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
Skermington
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 15:01
Location: Welwyn Garden City via Derbyshire and Newcastle

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Skermington » Tue Jun 08, 2021 16:00


User avatar
vlad
Member
Posts: 2501
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 16:20
Location: Near the northern end of the A34

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by vlad » Tue Jun 08, 2021 20:12

Bryn666 wrote:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 21:27
Klepsydra wrote:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 20:24
These horrors are on the A50 at Meir Tunnel, Stoke on Trent. The effect, whether the makers intended it or not, is to suggest that the speed limit here is really, REALLY 30mph.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.9794447 ... 384!8i8192
Some clever individual ordered 600mm roundels to cover over 750mm roundels. Why they didn't just replace the signs is anyone's guess. Isn't the 30 because of the repair works to the tunnel?
The Meir Tunnel has always had a 30 limit as far as I can remember.

Drive through it, however, and you'll notice that not many people know that. :wink:
"If you expect nothing from somebody you are never disappointed." - Sylvia Plath

User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: Lincoln / Haywards Heath

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jervi » Tue Jun 08, 2021 21:55

Skermington wrote:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 16:00
All a bit ghastly!
Just down the road from there, saw it out cycling a few weeks ago.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84807 ... 2?hl=en-GB

I have been in contact with some people at the B&H CC highway dept, and they have a new team in charge of signage and they are just as appalled at the current signage in the city. The whole city really needs a whole rethink of destination signs since most major roads lack any, and those that do are inconsistent, messy, incorrect and botched. Unfortunately, with B&H's green anti-car agenda, money for these things are hard to come by.

User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: Lincoln / Haywards Heath

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jervi » Thu Jun 10, 2021 09:49

This new sign on the A27 is wrong. Why is the A259 Chichester in its own panel, you have to go ahead along the A27 to get to it. Should also have ()s.
And in contrast Shopwhyke should be in its own non-primary panel, Not sure what is in the patch under it, a new B road maybe? I'll have to get out there a somepoint and see how many of the signs are wrong and report them all as one batch.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84498 ... 384!8i8192

On the next sign the A259 Chichester should be in its own panel... are distance allowed on these signs too? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84372 ... 384!8i8192

And then A59 Chichester missing its non-primary panel again... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84218 ... 384!8i8192

Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Conekicker » Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:17

jervi wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 09:49
On the next sign the A259 Chichester should be in its own panel... are distance allowed on these signs too? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84372 ... 384!8i8192
Yes, distances are allowed, although a bit pointless in this case one might argue.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.

OliverH
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:52
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by OliverH » Thu Jun 10, 2021 13:33


User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: Lincoln / Haywards Heath

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jervi » Thu Jun 10, 2021 21:48

OliverH wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 13:33
?
My gosh that area is signed really badly.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97649 ... 6656?hl=en Also this bus lane is incorrectly signed, there is the sign warning of it ahead, but no sign at the start of the bus lane, so its not illegal to drive in the bus lane. And the keep left here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97524 ... 6656?hl=en reinforces that you MUST use the bus lane.

Also from this view https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97505 ... 6656?hl=en how are you meant to cycle onto this road when using off-carriageway provision? The footway on the left has tactile paving with the groves lengthways, meaning its cycleway / shared space. But the symbol on the ground suggest otherwise. And then on the right there is a cycleway sign, which leads you into oncoming traffic? Who designed that!

Same issue with the next bus lane not being signed correctly - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97303 ... 6656?hl=en

A bit further up and is this an always-green traffic signal (for cycles)?? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.96878 ... 6656?hl=en

And then we hit this https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.96793 ... 6656?hl=en . Lets just force vulnerable road users across the path of motor vehicles... Pretty sure the TSM says explicitly to NOT do this.

That's enough of me looking at that road. Practically nothing done correctly.

