Would this be allowed in the UK?

[A181]

While meandering round streetview for an upcoming trip I found this:

https://goo.gl/maps/PCSLDeCcSaS2

At best it's confusing - at worst it's wrong. Would this signage be allowed in the UK, and it it even correct in France!?

[Glen]

We have specific signs for prohibitions on certain types of vehicles in the UK, including goods vehicles and caravans, so there would be no need to sign it with a no entry sign.

[Was92now625]

You cannot go past the no-entry sign. But when you reach it, you cannot reverse because of the one-way sign. So, you have to leave your car there permanently

[Owain]

If you don't like that, you certainly won't like this.

Italy. Drive on Right! However, for the through route, you must bear left here. If you continue straight on, you will be prevented from continuing by the No Entry sign, and forced to turn right into a tiny side street after a few metres.

[Berk]

While meandering round streetview for an upcoming trip I found this:

https://goo.gl/maps/PCSLDeCcSaS2

At best it's confusing - at worst it's wrong. Would this signage be allowed in the UK, and it it even correct in France!?

That's almost as bad as the level crossing near me - which has a No Entry sign for northbound motor traffic 'Except cycles' (and access too, though there isn't much of it).



Does that look right to you?? It's basically still two-way for peds, cycles, and animals, but southbound-only for motor vehicles.

The barriers have long since disappeared, but the signs are still there.

[Glen]

Does that look right to you?? It's basically still two-way for peds, cycles, and animals, but southbound-only for motor vehicles..

There's nothing inherently wrong with that, there should be a one-way with contraflow cycles sign at the other end. If it's intended to be permanent then constructing an island with cycle bypass lane would aid visibility of the start of the restriction.
I assume there are some no-through-road signs in advance of that so traffic doesn't unexpectedly find a no-entry restriction.

[JohnnyMo]

While meandering round streetview for an upcoming trip I found this:

https://goo.gl/maps/PCSLDeCcSaS2

At best it's confusing - at worst it's wrong. Would this signage be allowed in the UK, and it it even correct in France!?

I assume there is no car & caravan prohibited sign in France so the only way to sign that is "No Entry ( car & caravan )". Therefore the lorry prohibited sign I would expect is simply an extension of the No Entry ( car & caravan ). So you end up with "No Entry (Lorry) ( car & caravan )" confusing but I expect correct.

It would be better if the One Way sign started at the No Entry sign, but I assume it is correctly places relative to traffic turning left out of the Rue de la Gare.

Sutton Bank UK caravan prohibited Sign

[Berk]

Does that look right to you?? It's basically still two-way for peds, cycles, and animals, but southbound-only for motor vehicles..

There's nothing inherently wrong with that, there should be a one-way with contraflow cycles sign at the other end. If it's intended to be permanent then constructing an island with cycle bypass lane would aid visibility of the start of the restriction.
I assume there are some no-through-road signs in advance of that so traffic doesn't unexpectedly find a no-entry restriction.

I believe there were only temporary yellow signs, which also have now disappeared.

[Viator]

We have specific signs for prohibitions on certain types of vehicles in the UK, including goods vehicles and caravans, so there would be no need to sign it with a no entry sign.

And there are such signs in France too, so I don't know why they haven't been used here.

[c2R]

If you don't like that, you certainly won't like this.

Italy. Drive on Right! However, for the through route, you must bear left here. If you continue straight on, you will be prevented from continuing by the No Entry sign, and forced to turn right into a tiny side street after a few metres.

And God help you if you're a lorry: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@39.38224 ... 312!8i6656

[exiled]

While meandering round streetview for an upcoming trip I found this:

https://goo.gl/maps/PCSLDeCcSaS2

At best it's confusing - at worst it's wrong. Would this signage be allowed in the UK, and it it even correct in France!?

Correct or not, this is quite common in France, to use the 'No Entry' or other restrictions plus an additional sign to specify it to the class of vehicle it applies to.

[Bryn666]

I suspect the French have had issues with compliance over the standard signs, which they do have diagrams for.

[MJG]

The Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals declares the semactics of the prohibitory signs C, 1 and C, 2 as follows:

1. Prohibition and restriction of entry

(a) Notification that entry is prohibited for all vehicles shall be given by sign C, 1, "NO ENTRY", of which there are two models: C, 1a, and C, 1b. [C, 1b discontinued later]

(b) Notification that all vehicular traffic is prohibited in both directions shall be give by sign C, 2, "CLOSED TO ALL VEHICLES IN BOTH DIRECTIONS".

(c) Notification that entry is prohibited for a certain category of vehicle or road-user only, shall be given by a sign bearing as a symbol the silhouette of the vehicles or road-users
whose entry is prohibited. Sign C, 3a.; C, 3b; .., and C, 3l shall have the following meanings: ...

The French interpretation does not comply with these statements. (C, 1 is the red round sign with the horizontal white/yellow bar. C, 2 is the white/yellow round sign with red edges.) Not a big surprise to anybody.

Finland, for instance, reserves the use of C, 1 only to those cases when the entry is prohibited because the road in question is a one-way road. No additional panels are allowed. For any other use, C, 2 or C, 3 are to be used. This may change in the future: Finland is planning to allow two-way cycling on selected one-way roads. If that becomes true, Finland must post a new reservation to the Convention: The plans include an additional panel to C, 1: "Permitted to cyclists", and that would be non-compliant with the current text.

[Berk]

So my level-crossing example is also non-compliant then?? BTW, there is one exception to that: emergency vehicles are still permitted two-way.

Personally, I think it's confusing. Unless it's not permitted, I would've used a 'No motor vehicles' sign for the northbound.

[LeedsKing]

Lot of basic signs used in Europe but with exceptions and qualifiers placed underneath:

In Belgium, you have to know SAUF (save, except) and uitgezonderd - except.

"This rule except that."

In Germany, you see a new Autobahn limit coming up, but it only applies to lorries or when it's raining "bei Nasse."

And why is the sign for the village of F**king so important that it is always replaced when stolen? Because it marks the start of a built up area and so implies a new speed limit of 50kph. People would not only start running over the village's residents, but could mount a defence that the limit was still 100kph.

[kevjs]

While meandering round streetview for an upcoming trip I found this:

https://goo.gl/maps/PCSLDeCcSaS2

At best it's confusing - at worst it's wrong. Would this signage be allowed in the UK, and it it even correct in France!?

That's almost as bad as the level crossing near me - which has a No Entry sign for northbound motor traffic 'Except cycles' (and access too, though there isn't much of it).



Does that look right to you?? It's basically still two-way for peds, cycles, and animals, but southbound-only for motor vehicles.

The barriers have long since disappeared, but the signs are still there.

There's similar in Nottingham - even better it was No Entry but a signed Cycle route until a few years ago - the "Except Cycles" was a later addition

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.94070 ... 312!8i6656

In any case there are often cars parked along the road, this being the only possible entrance to it!

[Stevie D]

So my level-crossing example is also non-compliant then?? BTW, there is one exception to that: emergency vehicles are still permitted two-way.

Personally, I think it's confusing. Unless it's not permitted, I would've used a 'No motor vehicles' sign for the northbound.

"No motor vehicles" is not direction-specific, but applies to the whole carriageway. That can't be used, as the carriageway doesn't prohibit motor vehicles, it just doesn't allow them in that direction. "No entry ... except cycles" is the correct way of signing it.