Risk of grounding sign

Discussion about street lighting, road signs, traffic signals - and all other street furniture - goes here.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
Alinberks
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 20:41

Risk of grounding sign

Post by Alinberks »

I'm trying how best to provide a warning sign for a minor rural road in my area that has along it's length a small ford with relatively steep inclined approach from both sides. Obviously it's a downward approach to a dip in the road. It's always been a bit of a problem, with even estate cars catching the front or rear ends and grinding their skirts as they make their way out as they cross through it, but with the increased number of shopping delivery vehicles using this road we're receiving more complaints now from the Tescos, Waitrose and other suppliers that their vans are getting damaged.

The road is already signed with an 'Unsuitable for HGVs', but these vans aren't really HGVs anyway so the drivers take no notice. There's a 'Ford' warning and again that isn't the issue as the thing is nothing more than a small stream even in the wettest of seasons. I've erected the 'Exclamation mark' warning sign to diag 562, but the only nearest best option for a subplate is the 'Hidden dip', which again isn't really indicating the hazard as that's really more for faster roads so drivers don't get caught out by approaching vehicles if they overtake.

The 'Risk of grounding' sign to diag 782 isn't right as that's for level crossings or humped bridges and anyway the diagram is wrong and if anything the hump needs to be inverted to get the message across. Any suggestions? ...or do we just tell the fleet managers for these delivery firms to get a higher ride height for their vans or avoid this road?

Submit something to DfT? :D ...that doesn't really give the message other than indicating that the local residents are getting massive stocks of quail's eggs or similar Waitrose goods...
Attachments
Grounding dip.jpg
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by WHBM »

As this is a presumably minor and thus narrow road, a warning is going to serve little purpose if there's no ability to turn round. Having said that, often with such vertical curvature changes the issue is going over too fast and the vehicle compresses on its suspension.

Can a 562 exclamation only have stipulated text on the supplementary plate ? I always thought the whole idea of it was to cater for "other" oddball hazards not covered by standard signs. What about "Dead Slow - risk of ground strike".
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by Conekicker »

Asking DfT their advice should be the first port of call, they may well have come across a similar situation before.
Got a Streetview link to send them or photos, possibly of an estate car/van stopped at the critical point(s) clearly showing the problem?
They might be able to suggest suitable text for a supplementary plate to go under a 562.

The other option is to reprofile the road over a length of 10-20m or so perhaps - which will obviously be massively more expensive than a couple of signs but would fix the problem.

The sign you show above is over complicated and doesn't really show the problem, compounded by the fact it's showing an HGV which you say is already signed away from this route. The car symbol might be more appropriate but surely the highway authority should first ensure the road is fit for purpose, which it sounds like it isn't.

Any new symbolic sign will need a worded supplementary plate to explain what the symbol means, as is standard practice.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by WHBM »

Surely the response to the grocery delivery companies is that, like all road users, they should use a vehicle that is appropriate to the road as it exists, and likely has done for generations. They all use professional routing software which allows a given road stretch to be marked as not to be used, and will send their drivers another way. If they know of the issue and damage arising now, there's no excuse for continuing to route that way.

Fords are pretty unusual nowadays, I recall when they were more common (and generally known as "the watersplash"), and so many drivers do not know how to negotiate them, or look at the water height gauge and know their own car's maximum. The only one I use from time to time, I note, has no signage at all

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0744262 ... 312!8i6656
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35714
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by Bryn666 »

Conekicker wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 07:39 Asking DfT their advice should be the first port of call, they may well have come across a similar situation before.
Got a Streetview link to send them or photos, possibly of an estate car/van stopped at the critical point(s) clearly showing the problem?
They might be able to suggest suitable text for a supplementary plate to go under a 562.

The other option is to reprofile the road over a length of 10-20m or so perhaps - which will obviously be massively more expensive than a couple of signs but would fix the problem.

The sign you show above is over complicated and doesn't really show the problem, compounded by the fact it's showing an HGV which you say is already signed away from this route. The car symbol might be more appropriate but surely the highway authority should first ensure the road is fit for purpose, which it sounds like it isn't.

