Botched Roadsigns

Arcuarius · Post by **Arcuarius** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 13:47

crb11 wrote:This pair of signs is a bit odd. Or maybe the animals cross at a very shallow diagonal.

TSRGD states, I believe, that mileages over three must be stated to the nearest whole mile. What appears to have happened is that the sign on the left was knocked down and was corrected by its replacement. The other one should have been patched (or replaced if it fails reflectivity tests) but costs were likely to be prohibitive given its location, TM costs etc. Unfortunately there's a pretty limited budget for sign knockdowns.

michael769 · Post by **michael769** » Thu Jul 02, 2015 15:11

Today's botch was the traffic "management" (I use inverted commas because it was obviously a bunch on cones chucked in the road by the workies rather) with the keep left roundel mounted on the last cone at the end of the work instead of the first.

Closing the stable door sprung to mind....

FurryBoots · Post by **FurryBoots** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 16:22

Don't know if this pair of signs has been posted before. They're at the Muchalls bends on the A90.

novaecosse · Post by **novaecosse** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 19:43

FurryBoots wrote:Don't know if this pair of signs has been posted before. They're at the Muchalls bends on the A90.

Lord, give me strength...

Bryn666 · Post by **Bryn666** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 06:56

Schroedinger's bend?

doebag · Post by **doebag** » Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:29

A.684 in Bainbridge.
Now I am not a roads specialist, but the signage in GSV does not look right to me.
A single 'no entry' and a single 'turn left' signs is surely not correct.
However the markings on the road surface are good at guiding traffic correctly, and west of the junction, the directional sign does show the right turn as a no entry.

https://goo.gl/maps/tORRe

drm567 · Post by **drm567** » Tue Jul 07, 2015 19:08

Does this at Bletchley count as a botch? A very narrow cycle lane, but what about the sign?

David

MotorwayGuy · Post by **MotorwayGuy** » Tue Jul 07, 2015 19:19

drm567 wrote:Does this at Bletchley count as a botch? A very narrow cycle lane, but what about the sign?

David

Reminds me of this.

vlad · Post by **vlad** » Wed Jul 08, 2015 19:00

MotorwayGuy wrote:
drm567 wrote:Does this at Bletchley count as a botch? A very narrow cycle lane, but what about the sign?

David
Reminds me of this.

At least with that one it is possible to pass on both sides of the sign.

jonnyf90 · Post by **jonnyf90** » Wed Jul 08, 2015 20:38

Not really a botch, but I'm guessing THIS SIGN in Southampton predates the M3 completion?

Burns · Post by **Burns** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 19:14

This one isn't technically a botch but it amused me when I found it. It's on a private road linking Dalgety Bay with the Braefoot Oil Terminal.

ForestChav · Post by **ForestChav** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 20:03

Burns wrote:This one isn't technically a botch but it amused me when I found it. It's on a private road linking Dalgety Bay with the Braefoot Oil Terminal.

It still doesn't really have an obvious meaning. Unless you have a good reason to a private road should still use signage which drivers immediately understand.

c2R · Post by **c2R** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 08:38

Direction signs to a Day Nursery underneath the 100yds repeater (heading both directions).

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.78621 ... 312!8i6656

Conekicker · Post by **Conekicker** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 08:57

Really?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.78730 ... 312!8i6656

At least they are consistently rubbish

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.78831 ... 312!8i6656

urbanfox · Post by **urbanfox** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 09:27

Conekicker wrote:Really?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.78730 ... 312!8i6656

At least they are consistently rubbish

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.78831 ... 312!8i6656

Here too. Meant to post them on here but forgot all about it.

Maybe they are an actual sign...

Bryn666 · Post by **Bryn666** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 13:00

I believe those signs were a special authorisation in the early 90s for traffic calming works. The then DoT obviously felt they didn't work as the only ones left are 'legacy' signs.

I don't like them.

AndyB · Post by **AndyB** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 15:43

doebag wrote:A.684 in Bainbridge.
Now I am not a roads specialist, but the signage in GSV does not look right to me.
A single 'no entry' and a single 'turn left' signs is surely not correct.
However the markings on the road surface are good at guiding traffic correctly, and west of the junction, the directional sign does show the right turn as a no entry.

https://goo.gl/maps/tORRe

I think that while a single No Entry sign is probably ok, the left turn sign is dodgy.

The weight limit warning below the ADS is definitely a botch. The roundel should be on a white circle, not a white octagon...

Arcuarius · Post by **Arcuarius** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 16:47

AndyB wrote:
doebag wrote:A.684 in Bainbridge.
Now I am not a roads specialist, but the signage in GSV does not look right to me.
A single 'no entry' and a single 'turn left' signs is surely not correct.
However the markings on the road surface are good at guiding traffic correctly, and west of the junction, the directional sign does show the right turn as a no entry.

https://goo.gl/maps/tORRe
I think that while a single No Entry sign is probably ok, the left turn sign is dodgy.

The weight limit warning below the ADS is definitely a botch. The roundel should be on a white circle, not a white octagon...

And the 30mph sign one side, NSL the other...

Viator · Post by **Viator** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 19:34

This is what we used to have at Bridgefoot, Stratford on Avon:
https://goo.gl/maps/wfohy

That "keep left" sign was always a bit dodgy, I thought, given that it's intended traffic should pass either side of the "nose" seen in the image (to reach different destinations -- it's a gyratory exit and thus effectively a "point of no return").

Now the signage has been "refreshed", and we have this:

(image from Geograph - (C) David P Howard)

A clear improvement, you might think, EXCEPT that I'd always been led to understood that the diagram 611 sign ("keep left and right") was not to be used where traffic splits between two different destinations.

The DfT's Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/13 (Sep 2013) says:
Diagram 611 must only be used where traffic may pass either side to reach the same destination and in no other situation.

Any comments? (The DfT's "purist" interpretation seems to be a UK speciality, as far as I know: other countries seem to be happy to use their equivalent of diagram 611 for divergent routes: to mark roundabout exits, for example.)

chris486 · Post by **chris486** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 19:50

Viator wrote:
Any comments?

I remember this sign in my first copy of the Highway Code, given to me by my mum in 1979 and I am sure it meant that traffic would end up in the same place whichever arrow was chosen.

There was such a sign at the fork of the newly opened M54 and the M6 (early 80s) and with my Highway Code knowledge in mind I told Mum that it wouldn't matter which direction we went as we approached the fork at Hilton Park - this was clearly not the case and we took a detour along the M54 and the A449 in the dark - which we didn't mind at all because we were both road geeks and were curious about the new motorway.

SABRE

Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Re: Botched Roadsigns