Peter350 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 09:17
The vast majority of drivers will be aware that the UK uses three different colours for directional signage. Blue for motorways, Green for primary routes and white for non-primary routes and local destinations. For most people, this works fine, although I can foresee an issue with this system when it comes to routes being upgraded and downgraded. For example, replacing green signage when a primary route gets bypassed offers no additional benefit to the driver because the sign will be almost exactly the same, just a different colour and route numbers changed.
Sorry, what is the issue? The only one I can think of is the cost of replacing the signs, but as Roavin says it will cost significantly more to replace or patch almost every sign to meet a new standard than it will just replacing them as and when required. Roads do not change status anywhere near often enough for it to save money. Even in the long term, I would imagine the natural lifespan of signs would end before any financial benefit could have been realized.
Even if most people do not understand the difference between the current colour schemes, is there any evidence that it causes confusion and has a detrimental effect? What benefit would a single design have for road users to justify a change? Even if a single standard was agreed to be a better option theoretically, between the vast expense of implementation, lack of problems caused by the current designs, and no usability benefit from changing, I cannot see any reason for it.
And upgrading to a new design on an as-and-when basis rather than solving whatever the issue is with three designs would only have the effect of adding a fourth.
Peter350 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 09:17
The vast majority of drivers will be aware that the UK uses three different colours for directional signage. Blue for motorways, Green for primary routes and white for non-primary routes and local destinations. For most people, this works fine, although I can foresee an issue with this system when it comes to routes being upgraded and downgraded. For example, replacing green signage when a primary route gets bypassed offers no additional benefit to the driver because the sign will be almost exactly the same, just a different colour and route numbers changed.
Sorry, what is the issue? The only one I can think of is the cost of replacing the signs, but as Roavin says it will cost significantly more to replace or patch almost every sign to meet a new standard than it will just replacing them as and when required. Roads do not change status anywhere near often enough for it to save money. Even in the long term, I would imagine the natural lifespan of signs would end before any financial benefit could have been realized.
Even if most people do not understand the difference between the current colour schemes, is there any evidence that it causes confusion and has a detrimental effect? What benefit would a single design have for road users to justify a change? Even if a single standard was agreed to be a better option theoretically, between the vast expense of implementation, lack of problems caused by the current designs, and no usability benefit from changing, I cannot see any reason for it.
And upgrading to a new design on an as-and-when basis rather than solving whatever the issue is with three designs would only have the effect of adding a fourth.
The only possible advantage is in terms of long-term cost as at sometime in the future all new signs will be a single colour which will save some money. However, this benefit could only ever be realised if the policy is kept to well beyond the date of existing signs getting replaced.
Personally, I would advocate retaining the existing colours of signage, but trying to move over (costs permitting) to a system whereby we have route prefixes tied more closely to that signage. For instance, I don't see the logic (any more) of primary and non-primary routes both being allowed to have A-prefixes. I think it would be more logical if we had categories as follows:
M) the motorway numbering is fine, and should remain separate (with Ax(M) numbers being changed to Mxx or Mxxx numbers)
A) only green-signed routes should carry A-prefixes
B) all white-signed routes, including existing A-roads, should be transferred to B-numbers
While I appreciate that this would cost time, effort and money, in an ideal world this change would be quite easy to implement throughout the island of Britain (it wouldn't work in Northern Ireland). In Britain, there are no single- or double-digit B-roads, so it would be easy to retain a numbered route 4 between London and Avonmouth which would be numbered A4 on the green-signed sections and B4 on the white-signed route. Some roads would need renumbering to avoid duplication of numbers (e.g. A470 and B470 are both existing roads), but it does represent a relatively straightforward solution.
As some other Sabristi have mentioned above, the different coloured signage should be retained because it is probably more important for navigational purposes than the actual numbers. When I'm driving a green-signed A-road, the green signage often makes it easier to see which exit I need at a roundabout where all the routes I don't want are signed in white. When I'm trying to get out of a city, it doesn't really matter whether the number on the signage says M1, M621, or M62; I tend to follow the blue patch(es), because I know that route will be the quickest to the motorway network.
My prefix proposal detailed above would offer only a slight improvement in my eyes, but moving over to uniform colours on signage would offer no apparent improvement at all; quite the reverse, in fact.
Are Devon County Council still maintaining their colour-coded borders for minor roads?
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 14:26
Are Devon County Council still maintaining their colour-coded borders for minor roads?
As in blue borders on white signs? I didn't pay much attention this weekend, but there were plenty still in place when I went on the A361 road trip in 2017.
There are even some in Gloucestershire. This one is a botch because the B-number disappeared in the 1990s. The other sign shows it patched out.
Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 14:26
Are Devon County Council still maintaining their colour-coded borders for minor roads?
As in blue borders on white signs? I didn't pay much attention this weekend, but there were plenty still in place when I went on the A361 road trip in 2017.
