Extending Yellow Box Junction at Green Man Roundabout- E11 Options

[Saaj]

Hi

LBWF council is going to extend the Yellow Box junction at the Green Man roundabout in Leytonstone, allegedly to make the Pedestrian crossing safe.

They are proposing to extend the Yellow box junction all the way to the pedestrian crossing (just before the white lines) see attached picture.

My argument with the deputy councillor is

Motorist that exist the roundabout and wait at the lights before the Yellow box may exist the roundabout seeing a clear road ahead of the crossing which is on the other side of the yellow box junction. However they could get caught out by the traffic light should the lights turn red by the time they get to the crossing which means they could be forced to stop in the Yellow box. If it’s about making a pedestrian crossing safe which by what they are proposing increases the risk to pedestrian then making it safe as motorists will want to either block the crossing should the road ahead be blocked or jump the red lights should it turn red after they existed.

Is the new proposed yellow junction legal given it seems fairly deep into the road from the junction

Attached aerial photo of the junction as it is today and the second picture is drawing which is the proposed changes in both sides of the road.

Any thoughts ?

Thanks

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Advertisement]

[The Rookie]

It looks like it will achieve it's primary aim for me - to increase council revenue for PCN's.

I'm sure they will align the surveillance camera to make sure you can't see the lights so the motorist will have only their verbal evidence of when the lights changes, as part of that primary aim.

Yes it looks absolutely ridiculous.

[Glitch]

Income must be declining for that YBJ. Clyde and his gang looking for more scams.

This looks like it will cause a lot of confusion. I recall they moved the end of the YBJ back some time ago, now they are moving it further forward.

What is their justification? The road narrows and then there's a bus stop. It's a perfect trap.

It will definitely affect cars turning left from Bush Road (which is already hard enough) and maybe they want to stop those cars blocking the bit they want to extend into.

Only things I've come up with are:


Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 5

8.2.3.  When designing the marking, authorities should take in account that drivers must be able
to comply with the requirements of seeing that their exit is clear before entering the box. This will
obviously impose limits on the dimensions of the box depending on individual site conditions.

And

8.3.4.  Not all junctions are suitable for the installation of box markings, and certain criteria
should be applied before deciding whether a particular site should be marked. A traffic survey
should be carried out to determine the extent of the problem, not only to assess the suitability
of the junction for box marking but also to establish whether any alternative measures might be
effective (e.g. re‑timing or linking of traffic signals at adjacent junctions). A survey will also reveal
what further measures might be needed, e.g. imposition of waiting and loading restrictions or
re‑location of bus stops.
8.3.5.  

And

e) the carriageway beyond the junction should be free from obstruction (this may necessitate
the imposition of waiting or loading restrictions, or the adjustment of bus stops on the
lengths concerned);

This post has been edited by Glitch: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 - 17:18

[Mad Mick V]

It would be illegal, see this one:-
2170285940

I have heard the Appellant's explanation as to why he had to stop in the junction. I have also noted his evidence that the stoppage was brief and no construction was caused. I do not think that these factors offer him a defence.

The Appellant did point out further the length of the junction and I note that the exit of the box junction exceeded the junction by at least one car length.

The prohibition applies to a box junction. A “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is at a junction between two or more roads. Markings which extends beyond the junction of two or more roads do not therefore mark out a box junction covered by the prohibition. I am in no way suggesting that the Authority has to be inch perfect but, in my view, extending the box junction by a car length or more beyond the actual junction is neither compliant nor substantially compliant with requirements.

I allow the appeal.
--------------------
Mick

[DancingDad]

YBJs should only be used at junctions and not extended further then the junction.
Doesn't look like this one will be so cannot see much wrong in that respect.

But extending it to the crossing is asking for trouble.
If I was approaching and saw the lights going to red with no vehicles ahead, I would happily enter the box, stop in it and take it all the way to adjudicator if needed.... I simply would not have stopped for stationary vehicles.

It is likely to catch the second vehicle though...if they were to follow, everything on green and I stopped as the lights changed, them buggered.

[The Slithy Tove]

Motorist that exist the roundabout and wait at the lights before the Yellow box may exist the roundabout seeing a clear road ahead of the crossing which is on the other side of the yellow box junction. However they could get caught out by the traffic light should the lights turn red by the time they get to the crossing which means they could be forced to stop in the Yellow box. If it’s about making a pedestrian crossing safe which by what they are proposing increases the risk to pedestrian then making it safe as motorists will want to either block the crossing should the road ahead be blocked or jump the red lights should it turn red after they existed.

