Botched Roadsigns

Discussion about street lighting, road signs, traffic signals - and all other street furniture - goes here.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
Patrick Harper
Member
Posts: 3202
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
Location: Wiltshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Patrick Harper »

EpicChef wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 13:01
2.28 Gantry arrows must not be shown beneath matrix or variable speed limit indicator
signs mounted on the fascia of gantries.
So this is wrong, even though it has been the design for so many years, and this is right? Even on non-smart motorways?
But the M4 in London has the weirdest solution: BOTH above and below!
Possibly the offending gantries were installed before the rule was implemented.

The gantries (including signs) between M25 J11 and J12 were installed in 1989 when the section was widened to D4M, and they would have featured advisory matrix signs with arrows beneath them when installed. However, the MIDAS system was implemented in 1995 along with variable speed limits. Unfortunately the new electronic VSL signs were too big to fit in the old gantries without doing away with the arrows, so that is exactly what they did. To this day the gantry signs feature no arrows on them.

I think the guidance changed sometime in the early 2000s. The final section of the M60 seems to be the last motorway with the old gantry arrangement.
justacey
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 19:12

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by justacey »

I've driven past this roundabout every weekday for 8 years and just spotted this 'two way traffic' sign. :confused: :laugh: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.57979 ... 384!8i8192

The nearest dual carriageway is a mile away and I can't think of a one-way road near to it.
User avatar
ManomayLR
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3332
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Where do the lane arrows go on gantries?

Post by ManomayLR »

Skye wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 15:35 I think the guidance changed sometime in the early 2000s. The final section of the M60 seems to be the last motorway with the old gantry arrangement.
But lots of gantries are like that. A few on the M1, the M4, M5, M6, M60, you name it, a busy stretch has an offending gantry and the arrows below the advisory matrixes will probably only move above them when the motorway is smartified or the gantries replaced (as they were with MS4s on the urban section of M1 south of the M25). Personally, I prefer below where there are advisory ones and above where there are VSL signals.
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
User avatar
Arcuarius
Member
Posts: 4664
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 17:14
Location: Sherwood

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Arcuarius »

EpicChef wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 00:31
Conekicker wrote:
Allowing that I haven't seen the sign in question, note also that TSRGD does not show what gantry signs should look like these days, so legally speaking the sign probably isn't unlawful, unless there's some other aspect of the design that makes it non-prescribed.
The TSRGD should make it clear where lane arrows should go. Below lane control signals or above them?
As I said, they aren't lane arrows. The signs are offset stack-type signs (as per diagram 2908) with the straight-ahead arrow and the inclined arrow both missing.

The TSRGD may not show gantry signing but Interim Advice Note 144/16 does. Any designer worth their salt would at least consult these first.
"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty."
- some extreme-right nutcase


1973-2007 Never forgotten
User avatar
ManomayLR
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3332
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by ManomayLR »

Arcuarius wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 16:56
EpicChef wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 00:31
Conekicker wrote:
Allowing that I haven't seen the sign in question, note also that TSRGD does not show what gantry signs should look like these days, so legally speaking the sign probably isn't unlawful, unless there's some other aspect of the design that makes it non-prescribed.
The TSRGD should make it clear where lane arrows should go. Below lane control signals or above them?
As I said, they aren't lane arrows. The signs are offset stack-type signs (as per diagram 2908) with the straight-ahead arrow and the inclined arrow both missing.
OK that makes no sense at all then.... They need to fix that but I sincerely hope they don't bodge it with patches. Otherwise the arrow will probably point in any random direction...
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16909
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Chris5156 »

DB617 wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 12:18
EpicChef wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 15:15

They've probably just mixed up which gantries are used with where the lane arrows need to be. The funniest thing will be seeing lane arrows below VSL signals, like on the M4 in Wales
You know, for all my time spent on the M4 near The Coldra I had never noticed the contraflow AMIs on the eastbound side of that gantry. That's some expensive and mostly completely useless provision for a crossover. I've never even seen a contraflow used on the Newport Bypass as widening works have never and will never be seen there. If there was a total closure the diversion would be via the A48 SDR through Newport. Anyone know what the point of those AMIs is?
Spin the view round 180 degrees and you’ll see they’re at the mouth of the Brynglas Tunnels, which frequently run in contraflow for routine maintenance. Being able to show a speed limit and a red X over the lane of oncoming traffic, and normalise those roadworks as part of the operation of the motorway, will have significant benefits. I bet they get a fair bit of use.
User avatar
Johnathan404
Member
Posts: 11478
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 16:54

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Johnathan404 »

In theory, anyway.

