Botched Roadsigns

[TS]

What on earth were they thinking?

That seems awfully ugly but at the same time fairly sensible, somehow!

[Fahad]

I think it makes sense. To go straight ahead you change lane into the cycle lane, giving way to anyone already in it

It's clearly intended to allow cyclists to pull out to pass parked cars without having to wait for a gap in overtaking traffic

[michael769]

It is dangerous.

It directs cyclists to ride far too closely to parked cars - the lane is right within the path of any door opening. To be safe the cyclist should be in the area between the cycle lane and the center lane but other road users will be led to expect otherwise by the markings.

The angle is far too steep and provides uncomfortable and awkward turns for cyclists meaning they would need to move out sooner again against the expectations of drivers who might expect them to try to follow the lines - or slow to an absolute crawl and then struggle to regain momentum once past the bay (woo! traffic calming for cyclists) .

Also what are they supposed to do when nothing is parked there? The solid border to the hatched markings implies they must still move out and pointlessly follow what is an awkward slow chicane.

Either the person who designed it lacks even the most basic understanding of the needs of cyclists, or they put a higher priority into making it look like they are providing cycle facilities than they do in actually improving things for cyclists.

And drivers get the idiocy too, the solid line on the chevrons implies they must move out into the path of oncoming traffic to get past, so are they supposed to wait to go around an empty parking bay?



The cynic in me suspects this yet another ill judged attempt by a council to use cyclists as traffic calming. Quite clever in fact not only do the get to attack the freedom of mobility of car drivers, but they also get to do the same for cyclists. Infringing two groups freedoms for the price of one!

[Bryn666]

Extremely dangerous, there should not be a centre line there and the tapers are nowhere near 1:10.

[tom1977]

Isn't that nearside hatching the wrong way round?

[Chris Bertram]

Solihull MBC get it right. It's a junction of unclassified roads, so single stroke widths for all directions. There are signs on all approaches, all are correct.

Solihull MBC get it wrong. The through route is a (non-primary) B road, so should be double stroke width, not triple. And the branching route is unclassified, so should be single rather than double.

Thing is, these signs really aren't far apart. How come no-one responsible spots the mistakes?

[Piatkow]

or they put a higher priority into making it look like they are providing cycle facilities than they do in actually improving things for cyclists.

Its all about box ticking, any improvements in safety are coincidental.

[Stevie D]

Solihull MBC get it right. It's a junction of unclassified roads, so single stroke widths for all directions. There are signs on all approaches, all are correct.

Solihull MBC get it wrong. The through route is a (non-primary) B road, so should be double stroke width, not triple. And the branching route is unclassified, so should be single rather than double.

Thing is, these signs really aren't far apart. How come no-one responsible spots the mistakes?

That's a pretty minor complaint compared with most! Particularly as the second sign looks as though it might have been there for quite some time. It's got a wider stroke for the main road than the minor road, that's the main thing. (Although it does raise the question of why not just use stacked panels...)

Compare that with the signs that have recently gone up at the A59/A1237 junction near York. There are flag signs pointing along the primary A1237 that have a white panel on a green flag for local destinations (although I think they got the one on the A59 right). Some of the local ADSs have varying stroke widths for the approach roads including several arms showing 1sw for primary roads. That is what you call botched!

[Stevie D]

Does everyone rightfully ignore that or do people actually follow those lane markings into oncoming traffic? Actually, after the other day, it wouldn't really surprise me if the latter was true.

I suspect that the reason for it is to highlight to drivers that cyclists may need to pull out to pass a parked vehicle there. So while it's a laudable aim, it's a laughable execution.

Of course, it highlights very nicely why cycle lanes along the side of a road are generally completely pointless and often harmful.

[Pendlemac]

We bought the wrong one... Oh Well!
http://goo.gl/maps/vr1g8

I think what has actually happened is that they have simply rotated the original sign.

Looking on Streetview it looks like the road coming in from the right was originally two-way so the two-way crossing traffic sign would be correct.

If you go to the other end of that road there is a two-way section at the start but then what appears to be a new built-out to make the road one way.

[Arcuarius]

This one has been standing for years - a comma instead of an apostrophe....

Also, block spacing anyone?

