Ooops - red light - easily done...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: GT on 2 Aug 2010 06:45 I was stopped at a strange 3-way junction yesterday, which I have driven through several times in the last few years, but certainly not regularly. I was waiting to turn right, in the right lane. Its one of those double traffic lights, where you have 2 red-amber-green lights next to each other. The green light was on for straight on and the red light was on for turning right. I sat there for ages while the cars streamed past me on the left, going straight on. Eventually I got a green right turn filter while the straight on cars were still green. Off I went. No problem.... We did the shopping, had an ice cream, then a drive around. We then ended up at the same set of lights again on our way home. This time I was in the straight on lane which was at green and the right turn light was red, but no cars waiting. As I approached the lights I saw amber and remembered how long I had sat there last time before the right turn went amber then green, so I ignored it as I was going straight on this time. As I went through the lights I spotted them both turn red and couldn't understand why my light was suddenly red, but it was too late to do anything about it. What had actually happened was that the turn right never moved from red, but the amber that I saw was my straight on green coming to an end. I didn't pay enough attention to the lights and ended up going through red (just). This was a simple mistake, but cause by a combination of 3 things: 1. The lights sequence wasn't the same sequence as 30 minutes previous 2. The 2 sets of lights are right next to each other - one 'unit'. 3. I presumed the sequence was the same (1) and therefore didn't pay enough attention.
From: Adrian on 2 Aug 2010 07:37 "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > This was a simple mistake, but cause by a combination of 3 things: 1. > The lights sequence wasn't the same sequence as 30 minutes previous 2. > The 2 sets of lights are right next to each other - one 'unit'. 3. I > presumed the sequence was the same (1) and therefore didn't pay enough > attention. Nope, just caused by the second half of point three.
From: GT on 2 Aug 2010 07:44 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8bnovlFo0fU6(a)mid.individual.net... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > >> This was a simple mistake, but cause by a combination of 3 things: 1. >> The lights sequence wasn't the same sequence as 30 minutes previous 2. >> The 2 sets of lights are right next to each other - one 'unit'. 3. I >> presumed the sequence was the same (1) and therefore didn't pay enough >> attention. > > Nope, just caused by the second half of point three. Was waiting for that reply - thanks!
From: Mike Barnes on 2 Aug 2010 07:56 Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk>: >On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:45:55 +0100, GT wrote: > >> As I approached the lights I saw amber and remembered how long >> I had sat there last time before the right turn went amber then green, so I >> ignored it as I was going straight on this time. > >it reads a little complex! The moral is stop on amber, there are loads of >videos on youtube of people being wiped out (or wiping out peds) when cars >collide at traffic lighted junctions, you do not want to contribute half >what's needed for it to happen? But we all make mistakes! I think drivers would make fewer mistakes if the red and amber lights were arrow-shaped like the green ones often are, showing the direction(s) they applied to. And, although it clutters the landscape, I quite like the American system of suspending one light above each lane. -- Mike Barnes
From: The Peeler on 2 Aug 2010 07:57
On 2 Aug 2010 11:37:25 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > >> This was a simple mistake, but cause by a combination of 3 things: 1. >> The lights sequence wasn't the same sequence as 30 minutes previous 2. >> The 2 sets of lights are right next to each other - one 'unit'. 3. I >> presumed the sequence was the same (1) and therefore didn't pay enough >> attention. > >Nope, just caused by the second half of point three. The usual pompous pontification from Adrienne. |