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
DavidB
Member
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2002 20:32
Location: Berkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by DavidB »

Chris5156 wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 08:53
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.
There's some discussion about it in this old 'Notes and Queries' column from The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandque ... 82,00.html
Locals maintain that this slip road leads to RAF Welford, which was used as a base by the US during the cold war. This would explain the rectangular shapes on the millennium map - they are missile silos. My mother, who lives near Newbury, has always maintained that the cruise missiles, allegedly at nearby Greenham Common, were in fact based at Welford. This would make sense, if only in terms of transport logistics. Cruise missiles were designed to be mobile and capable of being launched from any part of the country. To reach the M4 from Greenham (in the 80s) necessitated driving through Newbury, whereas Welford has its own private slip road. Perhaps all the women who so persistently protested against the cruise missiles were actually camping in the wrong place after all.

Jackie Nickson, Farncombe, Surrey
SteelCamel
Member
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by SteelCamel »

Chris5156 wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 08:53
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.
Indeed so. I was just wondering about the logic of signing it as "works unit" apparently to obscure the fact that it's an access to the military base (rather than something like "RAF Welford - authorised vehicles only") but then un-obscuring it by using the red "military" sign. Possibly it's just intended to prevent visitors to the base trying to go that way.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16909
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Chris5156 »

SteelCamel wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 10:39
Chris5156 wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 08:53
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.
Indeed so. I was just wondering about the logic of signing it as "works unit" apparently to obscure the fact that it's an access to the military base (rather than something like "RAF Welford - authorised vehicles only") but then un-obscuring it by using the red "military" sign. Possibly it's just intended to prevent visitors to the base trying to go that way.
Yes, it's a case of mixed messages really. The red and white signs are quite old now; whoever is responsible for signage on that part of HE's network has evidently decided that something less obviously military-related is required because one of them has been replaced in the last few years and is a standard white on blue sign with the same "works unit only" legend. That feels rather more logical to me.
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 »

Stevie D wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 20:25 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.
Logical but B6375 has no destinations (except local ones which are on a subsequent sign) and is still at the bottom not the top.
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 »

With such a wide verge, why is it necessary to use abbreviations?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.19243 ... 6656?hl=en
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16909
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Chris5156 »

Conekicker wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 14:19 With such a wide verge, why is it necessary to use abbreviations?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.19243 ... 6656?hl=en
Especially "N' Wales", which isn't even correctly abbreviated. Unless it's actually a type of spicy Italian sausage like N'duja.
User avatar
danfw194
Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 23:26
Location: Leicester

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by danfw194 »

Spotted this on my way out of Bath the other week - surely it should be Wells A39?

A607 should not be bracketed
Conekicker wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 14:19 With such a wide verge, why is it necessary to use abbreviations?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.19243 ... 6656?hl=en
For minute there I thought the W' Ch was an abbreviation for West Chester.
User avatar
ellandback
Member
Posts: 1366
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 08:48
Location: Elland, West Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by ellandback »

Chris5156 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 14:27
Conekicker wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 14:19 With such a wide verge, why is it necessary to use abbreviations?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.19243 ... 6656?hl=en
Especially "N' Wales", which isn't even correctly abbreviated. Unless it's actually a type of spicy Italian sausage like N'duja.
Assuming W'Ch means Whitchurch then I don't think that's correctly abbreviated either. Why does it need a capital C?

