Height signs botched?

[Skipsy]

I could be wrong, but aren't these signs the wrong way around?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.41220 ... 6656?hl=en (referring to the triangular height warning signs mounted on the bridge itself)
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.41085 ... 8192?hl=en
Surely the circular sign should be placed at the bridge rather than where it is and the triangular signs in its place instead?

Meanwhile, aren't new road signs supposed to show metric AND imperial measurements?
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.397129, ... 384!8i8192

[jervi]

not 100% sure, but I believe that a roundel high limit cannot be used on an arch bridge, only a warning sign. So the signs on the bridge and the approach to the bridge are correct. Normally height warning signs on a structure within a lit area should be lit, however in this case there is a lit sign beside it that I would assume to be sufficient.
The height limit sign is okay if there is a TRO, however by looking at the other adjoining roads, it doesn't look like there is. Also it seems fairly new, so should be in dual units, and doesn't exclude access.

And the one on the A24 should be in both units as you say.

[Vierwielen]

not 100% sure, but I believe that a roundel high limit cannot be used on an arch bridge, only a warning sign. So the signs on the bridge and the approach to the bridge are correct. Normally height warning signs on a structure within a lit area should be lit, however in this case there is a lit sign beside it that I would assume to be sufficient.
The height limit sign is okay if there is a TRO, however by looking at the other adjoining roads, it doesn't look like there is. Also it seems fairly new, so should be in dual units, and doesn't exclude access.

And the one on the A24 should be in both units as you say.

Sounds sensible - a roundel is a prohibition and probably requires a legal notice to be published whereas a triangle is only a warning (which can be changed if the road is raised by a few centimeters after routine roadworks.

[Nathan_A_RF]

For arch bridges, the current regulations state that triangular signs must be used as the height varies across the width of the road; circular signs are used on beam bridges (consistent height limit across road). The correct average layout can be seen in TSM Chapter 4 page 44

All new/replacement width, length and height signs since 2016 should be in both imperial and metric units, so that last example is wrong (it has been there pre 2016 though so was still wrong then I believe)

[Bfivethousand]

The Lower Downs Road roundel is entirely wrong (as is the ARCH BRIDGE plate underneath the triangular signs - there is a prescribed design for that plate). As stated previously, a roundel sign should not be used on or in advance of an arch bridge. Furthermore this roundel sign is effectively preventing any vehicle exceeding the stated height from passing that sign without exception so anyone in Lower Downs Road wanting their bins collected, a sofa delivered or a fire putting out is legally pretty much stuffed.

These signs do not require a TRO and new or replacement installations should routinely show imperial and metric measurements.

[traffic-light-man]

I have a query unrelated to those specific examples that I'm sure can be answered by some here!

If you have an arch bridge that is suffering with vehicle strikes from high vehicles for whatever reason, could you legitimately apply a TRO covering the length of the road that includes the bridge in order to impose a height limit, and then sign it as you would with a weight, width and length regulation (i.e., signs at the start of the prohibition, rather than at the bridge itself)? Of course, this would allow the bridge to be signed conventionally, the prohibition being an addition rather than a replacement.