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
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11162
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by c2R »

the cheesecake man wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2019 18:35
c2R wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2019 16:18
the cheesecake man wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2019 13:07 No pedestrians beyond this point. Thanks for informing me but legally how can I can be confident of that observation?
If only there was a sign for that... I saw today a random temporary sign that simply had an ! and the plate underneath read "Pedestrian"
Person walking on a white background in a red circle?
Indeed ;)
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
User avatar
Richard_Fairhurst
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 13:16

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Richard_Fairhurst »

Oxford station forecourt: https://goo.gl/maps/D3tQsat6YMU4b7Nn7 . Still like that a year later.
Help map the world: openstreetmap.org
Rob590
Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:21

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Rob590 »

I can only presume they had a green background sign lying around in the warehouse when they made this for an unclassified urban road in Washington...
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Chris5156 »

Rob590 wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 13:31 I can only presume they had a green background sign lying around in the warehouse when they made this for an unclassified urban road in Washington...
Beautifully positioned to partially obscure the other sign just to its right as well. :roll:
User avatar
jgharston
Member
Posts: 2437
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 18:06
Location: Sheffield/Whitby

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jgharston »

c2R wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2019 23:07
the cheesecake man wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2019 18:35
c2R wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2019 16:18 If only there was a sign for that... I saw today a random temporary sign that simply had an ! and the plate underneath read "Pedestrian"
Person walking on a white background in a red circle?
Indeed ;)
Isn't that the classic "Saint" sign? Do dudu do do doo.... ;)
User avatar
ellandback
Member
Posts: 1366
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 08:48
Location: Elland, West Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by ellandback »

I've always wondered about the official "no pedestrians" sign, given that a pedestrian who never learned to drive (etc) would have had no obligation ever to have learned its meaning. I might have suggested that the worded sign was perhaps a better solution, except for the fact that we can't assume all pedestrians speak English.

For those reasons, maybe there is a genuine case for this to be a combination pictorial/worded sign, such as now seems to happen routinely with "give priority/priority over" signs.
User avatar
ellandback
Member
Posts: 1366
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 08:48
Location: Elland, West Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by ellandback »

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 »

ellandback wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 08:41 I've always wondered about the official "no pedestrians" sign, given that a pedestrian who never learned to drive (etc) would have had no obligation ever to have learned its meaning. I might have suggested that the worded sign was perhaps a better solution, ...
Valid point, but it certainly isn't better here as it merely informs road users there are no pedestrians rather than doing anything to prohibit them, or even telling them it would be unsafe to proceed.
User avatar
nowster
Treasurer
Posts: 14803
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 16:06
Location: Manchester

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by nowster »

Given the state of the signs in the photo, the likelihood is that the top (white) one is a former blue-bordered sign, replaced like-for-like-ish.
User avatar
Nathan_A_RF
Member
Posts: 721
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:53
Location: East Sussex/Southampton
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Nathan_A_RF »

User avatar
ellandback
Member
Posts: 1366
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 08:48
Location: Elland, West Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by ellandback »

nowster wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:21
Given the state of the signs in the photo, the likelihood is that the top (white) one is a former blue-bordered sign, replaced like-for-like-ish.
Maybe, although as I understand it the road has variously been primary and non-primary at different points in the past. Never both at the same time though, I should imagine.
User avatar
ellandback
Member
Posts: 1366
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 08:48
Location: Elland, West Yorkshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by ellandback »

Nathan_A_RF wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:45 sigh...
Took me a little while to work out what was wrong with that one! :oops:
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Chris Bertram »

ellandback wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 13:07
Nathan_A_RF wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:45 sigh...
Took me a little while to work out what was wrong with that one! :oops:
The trouble with that sign is that it doesn't have an obvious feature implying "this way up", unlike, say, vehicle prohibition signs and speed limit signs. Inexperienced installers look at it, and decide that it's the bigger arrow that should be pointing up - as is true of its blue-background rectangular counterpart at the other side of the restriction. Some education of the community responsible for installing the signs would be in order, but I guess that costs too much money.
“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
Big L
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 7517
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 20:36
Location: B5012

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Big L »

ellandback wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 08:41 I've always wondered about the official "no pedestrians" sign, given that a pedestrian who never learned to drive (etc) would have had no obligation ever to have learned its meaning. I might have suggested that the worded sign was perhaps a better solution, except for the fact that we can't assume all pedestrians speak English.

