Signage Rethinks

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

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11036
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by AndyB »

Bomag wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 15:53 After being away having a relaxing time I have found this still going on.

As a 'primary' destination London should not be used outside of the M25 approaches on ADS. It wastes a primary destination, or requires signs to be overloaded. London (and other distant destinations) can be used on route confirmation signs and it is perfectly acceptable to put London (or parts of London, East City, etc) on secondary signs saying, for example 'For London E and City use M11, For London N and W use A1(M)'. Please note the discussion point is about 'primary' destinations and signing policy, some of the comments have conflated regional and target destinations on ADS with 'primary' destinations.

When used on RCS by convention its the distance to Charing X so there is no confusion as to what 'London' refers to.

There is a solution for those who, as an article of faith, disagree with this; after obtaining the relevant professional qualifications and industry involvement become the next Grade 7 as head of DfT Signs team.
The problem is that the alternative to using London as a primary destination outside the M25 is to overload signs.

At Crawley, for example, Croydon may be the next forward primary destination, but if you are going anywhere other than Croydon itself or central London, it is extremely unhelpful, because you need to leave the road before you reach Croydon, and therefore you need to sign at least three primary destinations - Croydon, and the next primary destinations going east and west on the M25.

It’s well established that the distance to London is that to Charing Cross, but that’s not helpful in a discussion about how you should sign people towards London once you reach the last non-London primary destination.

It’s all about context, and the context here is strategic destinations. Croydon is a primary destination, yes, but only relative to non-primary destinations in that corner of London. It should not be interpreted as a strategic destination.

Therefore, inside the M25, use the primary destinations within Greater London. Outside it, if the alternative is a local primary destination, use “London” unless disambiguation with compass points is appropriate. No signage overload, and no making Croydon the centre of the universe.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by RichardA35 »

Conekicker wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 11:01
Bomag wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 15:53 There is a solution for those who, as an article of faith, disagree with this; after obtaining the relevant professional qualifications and industry involvement become the next Grade 7 as head of DfT Signs team.
...which given the age of the current incumbent, will give prospective candidates plenty of time to gain said qualifications, etc. :twisted:
Last time I had dealings it was nearly 20 years ago with a very nice lady whose name I have forgotten but we arranged logically a lot of stacked signage on gantries and removed the unnecessary London Orbital designation on the RCS on the scheme we were working on. I suppose she has moved on since then...
Bomag
Member
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bomag »

AndyB wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 16:34
Bomag wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 15:53 After being away having a relaxing time I have found this still going on.

As a 'primary' destination London should not be used outside of the M25 approaches on ADS. It wastes a primary destination, or requires signs to be overloaded. London (and other distant destinations) can be used on route confirmation signs and it is perfectly acceptable to put London (or parts of London, East City, etc) on secondary signs saying, for example 'For London E and City use M11, For London N and W use A1(M)'. Please note the discussion point is about 'primary' destinations and signing policy, some of the comments have conflated regional and target destinations on ADS with 'primary' destinations.

When used on RCS by convention its the distance to Charing X so there is no confusion as to what 'London' refers to.

There is a solution for those who, as an article of faith, disagree with this; after obtaining the relevant professional qualifications and industry involvement become the next Grade 7 as head of DfT Signs team.
The problem is that the alternative to using London as a primary destination outside the M25 is to overload signs.

At Crawley, for example, Croydon may be the next forward primary destination, but if you are going anywhere other than Croydon itself or central London, it is extremely unhelpful, because you need to leave the road before you reach Croydon, and therefore you need to sign at least three primary destinations - Croydon, and the next primary destinations going east and west on the M25.

It’s well established that the distance to London is that to Charing Cross, but that’s not helpful in a discussion about how you should sign people towards London once you reach the last non-London primary destination.

It’s all about context, and the context here is strategic destinations. Croydon is a primary destination, yes, but only relative to non-primary destinations in that corner of London. It should not be interpreted as a strategic destination.