There are even some in Gloucestershire. This one is a botch because the B-number disappeared in the 1990s. The other sign shows it patched out.
Devon has a specially authorised colour coding scheme that goes well beyond the old blue borders.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 14:26
Are Devon County Council still maintaining their colour-coded borders for minor roads?
As in blue borders on white signs? I didn't pay much attention this weekend, but there were plenty still in place when I went on the A361 road trip in 2017.
There are even some in Gloucestershire. This one is a botch because the B-number disappeared in the 1990s. The other sign shows it patched out.
Devon has a specially authorised colour coding scheme that goes well beyond the old blue borders.
Yes, they had (IIRC) black, blue, brown and white (invisible) borders, with the arrow chevron matching the colour of the border (the white one was shown in outline). It supposedly served as a guide to the standard of the road, but you had to know the code to make use of it, and as it was unknown outside Devon, there would be a lot of very confused tourists wondering what it all meant. In fact private cars would be able to use any road unless further restricted, it was mainly vans and lorries that needed to know the categories.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:25
This is basically the three ways of doing it.
Pre-1994
Route Number in a patch
Current design
Not sure which works best truth be told.
A fourth option would be to have ALL advance directional signs with a white background and black borders, arrows and maps, and then the legends would be black-on-white for non primary roads, and green or blue panels for primary roads and motorways. Flag signs would remain as now.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it, but it is not an unreasonable option.
Owain wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 14:21
Personally, I would advocate retaining the existing colours of signage, but trying to move over (costs permitting) to a system whereby we have route prefixes tied more closely to that signage. For instance, I don't see the logic (any more) of primary and non-primary routes both being allowed to have A-prefixes. I think it would be more logical if we had categories as follows:
M) the motorway numbering is fine, and should remain separate (with Ax(M) numbers being changed to Mxx or Mxxx numbers)
A) only green-signed routes should carry A-prefixes
B) all white-signed routes, including existing A-roads, should be transferred to B-numbers
We'd end up with the B road numbers hugely crowded if we did that. (Not to mention that some numbers would become very weird, like the B6 through central Leicester. Presumably in cases where you had a route that repeatedly changes standard, you'd have to multiplex it to follow suitable primary routes or split the parts into separate numbers, putting even more pressure on the supply of B numbers.)
It'd make more sense to introduce a new letter for primary routes. (Even so, you'd want to have a reasonable solution for cases where a long-distance route is bypassed by a ring road that's used for many different routes.)
Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 14:26
Are Devon County Council still maintaining their colour-coded borders for minor roads?
As in blue borders on white signs? I didn't pay much attention this weekend, but there were plenty still in place when I went on the A361 road trip in 2017.
There are even some in Gloucestershire. This one is a botch because the B-number disappeared in the 1990s. The other sign shows it patched out.
Devon has a specially authorised colour coding scheme that goes well beyond the old blue borders.
I think this is a good idea in general.
I would distinguish both minor roads and minor destinations with something subtle.
"I intend to always travel a different road"
Ibn Battuta 1304-1368
Richard_Fairhurst wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 08:27I understand the logic of Guildford, but I think it gets the visual hierarchy wrong. To take a randomly selected example, the white panel is much more prominent than the green - yet it's the minor road at the turn and the one which fewer people will be taking. The design draws your eye to the less important road first, and the more important one after.
If the road number alone was a black-on-white patch - akin to the '(M40)' in that example - then the same meaning would be communicated, but without the distraction, and in a more space-efficient format too.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:25
This is basically the three ways of doing it.
Pre-1994
Route Number in a patch
Current design
Not sure which works best truth be told.
Richard's concept - shown in Bryn's second mock-up - is absolutely fine as long as the road has a number. If, on the other hand, it's a sign for an unclassified road, it would be indistinguishable from a primary route. So, for me, that idea falls down straight away.
I get that a white panel stands out from a green sign, but I don't think that's a reason to bin the system we have.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:25
This is basically the three ways of doing it.
Pre-1994
Route Number in a patch
Current design
Not sure which works best truth be told.
There is a fourth possibility (albeit never used on the roads other than possibly in error) - use the appropriate colour for the road being signed. A sign to a non-primary B-road would be white with black text, regardless of the nature of the road on which the sign is physically situated.
The logic of this is that people ought to know what road they're on, and if they don't, putting its colour on signs pointing to roads they're not on probably isn't going to help anyway. On the other hand, a completely white sign (in this example) leaves no room for doubt. If you're on a primary route and looking for a B-road turn-off, you consciously look for the white signs. If you want to stay on the primary route you can immediately ignore any direction signs that aren't on green signs. Other signs related to the physical junction, like countdown markers on HQDCs and information about lane drops and gains, would still be in green because they are relevant to traffic that is staying on the mainline.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:25
This is basically the three ways of doing it.
Pre-1994
Route Number in a patch
Current design
Not sure which works best truth be told.
