Why don't lane indication signs tell you all you need to know?

[TS]

I'm sure you know the sign I mean (don't know its official name!), it's on the approach to a junction and has arrows for each lane, separated by a depiction of white lines. Like this chap here: on the A3049.

Well, I can't right now show you an example but I have seen several of these with three lanes marked, but the actual sign is positioned before the third lane is introduced. So you know that the left lane is for left/ahead, the middle one for ahead, and the right lane for right. But because you are reading the sign on the two-lane stretch, you don't know whether the middle lane is going to sprout from the left lane or the right lane.

I see it so often that I'm surprised that I can't put my finger on an example right now browsing on Google Maps, but when I next see one I will keep it in mind to share it with you!

[Conekicker]

It's quite simple. A sign showing 3 arrows which is placed where there are only 2 lanes has been wrongly located - it should be where there are 3 lanes.

[Ruperts Trooper]

It's not difficult for a sign to show how 2 lanes expands to three - and where each of those lanes goes next - so best placed before the 2>3 point.

[Conekicker]

It's not difficult for a sign to show how 2 lanes expands to three - and where each of those lanes goes next - so best placed before the 2>3 point.

You mean a sign that also quotes destinations? The forthcoming TSM 7 shows how to do that. Basically TSRGD S12-5-5 combined with S12-28-3 as appropriate.

Note to sign designers - ALL arrowheads should be ahead only and especially so when shared lanes are indicated. If you want to indicate that traffic in a certain lane may, for example, travel ahead or turn left, use a Diagram 877 (S11-2-22) and NEVER include destination text on such a sign.

[TS]

Yeah just to clarify, I wasn't talking about the signs which include destination words - just the arrows with the white lines signifying the lanes.

It seems to me that it would actually (as Rupert says) be useful to indicate where the lane gain is, at the two-lane stretch referring to the third lane occurring. I'm sure this is quite often seen on a motorway and it would be just as much use in a suburb.

I'm thinking of something like the right-hand image here, rather than the left. (Excuse the amateurishness of these - I've literally just whipped it up in Microsoft Paint in 2 minutes!):

[crazyknightsfan]

This is how we deal with the situation in Australia.

[sydneynick]

This is how we deal with the situation in Australia.

Not always. How are these two lanes going to split into three? https://goo.gl/maps/n3XcNp8qws62

[crazyknightsfan]

This is how we deal with the situation in Australia.

Not always. How are these two lanes going to split into three? https://goo.gl/maps/n3XcNp8qws62

This one belongs in the Botched Roadsigns thread
The lane split should be illustrated like this to comply with the standard.

[Ruperts Trooper]

This is how we deal with the situation in Australia.

Not always. How are these two lanes going to split into three? https://goo.gl/maps/n3XcNp8qws62

This one belongs in the Botched Roadsigns thread
The lane split should be illustrated like this to comply with the standard.

Everything needed on one sign - exactly what's needed.

[sydneynick]

This is how we deal with the situation in Australia.

Not always. How are these two lanes going to split into three? https://goo.gl/maps/n3XcNp8qws62

This one belongs in the Botched Roadsigns thread
The lane split should be illustrated like this to comply with the standard.

Absolutely agree with you. But that sign has been in place for at least 15 years to my knowledge.

(For the record, the two existing lanes become the left turn lanes and another lane splits off the right for traffic going ahead or to the right.)

[Bryn666]

It's not difficult for a sign to show how 2 lanes expands to three - and where each of those lanes goes next - so best placed before the 2>3 point.

You mean a sign that also quotes destinations? The forthcoming TSM 7 shows how to do that. Basically TSRGD S12-5-5 combined with S12-28-3 as appropriate.

Note to sign designers - ALL arrowheads should be ahead only and especially so when shared lanes are indicated. If you want to indicate that traffic in a certain lane may, for example, travel ahead or turn left, use a Diagram 877 (S11-2-22) and NEVER include destination text on such a sign.

If we didn't build gantries to look like nuclear bunkers we could probably use a lot more overhead signing at complex junctions. Eeee there's a thought...

[Chris Bertram]

It's not difficult for a sign to show how 2 lanes expands to three - and where each of those lanes goes next - so best placed before the 2>3 point.

You mean a sign that also quotes destinations? The forthcoming TSM 7 shows how to do that. Basically TSRGD S12-5-5 combined with S12-28-3 as appropriate.

