Botched Roadsigns

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

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
OliverH
Member
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:52
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by OliverH »

I think I will just place this small patch sign on top of the bottom of this sign instead of replacing it. don't tell anyone what I did.

also once upon a time there was the west: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.79489 ... authuser=0
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17467
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Truvelo »

Conekicker wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:07
Truvelo wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 22:21 I have driven past this thousands of times and only noticed the other day that it is wrong.

https://goo.gl/maps/JNd8xRc76cUJzmE2A
You mean the excessive gap between "The" and "SOUTH", as well as the use of Motorway font for the route number at this location?

This was permitted in TSM7, 2013, para 10.8 but has now changed in the 2018 edition, para 10.2.4.

10.2.4. Where flag‑type signs are to be used to direct traffic around a large roundabout or gyratory system on an all‑purpose road to an exit has motorway status, these must have a background colour appropriate to the road on which they are placed (e.g. dark green on a primary route). This is because the actual route indicated (the roundabout etc.) does not have motorway status. The motorway number, in brackets, is shown on a blue patch, together with any appropriate destination placed directly on the dark green or white background of the sign. The junction number, the motorway symbol and distances to destinations are not included on these signs. The advance direction signs on the approach to the roundabout or gyratory system will, however, show the full motorway panel with the motorway symbol when indicating the motorway exit from the roundabout or gyratory. Where the roundabout has motorway status (e.g. it forms part of a junction between two motorways), the flag‑type signs shown in Figure 10‑3 may be used to direct traffic around the circulatory carriageway.
I was referring to the font itself. The L's have no tails so it is not Transport or any other prescribed font. It is probably Helvetica or whether was provided with Windows 3.1 back in the day.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Chris5156 »

Truvelo wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 17:02
Conekicker wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:07
Truvelo wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 22:21 I have driven past this thousands of times and only noticed the other day that it is wrong.

https://goo.gl/maps/JNd8xRc76cUJzmE2A
You mean the excessive gap between "The" and "SOUTH", as well as the use of Motorway font for the route number at this location?
I was referring to the font itself. The L's have no tails so it is not Transport or any other prescribed font. It is probably Helvetica or whether was provided with Windows 3.1 back in the day.
Yes, the words Birmingham, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Telford are in Helvetica, which is weird because the other lettering is in Transport. The M54 patch is also wrongly positioned and missing brackets. What a strange way to get it wrong.
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 »

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

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by SteelCamel »

Skermington wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 12:36 Ahead? :confused:
Yes, it's technically correct. There's a very short bit of S2 between the longabout-ish junction and the dual carriageway proper, and the signage for the start of the dual carriageway is just after that. Really not sure it needs an advance warning though.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Bryn666 »

Chris5156 wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 17:39
Truvelo wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 17:02
Conekicker wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:07 You mean the excessive gap between "The" and "SOUTH", as well as the use of Motorway font for the route number at this location?
I was referring to the font itself. The L's have no tails so it is not Transport or any other prescribed font. It is probably Helvetica or whether was provided with Windows 3.1 back in the day.
Yes, the words Birmingham, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Telford are in Helvetica, which is weird because the other lettering is in Transport. The M54 patch is also wrongly positioned and missing brackets. What a strange way to get it wrong.
And such signs are not needed on roundabouts anyway. Go further around and they've used stack type ADS at the A460 exit. All in all, a shambles.
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
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
Beardy5632
Member
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 16:45
Location: Forest of Dean

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Beardy5632 »

There's an even worse botch from the B1322.

And one that's local to me, another silly error on a new sign but where the sign it replaced was correct.
British & Irish cities driven in - 48/75
England - 36/52, Scotland - 7/7, Wales - 5/6, NI - 0/5, RoI - 0/5
Rambo
Member
Posts: 1056
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 19:56
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Rambo »

Along a similar theme.. more advance flag signs https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.21594 ... 312!8i6656
User avatar
Gareth
Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 19:16
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Gareth »

The roadworks have a temporary elderly/infirm sign. Never seen that before...

144 High St
https://maps.app.goo.gl/4u1eFuSfWykFkWec6
User avatar
MotorwayGuy
Member
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 15:37
Location: S.E. London

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by MotorwayGuy »

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.34349 ... 384!8i8192

This flag sign directs you down a cul-de-sac instead of the intended route and is missing brackets.
User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 2462
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by the cheesecake man »

This isn't the M62 so M62 should be in brackets. Also the positioning is pants because it incorrectly implies that you will use the M62s to get to Normanton.

At the same junction this sign fails to mention that this road is the A645?