For those reasons, maybe there is a genuine case for this to be a combination pictorial/worded sign, such as now seems to happen routinely with "give priority/priority over" signs.
Just needs a red diagonal strikethrough, like some prohibition signs have and some don’t rather inexplicably.
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
jgharston
Member
Posts: 2437
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 18:06
Location: Sheffield/Whitby

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by jgharston »

ellandback wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 08:41 I've always wondered about the official "no pedestrians" sign, given that a pedestrian who never learned to drive (etc) would have had no obligation ever to have learned its meaning. I might have suggested that the worded sign was perhaps a better solution, except for the fact that we can't assume all pedestrians speak English.

For those reasons, maybe there is a genuine case for this to be a combination pictorial/worded sign, such as now seems to happen routinely with "give priority/priority over" signs.
Also, the standard sign is a stick figure in a red circle - people naturally expect a "NO" sign to have a line through it, and could understandably see a sign without a strikethrough as being *not* a "NO" sign. 'cos there's no strikethrough, innit.

I do think that all "NO" signs really should consistantly have a strikethrough.
User avatar
Bfivethousand
Member
Posts: 1387
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Bfivethousand »

Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 13:22 The trouble with that sign is that it doesn't have an obvious feature implying "this way up", unlike, say, vehicle prohibition signs and speed limit signs.
The CE identification label on the back of the sign should be oriented the "right way up" to give an idea of which way round the sign should be fitted.
16 Sodium atoms walk into a bar
followed immediately by Batman
User avatar
Viator
Member
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 19:06
Location: Llan-giwg

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Viator »

jgharston wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 21:08 Also, the standard sign is a stick figure in a red circle - people naturally expect a "NO" sign to have a line through it, and could understandably see a sign without a strikethrough as being *not* a "NO" sign. 'cos there's no strikethrough, innit.

I do think that all "NO" signs really should consistantly have a strikethrough.
Only Ireland has consistent signage in that regard:
a red-edged circle without a strikethrough imposes a LIMIT of some kind (e.g. maximum permitted speed)
while a similar sign WITH a strikethrough means "NO [...] allowed at all" (e.g. no overtaking)
As a further example of this, a black-on-white P in a red circle means limited parking, while the same sign with a red strikethrough means "no parking" (at any time).
crazyknightsfan
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 22:32
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by crazyknightsfan »

This is just confusing. The placement of the text against the very strange map layout doesn't help me at all interpret the intersection ahead
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by Chris5156 »

crazyknightsfan wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 04:13 This is just confusing. The placement of the text against the very strange map layout doesn't help me at all interpret the intersection ahead
Yes, that’s really poor. Also, “(M5 S)” should really be “(M5 (S))” - first because those are the rules, but second because it looks a lot like “M55”.
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11162
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: Botched Roadsigns

Post by c2R »

Viator wrote: Wed Sep 04, 2019 05:05
jgharston wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 21:08 Also, the standard sign is a stick figure in a red circle - people naturally expect a "NO" sign to have a line through it, and could understandably see a sign without a strikethrough as being *not* a "NO" sign. 'cos there's no strikethrough, innit.

I do think that all "NO" signs really should consistantly have a strikethrough.
Only Ireland has consistent signage in that regard:
a red-edged circle without a strikethrough imposes a LIMIT of some kind (e.g. maximum permitted speed)
while a similar sign WITH a strikethrough means "NO [...] allowed at all" (e.g. no overtaking)
As a further example of this, a black-on-white P in a red circle means limited parking, while the same sign with a red strikethrough means "no parking" (at any time).
It might be consistent, but I still don't like the red circle with the forward arrow being the sign for a one way street... it also makes it difficult to sign the end of a prohibition if the same sign is used with a line through it to indicate no entry...
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Post Reply