Therefore, inside the M25, use the primary destinations within Greater London. Outside it, if the alternative is a local primary destination, use “London” unless disambiguation with compass points is appropriate. No signage overload, and no making Croydon the centre of the universe.
Your policy would still get the majority of traffic going to 'London', which could be Enfield or Ruislip, using the M23 when it should be using the M25 and the the most relevant radial route. There is a good argument for identifying, on secondary signs, which routes to take for which parts of London on the approach to decision points, but not on ADS.
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11036
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by AndyB »

I think you’ve misunderstood what I wrote.

At the M25 junction, as I said, you need disambiguation so that traffic doesn’t go to Enfield and Ruislip via Croydon. Easiest way to do that? Straight on, London (S) M23. Right, Dartford crossing and London (E) M25. Left, Heathrow Airport and London (W) M25. Two lines in each direction.

Back to Crawley. Next primary destination on the M23 is Croydon, but if you sign Croydon and Heathrow Airport, you also need to sign the first primary destination reached via the M25 in either direction because the split between primary routes is before the signed destination . 4 lines or 2 lines plus (M25), information overload or easily understood, your choice.

My best guess is that the change to the Chapter 2 list simply hasn’t been thought through. It isn’t credible that the policy intention was to prevent the erection of signs to a strategic destination to which the Greater London primary destinations should logically be subsidiary.
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Conekicker »

RichardA35 wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 17:03
Conekicker wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 11:01
Bomag wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 15:53 There is a solution for those who, as an article of faith, disagree with this; after obtaining the relevant professional qualifications and industry involvement become the next Grade 7 as head of DfT Signs team.
...which given the age of the current incumbent, will give prospective candidates plenty of time to gain said qualifications, etc. :twisted:
Last time I had dealings it was nearly 20 years ago with a very nice lady whose name I have forgotten but we arranged logically a lot of stacked signage on gantries and removed the unnecessary London Orbital designation on the RCS on the scheme we were working on. I suppose she has moved on since then...
She took a very well earned early retirement/voluntary redundancy several years ago. Much missed, she was one of the good ones.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
hemsl
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 19:46

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by hemsl »

AndyB wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 17:45 I think you’ve misunderstood what I wrote.
What you wrote was clear, but for some reason your simple and logical point (which others have made) keeps getting misinterpreted when it is critiqued.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Chris5156 »

hemsl wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 20:07
AndyB wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 17:45 I think you’ve misunderstood what I wrote.
What you wrote was clear, but for some reason your simple and logical point (which others have made) keeps getting misinterpreted when it is critiqued.
Agreed, it made complete sense to me, but the reply suggested a misunderstanding.

Nobody here is suggesting that London should be used on signs at or within the M25. But I’ll save further discussion because only grade 7 civil servants holding the DfT signage policy brief may hold or express an opinion on the matter.
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11036
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by AndyB »

I could try it more simply:

Outside the M25:
Unless you are at a decision point where the preferred route to your Greater London primary destination is not to continue to where your road meets the M25, sign forward as "London"

At the M25:
Sign London with compass points and central as first destination, and the first relevant Greater London primary destination as second destination (reversed on RCS)

Inside the M25:
Given that all strategic traffic will have taken the M25, sign Greater London primary destinations, including Central London.

Obviously, this clashes with the Chapter 2 primary destinations list guidance, because the target destination is strictly speaking Central London, but to post this on an ADS at Crawley would cause confusion when all areas of London are straight on.
Bomag
Member
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bomag »

AndyB wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 17:45 I think you’ve misunderstood what I wrote.

At the M25 junction, as I said, you need disambiguation so that traffic doesn’t go to Enfield and Ruislip via Croydon. Easiest way to do that? Straight on, London (S) M23. Right, Dartford crossing and London (E) M25. Left, Heathrow Airport and London (W) M25. Two lines in each direction.

Back to Crawley. Next primary destination on the M23 is Croydon, but if you sign Croydon and Heathrow Airport, you also need to sign the first primary destination reached via the M25 in either direction because the split between primary routes is before the signed destination . 4 lines or 2 lines plus (M25), information overload or easily understood, your choice.

