Botched Roadsigns

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

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
SteelCamel
Member
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by SteelCamel »

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?
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Conekicker »

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?
It may depend on what the TRO for each location says?
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
Bfivethousand
Member
Posts: 1387
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Bfivethousand »

Coventry, on Streetview...

Quite the diversion! :confused:
16 Sodium atoms walk into a bar
followed immediately by Batman
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jervi »

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;
b2036.PNG
b2036.PNG (22.68 KiB) Viewed 1565 times
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.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jervi »

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.
burwell.PNG
crb11
Member
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 21:35
Location: Cambridge

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by crb11 »

Bfivethousand wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 23:41 Coventry, on Streetview...

Quite the diversion! :confused:
Presumably via the A428.
[real name Colin]
User avatar
Stevie D
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Stevie D »

In Paris, there is a crossroads with ⛔ no entry signs on all four exits.

User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jervi »

newsign.PNG
newsign.PNG (254.01 KiB) Viewed 1482 times
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!
crazyknightsfan
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 22:32
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by crazyknightsfan »

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 :confused:
https://goo.gl/maps/Rj34GfRdva582mFXA
https://goo.gl/maps/zaicRhXd4g5PjP56A
https://goo.gl/maps/sD7JBoMXyYnFvRXT8
Al__S
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:56

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Al__S »

I'm not commenting on the design, or anything like that.

It's just botched
20210423_164142.jpg
User avatar
Patrick Harper
Member
Posts: 3202
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
Location: Wiltshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Patrick Harper »

Al__S wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 19:24 I'm not commenting on the design, or anything like that.

It's just botched
20210423_164142.jpg
I think the photograph's been taken from an angle that makes the signs look misaligned with the matrix signals.
Al__S
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:56

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Al__S »

Patrick Harper wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 19:39
Al__S wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 19:24 I'm not commenting on the design, or anything like that.

It's just botched
20210423_164142.jpg
I think the photograph's been taken from an angle that makes the signs look misaligned with the matrix signals.
That's not the problem! Look at the edges of each panel... This is not a camera glitch
SteelCamel
Member
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by SteelCamel »

Bfivethousand wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 23:41 Coventry, on Streetview...

Quite the diversion! :confused:
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!
User avatar
Gareth Thomas
Member
Posts: 1718
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 13:43
Location: Temple Ewell, Kent
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Gareth Thomas »

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
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jervi »

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
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Chris Bertram »

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
Regardless of that, why would you, given the sheer number of other No Entry signs around it.
“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!
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jervi »

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!
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:
sefnt.png
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?
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Conekicker »

Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Conekicker »

Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17467
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Truvelo »

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.
Post Reply