Botched Roadsigns
Moderator: Site Management Team
-
- Member
- Posts: 609
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46
Re: Botched Roadsigns
I'm pretty sure they don't - signs showing trams are really just to make things clear for other road users. Trams are not road vehicles, they are rail vehicles that run on a railway which just happens to occupy the same space as a road.
At the next corner, trams turn right despite the "no right turn except buses". They then pass through "no entry" signs, and keep right of the "keep left" sign. At Shalesmoor they once again ignore "keep right" signs. Travelling in the other direction, they ignore a "turn right" and run through another "no entry". There's another bus gate at Hillsborough - note, buses taxis and cycles but not trams. But of course the cameras can't get their registration plate, as they don't have one! Then they go through another "no entry" and left of the "keep right".
Are all these bodged, or do they just not apply to trams?
At the next corner, trams turn right despite the "no right turn except buses". They then pass through "no entry" signs, and keep right of the "keep left" sign. At Shalesmoor they once again ignore "keep right" signs. Travelling in the other direction, they ignore a "turn right" and run through another "no entry". There's another bus gate at Hillsborough - note, buses taxis and cycles but not trams. But of course the cameras can't get their registration plate, as they don't have one! Then they go through another "no entry" and left of the "keep right".
Are all these bodged, or do they just not apply to trams?
- Conekicker
- Member
- Posts: 3763
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
- Location: South Yorks
Re: Botched Roadsigns
It may depend on what the TRO for each location says?SteelCamel wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 17:50 I'm pretty sure they don't - signs showing trams are really just to make things clear for other road users. Trams are not road vehicles, they are rail vehicles that run on a railway which just happens to occupy the same space as a road.
At the next corner, trams turn right despite the "no right turn except buses". They then pass through "no entry" signs, and keep right of the "keep left" sign. At Shalesmoor they once again ignore "keep right" signs. Travelling in the other direction, they ignore a "turn right" and run through another "no entry". There's another bus gate at Hillsborough - note, buses taxis and cycles but not trams. But of course the cameras can't get their registration plate, as they don't have one! Then they go through another "no entry" and left of the "keep right".
Are all these bodged, or do they just not apply to trams?
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
- Bfivethousand
- Member
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
- Location: Derbyshire
Re: Botched Roadsigns
So I reported this sign a while back and sometime in the last month they have replaced it will a slightly less botched sign.
The original sign was wrong since left is the A272 (primary route) and it was saying it was the B2036 non-primary. (the B2036 multiplexes with the A272 here)
Also the destination of Burgess Hill is very odd here since if you using the road here you are coming from Haywards Heath, in which case it is signed to use the A273 prior to Cuckfield.
The old sign is fairly new according the GVS (installed 2009 or 2010)
The new sign; Excludes the A272 entirely (it is shown on the ADS prior), and still shows Burgess Hill for whatever reason.
My only guess for excluding A272 is that calculations on the poles had been lost and therefor didn't dare put a larger sign on those poles.
The original sign was wrong since left is the A272 (primary route) and it was saying it was the B2036 non-primary. (the B2036 multiplexes with the A272 here)
Also the destination of Burgess Hill is very odd here since if you using the road here you are coming from Haywards Heath, in which case it is signed to use the A273 prior to Cuckfield.
The old sign is fairly new according the GVS (installed 2009 or 2010)
The new sign; Excludes the A272 entirely (it is shown on the ADS prior), and still shows Burgess Hill for whatever reason.
My only guess for excluding A272 is that calculations on the poles had been lost and therefor didn't dare put a larger sign on those poles.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
At this new roundabout on the North side of Haywards Heath they have already replaced all the signs once.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.01543 ... 124239,17z
The first set of signs missed information such as destinations and also put on destinations that no longer exist (despite me notifying them of the errors years before the roundabout was completed).
On the second set of signs they have omitted information such as height restrictions from ADS and flag signs and also this beauty.
Hard to tell in the picture, but its got a brown patch and spelt incorrectly. Its supposed to be spelt Burrell, not Burwell... You'd think after getting it wrong the first time they would at least check it a single time on the second attempt.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.01543 ... 124239,17z
The first set of signs missed information such as destinations and also put on destinations that no longer exist (despite me notifying them of the errors years before the roundabout was completed).
On the second set of signs they have omitted information such as height restrictions from ADS and flag signs and also this beauty.