Not sure I follow. Once you have passed the stop line (into the YBJ) it doesn't matter if the light changes. You just carry on. One would hope there's enough delay between the light going red and the green man being lit on the pedestrian crossing for you to clear it. If someone does start to cross, forcing you to stop in the YBJ, then, as has been pointed out, you did not stop because of other traffic, and your exit was clear when you entered the YBJ.

Making YBJs excessively long is unhelpful though. Any cautious driver (especially anyone who knows how mendacious councils are dishing out ticket at such junctions) will wait till it's completely clear before entering, which slows down the overall flow.

[Saaj]

The justification for the change is to make the Pedestrian crossing safe for Pedestrians. There was no consultations and I am not aware of any assessments been done.

To me this creates a greater risk for Pedestrians as motorists will instinctively want to stop in the crossing if the road ahead is not clear.

I have tried to argue this with the councillor but he seems to have made his mind up that this is the right thing to do regardless of what anyone else thinks.

My suggestion would have been to move the entire crossing 30/40 yards or so down. The pedestrian safety is at risk at the current crossing largely due to motorists trying to avoid yellow junction PCN by using all available space and at speed. Moving it further down would help as most vehicles will be stationary during peak times and gives motorists the opportunity the keep the crossings clear. But the response was why should pedestrians sacrifice 😀 and links the Highway Code and YBJ rules 😀

Income must be declining for that YBJ. Clyde and his gang looking for more scams.

This looks like it will cause a lot of confusion. I recall they moved the end of the YBJ back some time ago, now they are moving it further forward.

What is their justification? The road narrows and then there's a bus stop. It's a perfect trap.

It will definitely affect cars turning left from Bush Road (which is already hard enough) and maybe they want to stop those cars blocking the bit they want to extend into.

Only things I've come up with are:


Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 5

8.2.3.  When designing the marking, authorities should take in account that drivers must be able
to comply with the requirements of seeing that their exit is clear before entering the box. This will
obviously impose limits on the dimensions of the box depending on individual site conditions.

And

8.3.4.  Not all junctions are suitable for the installation of box markings, and certain criteria
should be applied before deciding whether a particular site should be marked. A traffic survey
should be carried out to determine the extent of the problem, not only to assess the suitability
of the junction for box marking but also to establish whether any alternative measures might be
effective (e.g. re‑timing or linking of traffic signals at adjacent junctions). A survey will also reveal
what further measures might be needed, e.g. imposition of waiting and loading restrictions or
re‑location of bus stops.
8.3.5.  

And

e) the carriageway beyond the junction should be free from obstruction (this may necessitate
the imposition of waiting or loading restrictions, or the adjustment of bus stops on the
lengths concerned);

The justification for the change is to make the Pedestrian crossing safe for Pedestrians. There was no consultations and I am not aware of any assessments been done.

To me this creates a greater risk for Pedestrians as motorists will instinctively want to stop in the crossing if the road ahead is not clear.

I have tried to argue this with the councillor but he seems to have made his mind up that this is the right thing to do regardless of what anyone else thinks.

My suggestion would have been to move the entire crossing 30/40 yards or so down. The pedestrian safety is at risk at the current crossing largely due to motorists trying to avoid yellow junction PCN by using all available space and at speed. Moving it further down would help as most vehicles will be stationary during peak times and gives motorists the opportunity the keep the crossings clear. But the response was why should pedestrians sacrifice 😀 and links the Highway Code and YBJ rules 😀

[Mad Mick V]

I doubt the crossing would be complaint either if they remove the zig zags and replace with the Yellow Box markings.

Mick.

[DancingDad]

I doubt the crossing would be complaint either if they remove the zig zags and replace with the Yellow Box markings.

Mick.

I was thinking that but there seems to be no zigzags anyway

[Glitch]

There's a phase in the lights where all traffic is held on red and the pedestrian crossings are all green at the same time. Next phase the lights from Bush Road are green. Then the High Road in both directions. Turning left from Bush Road is often a pain because the traffic on the main road is almost always backed up.

23 metres after the crossing (where the box is being extended to) there is a bus stop which cars can pass single file. Then it's single lane from there.

It makes sense to move that crossing as Saaj suggested, to where it is single lane. The upper crossings could be removed too as you can use the subway under the roundabout. I think most people do anyway.

Of course, they'll never remove crossings to help traffic flow, even if it helps the pedestrians.

It's going to be a bigger nightmare than it already is.

[notmeatloaf]

This looks like it will cause a lot of confusion.

It might well be less than idea for junction throughput but the idea that anyone should find a yellow box junction "confusing" is ridiculous.

It's a bright yellow box painted on the ground.
You don't drive into the box unless you can see the exit is clear.