And nearby more patching without good cause: A638 may be primary but there's a few miles of non-primary A645 first.
Rambo
Member
Posts: 1056
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 19:56
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Rambo »

the cheesecake man wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 13:23 This isn't the M62 so M62 should be in brackets. Also the positioning is pants because it incorrectly implies that you will use the M62s to get to Normanton.

At the same junction this sign fails to mention that this road is the A645?

And nearby more patching without good cause: A638 may be primary but there's a few miles of non-primary A645 first.
There may be a case for Featherstone RLFC to be a brown patch too.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jervi »

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1456852 ... 384!8i8192

For some reason the weight limit roundel is between the start of the road name and the end of the road name. It should say "Weight limit at Perimeter Road South".

And then the stack sign below it should be non-primary with a primary patch for (A23)...

The other direction at-least got the top bit right... https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1459395 ... 312!8i6656

Also this must be one of a few mini-roundabouts that have a u-turn destination. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1450095 ... 384!8i8192

Edit:
Just released that physical panels that make up the first sign were put onto the poles in the wrong order, face palm.
Rambo
Member
Posts: 1056
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 19:56
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Rambo »

Have only ever seen the bottom sign typically at the end of the dual carriageway. So clutching at straws here as the road is already very narrow.
Attachments
scout green.jpg
Rambo
Member
Posts: 1056
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 19:56
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Rambo »

Full green patch and recently erected near Rowton hall near Chester. This is along a single track road about 1/3 mile from the A41 itself.
Attachments
IMG_3258.jpg
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jervi »

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.90084 ... 384!8i8192
Saw this a few days ago. What made it even worse is that the no motor vehicle sign was directly facing the main road rather than the turning loop. Plus trying to read what the sign said at 40mph wasn't possible, I thought it said "except vehicles under 4.4m" (for the ahead road) which is just the same as the co-located max height sign.
Also trying to find a solo motorcycle over 4.4m would be quite tricky!
SteelCamel
Member
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by SteelCamel »

jervi wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 12:48 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.90084 ... 384!8i8192
Saw this a few days ago. What made it even worse is that the no motor vehicle sign was directly facing the main road rather than the turning loop. Plus trying to read what the sign said at 40mph wasn't possible, I thought it said "except vehicles under 4.4m" (for the ahead road) which is just the same as the co-located max height sign.
Also trying to find a solo motorcycle over 4.4m would be quite tricky!
It's even more botched than it appears. First of all, what's the point in restricting the turning loop to begin with? I can't see many vehicles wanting to turn here apart from ones that don't fit under the bridge. And it's already got double yellow lines to stop parking in it.
Secondly, the conversion on the sign isn't exact, so it's unclear whether vehicles between 4.4m and 14ft 6in are allowed to use the loop, pass under the bridge, both, or neither.
Thirdly, the intention is clearly that the over-height vehicles go round the loop and turn right to double back and avoid the bridge. However, the way it's signed means that it's legal to enter the loop (thus going around the restriction signs), and turn left towards the bridge. OK, there's another restriction sign on the bridge itself, but then you're stuck with a large vehicle turning in the road, negating the point of the loop.

Going the other way is even stranger. The height restriction is clearly signed at the roundabout, so over-height vehicles have no reason to be on the road anyway. But apparently there are so many that they have to warn you about all the over-height vehicles turning round. And the loop is restricted to over-height vehicles - and permit holders, as there's a field gate half way round. Which presumably means that someone needs to issue the farmers with permits so they can use the gate without getting ticketed for misusing the loop. All to stop the presumably vast numbers of people who want to drive out here just so they can turn round for no good reason. Though I did note that this one doesn't allow you to sneak around the restriction 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 »

This one at the A2/A256 interchange. "A2" should be in brackets, as this is not the A2 but the road leading towards it; and the blank space underneath the sign that presumably was there ready for "Retail Park" or something but never got it.

This one at the A256/A257 roundabout. The "11" mileage is placed between "Canterbury" and "A257", in a similar way to how it would be placed between "Cardiff" and "Caerdydd" on a Welsh sign.

This one on the A258. Not only does it suggest the upcoming A257 is primary, but it forgets to mention what road this actually is or its next destination (Sandwich).

Finally this one, which whilst it does correctly have "Sandwich A258", it suggests the A258 is primary - which it never has been.
My journey with testicular cancer!
https://garethishalfnuts.wordpress.com/

"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads..."
-Dr Emmett Brown
Al__S
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:56

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Al__S »

I must go and get a picture but this horror has only got worse with the re-routing of the A14
Post Reply