Botched Roadsigns
Moderator: Site Management Team
- Skermington
- Member
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 15:01
- Location: Welwyn Garden City via Derbyshire and Newcastle
Re: Botched Roadsigns
The Meir Tunnel has always had a 30 limit as far as I can remember.Bryn666 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 21:27Some clever individual ordered 600mm roundels to cover over 750mm roundels. Why they didn't just replace the signs is anyone's guess. Isn't the 30 because of the repair works to the tunnel?Klepsydra wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 20:24 These horrors are on the A50 at Meir Tunnel, Stoke on Trent. The effect, whether the makers intended it or not, is to suggest that the speed limit here is really, REALLY 30mph.
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.9794447 ... 384!8i8192
Drive through it, however, and you'll notice that not many people know that.
"If you expect nothing from somebody you are never disappointed." - Sylvia Plath
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Just down the road from there, saw it out cycling a few weeks ago.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84807 ... 2?hl=en-GB
I have been in contact with some people at the B&H CC highway dept, and they have a new team in charge of signage and they are just as appalled at the current signage in the city. The whole city really needs a whole rethink of destination signs since most major roads lack any, and those that do are inconsistent, messy, incorrect and botched. Unfortunately, with B&H's green anti-car agenda, money for these things are hard to come by.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
This new sign on the A27 is wrong. Why is the A259 Chichester in its own panel, you have to go ahead along the A27 to get to it. Should also have ()s.
And in contrast Shopwhyke should be in its own non-primary panel, Not sure what is in the patch under it, a new B road maybe? I'll have to get out there a somepoint and see how many of the signs are wrong and report them all as one batch.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84498 ... 384!8i8192
On the next sign the A259 Chichester should be in its own panel... are distance allowed on these signs too? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84372 ... 384!8i8192
And then A59 Chichester missing its non-primary panel again... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84218 ... 384!8i8192
And in contrast Shopwhyke should be in its own non-primary panel, Not sure what is in the patch under it, a new B road maybe? I'll have to get out there a somepoint and see how many of the signs are wrong and report them all as one batch.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84498 ... 384!8i8192
On the next sign the A259 Chichester should be in its own panel... are distance allowed on these signs too? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84372 ... 384!8i8192
And then A59 Chichester missing its non-primary panel again... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84218 ... 384!8i8192
- Conekicker
- Member
- Posts: 3769
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
- Location: South Yorks
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Yes, distances are allowed, although a bit pointless in this case one might argue.jervi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 09:49 On the next sign the A259 Chichester should be in its own panel... are distance allowed on these signs too? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84372 ... 384!8i8192
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
My gosh that area is signed really badly.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97649 ... 6656?hl=en Also this bus lane is incorrectly signed, there is the sign warning of it ahead, but no sign at the start of the bus lane, so its not illegal to drive in the bus lane. And the keep left here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97524 ... 6656?hl=en reinforces that you MUST use the bus lane.
Also from this view https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97505 ... 6656?hl=en how are you meant to cycle onto this road when using off-carriageway provision? The footway on the left has tactile paving with the groves lengthways, meaning its cycleway / shared space. But the symbol on the ground suggest otherwise. And then on the right there is a cycleway sign, which leads you into oncoming traffic? Who designed that!
Same issue with the next bus lane not being signed correctly - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97303 ... 6656?hl=en
A bit further up and is this an always-green traffic signal (for cycles)?? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.96878 ... 6656?hl=en
And then we hit this https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.96793 ... 6656?hl=en . Lets just force vulnerable road users across the path of motor vehicles... Pretty sure the TSM says explicitly to NOT do this.
That's enough of me looking at that road. Practically nothing done correctly.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
The roundels painted on the road look as if they have had 30 overpainted on 40.vlad wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 20:12The Meir Tunnel has always had a 30 limit as far as I can remember.Bryn666 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 21:27Some clever individual ordered 600mm roundels to cover over 750mm roundels. Why they didn't just replace the signs is anyone's guess. Isn't the 30 because of the repair works to the tunnel?Klepsydra wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 20:24 These horrors are on the A50 at Meir Tunnel, Stoke on Trent. The effect, whether the makers intended it or not, is to suggest that the speed limit here is really, REALLY 30mph.
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.9794447 ... 384!8i8192
Drive through it, however, and you'll notice that not many people know that.
"I went to a planet without bilateral symmetry and all I got was this lousy F-shirt."
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Looking through the timeline of GSV, it seems that the green bike was removed and then the signal was removed in its entirety.jervi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 21:48My gosh that area is signed really badly.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97649 ... 6656?hl=en Also this bus lane is incorrectly signed, there is the sign warning of it ahead, but no sign at the start of the bus lane, so its not illegal to drive in the bus lane. And the keep left here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97524 ... 6656?hl=en reinforces that you MUST use the bus lane.
Also from this view https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97505 ... 6656?hl=en how are you meant to cycle onto this road when using off-carriageway provision? The footway on the left has tactile paving with the groves lengthways, meaning its cycleway / shared space. But the symbol on the ground suggest otherwise. And then on the right there is a cycleway sign, which leads you into oncoming traffic? Who designed that!
Same issue with the next bus lane not being signed correctly - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.97303 ... 6656?hl=en
A bit further up and is this an always-green traffic signal (for cycles)?? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.96878 ... 6656?hl=en
And then we hit this https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.96793 ... 6656?hl=en . Lets just force vulnerable road users across the path of motor vehicles... Pretty sure the TSM says explicitly to NOT do this.