I do wonder whether anybody bothers to read Chapter 7 these days

[Fahad]

It is dangerous.

It directs cyclists to ride far too closely to parked cars - the lane is right within the path of any door opening. To be safe the cyclist should be in the area between the cycle lane and the center lane but other road users will be led to expect otherwise by the markings.

The angle is far too steep and provides uncomfortable and awkward turns for cyclists meaning they would need to move out sooner again against the expectations of drivers who might expect them to try to follow the lines - or slow to an absolute crawl and then struggle to regain momentum once past the bay (woo! traffic calming for cyclists) .

Also what are they supposed to do when nothing is parked there? The solid border to the hatched markings implies they must still move out and pointlessly follow what is an awkward slow chicane.

Either the person who designed it lacks even the most basic understanding of the needs of cyclists, or they put a higher priority into making it look like they are providing cycle facilities than they do in actually improving things for cyclists.

And drivers get the idiocy too, the solid line on the chevrons implies they must move out into the path of oncoming traffic to get past, so are they supposed to wait to go around an empty parking bay?



The cynic in me suspects this yet another ill judged attempt by a council to use cyclists as traffic calming. Quite clever in fact not only do the get to attack the freedom of mobility of car drivers, but they also get to do the same for cyclists. Infringing two groups freedoms for the price of one!

Thanks. I must admit that hadn't noticed those issues, perhaps understandably with the first, encouraging cycling in the door zone, which is so infuriatingly common with British cycle facilities.

The angle is completely unacceptable. I would move outside the lane there and take a more sensible line, only resorting to the marked path if the volume of overtaking traffic made doing the latter faster.

I do wonder if the solid white lines are better ascribed to malice or stupidity. I've seen them in quite a few other illogical places, for example here - clearly not a traffic calming facility, but still wrong, daft, and dangerous to comply with. There are also plenty of cycle lanes and other roads that are illegal to use, usually owing to misuse of Keep Left/Right bollards. It's very nice to see that TfL have fixed every instance of this on the CS2 extension (before / after) - I can't help but wonder if they read my complaint about it on SABRE

[Andy33gmail]

Also what are they supposed to do when nothing is parked there? The solid border to the hatched markings implies they must still move out and pointlessly follow what is an awkward slow chicane.

[/quote]

Looking at highway code 130, isn't it only illegal to enter chevroned areas, not hatched? I swear last time I looked it only applied to motorways too. What offence is committed entering those areas? I guess necessity could come from the need to not get wiped out by the car following you - although I guess the expectation would be to stop?

Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.
If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency.
Laws MT(E&W)R regs 5, 9, 10 & 16, MT(S)R regs 4, 8, 9 & 14, RTA sect 36 & TSRGD 10(1)

[Big L]

Oh dear.

[Burns]

Today, I met this guy on my travels.

[Glen]

That's called recycling!

[michael769]

West Lothian likes to recycle too:

Clicky 1 Clicky 2

[Owain]

I notice that speed camera warning signs have appeared on the central res of the M4 heading out of London towards the M25 since the last time I passed through. This is odd because:

1) at least one of them is upside-down

2) few people seem to do more than 70 there, and even those who do hardly exceed by much

3) there do not appear to be speed camera warning signs in the outbound elevated section, even though most traffic passes through way over the 40 limit

[Fahad]

I think it would be quite expensive to retrofit speed cameras to the elevated section, otherwise surely they'd have done so there and on the Westway (a 40mph limit, but speeds twice that are hardly uncommon).

Come to think of it, the latter road frequently has policemen stood in the hard shoulder speed-gunning passing cars. Do they ever do this on motorways, or are they not allowed to?

[Owain]

The only speed controls I have ever seen on motorways - in all the thousands of miles I have driven on them - are:

- the occasional camera van in a police parking space beside the carriageway (e.g. M6 Preston)

- a guy on a bridge with a speed gun which alerts an unmarked fast car parked in a service road (quite often on M5 between Worcester/Tewkesbury)

- and fixed cameras in 50mph (roadworks) and 40mph sections (M4 inbound, but not outbound).

There are, of course, a variety of number plate reading devices attached to bridges, which sometimes appear to incorporate radar guns or be combined with metal strips in the road surface, but I don't believe that any of these are actually used for enforcement.