Any new symbolic sign will need a worded supplementary plate to explain what the symbol means, as is standard practice.
Depending on the forward visibility I'd have thought a 562 with "Hidden dip" would be the fastest lawful way to deal with it?

We had a similar situation in Halifax where DfT were not very forthcoming with what to put on a plate for a double hairpin bend, so we ended up doing this: https://goo.gl/maps/Mm99x4jfdTufVCJv9

"It's a temporary sign... oh, we just forgot to remove it"; I did get a formal compliment from the local cyclist lobby for remembering to put bypasses for bikes down either side of the build outs mind. Helped drainage as well, no nib nobblers on'top o'th'moors thank you.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by jervi »

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.30220 ... 312!8i6656
I just so happened to find this the other day. A ford warning sign with a blue "unsuitable" sign varied to say "Unsuitable for Long vehicles", I presume that it may be able to be varied to "Unsuitable for vehicles over 12' 00" "or something.
The other option I could see is a length TRO for the ford.

I doubt the sign is warning drivers of anything other than the ford since it is signed after this pretty tight corner on the other end, so no artic should of made it this far. (ahead is here a no-through road)
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.30129 ... 312!8i6656
User avatar
Ruperts Trooper
Member
Posts: 12023
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 13:43
Location: Huntingdonshire originally, but now Staffordshire

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by Ruperts Trooper »

jervi wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:35 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.30220 ... 312!8i6656
I just so happened to find this the other day. A ford warning sign with a blue "unsuitable" sign varied to say "Unsuitable for Long vehicles", I presume that it may be able to be varied to "Unsuitable for vehicles over 12' 00" "or something.
The other option I could see is a length TRO for the ford.

I doubt the sign is warning drivers of anything other than the ford since it is signed after this pretty tight corner on the other end, so no artic should of made it this far. (ahead is here a no-through road)
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.30129 ... 312!8i6656
A length restriction would be too general - the hazard severity depends on the wheelbase and overhangs of the vehicle concerned - quoted and depicted for SUVs as approach/departure angles and ramp-over angle but not published for ordinary cars/vans.
Lifelong motorhead
Alinberks
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 20:41

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by Alinberks »

Ruperts Trooper wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:48A length restriction would be too general - the hazard severity depends on the wheelbase and overhangs of the vehicle concerned - quoted and depicted for SUVs as approach/departure angles and ramp-over angle but not published for ordinary cars/vans.
The location is here https://goo.gl/maps/UHHoRow7sUGZs25YA (the Streetview of the advance warning further up at the junction is from 2010, so not current). It's not like we live in a particularly hilly part of the world, which is probably partly why it's catching people out anyway and raising the complaints.. and although it's signed as a Ford it's nothing more than a watersplash, but it's the slight incline either side which is enough to even catch some longer wheelbase cars out..

Having seen the responses I'm tempted to just remove the 'Exclam' and subplate and in it's place erect a < cough > 'temporary' sign as per Brynn's example (white letters/red background) with a 'Risk of grounding' message underneath. The 'Hidden dip' plate is all that's permissible really per TSRGD but it's not right for this location.

Re-profiling the approach banks is never going to happen either in this backwater location due to costs... Thanks chaps...

(My mocked up Waitrose artic sign was tongue in cheek)
User avatar
Gareth
Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 19:16
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by Gareth »

You missed the "****!" speech bubble emminating from the cab window.
darkcape
Member
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 14:54

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by darkcape »

I had a similar situation on a site where an awful vertical alignment meant that vehicles were scraping along the ground due to the change in gradients. A dia 556 "uneven road ahead" was placed on the approaches. I think eventually they were removed and "unsuitable for long vehicle" blue plates installed at either end of the road.
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
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35714
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by Bryn666 »

Alinberks wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 14:43
Ruperts Trooper wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:48A length restriction would be too general - the hazard severity depends on the wheelbase and overhangs of the vehicle concerned - quoted and depicted for SUVs as approach/departure angles and ramp-over angle but not published for ordinary cars/vans.
The location is here https://goo.gl/maps/UHHoRow7sUGZs25YA (the Streetview of the advance warning further up at the junction is from 2010, so not current). It's not like we live in a particularly hilly part of the world, which is probably partly why it's catching people out anyway and raising the complaints.. and although it's signed as a Ford it's nothing more than a watersplash, but it's the slight incline either side which is enough to even catch some longer wheelbase cars out..