My best guess is that the change to the Chapter 2 list simply hasn’t been thought through. It isn’t credible that the policy intention was to prevent the erection of signs to a strategic destination to which the Greater London primary destinations should logically be subsidiary.
Signing policy is if you use 'London S' as a primary ahead destination you have to keep on signing it on ADS until you reach the destination or its signed as an 'off' destination. While for some radial routes it is perfectly acceptable to sign London all the way to the centre, the A23 isn't really one of them.
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11036
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by AndyB »

No. If you use London (with or without compass points) as a target primary ahead destination and you cross the M25, you have reached your target destination, and you can then start signing for Central London and other London primary destinations.

Same as in any town or city in the United Kingdom. When you cross the outer boundary of what is known as Newtownards, you stop signing for Newtownards and you sign for "Town centre" or "Belfast" as target primary ahead destinations.
User avatar
MotorwayGuy
Member
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 15:37
Location: S.E. London

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by MotorwayGuy »

We could always sign it like this!
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35714
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bryn666 »

Chris5156 wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:06
hemsl wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 20:07
AndyB wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 17:45 I think you’ve misunderstood what I wrote.
What you wrote was clear, but for some reason your simple and logical point (which others have made) keeps getting misinterpreted when it is critiqued.
Agreed, it made complete sense to me, but the reply suggested a misunderstanding.

Nobody here is suggesting that London should be used on signs at or within the M25. But I’ll save further discussion because only grade 7 civil servants holding the DfT signage policy brief may hold or express an opinion on the matter.
And this is exactly why the Daily Mail and numerous politicians say we have had enough of experts.

If your defence of a poor policy amounts to "well we're the experts shut up", it's time to rethink many life choices.

There was a time when I'd have happily climbed the ladder to make policy but given the crap thought processes I'd have to work with, why bother?

In fact why should anyone bother doing anything on English roads? The only function of the highways industry today is to line the pockets of developers by trashing the network at every opportunity with "access points" designed by people who shouldn't be allowed to design their own dinner let alone strategic highways.
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
Bomag
Member
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bomag »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 13:17
Chris5156 wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:06
hemsl wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 20:07

What you wrote was clear, but for some reason your simple and logical point (which others have made) keeps getting misinterpreted when it is critiqued.
Agreed, it made complete sense to me, but the reply suggested a misunderstanding.

Nobody here is suggesting that London should be used on signs at or within the M25. But I’ll save further discussion because only grade 7 civil servants holding the DfT signage policy brief may hold or express an opinion on the matter.
And this is exactly why the Daily Mail and numerous politicians say we have had enough of experts.

If your defence of a poor policy amounts to "well we're the experts shut up", it's time to rethink many life choices.

There was a time when I'd have happily climbed the ladder to make policy but given the crap thought processes I'd have to work with, why bother?

In fact why should anyone bother doing anything on English roads? The only function of the highways industry today is to line the pockets of developers by trashing the network at every opportunity with "access points" designed by people who shouldn't be allowed to design their own dinner let alone strategic highways.
The defence of the policy is that the current widespread use of 'London' is ineffective and a poor way finding option given the change in network capacity and occupancy from the late 1980's onwards. The example of the start of the M2 from the A299 (see previous link) is a classic; Maidstone, Sheerness, the M25, Dartford Crossing and the Medway towns should all have been ahead of the unlawful 'LONDON'.

This was known in the 1990's when London PRS reduced its use and started to use other options to improve way finding within London and to reduce mileage travelling across central London. If London (or more accurately Greater London) and/or the South East were adopted as a regional destinations then it would be much easier to manage, but this does not excuse the ongoing mis-use of London as a primary destination on ADS. As one of the previous posts illustrates (by conflating 'London' with 'Greater London') there is no agreed understanding of what it means. 'London' is still an acceptable directional indicator for radial routes where there is no direct primary destination between the sign and London and the traffic to off-route primary destinations is not significant. The A24 inbound at Ewell would probably be a good example (no pun intended).