That's enough of me looking at that road. Practically nothing was done correctly.
- the cheesecake man
- Member
- Posts: 2482
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
- Location: Sheffield
- Conekicker
- Member
- Posts: 3769
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
- Location: South Yorks
Re: Botched Roadsigns
At least they are (in)consistentthe cheesecake man wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 13:55 Time for another minor spelling error: The Foundary [sic] Climbing Centre
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Patch on a flag sign. is this allowed? https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599196 ... 312!8i6656
Also on the same road. https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599074 ... 312!8i6656
I notice extra terminal signs located on the opposite side of the carriageway. What would be the point of these? surely only two would suffice..
Also on the same road. https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599074 ... 312!8i6656
I notice extra terminal signs located on the opposite side of the carriageway. What would be the point of these? surely only two would suffice..
Re: Botched Roadsigns
No, never. But it’s a very common botch. Seemingly most people who design road signs don’t understand the rule about that.Rambo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 20:47 Patch on a flag sign. is this allowed? https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599196 ... 312!8i6656
There’s no point, two will always suffice! In this case, since there’s a traffic island, there only needs to be one on the left and one on the island. Another misguided botch sadly.Also on the same road. https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599074 ... 312!8i6656
I notice extra terminal signs located on the opposite side of the carriageway. What would be the point of these? surely only two would suffice..
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Hmm thought they didn't look right. The three roundabouts south of Scarborough on the new section of A165 are all set up like this with the same botches. Here is another https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2614491 ... 312!8i6656Chris5156 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 21:03No, never. But it’s a very common botch. Seemingly most people who design road signs don’t understand the rule about that.Rambo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 20:47 Patch on a flag sign. is this allowed? https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599196 ... 312!8i6656There’s no point, two will always suffice! In this case, since there’s a traffic island, there only needs to be one on the left and one on the island. Another misguided botch sadly.Also on the same road. https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599074 ... 312!8i6656
I notice extra terminal signs located on the opposite side of the carriageway. What would be the point of these? surely only two would suffice..
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Ugh. That has the junction name in mixed case too, which is wrong!Rambo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 21:06Hmm thought they didn't look right. The three roundabouts south of Scarborough on the new section of A165 are all set up like this with the same botches. Here is another https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2614491 ... 312!8i6656Chris5156 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 21:03No, never. But it’s a very common botch. Seemingly most people who design road signs don’t understand the rule about that.Rambo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 20:47 Patch on a flag sign. is this allowed? https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599196 ... 312!8i6656There’s no point, two will always suffice! In this case, since there’s a traffic island, there only needs to be one on the left and one on the island. Another misguided botch sadly.Also on the same road. https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599074 ... 312!8i6656
I notice extra terminal signs located on the opposite side of the carriageway. What would be the point of these? surely only two would suffice..
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
- Bfivethousand
- Member
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
- Location: Derbyshire
Re: Botched Roadsigns
No! The speed limit sign positioning isn't actually botched. Before the 2016 Regs were published it was an express requirement that pairs of regulatory signs were installed alongside each of the kerblines of a single carriageway roads. A third sign placed on a splitter island (as is the case here) or pedestrian refuge was a permitted option but a combination of a nearside and centre sign alone was not lawful.Rambo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 21:06Hmm thought they didn't look right. The three roundabouts south of Scarborough on the new section of A165 are all set up like this with the same botches. Here is another https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2614491 ... 312!8i6656Chris5156 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 21:03No, never. But it’s a very common botch. Seemingly most people who design road signs don’t understand the rule about that.Rambo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 20:47 Patch on a flag sign. is this allowed? https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599196 ... 312!8i6656There’s no point, two will always suffice! In this case, since there’s a traffic island, there only needs to be one on the left and one on the island. Another misguided botch sadly.Also on the same road. https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2599074 ... 312!8i6656
I notice extra terminal signs located on the opposite side of the carriageway. What would be the point of these? surely only two would suffice..
It's only since the 2016 Regs were published - which removed the requirement to install two regulatory signs at the start of a restriction - that the requirement to install an offside sign was removed. Nowadays it is lawful (and sensible in this case) to remove that offside sign.
The real botch here was the decision to choose that precise point as the speed limit terminal point. Twenty or thirty metres up the road and this would never have been an issue.
16 Sodium atoms walk into a bar
followed immediately by Batman
followed immediately by Batman
- Patrick Harper
- Member
- Posts: 3213
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
- Location: Wiltshire
- Skermington
- Member
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 15:01
- Location: Welwyn Garden City via Derbyshire and Newcastle
Re: Botched Roadsigns
Non-standard placement (on a 30mph road anyway)
Botched design (superfluous space under the gradient)
No supplementary plate (slow lorries for x)
Placed halfway up the 14% gradient (where lorries will already have been travelling incredibly slowly
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, Bullbridge Hill
from me.
Botched design (superfluous space under the gradient)
No supplementary plate (slow lorries for x)
Placed halfway up the 14% gradient (where lorries will already have been travelling incredibly slowly
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, Bullbridge Hill
from me.
- the cheesecake man
- Member
- Posts: 2482
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Botched Roadsigns
I've posted examples before of conflicting white non-primary and green primary signs for the same road, but this is the first time I've seen them on the same ******* post!