Having seen the responses I'm tempted to just remove the 'Exclam' and subplate and in it's place erect a < cough > 'temporary' sign as per Brynn's example (white letters/red background) with a 'Risk of grounding' message underneath. The 'Hidden dip' plate is all that's permissible really per TSRGD but it's not right for this location.

Re-profiling the approach banks is never going to happen either in this backwater location due to costs... Thanks chaps...

(My mocked up Waitrose artic sign was tongue in cheek)
My longer term question would be, given the presence of nearby better quality roads, why are people using Ash Lane except to access property in the first place and could some kind of access restriction be feasibly imposed. Doesn't help the numpty in his Waitrose van getting stuck I guess.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
SteelCamel
Member
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by SteelCamel »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 16:03 My longer term question would be, given the presence of nearby better quality roads, why are people using Ash Lane except to access property in the first place and could some kind of access restriction be feasibly imposed. Doesn't help the numpty in his Waitrose van getting stuck I guess.
Having looked at the map, I'm inclined to agree - it's easy enough to go round. I'd be inclined to put "unsuitable for motors" signs each side of the ford, and no through road signs at each end of Ash Lane. This then doesn't block locals who presumably know if they can safely cross the ford or not, but the Waitrose drivers can just be reminded they passed a sign warning them it was unsuitable.
Alinberks
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 20:41

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by Alinberks »

Meeting being held tomorrow, with I suspect an immediate recommendation for a TTRO to close the road as there were another two vans trapped there this weekend.... with one needing recovery assistance to drag itself out from the position as I suspect the driver had approached with just 'a little bit too much speed' and was pretty much left suspended with the wheels dangling... There aren't any properties on the length of Ash Lane to the north side of the watersplash, so no need for through traffic to use it. We just need to confirm how the bin lorry services the properties on the south side as there's no turning point. Attached photos give an idea of the gradient change over a very short distance. All not helped by the fact that the little brook running through it has worn the metalled surface and there's a couple of very large potholes midstream...
ash lane 01.jpg
ash lane 02.jpg
I suspect our Highways Maintenance team is going to have to bite the bullet and get the road re-profiled after 15+ years of complaints when this was always filed under the 'Too Difficult & Too Expensive Minor Problem' tray
SteelCamel wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 23:03 I'd be inclined to put "unsuitable for motors" signs each side of the ford, and no through road signs at each end of Ash Lane. This then doesn't block locals who presumably know if they can safely cross the ford or not, but the Waitrose drivers can just be reminded they passed a sign warning them it was unsuitable.
I'll put that forward as a suggestion. Farm traffic is fine, as is local traffic with a 'proper' 4x4 vehicle
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by Conekicker »

Alternatively, drop a large box culvert in and do away with the ford. There's a risk it might overtop in heavy rain but it will solve the grounding problem - and the culvert will need cleaning out every so often. Not cheap but an option to consider, however briefly?

Difficult to be certain from the Streetview imagery but the stream either side of the ford doesn't look like it's had any maintenance done to it for many years.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11036
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by AndyB »

I would have to agree. Looking at that would make you wonder why they didn’t culvert the whole thing when they put the footway over the water splash.

I can’t help thinking that the cheapest option could be a turning head for the bin lorry at the top of the hill if there is room plus bollards, and widen the footway to permit NMUs.
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11155
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: Risk of grounding sign

Post by c2R »

yes, extending the culverts would seem the best solution here.... Or maybe gate it so that it really discourages through traffic but still allows agricultural machinery to go through.
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