The size of London does not mean that primary destination sign rules don't apply, it means that the properly applying them should make it less complicated than it is. I am not a fan on 'naked' roads - it assumes connectivity is ubiquitous (and more reliable than it will be for many years) - but it is the only was this will be resolved. Until then its a case of not making it worse.

You are quite right that policy making for traffic signs is a thankless task, you get all sorts of people arguing the toss. You never got this when writing bridge standards.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by RichardA35 »

Bomag wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 17:00
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 13:17
Chris5156 wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:06

Agreed, it made complete sense to me, but the reply suggested a misunderstanding.

Nobody here is suggesting that London should be used on signs at or within the M25. But I’ll save further discussion because only grade 7 civil servants holding the DfT signage policy brief may hold or express an opinion on the matter.
And this is exactly why the Daily Mail and numerous politicians say we have had enough of experts.

If your defence of a poor policy amounts to "well we're the experts shut up", it's time to rethink many life choices.

There was a time when I'd have happily climbed the ladder to make policy but given the crap thought processes I'd have to work with, why bother?

In fact why should anyone bother doing anything on English roads? The only function of the highways industry today is to line the pockets of developers by trashing the network at every opportunity with "access points" designed by people who shouldn't be allowed to design their own dinner let alone strategic highways.
The defence of the policy is that the current widespread use of 'London' is ineffective and a poor way finding option given the change in network capacity and occupancy from the late 1980's onwards. The example of the start of the M2 from the A299 (see previous link) is a classic; Maidstone, Sheerness, the M25, Dartford Crossing and the Medway towns should all have been ahead of the unlawful 'LONDON'.

This was known in the 1990's when London PRS reduced its use and started to use other options to improve way finding within London and to reduce mileage travelling across central London. If London (or more accurately Greater London) and/or the South East were adopted as a regional destinations then it would be much easier to manage, but this does not excuse the ongoing mis-use of London as a primary destination on ADS. As one of the previous posts illustrates (by conflating 'London' with 'Greater London') there is no agreed understanding of what it means. 'London' is still an acceptable directional indicator for radial routes where there is no direct primary destination between the sign and London and the traffic to off-route primary destinations is not significant. The A24 inbound at Ewell would probably be a good example (no pun intended).

The size of London does not mean that primary destination sign rules don't apply, it means that the properly applying them should make it less complicated than it is. I am not a fan on 'naked' roads - it assumes connectivity is ubiquitous (and more reliable than it will be for many years) - but it is the only was this will be resolved. Until then its a case of not making it worse.

You are quite right that policy making for traffic signs is a thankless task, you get all sorts of people arguing the toss. You never got this when writing bridge standards.
I do agree - those that choose to criticise negatively when they might have the ability to contribute or the chance to effect change from within the industry are really becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Looking at it rationally and a quick canter down the M1, if I am interpreting correctly, I do agree there is no need for London at M1 J20 when it is within "THE SOUTH" , but by J15 we are nearly within the South East Region and presumably there is no regional destination suitable. It's these sections mentioned outside the M25 when "London or somewhere within its environs" is the target but there appears to be no suitable replacement beyond "(M25)".
I suppose it is unlikely there will be a budget for wholesale resigning of trunk routes outside improvement projects, but it would be nice to know that the plans to execute the strategy in the IAN would be ready for implementation in a standalone project or as replacements/renewals that come along from time to time. From the time since the draft IAN first appeared to now, I am guessing that there is some blockage within DfT/NH that needs convincing of the case?
Thesouth.jpg
MK.jpg
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11036
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by AndyB »

Bomag wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 17:00
Bryn666 wrote:
Chris5156 wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:06 Agreed, it made complete sense to me, but the reply suggested a misunderstanding.

Nobody here is suggesting that London should be used on signs at or within the M25. But I’ll save further discussion because only grade 7 civil servants holding the DfT signage policy brief may hold or express an opinion on the matter.
And this is exactly why the Daily Mail and numerous politicians say we have had enough of experts.

If your defence of a poor policy amounts to "well we're the experts shut up", it's time to rethink many life choices.

There was a time when I'd have happily climbed the ladder to make policy but given the crap thought processes I'd have to work with, why bother?