Klepsydra
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:39
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Klepsydra » Fri Jun 11, 2021 02:40

vlad wrote:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 20:12
Bryn666 wrote:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 21:27
Klepsydra wrote:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 20:24
These horrors are on the A50 at Meir Tunnel, Stoke on Trent. The effect, whether the makers intended it or not, is to suggest that the speed limit here is really, REALLY 30mph.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.9794447 ... 384!8i8192
Some clever individual ordered 600mm roundels to cover over 750mm roundels. Why they didn't just replace the signs is anyone's guess. Isn't the 30 because of the repair works to the tunnel?
The Meir Tunnel has always had a 30 limit as far as I can remember.

Drive through it, however, and you'll notice that not many people know that. :wink:
The roundels painted on the road look as if they have had 30 overpainted on 40.
"I went to a planet without bilateral symmetry and all I got was this lousy F-shirt."

OliverH
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:52
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by OliverH » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:16

jervi wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 21:48
OliverH wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 13:33
?
My gosh that area is signed really badly.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97649 ... 6656?hl=en Also this bus lane is incorrectly signed, there is the sign warning of it ahead, but no sign at the start of the bus lane, so its not illegal to drive in the bus lane. And the keep left here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97524 ... 6656?hl=en reinforces that you MUST use the bus lane.

Also from this view https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97505 ... 6656?hl=en how are you meant to cycle onto this road when using off-carriageway provision? The footway on the left has tactile paving with the groves lengthways, meaning its cycleway / shared space. But the symbol on the ground suggest otherwise. And then on the right there is a cycleway sign, which leads you into oncoming traffic? Who designed that!

Same issue with the next bus lane not being signed correctly - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97303 ... 6656?hl=en

A bit further up and is this an always-green traffic signal (for cycles)?? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.96878 ... 6656?hl=en

And then we hit this https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.96793 ... 6656?hl=en . Lets just force vulnerable road users across the path of motor vehicles... Pretty sure the TSM says explicitly to NOT do this.

That's enough of me looking at that road. Practically nothing was done correctly.
Looking through the timeline of GSV, it seems that the green bike was removed and then the signal was removed in its entirety.

User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by the cheesecake man » Fri Jun 11, 2021 13:55

Time for another minor spelling error: The Foundary [sic] Climbing Centre

Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Conekicker » Fri Jun 11, 2021 18:20

the cheesecake man wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 13:55
Time for another minor spelling error: The Foundary [sic] Climbing Centre
At least they are (in)consistent
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.

Rambo
Member
Posts: 558
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 19:56
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Rambo » Fri Jun 11, 2021 20:47

Patch on a flag sign. is this allowed? https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599196 ... 312!8i6656

Also on the same road. https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599074 ... 312!8i6656
I notice extra terminal signs located on the opposite side of the carriageway. What would be the point of these? surely only two would suffice..

User avatar
Chris5156
Member
Posts: 14697
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Chris5156 » Fri Jun 11, 2021 21:03

Rambo wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 20:47
Patch on a flag sign. is this allowed? https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599196 ... 312!8i6656
No, never. But it’s a very common botch. Seemingly most people who design road signs don’t understand the rule about that.
Also on the same road. https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599074 ... 312!8i6656
I notice extra terminal signs located on the opposite side of the carriageway. What would be the point of these? surely only two would suffice..
There’s no point, two will always suffice! In this case, since there’s a traffic island, there only needs to be one on the left and one on the island. Another misguided botch sadly.

Rambo
Member
Posts: 558
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 19:56
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Rambo » Fri Jun 11, 2021 21:06

Chris5156 wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 21:03
Rambo wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 20:47
Patch on a flag sign. is this allowed? https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599196 ... 312!8i6656
No, never. But it’s a very common botch. Seemingly most people who design road signs don’t understand the rule about that.
Also on the same road. https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599074 ... 312!8i6656
I notice extra terminal signs located on the opposite side of the carriageway. What would be the point of these? surely only two would suffice..
There’s no point, two will always suffice! In this case, since there’s a traffic island, there only needs to be one on the left and one on the island. Another misguided botch sadly.
Hmm thought they didn't look right. The three roundabouts south of Scarborough on the new section of A165 are all set up like this with the same botches. Here is another https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2614491 ... 312!8i6656

