lights turn quicker true?

A | 13.12.12 - 5:18 p.m. | #

I really dislike the display is at waist height besides you, rather than across the road. Never mind the lack of audible notification.

I've found monitoring the road traffic light to be more reliable these days.

A puffin with a notification across the road, or in the centre of the road (like a catseye with built in LEDs) that showed green to pedestrians, and red to cars) would help greatly.

Sykobee | 13.12.12 - 6:16 p.m. | #

I find it worrying that no-one has mentioned what I would have thought is another obvious fact. According to the Highway Code, "GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear". Green does not absolve motorists from checking that the way is clear and if they cannot be sure that it is then they should proceed as a speed so that they can stop short of any obstruction.

I thought there was a question about this in theory test.

Pedantic of Purley | 13.12.12 - 7:29 p.m. | #

I dislike Puffin crossings. They are illogical and poorly designed. Like others I have nearly come a cropper when using one because I couldn't work out where the damn "cross now" signal was.

PC | 13.12.12 - 9:37 p.m. | #

I don't like the puffin crossing because the green man is often obscured by other users, but mainly because it doesn't seem natural to look there because I feel like I'm taking my eyes off the road. However, since discovering that underneath each push button box there is a button that turns when it's safe to cross (for blind people to use), I just use this instead. I probably look a bit stupid standing with my hand under the box but there you go.

Sarah | 13.12.12 - 10:01 p.m. | #

The Puffins perform poorly in crowded situations, but the real fault here was with the driver of the van and the driver who overtook. Drivers who deviate from expectations are creating hazards. Stopping at green lights is a deviation, as is overtaking at a crossing.

I'll cross when it's clear and safe to do so, whatever the lights are doing, having determined that drivers and cyclists don't always obey lights. Complaining that a car jumped the lights is tricky when you're dead. A lot of drivers seem to look *only* at the lights, they're perfectly happy to start driving at pedestrians who are still crossing the road slowly, as though pedestrians do not matter.

synx508 | 14.12.12 - 6:56 a.m. | #

Isn't it also illegal to enter a pedestrian crossing if the road ahead is blocked? All those bus drivers blocking the crossing in Peckham and obscuring the lights opposite should be reprimanded.

Max Roberts | Homepage | 14.12.12 - 8:48 a.m. | #

"You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28"

Isn't that referring to the situation where you have a 2 lane road, with one lane of traffic in each direction rather than a 4 lane road, with 2 lanes in each direction?

Messiah | 14.12.12 - 10:11 a.m. | #

Absolutely agree with DG. These PUFFINS are a menace. I don't need to say again about the crowded pavements issue, but also from a driver's point of view, the pedestrian standing back and looking away from where they want to move is counter intuitive. I taught my kids, before these things became common, that you press the button then stand facing the way you want to go, looking and listening left and right. The position of the body relative to the edge of the pavement is a big clue for drivers. OK, the drivers should be obeying the signal, but it still feeds into situational awareness.
There's also the matter of the fact that these sensors are on sliding adjustment brackets. They loosen over time and the wind blows them around, so they need constant readjustment or they cancel signals willy-nilly. One near me was set up so that when you had pressed the button, the box for the traffic lights obscured the pavement area from the sensor, hence you had to step into the road in order not to have the signal cancelled! Another one swung round after a storm and pointed at the traffic so that the hot engine signatures caused the lights to just sit on red until a two minute no change fault relay kicked in and advanced the sequence until the next time someone crossed. It was like that for over a year before it was fixed.

The best thing they could do with PUFFINS is to put the traditional green/red man opposite in addition to the short posts (which add clutter to the road, I might add. And at some junctions it's not clear which post is for which crossing!) and the sliding bars should be re-engineered to be firmly lockable in a set position, maybe with two sets of punched holes arranged in a kind of Vernier pattern for complete coverage.

TRT | 14.12.12 - 10:16 a.m. | #

Agree with all previous posters that say these crossings are not an improvement on standard Pelican crossings. Swirlythingy is quite correct when he points out that most people when looking at the 'cross now' light won't be able to view the oncoming traffic anyway, as they are either looking down, or as with a lot of crossings, the immediate roadway is obscured by the bus many of us have just disembarked from (or parked cars). The best thing to do is only to cross when you know the traffic has stopped (or there is none coming) regardless of what lights may or may not be showing. It would be interesting to know how many people are killed or injured on crossings when lured onto the road by the green man or other indicators.

Andrew Rodger | 14.12.12 - 4:04 p.m. | #

Oops!
"when there's also no "cross now" light lit up.."

should have been:
"when there's also no "wait" light lit up..."

rogmi | 15.12.12 - 11:33 a.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy