Signs review finally published

[boing_uk]

The sooner that all Traffic Engineers are tested, licensed, approved and re-evaluated every five years the better. It would certainly weed out those who are NOT good engineers, but rather good politicians. It should also be unlawful for anyone who is NOT a licensed Engineer to design or erect signs and road markings on the Highway, with the consequent personal liability that goes with such a responsibility.

[Conekicker]

The sooner that all Traffic Engineers are tested, licensed, approved and re-evaluated every five years the better. It would certainly weed out those who are NOT good engineers, but rather good politicians. It should also be unlawful for anyone who is NOT a licensed Engineer to design or erect signs and road markings on the Highway, with the consequent personal liability that goes with such a responsibility.

Something like that is only going to happen if clients start writing into contracts that sign designers must have the IHE qualification at least at the second of the three available levels, otherwise a organisations bid for new work will be rejected. Which won't make any change at the local authority level, this being where most of the design work is done.

[Debaser]

Hmmmm...remind me what the (re)testing arrangement for bridge designers is again??

[boing_uk]

Bridge Engineers don't generally make as many mistakes. Anyone can become a traffic engineer, it seems - that why we have a thread knocking on for 200 pages on cock-ups. Its slightly more difficult to become a bridge engineer - I don't see a Botched Bridges thread.

[Debaser]

But how many signs do we have on the network in the UK, and what percentage do those botched signs actually make up?

And how many mistakes could be picked up if we were allowed (to cost for) three distinct stages of checking of the design?

[boing_uk]

How many bridges are there in the UK and how many are botched?

Not just anyone can go and design a bridge, a carriageway, or other structure. But anyone with the software can design a sign and if they work for a local authority can go put it up. Whatever the percentage, it is still too high. I can think of over 30 examples in my own authority of incorrectly designed direction signs, speed limits without orders, overtaking bans with double white lines - all of these done by engineers with no experience or skill in traffic engineering. In our neighbouring authority I pass daily literally dozens of signs that are plain wrong, misleading, or illegible for the size of sign for the speed of traffic.

As a profession, traffic engineering does not have any of the discipline of our peer professions like Civils or Structures.

The cost of checking a design should already be included in the cost. Most certainly price for it - whether it is done is another matter!

[Debaser]

I'd argue that the reason that bridges don't go wrong is that the checking process is so defined, Cat0, CatI, CatII, etc. It's never the responsibility of a single person.

As far as signs are concerned, it's not just going to be the sign designer that needs the certificate, but also the checker and approver, is there ever going to be that level or breadth of expertise within any single Authority, or even Consultancy?

We're arguing that signing should be (or rather is) something of a specialty given the amount of legislation surrounding its implementation, but that requires there to be enough work to support a specialist, otherwise they very quickly become generalists. In these straitened times is there enough work, or are Authorities going to have to band together and pool resources?

[Big L]

How many bridges are ... botched?

Forth road bridge ?

[Conekicker]

...or are Authorities going to have to band together and pool resources?

That's one of the suggestions in the policy paper, excellent idea IMHO. What the chances of it being implemented are, given the little empires that will be defended to the death, is another matter entirely, I'm sorry to say. Is, for example, Boing's opposite number(s) in the neighbouring authority he mentions, likely to take kindly to being told they are "somewhat lacking" ( ) in their knowledge?

[boing_uk]

It does make the case for Regional highway authorities, rather than local ones, seem a little more sensible.

[Debaser]

BTW, while I can see the need for better training (something probably missing before the IHIE and recent PTRC courses), it seems odd that of all the disciplines involved in highway design it's only signing (along side safety audit) that we're arguing should be certificated, (presumably with ongoing mandated CPD, etc.), just because it's the most visible aspect.

[boing_uk]

Not because it is the most visible, it is because it is the most unregulated, because probably it is seen as "soft" engineering. Get it wrong with a bridge, or a carriageway design, it costs a lot to rectify or worse, kills someone. There are far more regulated checks and balances in place. It is not like that with traffic engineering - yes we can still kill people if we get it wrong, but it is after all only signs and lines. The design philosophies for structural engineering are very rarely ignored, yet in traffic we have barely qualified individuals making decisions and putting stuff on street that just looks awful.

No one can just turn up and design a carriageway, but the same cannot be said for traffic engineering.

[AndrewH]

The new Services signs look like a good idea, better than the current outdated practice of pictures of knives and forks, cups etc which many people won't understand the difference, along with the "MotoM&SBK" loophole.

[michael769]

How many bridges are there in the UK and how many are botched?

Kingston bridge....

[Debaser]

No one can just turn up and design a carriageway, but the same cannot be said for traffic engineering.

That would seem to be more about training and supervision within organisations. You don't need to be Chartered, Incorporated or anything else to design an alignment just familiar with the DMRB and MX. However, I would agree it's much more likely that the checker and approver of that designer's work will both have had years of experience in alignment design, as compared to the checker and approver of a signing/lining design.

[boing_uk]

That would seem to be more about training and supervision within organisations. You don't need to be Chartered, Incorporated or anything else to design an alignment just familiar with the DMRB and MX. However, I would agree it's much more likely that the checker and approver of that designer's work will both have had years of experience in alignment design, as compared to the checker and approver of a signing/lining design.

Because a Structural failure is seen as something important, yet signs and lines are not - yet they influence the behaviour of road users every day and get something wrong and you could mislead someone and be culpable for their injuries. Signs and lines and to a certain degree signals are seen as "unimportant" in many authorities, which is witnessed in the funding available for maintenance (or lack of!). Plus, poor sign design - as seen in that particular document - makes the place look very cluttered and run-down. We do need to weed out those who seem to be able to arrange signs and lines willy nilly - the only way of doing that is to put personal legal responsibility on the Engineers (or "Engineers") and the Authorities and actually start taking action on the crap that all-too-often gets put up.

When an Engineer and/or an Authority gets hit in their pockets for putting up crap that does not conform by a large margin (as some on the Botched thread are) only then will we see an improvement in standards.

[SC2]

If they put up an horrible sign, is that technically acting outside of their powers? And if so would the local government ombudsman give them a telling off?

[Vierwielen]

I have full respect for well designed signs - the user shold be able to assimlate the information with a minimum of distraction. Over the years I have seen a few appalling signs. A few that come to mind are:

When the Royal Aircraft Establishment became DERA, some designer came up with an arty-farty logo. When I saw it for the first time, the font distrcted me and it took me a second or two to identify the lettering - a second or two when I should have been concentrating on the road. Although it was not a road sign as such, it was still very distracting.

A particular city area wanted to introduce a "quiet" zone in the vicinity of a church/hospital or something. Rather than having the classic hooter wioth a line through it, they had a picture of a policeman with his finger to his lips - the problem being that it was drawn in lines rather than in silohuette. Agsain, it took me a second or two to relaise that the style of drawing was completely different.

One of the entrances to the Grande Raccordo Anulare (Rome's orbital motorway) had directions for both clockwise and anti-clockwise. The engineers coudl not fit "Grande Raccordo Anulare", so they halved the hieght and wrote it over two lines. The result was that you could not read it until you were so close to it that it was impossibler to change your mind as to which direction you should take.

Another Italian one - as you leave the autostrade and enter a town you often get a list of telephone numbers for the town hall, police, hospital etc. I know that some Italian drivers do all sorts of wierd thigs, but I am not very comfortable with writing a phone number down while I am driving.

[michael769]

If they put up an horrible sign, is that technically acting outside of their powers?

Yes currently no road sign can be installed unless it is authorised either via TSRGD or Special Authorisation. Anything else is an unlawful obstruction of the highway. If it is implicated in any collision the council may face civil liability.

And if so would the local government ombudsman give them a telling off?

Possibly, if not as I have already mentioned the relevant minister has legal powers to force them to remove any unlawful signs (or remove them and bill the LA for the costs of removal).

Unlawful regulatory signs also invalidate any associated TRO.

[Debaser]

Because a Structural failure is seen as something important, yet signs and lines are not - yet they influence the behaviour of road users every day and get something wrong and you could mislead someone and be culpable for their injuries. Signs and lines and to a certain degree signals are seen as "unimportant" in many authorities, which is witnessed in the funding available for maintenance (or lack of!). Plus, poor sign design - as seen in that particular document - makes the place look very cluttered and run-down. We do need to weed out those who seem to be able to arrange signs and lines willy nilly...

TBH I agree with much of this. Signs and lines are the last items to be put in on site and people only care about them if it looks like they'll hold up the programme. They're essentially 'cosmetic'.
However, for the same reason I'd defend some of those botched roadsigns, the ones where people ask "Who put that there?". I'd say in many cases it's because, despite making sure that sight-lines are OK and there's no other conflicts during design, something's previously been built poorly or shifted 'slightly' to avoid some other conflict and, being last in the ground, it's up to the signs to compromise, to move, to be made smaller, etc.




(BTW has anyone gone for the IHIE certificate? I've been encouraged to 'investigate' applying for it in my last couple of PDRs...not sure I can put it off much longer, or whether it will really be worth it)