BSEN12899-1 & Reflectorisation

[squashgym]

Can anyone help please, feel like I'm going round in circles - generally most traffic signs are specified with a Class RA2 reflectivity, Class RA2 is defined in BSEN12899-1 but where exactly is it specified that a sign should be relectorised to that specification and not RA1? TSRGD specifies that the sin face should be illuminated by means of retroflecting material or by means of internal/external lighting, but again where retroreflecting material is to be used, where does it define that should be Class RA2 over RA1?

[Bryn666]

This document may be useful:

https://artsm.org.uk/media/Guidance-for ... 9-12-1.pdf

RA1 isn't visible from sufficient distance to be useful for safety critical signs hence why it is only really advised for use on parking signs or other low speed environment information boards. Most sign manufacturers don't tend to bother providing it at all as a result.

TSM Ch 1 confirms there is no legal requirement to use RA2, but states:

Neither the method nor the level of sign lighting is regulated. The same is true of reflectorisation. However, the UK National Annex to BS EN 12899-1 specifies different performance classes for each characteristic of traffic signs for UK practice; as well as specifying requirements in respect of light sources, lighting units and electrical equipment.

I would, in terms of ensuring that an authority seeking to use RA1 materials avoids any liability, that a thorough risk assessment is carried out if the intention is to use RA1 for any safety critical signs.

[Conekicker]

What Bryn said plus you might wish to consider using RA1 for pedestrian signs, as most peds don't walk around at night wearing headlamps .
Although as he said, RA2 is the normal stuff that is supplied these days.

[squashgym]

Thanks very much - appreciate your responses. I've always considered RA2 as the 'standard' but just couldn't find anywhere that prescribed that as such.

[Debaser]

Shame...I was waiting for the masterclass in reflectivity vs material type.

"Well, you've got yer RA2, which is the same as R2, except it isn't as R2 is for microprismatic material and is tested in a different way to RA2 which uses glass beads, but they perform to a similar level. Simple. Now, in the old days, R2 was yer old R1, until it wasn't... ".



(Probably got all that bass ackwards ).

[Conekicker]

Shame...I was waiting for the masterclass in reflectivity vs material type.

"Well, you've got yer RA2, which is the same as R2, except it isn't as R2 is for microprismatic material and is tested in a different way to RA2 which uses glass beads, but they perform to a similar level. Simple. Now, in the old days, R2 was yer old R1, until it wasn't... ".



(Probably got all that bass ackwards ).

It'd be so much easier if one could specify trade names. That way one could avoid the Chinese carp that is out there.

[Bryn666]

Shame...I was waiting for the masterclass in reflectivity vs material type.

"Well, you've got yer RA2, which is the same as R2, except it isn't as R2 is for microprismatic material and is tested in a different way to RA2 which uses glass beads, but they perform to a similar level. Simple. Now, in the old days, R2 was yer old R1, until it wasn't... ".



(Probably got all that bass ackwards ).

It'd be so much easier if one could specify trade names. That way one could avoid the Chinese carp that is out there.

You just make sure you have a contract specification that is sufficiently weaselly worded to not get sued but enough to say sustainability requires the materials to be as reasonably practically locally sourced... presumably if you do this right you're basically saying Rennicks or 3M?

[Conekicker]

Shame...I was waiting for the masterclass in reflectivity vs material type.

"Well, you've got yer RA2, which is the same as R2, except it isn't as R2 is for microprismatic material and is tested in a different way to RA2 which uses glass beads, but they perform to a similar level. Simple. Now, in the old days, R2 was yer old R1, until it wasn't... ".



(Probably got all that bass ackwards ).

It'd be so much easier if one could specify trade names. That way one could avoid the Chinese carp that is out there.

You just make sure you have a contract specification that is sufficiently weaselly worded to not get sued but enough to say sustainability requires the materials to be as reasonably practically locally sourced... presumably if you do this right you're basically saying Rennicks or 3M?

Neither of whom manufacture in the UK. 3M has a plant in Germany and Rennicks is US based I think. Both nearer than China though

[Bryn666]

It'd be so much easier if one could specify trade names. That way one could avoid the Chinese carp that is out there.

You just make sure you have a contract specification that is sufficiently weaselly worded to not get sued but enough to say sustainability requires the materials to be as reasonably practically locally sourced... presumably if you do this right you're basically saying Rennicks or 3M?

Neither of whom manufacture in the UK. 3M has a plant in Germany and Rennicks is US based I think. Both nearer than China though

"As far as reasonably practical" is a fantastic weasel term you see

I'm surprised our Brexit Overlords haven't demanded we manufacture our own British Signs for British People yet though.

[AndyB]

Maybe they have shares in non-British firms and they need them to be competitive?

To a layperson, what’s the difference between RA1 and RA2? All I’m really aware of is that until some years ago, retroreflective signs had a hexagonal mesh for retoreflectivity, and newer signs appear to be striped.