Hard to tell in the picture, but its got a brown patch and spelt incorrectly. Its supposed to be spelt Burrell, not Burwell... You'd think after getting it wrong the first time they would at least check it a single time on the second attempt.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.83993 ... 384!8i8192
Not too sure why "Seafront (A259)" is in a primary patch. The A259 is not primary anywhere near here, plus you use the A23 (primary) to get to the Seafront / City Centre
On top of the sign being incorrect in so many ways, it is also not very helpful since the left turn is in front of the traffic light controlled junction, while the right turn at the lights is not signed at all!
new sign here Not too sure why "Seafront (A259)" is in a primary patch. The A259 is not primary anywhere near here, plus you use the A23 (primary) to get to the Seafront / City Centre
On top of the sign being incorrect in so many ways, it is also not very helpful since the left turn is in front of the traffic light controlled junction, while the right turn at the lights is not signed at all!
-
- Member
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 22:32
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Botched Roadsigns
There seems to be a few of these ID signs in this part of Wales with a distance to the destination but no road number
https://goo.gl/maps/Rj34GfRdva582mFXA
https://goo.gl/maps/zaicRhXd4g5PjP56A
https://goo.gl/maps/sD7JBoMXyYnFvRXT8
https://goo.gl/maps/Rj34GfRdva582mFXA
https://goo.gl/maps/zaicRhXd4g5PjP56A
https://goo.gl/maps/sD7JBoMXyYnFvRXT8
- Patrick Harper
- Member
- Posts: 3211
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
- Location: Wiltshire
Re: Botched Roadsigns
I think the photograph's been taken from an angle that makes the signs look misaligned with the matrix signals.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
That's not the problem! Look at the edges of each panel... This is not a camera glitchPatrick Harper wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 19:39I think the photograph's been taken from an angle that makes the signs look misaligned with the matrix signals.
-
- Member
- Posts: 609
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46
Re: Botched Roadsigns
To be fair, if you're heading for Bedford you probably do want to be back the way you came, to join the M6 at J3. And you could also get there by the B4113 - if it wasn't shut.
Of course it's more likely you're heading for Bedworth - but the signed route to Bedworth is back up the A444 in any case, so the diversion is just telling you to follow the normal signs!
- Gareth Thomas
- Member
- Posts: 1725
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 13:43
- Location: Temple Ewell, Kent
- Contact:
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Turn left for the "Sandwich Ferries"!
My journey with testicular cancer!
https://garethishalfnuts.wordpress.com/
"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads..."
-Dr Emmett Brown
https://garethishalfnuts.wordpress.com/
"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads..."
-Dr Emmett Brown
Re: Botched Roadsigns
This junction has recently been redone. Mostly like for like, although the stop lines have been moved back slightly and how has LLCS.
However clearly this is a mistake - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.83305 ... 384!8i8192
Also is this signal head correct? Can you have still have no-entry on it? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.83308 ... 384!8i8192
However clearly this is a mistake - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.83305 ... 384!8i8192
Also is this signal head correct? Can you have still have no-entry on it? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.83308 ... 384!8i8192
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15772
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Regardless of that, why would you, given the sheer number of other No Entry signs around it.jervi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 14:49 This junction has recently been redone. Mostly like for like, although the stop lines have been moved back slightly and how has LLCS.
However clearly this is a mistake - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.83305 ... 384!8i8192
Also is this signal head correct? Can you have still have no-entry on it? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.83308 ... 384!8i8192
“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!
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!
Re: Botched Roadsigns
I've had an email back from the council about this one, they said that it is a contractor error and they cannot cover it up due to it having anti-graffiti film on it. They said they are going to replace it with a sign similar to this one: Which also seems to have mistakes as the A23 isn't the road ahead, although it does lead to the A23. Also the right turn stack doesn't look correct?jervi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 19:05 newsign.PNG
new sign here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.83993 ... 384!8i8192
Not too sure why "Seafront (A259)" is in a primary patch. The A259 is not primary anywhere near here, plus you use the A23 (primary) to get to the Seafront / City Centre
On top of the sign being incorrect in so many ways, it is also not very helpful since the left turn is in front of the traffic light controlled junction, while the right turn at the lights is not signed at all!
- Conekicker
- Member
- Posts: 3763
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
- Location: South Yorks
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
- Conekicker
- Member
- Posts: 3763
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
- Location: South Yorks
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
All the times I've driven along there and never even noticed. It was better when the two lanes continued up the hill to the roundabout. Now a slow vehicle can cause delays to following traffic.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
Big and complex.