If a driver struggles with such a concept god help them at a complex roundabout or junction. Even two year olds can identify if something is in a box or not.

[Glitch]

This looks like it will cause a lot of confusion.

It might well be less than idea for junction throughput but the idea that anyone should find a yellow box junction "confusing" is ridiculous.

It's a bright yellow box painted on the ground.
You don't drive into the box unless you can see the exit is clear.

If a driver struggles with such a concept god help them at a complex roundabout or junction. Even two year olds can identify if something is in a box or not.

The concept is not confusing.

The operation of it might be, especially in the early days until us local drivers work out the best way to deal with it.
Drivers don't generally wait for a full car length to appear before they enter the box. They anticipate the car ahead moving. The longer the box, the more tricky it's likely to be.
Wait for the full car length. Lights change, cars from the other road fill it or the car in the lane next to you goes at the same time and nick the space, pedestrians start crossing after you've committed.

But you've come up with a great solution. We'll all have two years olds in the back of the car to help us through it.

[Saaj]

This looks like it will cause a lot of confusion.

It might well be less than idea for junction throughput but the idea that anyone should find a yellow box junction "confusing" is ridiculous.

It's a bright yellow box painted on the ground.
You don't drive into the box unless you can see the exit is clear.

If a driver struggles with such a concept god help them at a complex roundabout or junction. Even two year olds can identify if something is in a box or not.

What if you see the exist is clear and you make a commitment to move into that space and by the time you reach the crossing the lights may turn red and cause you to stop in the Yellow box to allow pedestrian crossing. In such scenarios I expect motorist to move into the crossing to avoid being penalised with no regard to pedestrians.

Or given Pedestrian crossing aren’t enforced that space could now become a go to and stop place for motorists cos they have no where else to stop to keep the crossing clear.

This proposal isn’t going to work. It’s going to cause confusion to begin with and eventually any opportunity to keep the crossing clear will be gone as the some clever clog in the council thinks it’s a good idea with no regard to residents or their views.

If I can blatant there are individuals within LBWF council that are pro-cyclists and will go to any extent to make it as difficult as possible for motorists even if it’s a proposition that practically do not work. In this case some year end budget is left so he has decided to waste tax payers money on this.

I had suggested moving the crossing but the response was why should pedestrians sacrifice or be detoured and allegedly there is no budget for it. It’s quite obvious safety and concerns of pedestrians is least of this councils concerns but it do so and get away with it all in the name of pedestrians safety

I am sure a 2 year old will be able to apply this logic.

[cp8759]

What if you see the exist is clear and you make a commitment to move into that space and by the time you reach the crossing the lights may turn red and cause you to stop in the Yellow box to allow pedestrian crossing. In such scenarios I expect motorist to move into the crossing to avoid being penalised with no regard to pedestrians.

Stopping in a yellow box to comply with a red light is not a contravention?

[Slapdash]

What if you see the exist is clear and you make a commitment to move into that space and by the time you reach the crossing the lights may turn red and cause you to stop in the Yellow box to allow pedestrian crossing. In such scenarios I expect motorist to move into the crossing to avoid being penalised with no regard to pedestrians.

Stopping in a yellow box to comply with a red light is not a contravention?

It will be for vehicle 2 though.

[cp8759]

It will be for vehicle 2 though.

They're not stopping for a red light and you're always taking a risk if you follow another vehicle into a yellow box.

[Saaj]

Stopping in a yellow box to comply with a red light is not a contravention?
[/quote]

Is that a question for me or is that a rule you are informing me off?

If it’s a rule it’s good to know as I am sure like me many wouldn’t be aware off..

[Glitch]

There isn't a separate set of lights for the pedestrian crossings. You pass the lights before the YBJ starts, there are no more lights to stop you in the YBJ.

Vehicles will no doubt block the pedestrians path but they do that already. I don't think that is an offence and those crossing don't get many pedestrians. It's easier to cross where the road is narrower if you're going to Tescos.

[cp8759]

Stopping in a yellow box to comply with a red light is not a contravention?

Is that a question for me or is that a rule you are informing me off?

If it’s a rule it’s good to know as I am sure like me many wouldn’t be aware off..

It is a rule I am informing you of.

[Neil B]

Is that a question for me or is that a rule you are informing me off?

Wrong way of looking at it. Not a rule but a derivative fact.

To be a contravention stopping has to be due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

Even though, as Glitch said, there's no signal at the crossing, you could still choose to stop if
pedestrians ran out in front of you.

You don't drive into the box unless you can see the exit is clear.

But perfectly ok to do so.