Note to sign designers - ALL arrowheads should be ahead only and especially so when shared lanes are indicated. If you want to indicate that traffic in a certain lane may, for example, travel ahead or turn left, use a Diagram 877 (S11-2-22) and NEVER include destination text on such a sign.

If we didn't build gantries to look like nuclear bunkers we could probably use a lot more overhead signing at complex junctions. Eeee there's a thought...

Yeah, what is it with the compulsion to overengineer gantries? Our French friends get away with much more slender affairs and similar size sign boards, and I'm sure France isn't notably less windy than the UK.

[PhilC]

Well, I can't right now show you an example but I have seen several of these with three lanes marked, but the actual sign is positioned before the third lane is introduced. So you know that the left lane is for left/ahead, the middle one for ahead, and the right lane for right. But because you are reading the sign on the two-lane stretch, you don't know whether the middle lane is going to sprout from the left lane or the right lane.

Something like this one on the A38 approaching junction 4 of the M5?

https://goo.gl/maps/CjDQ6iRxKSt

At the roundabout itself the left hand lane splits into two. I presume the white bar beneath M5(S) is supposed to indicate the left hand lane is for A38(S) and A491, so this is where the additional lane will materialise.

As an aside, should the blue patches show M5(S) and M5(N) in brackets? The M5 is accessed directly from the roundabout.

[Bryn666]

You mean a sign that also quotes destinations? The forthcoming TSM 7 shows how to do that. Basically TSRGD S12-5-5 combined with S12-28-3 as appropriate.

Note to sign designers - ALL arrowheads should be ahead only and especially so when shared lanes are indicated. If you want to indicate that traffic in a certain lane may, for example, travel ahead or turn left, use a Diagram 877 (S11-2-22) and NEVER include destination text on such a sign.

If we didn't build gantries to look like nuclear bunkers we could probably use a lot more overhead signing at complex junctions. Eeee there's a thought...

Yeah, what is it with the compulsion to overengineer gantries? Our French friends get away with much more slender affairs and similar size sign boards, and I'm sure France isn't notably less windy than the UK.

I wish I knew because this alone accounts for the complete lack of any aesthetic value on motorways. The Irish manage: https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/ima ... _23327.JPG

[Bryn666]

One thing I noticed is the TSM also suggests single lane blocks on a shared lane go above grouped lanes, whereas personally I think underneath looks better (and uses a smaller sign area).

I'm not sure that the 'blocks below' approach is verboten of course due to the elements method of making a direction sign these days but there are going to be some inconsistencies on the network I think!

[TS]

Something like this one on the A38 approaching junction 4 of the M5?

https://goo.gl/maps/CjDQ6iRxKSt

At the roundabout itself the left hand lane splits into two. I presume the white bar beneath M5(S) is supposed to indicate the left hand lane is for A38(S) and A491, so this is where the additional lane will materialise.

As an aside, should the blue patches show M5(S) and M5(N) in brackets? The M5 is accessed directly from the roundabout.

Yes. That's exactly it. There is no definitive confirmation as to which of the two lanes you should be in, in order to arrive in the middle lane indicated. (Your example does help by having the two-lane panel, as you say, but not all of them are like this; some have the same road number repeated above each arrow rather than expanded across the two lanes.)

[AndyB]

The solution to me seems to be two lane indication signs - a two lane sign so you can be in the correct lane for the split, and then a second sign around the time of split to show you where to go from there.

[Johnathan404]

From an end-user perspective, signs like M42 J4 are the only acceptable way of dealing with this problem. (The left side only, the right side is an example the OP was looking for.)

[jimboLL]

Worse is the sign indicating the start of a bus lane, which always shows the bus lane taking the left-most lane of the carriageway.

On the A580 at various points approaching Salford the bus lane is actually an additional lane that appears on the nearside but given the standard sign, all the car traffic all moves needlessly to the offside lane. Dangerous and wasteful.

[Bryn666]

Worse is the sign indicating the start of a bus lane, which always shows the bus lane taking the left-most lane of the carriageway.

On the A580 at various points approaching Salford the bus lane is actually an additional lane that appears on the nearside but given the standard sign, all the car traffic all moves needlessly to the offside lane. Dangerous and wasteful.

The bus lane ahead signs shouldn't be used where they are likely to mislead; in this instance the provisions of TSM Ch. 3 Para 15.10 should apply in that the regulatory sign to Dia. 959 is used at the start of the bus lane but given it's an additional lane that you don't need to move out of the advance indication is presumably not necessary.