In fact why should anyone bother doing anything on English roads? The only function of the highways industry today is to line the pockets of developers by trashing the network at every opportunity with "access points" designed by people who shouldn't be allowed to design their own dinner let alone strategic highways.
The defence of the policy is that the current widespread use of 'London' is ineffective and a poor way finding option given the change in network capacity and occupancy from the late 1980's onwards. The example of the start of the M2 from the A299 (see previous link) is a classic; Maidstone, Sheerness, the M25, Dartford Crossing and the Medway towns should all have been ahead of the unlawful 'LONDON'.

This was known in the 1990's when London PRS reduced its use and started to use other options to improve way finding within London and to reduce mileage travelling across central London. If London (or more accurately Greater London) and/or the South East were adopted as a regional destinations then it would be much easier to manage, but this does not excuse the ongoing mis-use of London as a primary destination on ADS. As one of the previous posts illustrates (by conflating 'London' with 'Greater London') there is no agreed understanding of what it means. 'London' is still an acceptable directional indicator for radial routes where there is no direct primary destination between the sign and London and the traffic to off-route primary destinations is not significant. The A24 inbound at Ewell would probably be a good example (no pun intended).

The size of London does not mean that primary destination sign rules don't apply, it means that the properly applying them should make it less complicated than it is. I am not a fan on 'naked' roads - it assumes connectivity is ubiquitous (and more reliable than it will be for many years) - but it is the only was this will be resolved. Until then its a case of not making it worse.

You are quite right that policy making for traffic signs is a thankless task, you get all sorts of people arguing the toss. You never got this when writing bridge standards.
Actually, it isn’t unlawful to use LONDON as a regional destination, because the regional and primary destinations are specified in guidance (which the Traffic Signs Manual is), not in legislation.

However, I don’t think it should be a regional destination either. I thinking London should be a normal target primary destination for use outside the Greater London area only. As soon as you cross the GLA boundary, you reach London, and the new target primary destination becomes an appropriate Greater London primary destination such as Central London.

Actually, to bring this back to the official list.

Approaching London, we are told that the only authorised Greater London PD for use outside the M25 is Heathrow Airport. At Crawley we have exhausted authorised PDs. Oh dear, we’ll have to use a local destination for our target, how about London? Perfect.

Anyway.

For the M2 example, London as a primary destination first, then Maidstone and the first Medway town. No more, no less. Simple to understand.

The problem which has to be recognised is that if you use an internal London primary destination such as Croydon as your target destination, is that you do not want traffic that is not for Croydon or Central London to go through Croydon. Erecting a sign saying “Croydon” as a target primary destination is at best misleading, because the target destination of which Croydon is part is London.

Also, the Greater London Primary Destinations are unhelpful, because they impose a knowledge of London entirely unnecessary for someone driving round it. Ok, I’m at Crawley, the sign here is for Croydon. Didn’t they make that up for Only Fools and Horses, or was that Peckham? Another reason only to use Greater London PDs only as specified in the Appendix 2, in other words within the M25 only unless you absolutely have to.

Why “London” when what is meant is “Greater London”? Well, how do you sign Manchester from Preston? Greater Manchester, or just plain Manchester?

The answer is obvious - it’s just plain Manchester, so therefore plain London. Simplest message in the fewest words, use London as the target PD until you reach the GLA boundary or the M25, and then change to Central London and points in between.

TL;DR it is far worse to use Greater London PDs outside the M25 than to use a Primary Destination which is no longer on the official list but is at least easily intelligible to a non-local.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Chris5156 »

