Chris584 wrote:In the republic of Ireland they do have a sign with red circle and black arrow pointing up on a white background which confusingly, to me anyway, mean don't go straight on.
Didn't the Irish also use the red circle with arrow and no bar?
Im sure I remember seeing that in roundabouts, if so that would fit with the Irish being too early implementers of the international convention
DfT did studies on the no cycling and no pedestrian signs, 96% understand them without a bar, and 97% understand them with a bar.
Is it therefore worth spending millions and millions replacing every sign to have a bar, or should we just have some more PIFs, more driver training, and actually bother educating people?
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:15
DfT did studies on the no cycling and no pedestrian signs, 96% understand them without a bar, and 97% understand them with a bar.
Is it therefore worth spending millions and millions replacing every sign to have a bar, or should we just have some more PIFs, more driver training, and actually bother educating people?
That's good, I'm pleasantly surprised it's as high as that. As long as they were including non-drivers in their survey sample, if the recognition is that good then there's absolutely no need to change. Although you have to wonder what the 3% of people who didn't understand the signs even with the bar thought they meant
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:15
DfT did studies on the no cycling and no pedestrian signs, 96% understand them without a bar, and 97% understand them with a bar.
Is it therefore worth spending millions and millions replacing every sign to have a bar, or should we just have some more PIFs, more driver training, and actually bother educating people?
That's good, I'm pleasantly surprised it's as high as that. As long as they were including non-drivers in their survey sample, if the recognition is that good then there's absolutely no need to change. Although you have to wonder what the 3% of people who didn't understand the signs even with the bar thought they meant
I would imagine that is your same 3% that think 5G causes Covid, etc. The technical term is "morons".
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:15
DfT did studies on the no cycling and no pedestrian signs, 96% understand them without a bar, and 97% understand them with a bar.
Is it therefore worth spending millions and millions replacing every sign to have a bar, or should we just have some more PIFs, more driver training, and actually bother educating people?
Of course, knowledge is only one hurdle - compliance is another. No-one to whom speed limit signs apply can realistically claim they don't know what they mean, after all.
"No pedestrians" signs tend to occur in places where pedestrians are unlikely to want to go, such as sliproads to motorways and urban underpasses. They basically reinforce what the road layout is telling people anyway. "No cycling" signs tend to occur in precisely those places where people do want to cycle, such as cut-throughs on estates where it's a long way round by car. They are contradicting what the road layout is telling users - there's a path, without steps, with a good surface, which goes where I want to go on a bike. This may explain the difference in compliance between the two.
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!
Getting back to the original post, we have No NO RIGHT TURNS in Wolverhampton and No No Slow Vehicles in Northampton, buth of which have been posted before.
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.
Big L wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 21:02No No Slow Vehicles in Northampton, buth of which have been posted before.
I imagine this will have been asked and responded to in depth previously, but I wonder why the need to ban those incapable of going above 25mph, but not introduce a minimum speed limit?
Big L wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 21:02No No Slow Vehicles in Northampton, buth of which have been posted before.
I imagine this will have been asked and responded to in depth previously, but I wonder why the need to ban those incapable of going above 25mph, but not introduce a minimum speed limit?
Because a minimum speed limit is translated by morons as something to carry on doing even if there's a traffic jam in front. Minimum speed limits are arguably the most pointless invention ever as they cannot be adhered to over half of the situations you are likely to encounter when driving.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 16:19
Because a minimum speed limit is translated by morons as something to carry on doing even if there's a traffic jam in front. Minimum speed limits are arguably the most pointless invention ever as they cannot be adhered to over half of the situations you are likely to encounter when driving.
I much prefer the US prohibition of "Vehicles INCAPABLE of 55 mph".
Big L wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 21:02No No Slow Vehicles in Northampton, buth of which have been posted before.
I imagine this will have been asked and responded to in depth previously, but I wonder why the need to ban those incapable of going above 25mph, but not introduce a minimum speed limit?
Because a minimum speed limit is translated by morons as something to carry on doing even if there's a traffic jam in front. Minimum speed limits are arguably the most pointless invention ever as they cannot be adhered to over half of the situations you are likely to encounter when driving.
Could have a minimum speed limit for a short distance, maybe with the end of restriction just out of sight by the end of the slip road. Similar to this bus gate. I don't like written signs even less so when there is need for a supplementary explanation.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
traffic-light-man wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 16:09I imagine this will have been asked and responded to in depth previously, but I wonder why the need to ban those incapable of going above 25mph, but not introduce a minimum speed limit?
Because a minimum speed limit is translated by morons as something to carry on doing even if there's a traffic jam in front. Minimum speed limits are arguably the most pointless invention ever as they cannot be adhered to over half of the situations you are likely to encounter when driving.
Ah yes, a subtlety that makes quite the difference!
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 16:19Minimum speed limits are arguably the most pointless invention ever as they cannot be adhered to over half of the situations you are likely to encounter when driving.
Especially when the minimum limits are really low, like 10mph. I can't think of any situation in which someone would choose to drive through the Dartford Tunnel at <10mph unless they were intent on causing trouble, in which case a minimum speed limit isn't going to stop them.
A303Chris wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 13:54
That is more the way it is shown on the continent and personally a red line is defiantly clearer for people to understand
Especially in that example because there is no requirement for pedestrians to have any knowledge of the highway code. But there is an argument for the introduction of the red diagonal to make the intention of more signs clearer.
Not knowing the law is never an excuse to breaking the law.
So unless you are under the age of criminal liability there is a requirement for pedestrians to understand, and even if someone is under the age of criminal liability it kinda falls on their parent/guardian to ensure they know what they can and cannot do / be there to stop them from doing something they shouldn't do.
At times one can have a valid excuse for not knowing the law.
During the fuel crisis of 1973, the South African Government dramatically reduced speed limits across the country with 24 hours notice and draconian penalties for breaking the laws. One of the girls who lived in the house that I was sharing had made a one week trip to Botswana and came back to South Africa via a little-used border post. They had not seen any newspapers or heard any news broadcasts during the previous week and wondered why everybody was driving so slowly. Fortunately they were not stopped, but if they were,I suspect that they could have made the case that if the law is changed, then the government has an obligation to inform everybody of the changes, and in their case, this would have included notices at all border posts.