User avatar
Chris5156
Member
Posts: 14697
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Chris5156 » Fri Jun 11, 2021 23:26

Rambo wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 21:06
Chris5156 wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 21:03
Rambo wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 20:47
Patch on a flag sign. is this allowed? https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599196 ... 312!8i6656
No, never. But it’s a very common botch. Seemingly most people who design road signs don’t understand the rule about that.
Also on the same road. https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599074 ... 312!8i6656
I notice extra terminal signs located on the opposite side of the carriageway. What would be the point of these? surely only two would suffice..
There’s no point, two will always suffice! In this case, since there’s a traffic island, there only needs to be one on the left and one on the island. Another misguided botch sadly.
Hmm thought they didn't look right. The three roundabouts south of Scarborough on the new section of A165 are all set up like this with the same botches. Here is another https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2614491 ... 312!8i6656
Ugh. That has the junction name in mixed case too, which is wrong!

User avatar
Bfivethousand
Member
Posts: 1263
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Bfivethousand » Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:32

Rambo wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 21:06
Chris5156 wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 21:03
Rambo wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 20:47
Patch on a flag sign. is this allowed? https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599196 ... 312!8i6656
No, never. But it’s a very common botch. Seemingly most people who design road signs don’t understand the rule about that.
Also on the same road. https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599074 ... 312!8i6656
I notice extra terminal signs located on the opposite side of the carriageway. What would be the point of these? surely only two would suffice..
There’s no point, two will always suffice! In this case, since there’s a traffic island, there only needs to be one on the left and one on the island. Another misguided botch sadly.
Hmm thought they didn't look right. The three roundabouts south of Scarborough on the new section of A165 are all set up like this with the same botches. Here is another https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2614491 ... 312!8i6656
No! The speed limit sign positioning isn't actually botched. Before the 2016 Regs were published it was an express requirement that pairs of regulatory signs were installed alongside each of the kerblines of a single carriageway roads. A third sign placed on a splitter island (as is the case here) or pedestrian refuge was a permitted option but a combination of a nearside and centre sign alone was not lawful.

It's only since the 2016 Regs were published - which removed the requirement to install two regulatory signs at the start of a restriction - that the requirement to install an offside sign was removed. Nowadays it is lawful (and sensible in this case) to remove that offside sign.

The real botch here was the decision to choose that precise point as the speed limit terminal point. Twenty or thirty metres up the road and this would never have been an issue.
Witham ain't a dancer
It's just south of Braintree

User avatar
Patrick Harper
Member
Posts: 2978
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
Location: Wiltshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Patrick Harper » Sun Jun 13, 2021 22:40

Pretty sure this thing is non-standard.
YouTubeYouTube (music)Vimeo | Formerly: Paspie (2010–2015) • Paianni (2015–2018) • Skye (2018–2020)

User avatar
solocle
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 18:27

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by solocle » Sun Jun 13, 2021 22:48

Self-Contradictory
F56D08D8-8DF9-4318-9B46-42A2A23130F4.jpeg

User avatar
Skermington
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 15:01
Location: Welwyn Garden City via Derbyshire and Newcastle

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Skermington » Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:17

Non-standard placement (on a 30mph road anyway) :msnthumbsup:
Botched design (superfluous space under the gradient) :msnthumbsup:
No supplementary plate (slow lorries for x) :msnthumbsup:
Placed halfway up the 14% gradient (where lorries will already have been travelling incredibly slowly :msnthumbsup:

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, Bullbridge Hill
:msnthumbsdown: :msnthumbsdown: from me.

User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by the cheesecake man » Mon Jun 14, 2021 13:38

I've posted examples before of conflicting white non-primary and green primary signs for the same road, but this is the first time I've seen them on the same ******* post! :bang:

Post Reply