Bomag wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 17:00The defence of the policy is that the current widespread use of 'London' is ineffective and a poor way finding option given the change in network capacity and occupancy from the late 1980's onwards. The example of the start of the M2 from the A299 (see previous link) is a classic; Maidstone, Sheerness, the M25, Dartford Crossing and the Medway towns should all have been ahead of the unlawful 'LONDON'.
In fairness to the sign at the start of the M2, at the time it was erected, "LONDON" was an approved regional destination on a par with The NORTH and The SOUTH. It would therefore have been correct and appropriate in its day. It's now a bit of a relic.
RichardA35 wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 17:46Looking at it rationally and a quick canter down the M1, if I am interpreting correctly, I do agree there is no need for London at M1 J20 when it is within "THE SOUTH" , but by J15 we are nearly within the South East Region and presumably there is no regional destination suitable. It's these sections mentioned outside the M25 when "London or somewhere within its environs" is the target but there appears to be no suitable replacement beyond "(M25)".
This is the key issue and the one to which there seems to be no adequate solution. The deletion of "LONDON" as a regional destination several decades ago is reasonable, but coupled with the advice not to use "London" either, we are left with a gap.
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11036
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by AndyB »

That's the reason for my proposal that London should be a normal target PD once you reach the last regional destination (The SOUTH), which addresses Richard's point. The reason why a normal target rather than regional is that you can use compass points with normal targets.

Solution:
1. Move Heathrow Airport to the South East list
2. Add London to the South East list
3. Change the note for Greater London to read "NB These destinations are normally only signed within the bounds of the M25"
4. Add a note to the South East list to read "NB London should only be used as a target primary destination, and must not be used within the bounds of the M25"

Heathrow can therefore be signed from anywhere, and London can only be signed from outside London.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35714
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by Bryn666 »

I will return to the simple point that is being missed. We are all going round in circles but frankly what we are doing is ignoring people unfamiliar with the UK's roads, e.g. all those European hauliers, holidaymakers, etc, the people that signs are meant to be designed for. Locals know where they are going, so all these parochial destinations don't help anyone.

How does the current direction sign strategy assist someone without a map or sat-nav? That should be the fundamental starting point. All these assumptions that everyone has live travel info beamed into their car is wrong, signs need to apply the KISS principle or there's no point having them.

Here is a classic example of absolutely wrong and misleading signage on the M6 at J29 that shows no-one who is being asked to provide signs is capable of following (or seemingly understanding) what is required of them:

1 mile: https://goo.gl/maps/u1uWDxpMZLTk4jMi6
1/2 mile: https://goo.gl/maps/EftkFDSTYJBACFnY7
Slip road ADS: https://goo.gl/maps/vCNfzEJrYLkueVSKA

First off, you have just passed M6 J30, which is for the M61 and connects directly to the M65 towards Burnley and Blackburn (it is even signed as such: https://goo.gl/maps/h2AZFHZM5oyt4Ure7) so there is absolutely no reason anyone would be looking for the M65 at this location. That's before you consider the fact that M6 J29 doesn't connect directly to the M65 at all from the north, you have to first cross the A6.

The A6 here is of mere local importance, it connects to Walton Summit, which is a massive employment centre, with numerous distribution warehouses and high HGV flows. Unless you want to do a circuitous route following the Walton Summit Motorway the direct route from the M6 to Walton Summit is to come off at J29. There isn't a single sign, indeed, the exit slip road at J29 says "Chorley A6", which is a ridiculous route to signpost as M61 J8 is much better for Chorley. Using M61 J8 also avoids the "A23 problem" of sending traffic through Whittle-le-Woods, Clayton Brook, and numerous other built up areas, but of course this isn't signed anywhere so a non-local is now sent through an urban area adding to congestion and pollution. This is apparently fine though as it got signed off by someone in 1997, which is after the publication of LTN 1/94 and when this stuff should have been really screwed down. The A6 to the right is even worse, which connects to the Preston southern bypass network and hence "Preston (S & W)" (currently ALL Preston traffic is following the "A23 problem" and being routed down the A59 from J31 as it was in, er, 1958), doesn't get a whisker, being ignored instead in favour of Bamber Bridge which is a commuter dormitory and of no importance to motorway users. I can't understand the logic, on one side a destination next to the motorway is ignored in favour of one further away better reached via another motorway, and on the other a major primary destination (Preston (S & W)) is ignored completely in favour of a village next to the motorway.