In practice they just conduct a full closure and divert traffic through Newport. That’s what has happened every single time I’ve tried to use it in the last two years!
I have websites about: motorway services | Fareham
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35758
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Bryn666 »

Conekicker wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 08:43
EpicChef wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 00:31
Conekicker wrote:
Allowing that I haven't seen the sign in question, note also that TSRGD does not show what gantry signs should look like these days, so legally speaking the sign probably isn't unlawful, unless there's some other aspect of the design that makes it non-prescribed.
The TSRGD should make it clear where lane arrows should go. Below lane control signals or above them?
The preference these days is for the arrow to be included within the sign face, much like the old Diagram 2021.1. See IAN 144.

http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/h ... IAN144.pdf

Although quite where that advice will end up when DMRB is rejigged over the next year or two I'm not aware.
The PDF outputs from KeySign are showing there... look at those jagged edges.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
nowster
Treasurer
Posts: 14805
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 16:06
Location: Manchester

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by nowster »

Has anyone told Glasgow? ;-)
Pilgrim Dan
Member
Posts: 387
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 18:22
Location: Plymouth

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Pilgrim Dan »

Been looking at these abominations for the last 2 days.
Merge posts in turn
User avatar
Johnathan404
Member
Posts: 11478
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 16:54

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Johnathan404 »

Pilgrim Dan wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 20:50 Been looking at these abominations for the last 2 days.
Also there's absolutely no warning that this exit has a low bridge (you'd hope the rail replacements would be briefed on it but it seems nobody reminds them not to hit the canopy at Temple Meads).
I have websites about: motorway services | Fareham
User avatar
nowster
Treasurer
Posts: 14805
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 16:06
Location: Manchester

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by nowster »

Pilgrim Dan wrote:Been looking at these abominations for the last 2 days.
I doubt the legality of that combination, especially whether the no entry sign applies only to buses and taxis.
User avatar
Dougman
Member
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:15
Location: Dundee

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Dougman »

nowster wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 22:41
Pilgrim Dan wrote:Been looking at these abominations for the last 2 days.
I doubt the legality of that combination, especially whether the no entry sign applies only to buses and taxis.
The diagram 609 sign is also wrong, should be a diagram 606. But that's splitting hairs conpared to some of that monstrosity!
lose: (v): to suffer the deprivation of - to lose one's job; to lose one's life.

loose: (a): free or released from fastening or attachment - a loose end.
DB617
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 00:51
Location: Bristol

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by DB617 »

Oddly specific.

Noticed this today. I take back my prior compliments for Cardiff Council as this abomination is only five minutes or so's drive away from the 'tiny A423' signs at the Vale border.

...And, God forbid, the bridge might even be 1128 yards away.
Andy33gmail
Member
Posts: 3943
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 09:26
Location: Littleport, Ely, Cambridge

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Andy33gmail »

DB617 wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 21:40 Oddly specific.

Noticed this today. I take back my prior compliments for Cardiff Council as this abomination is only five minutes or so's drive away from the 'tiny A423' signs at the Vale border.

...And, God forbid, the bridge might even be 1128 yards away.
It's not even a round number of metres!
User avatar
Dougman
Member
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:15
Location: Dundee

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Dougman »

DB617 wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 21:40 Oddly specific.

Noticed this today. I take back my prior compliments for Cardiff Council as this abomination is only five minutes or so's drive away from the 'tiny A423' signs at the Vale border.

...And, God forbid, the bridge might even be 1128 yards away.
The other side is the same!
lose: (v): to suffer the deprivation of - to lose one's job; to lose one's life.

loose: (a): free or released from fastening or attachment - a loose end.
User avatar
nowster
Treasurer
Posts: 14805
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 16:06
Location: Manchester

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by nowster »

Dougman wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 09:49
DB617 wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 21:40 Oddly specific.

Noticed this today. I take back my prior compliments for Cardiff Council as this abomination is only five minutes or so's drive away from the 'tiny A423' signs at the Vale border.

...And, God forbid, the bridge might even be 1128 yards away.
The other side is the same!
They'd probably have been better signing it as ⅔ mile on either side.
User avatar
IrishCrusader
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2018 09:30
Location: Amersham

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by IrishCrusader »

Pretty sure THESE should be a blank triangle meaning with the supplementary distance plate?
DB617
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 00:51
Location: Bristol

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by DB617 »

Dougman wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 09:49
DB617 wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 21:40 Oddly specific.

Noticed this today. I take back my prior compliments for Cardiff Council as this abomination is only five minutes or so's drive away from the 'tiny A423' signs at the Vale border.

...And, God forbid, the bridge might even be 1128 yards away.
The other side is the same!
So it is! Never actually been up that way - it's a bit of a rat run but not one I find useful.

I blame Cardiff Council but to be honest those signs are probably from the dark dark South Glamorgan CC days.
Rob590
Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:21

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Rob590 »

While this thread has been on page 401, I keep thinking on first glance that the page has failed to load....
Post Reply