There is a fourth possibility (albeit never used on the roads other than possibly in error) - use the appropriate colour for the road being signed. A sign to a non-primary B-road would be white with black text, regardless of the nature of the road on which the sign is physically situated.
The logic of this is that people ought to know what road they're on, and if they don't, putting its colour on signs pointing to roads they're not on probably isn't going to help anyway. On the other hand, a completely white sign (in this example) leaves no room for doubt. If you're on a primary route and looking for a B-road turn-off, you consciously look for the white signs. If you want to stay on the primary route you can immediately ignore any direction signs that aren't on green signs. Other signs related to the physical junction, like countdown markers on HQDCs and information about lane drops and gains, would still be in green because they are relevant to traffic that is staying on the mainline.
Owain wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 14:21
Personally, I would advocate retaining the existing colours of signage, but trying to move over (costs permitting) to a system whereby we have route prefixes tied more closely to that signage. For instance, I don't see the logic (any more) of primary and non-primary routes both being allowed to have A-prefixes. I think it would be more logical if we had categories as follows:
M) the motorway numbering is fine, and should remain separate (with Ax(M) numbers being changed to Mxx or Mxxx numbers)
A) only green-signed routes should carry A-prefixes
B) all white-signed routes, including existing A-roads, should be transferred to B-numbers
It certainly seems to be the case that in more recent times, the prefix of a road is not that important compared with who is in charge of maintaining it, i.e. whether or not the road is maintained at local authority level. From an administrative point of view replacing the numbers of all the A roads that use white signage with B numbers would make sense. I'm aware that in theory this would result in a much reduced presence of A roads/motorways when compared with B roads. But in Great Britain the A road:B road ratio is approximately 1:2 (~1800 A roads and over 3200 B roads) which, compared with the class I equivalents in various countries, is in actuality quite favourable with respect to the class I side of the ratio. So, on an international level it would not be that unusual to have so few designated top level routes. Using the Republic of Ireland as an example, there are only 66 N roads and almost 700 R roads, so there are approximately 10 R roads for every single N road. The RoI road signs also reflect these classifications this in their colouring.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:25
This is basically the three ways of doing it.
Pre-1994
Route Number in a patch
Current design
Not sure which works best truth be told.
There is a fourth possibility (albeit never used on the roads other than possibly in error) - use the appropriate colour for the road being signed. A sign to a non-primary B-road would be white with black text, regardless of the nature of the road on which the sign is physically situated.
The logic of this is that people ought to know what road they're on, and if they don't, putting its colour on signs pointing to roads they're not on probably isn't going to help anyway. On the other hand, a completely white sign (in this example) leaves no room for doubt. If you're on a primary route and looking for a B-road turn-off, you consciously look for the white signs. If you want to stay on the primary route you can immediately ignore any direction signs that aren't on green signs. Other signs related to the physical junction, like countdown markers on HQDCs and information about lane drops and gains, would still be in green because they are relevant to traffic that is staying on the mainline.
Hmm, yes, that's true. I was more thinking of signs that only refer to a road other than the one you're on, as in Bryn's example. For motorway and HQDC signage, one alternative would be to differentiate between the advance warning signs (at 1 and 0.5 mile) and the one just where the countdown begins. The former would be entirely in blue or green, as today, and the latter would only refer to the exiting road and be in whatever colour is appropriate for that. But that involves a more fundamental change in how information is presented to users.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Chris5156 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 13:08Richard's concept - shown in Bryn's second mock-up - is absolutely fine as long as the road has a number. If, on the other hand, it's a sign for an unclassified road, it would be indistinguishable from a primary route. So, for me, that idea falls down straight away.
I think it mostly works if you also revert to the pre-Guildford differentiation between major signs and (blue-bordered) local signs. So you'd have had two ADSs at a roundabout; one green-backed sign with the major destinations, followed by a blue-bordered local sign with the local destinations. Typically, the destinations on the unclassified road would only be shown on the latter.
(There's also the distinction that you can tell it's an unclassified road because there's no number on the sign, of course!)
Chris5156 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 13:08Richard's concept - shown in Bryn's second mock-up - is absolutely fine as long as the road has a number. If, on the other hand, it's a sign for an unclassified road, it would be indistinguishable from a primary route. So, for me, that idea falls down straight away.
I think it mostly works if you also revert to the pre-Guildford differentiation between major signs and (blue-bordered) local signs. So you'd have had two ADSs at a roundabout; one green-backed sign with the major destinations, followed by a blue-bordered local sign with the local destinations. Typically, the destinations on the unclassified road would only be shown on the latter.
Ah, so now we're reintroducing blue bordered signs too. That's a much bigger and more fundamental change.
(There's also the distinction that you can tell it's an unclassified road because there's no number on the sign, of course!)
Yes and no; there are plenty of legitimate cases where a sign points along a primary route without showing a route number, though admittedly many of them are local destinations where a blue-bordered sign would have been used pre-1994.