I take great offence at the suggestion I am "negatively criticising", when frankly the wording of the current PD list we have to work with makes no sense. At least Informatory Signs For Use On All Purpose Roads (1964) clearly gave guidance (page 18 as well as Appendix 1, I assume those who profess to be sign experts above the rest of us mere mortals have a copy :wink: ). You could avoid a lot of trouble by just producing a map and splitting the UK into signed regions and placing the approved PDs on to that map. I will do it for free if you really can't find the staff amongst the Grade 7 whizkids.

Signs are supposed to be simple, pulling clever tricks like ignoring major cities because "everyone knows where the M25 is" flies in the face of that. London should never have stopped being a regional destination, for 90% of the UK, London is either a target to go to or a target to avoid. It's impossible to go to the Channel Ports without passing around it. By all means split out London traffic at the M25 and its approaches but for heaven's sake don't replace a city of 10 million people with a non descript number of a ring road that most people are not interested in the award winning strategy behind.

Either that or introduce The SOUTH EAST as a region. The SOUTH implies Southampton, not Dover, again, how is a foreign trucker supposed to know that?
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
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19591
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by FosseWay »

I've been following this thread with some bemusement.

Surely direction signage on the roads, especially long-distance strategic routes, has one significant purpose: to tell people where the road they're on goes, and when they need to turn off when their destination is no longer on the road they're on.

If signage fulfils that requirement as well as is practical, then it is de facto correct. We gave the signage system a task - to inform drivers of major destinations without confusing them - and it completed that task. We may well introduce rules and recommendations to ensure that a tested system is followed and to avoid irritating inconsistencies, but the moment following those rules causes the system to perform less effectively in its core role, then it's the rules that are wrong, not the "aberrant" signage. The whole thing reminds me of the extremely silly situation that existed with bicycle lights until a few years ago. Rather than stating the rules for bike lights in terms of "must be visible x hundred metres away" or "must give off a certain brightness", which have a direct link to the lights' suitability for use on the road, the rules required that the lights be certified to a given British Standard and therefore excluded all that weren't including by definition all LED lights, even though following the standard is, at best, only an indirect link to the lights' suitability for use on the road.

I have no dog in this race, in the sense that I am not a highways professional, civil servant or politician. I am just an ordinary driver (though admittedly one with a better than average knowledge of the road network), and as an ordinary driver I expect signs to tell me where I'm going and, at junctions, where I might reasonably want to go by turning off, subject to the scale implied by the significance of the road. Everyone has heard of London and knows roughly where it is. They probably know where their destination is in relation to London, especially if it's near London or they're going to have to go round/through London to get to it. (London is clearly less relevant if you're in Yorkshire and want to go to Devon.) Once you get near London (the M25 is the obvious point), "London" ceases to be useful any more than posting a county name right on its borders would be. So you then sign bits of London, or use compass directions.

I've never been a huge fan of the primary destinations based on compass directions. The DfT may know what it means by The SOUTH etc. but everyone has their own different definitions of these areas. For most southerners and midlanders, the "North" starts roughly along the Trent-Mersey line. Personally I think it is better to sign to defined destinations that are not capable of (mis)interpretation and which all but the most geographically clueless will be able to derive some benefit from. Such as London.
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
danfw194
Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 23:26
Location: Leicester

Re: Signage Rethinks

Post by danfw194 »

Wow not quite how I envisaged this thread going, but very interesting nevertheless. I'm not a fan of the regional signs personally, I don't think they add much value for anyone whether you're familiar with the roads or not. Trying to put myself in a foreign drivers shoes, if I were driving off the ramp at Calais wanting to head to somewhere like Toulouse, 'LE SUD' might be enough to get me going in the vaguely correct direction, but I'm not sure it would be that much use to me.
A UK example......I don't like how the M3-A303 is signed as 'SOUTH WEST' from the M25 and then from M3 J8, HGV's should be taking M4-M5 to most urban centres in the South West region, not the A303.

I agree with Bryn on a couple of points..........the French are far more coherent with their signing practices. And also I too can't understand why people want to readily ditch London, it's absolutely the most important destination in the UK and should be treated as such.
Post Reply