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
solocle
Member
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 18:27

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by solocle »

Yeovil isn't known for a great Highways department...
4A85573E-9A83-472D-863D-EABCD5DC2C5D.jpeg
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jervi »

There has been road works here for quite sometime (since Summer 2018 - 3 YEARS!). And it did look like this - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.23087 ... 384!8i8192
The Mandatory Left/Banned Right being on top of each other looks odd and the stack sign not being greyed out on the left isn't great.
However due to Pelham Bridge being closed for 10 weeks, this junction is on the diversion route, so 3 weeks into the Pelham Bridge Works it has been decided to reopen the closed lane here for the remainder of the works period due to traffic backing up in all directions.
This is what it looks like now. https://youtu.be/-WkY8tFJf7A It has had near zero impact on traffic. Also quite a few traffic counters have been installed all across the city centre this week.
Things that are wrong/botched in the video:
1. Road Narrows on left sign - no it doesn't any more.
2. First "get in lane sign" shows both lanes going "ahead" while both lanes actually turn left.
3. Road markings still show left and right turn lanes (faintly) even though they are now both left turn.
4. Stack sign on the left doesn't have the right stack covered up.
5. Second "get in lane" sign has mandatory left/banned right turn diagrams at the bottom directly below the destinations. Botched and could be confusing. Also lacking arrows.
User avatar
Big L
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 7500
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 20:36
Location: B5012

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Big L »

Make poetry history.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
User avatar
Skermington
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 15:01
Location: Welwyn Garden City via Derbyshire and Newcastle

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Skermington »

Is this kosher?

A lot doesn't sit right with me on these two signs in Chiswell Green.

Oh dear.:facepalm:
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Chris5156 »

Skermington wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 14:57 A lot doesn't sit right with me on these two signs in Chiswell Green.
They’re basically OK I think, but today you’d use the specific “mini roundabout” symbol which would make the whole sign much smaller. The mini roundabout symbol for advance direction signs probably didn’t yet exist when these were made - it came much later than the invention of mini roundabouts themselves.
TS
Member
Posts: 611
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 17:18
Location: Bournemouth

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by TS »

Chris5156 wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 19:55
Skermington wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 14:57 A lot doesn't sit right with me on these two signs in Chiswell Green.
They’re basically OK I think, but today you’d use the specific “mini roundabout” symbol which would make the whole sign much smaller. The mini roundabout symbol for advance direction signs probably didn’t yet exist when these were made - it came much later than the invention of mini roundabouts themselves.
But either way, the destinations, including road number, should be aligned to the left, shouldn't they?
User avatar
Stevie D
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Stevie D »

Big L wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 16:12 An odd destination to sign.
It is, but it is also quite important, as the diversion for overheight vehicles is significant and so you really don't want them continuing blithely ahead. There's a turning on the right after about a mile that is signed as "Hereford, alternative route avoiding low bridge", and then after that there is nowhere suitable to turn a lorry round until a parking area about a mile or two from the bridge itself.

Definitely a better setup than on the A44 approaching Crossgates, where as far as I can see there is one warning sign just after the only suitable alternative route (7 miles before the bridge) and then nothing else until you get to the bridge itself.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35714
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Bryn666 »

Stevie D wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 00:07
Big L wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 16:12 An odd destination to sign.
It is, but it is also quite important, as the diversion for overheight vehicles is significant and so you really don't want them continuing blithely ahead. There's a turning on the right after about a mile that is signed as "Hereford, alternative route avoiding low bridge", and then after that there is nowhere suitable to turn a lorry round until a parking area about a mile or two from the bridge itself.

Definitely a better setup than on the A44 approaching Crossgates, where as far as I can see there is one warning sign just after the only suitable alternative route (7 miles before the bridge) and then nothing else until you get to the bridge itself.
Totally botched, including the amended imperial unit, but that is a clever fix. Don't tell the sign purists :twisted:
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
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Chris5156 »

TS wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 22:38
Chris5156 wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 19:55
Skermington wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 14:57 A lot doesn't sit right with me on these two signs in Chiswell Green.
They’re basically OK I think, but today you’d use the specific “mini roundabout” symbol which would make the whole sign much smaller. The mini roundabout symbol for advance direction signs probably didn’t yet exist when these were made - it came much later than the invention of mini roundabouts themselves.
But either way, the destinations, including road number, should be aligned to the left, shouldn't they?
Ooh, yes, you’re right. I was so busy looking at the symbols and the junction I missed that! The first two lines are aligned correctly but the last two have been centred as though they are a single phrase.
User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 2457
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by the cheesecake man »

Road number before the destinations. Is that normal?
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Conekicker »

the cheesecake man wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 13:01 Road number before the destinations. Is that normal?
Only if the designer doesn't know what they are doing. So, very sadly, more normal than you'd think.