Given that it does have a capital C (and especially following on from N' Wales), West Chester doesn't actually seem that unreasonable a guess.
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/@51.23805 ... 384!8i8192
This one annoyed me the other day.
Go bored of using the M23, so used the A217/A23 instead however this sign is wrong and resulted in me going around the gyratory again.
The left stack should be a flag sign, not a stack. Maybe my knowledge in road signs is a disadvantage and I have too much faith in things being signed correctly.
OliverH
Member
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:52
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by OliverH »

jervi wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 22:30 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.23805 ... 384!8i8192
This one annoyed me the other day.
Go bored of using the M23, so used the A217/A23 instead however this sign is wrong and resulted in me going around the gyratory again.
The left stack should be a flag sign, not a stack. Maybe my knowledge in road signs is a disadvantage and I have too much faith in things being signed correctly.
after moving around on GSV in the link I could this: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.24068 ... 384!8i8192
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jervi »

OliverH wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 22:42
jervi wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 22:30 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.23805 ... 384!8i8192
This one annoyed me the other day.
Go bored of using the M23, so used the A217/A23 instead however this sign is wrong and resulted in me going around the gyratory again.
The left stack should be a flag sign, not a stack. Maybe my knowledge in road signs is a disadvantage and I have too much faith in things being signed correctly.
after moving around on GSV in the link I could this: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.24068 ... 384!8i8192
Nice find, there are quite a few old signs around those parts but hadn't seen that one before.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Bryn666 »

Cumbria has a lot of low height signs like this - it's very reminiscent of French direction signs in about 1966 when they were reliant on low powered headlamps to illuminate a sign so always went for ground level.
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
L.J.D
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 06:34
Location: W.Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by L.J.D »

Opps it's a Give Way not a STOP. :lol:
User avatar
Having a cuppa
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2020 05:27
Location: North of Vice City

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Having a cuppa »

Not sure if this would be considered botched, but I've never seen a school speed limit sign like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0372514 ... 312!8i6656

Is it legally enforceable?
My car gets 90 leagues to the firkin and that's the way I like it!
DavidBrown
Member
Posts: 8398
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 00:35

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by DavidBrown »

Having a cuppa wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 03:06 Not sure if this would be considered botched, but I've never seen a school speed limit sign like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0372514 ... 312!8i6656

Is it legally enforceable?
There's plenty of variations of such signs out there. They're not legally enforcable as speed limits, only advisory (ones like this use a sign more familiar to those generally used for advisory limits). However, if you went through at 30 at school kick out time and knocked over a child, I suspect there would be enough options in the way of careless/dangerous driving charges to land you in hot water.
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 »

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.
A check this morning finds that other nearby signs do put the A6182 at the bottom.
SteelCamel
Member
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by SteelCamel »

DavidBrown wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 08:31
Having a cuppa wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 03:06 Not sure if this would be considered botched, but I've never seen a school speed limit sign like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0372514 ... 312!8i6656

Is it legally enforceable?
There's plenty of variations of such signs out there. They're not legally enforcable as speed limits, only advisory (ones like this use a sign more familiar to those generally used for advisory limits). However, if you went through at 30 at school kick out time and knocked over a child, I suspect there would be enough options in the way of careless/dangerous driving charges to land you in hot water.
On the other hand, ones like this are enforceable - and enforced, it's common to find a speed camera stationed outside the schools.
User avatar
Stevie D
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Stevie D »

Having a cuppa wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 03:06 Not sure if this would be considered botched, but I've never seen a school speed limit sign like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0372514 ... 312!8i6656

Is it legally enforceable?
There are various versions in different local authorities – some, like this one, are only advisory, while others are mandatory.
To me, it seems like a far more sensible option than what we have round here, which is mandatory 20mph limits outside schools 24/7, even on main roads. Because they are used indiscriminately and on roads where (for most of the time) there is no evident reason to slow below 30mph, this habituates drivers into ignoring them – whereas the flashing lights make it clear why the limit is in place and because it is only in place when needed and not for the 95% of the time when there are no kids going in or out of the school, I would expect better compliance (although it would be good to see some actual data rather than just my supposition!).
User avatar
L.J.D
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 06:34
Location: W.Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by L.J.D »

Not sure if these small green signs are supposed to be down by the floor at the bottom of the signal poles but they look botchy and hideous. They are all like it so I can only assume they are supposed to be like that :?:
Post Reply