If you'd asked if it's wrong, the answer would be "Yes". :wink:
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
Stevie D
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Stevie D »

the cheesecake man wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 13:01 Road number before the destinations. Is that normal?
I think the logic there is that you start off with all the destinations reached along the road, and then move to destinations reached along other roads.
So you have:

"🤷🏻‍♂️ A6182
Sheffield (M18, M1)
(A1(M))
Scunthorpe (M180)"

because the A6182 doesn't (or at least, didn't) go to anywhere, there were no destinations to list before the road number.
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Conekicker »

Stevie D wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 20:25
the cheesecake man wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 13:01 Road number before the destinations. Is that normal?
I think the logic there is that you start off with all the destinations reached along the road, and then move to destinations reached along other roads.
So you have:

"🤷🏻‍♂️ A6182
Sheffield (M18, M1)
(A1(M))
Scunthorpe (M180)"

because the A6182 doesn't (or at least, didn't) go to anywhere, there were no destinations to list before the road number.
At that location, there's no need to mention the A1(M), M1 or M180, they just overload the sign and subsequent ones that should then carry them for consistency.

A clearer block of text would be...

(M18)
Scunthorpe
Sheffield
A6182

...as (M18) is a motorway and thus should be before Scunthorpe. Scunny should be before Sheffield as it's further away, "furthest first".
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35714
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Bryn666 »

Conekicker wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 20:59
Stevie D wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 20:25
the cheesecake man wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 13:01 Road number before the destinations. Is that normal?
I think the logic there is that you start off with all the destinations reached along the road, and then move to destinations reached along other roads.
So you have:

"🤷🏻‍♂️ A6182
Sheffield (M18, M1)
(A1(M))
Scunthorpe (M180)"

because the A6182 doesn't (or at least, didn't) go to anywhere, there were no destinations to list before the road number.
At that location, there's no need to mention the A1(M), M1 or M180, they just overload the sign and subsequent ones that should then carry them for consistency.

A clearer block of text would be...

(M18)
Scunthorpe
Sheffield
A6182

...as (M18) is a motorway and thus should be before Scunthorpe. Scunny should be before Sheffield as it's further away, "furthest first".
I've never liked the furthest first rule, and it appears 99% of sign designers don't either as it is so inconsistently applied you'd never know it was actually a rule.
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
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Chris5156 »

Conekicker wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 16:32
the cheesecake man wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 13:01 Road number before the destinations. Is that normal?
Only if the designer doesn't know what they are doing. So, very sadly, more normal than you'd think.

If you'd asked if it's wrong, the answer would be "Yes". :wink:
Further evidence for which is that the spacing and alignment is a complete mess. The vertical line representing the approach to the roundabout should also reach the bottom of the panel, rather than starting in mid-air.
SteelCamel
Member
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by SteelCamel »

An interesting one here - my understanding is that all direction signs on a motorway must be blue, and the normal rules about patching etc don't apply. So is this a botch? Even if not on a motorway, I would have thought that the diagram and text should be in black.

Of course, the "works unit" is nothing of the sort. It seems a bit odd to obscure the purpose of the junction by mis-describing it as a works unit and then flag up the real purpose with the colour of the sign.

If you do take the exit (there's nothing explicitly prohibiting it, and it has the normal junction markings) you'll encounter something that's definitely a botch - There is a gate with the "end of motorway" sign just beyond it. So you may not stop or U-turn, even though there's a closed gate blocking your way and you need to U-turn to get back on the motorway.
Al__S
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:56

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Al__S »

adding to the "botch", isn't the use of red for the diagram part wrong as well? It is a classic, and you do have to wonder about the decision making involved
Jonathan24
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 19:45

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Jonathan24 »

SteelCamel wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 14:02 So you may not stop or U-turn, even though there's a closed gate blocking your way and you need to U-turn to get back on the motorway.
But you can use the toilet and stay in a caravan, both of which seem to be parked on the motorway.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.45154 ... 312!8i6656
OliverH
Member
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:52
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by OliverH »

SteelCamel wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 14:02 An interesting one here - my understanding is that all direction signs on a motorway must be blue, and the normal rules about patching etc don't apply. So is this a botch? Even if not on a motorway, I would have thought that the diagram and text should be in black.

Of course, the "works unit" is nothing of the sort. It seems a bit odd to obscure the purpose of the junction by mis-describing it as a works unit and then flag up the real purpose with the colour of the sign.

If you do take the exit (there's nothing explicitly prohibiting it, and it has the normal junction markings) you'll encounter something that's definitely a botch - There is a gate with the "end of motorway" sign just beyond it. So you may not stop or U-turn, even though there's a closed gate blocking your way and you need to U-turn to get back on the motorway.
could be disguised as a secret entrance to RAF Welford
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Chris5156 »

OliverH wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 23:30 could be disguised as a secret entrance to RAF Welford
It is a back entrance to RAF Welford, there's no secret about it. The reason the sign has a red border is because that is the colour for signs indicating military installations.
Post Reply