Botched Roadsigns

[ForestChav]

It would maybe be interesting to have a thread on correct 'both sides' signs, and to figure out whether the correct ones are in the minority. I feel they almost certainly are. This is the only one I know that's even half correct, and I can't help but feel it's as likely to be so by accident as by design.

Even that isn't really correct as you can only go left by following the sign to the left but can go left or straight on in the lane immediately to the right of it.

[jnty]

It would maybe be interesting to have a thread on correct 'both sides' signs, and to figure out whether the correct ones are in the minority. I feel they almost certainly are. This is the only one I know that's even half correct, and I can't help but feel it's as likely to be so by accident as by design.

Even that isn't really correct as you can only go left by following the sign to the left but can go left or straight on in the lane immediately to the right of it.

Yes - I realised as I was posting it that it's only correct for traffic turning left, and therefore I don't think I've ever seen a correct one.

The existence of the sign and the very specific meaning for it almost makes me wonder if there was a particular type of road feature which ended up far less common than expected?

...and I just watched Bryn's video which sort of suggests the answer is yes. I wonder if it arose from two way streets being converted to one way streets experimentally and retaining traffic islands, or was there an attachment to islands on multi lane one way streets for a while?

[multiraider2]

Yes - I realised as I was posting it that it's only correct for traffic turning left, and therefore I don't think I've ever seen a correct one.

I've seen a correct one in the flesh, but was reminded of it when someone else posted it (it may have been upthread). Leeds Inner Ring Road.. Part of my worst ever journey on the roads unfortunately.

[Chris5156]

I wonder if it arose from two way streets being converted to one way streets experimentally and retaining traffic islands, or was there an attachment to islands on multi lane one way streets for a while?

That's certainly still the place you'll find it most often in London.

There used to be lots on the Aldwych when it was still one way.

Here's an ideal place for one where the opportunity hasn't been taken!

I agree that they're now such a niche use-case that it would be better to relax the meaning and end up with a sign that could be applied more widely, simply to mean "you can drive either side of this obstacle". (Interestingly the version in the original Worboys report was rectangular - because it is really an informatory sign, not a mandatory instruction - but got changed to a blue circle before the regulations were published.)

[wallmeerkat]

It would maybe be interesting to have a thread on correct 'both sides' signs, and to figure out whether the correct ones are in the minority. I feel they almost certainly are. This is the only one I know that's even half correct, and I can't help but feel it's as likely to be so by accident as by design.

Even that isn't really correct as you can only go left by following the sign to the left but can go left or straight on in the lane immediately to the right of it.

Similar botch on the A1 NI - https://www.google.com/maps/@54.4891671 ... ?entry=ttu - the leftmost lane of the right hand diverge continues straight ahead but the right lane is for turning right. A surprising one as usually NI roads service use the blank face reflective posts for this kind of thing.

[Conekicker]

Not botched but certainly no longer prescribed:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.34994 ... &entry=ttu
Although given someone took the trouble to install a sign that reflects reality (ignore the botched mounting height ):
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.35128 ... &entry=ttu
One has to wonder why the old sign still remains.

They got it both wrong and right on the other approach as well:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.34970 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.35061 ... &entry=ttu

[wallmeerkat]

Not botched but certainly no longer prescribed:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.34994 ... &entry=ttu
Although given someone took the trouble to install a sign that reflects reality (ignore the botched mounting height ):
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.35128 ... &entry=ttu
One has to wonder why the old sign still remains.

They got it both wrong and right on the other approach as well:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.34970 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.35061 ... &entry=ttu

A light up sign on the M5 NI does nothing to warn you that 3 lanes of M2 traffic are about to join you on the left hand side, if you need to turn off the next junction for the ferries etc. good luck

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6424914 ... ?entry=ttu

[Conekicker]

A light up sign on the M5 NI does nothing to warn you that 3 lanes of M2 traffic are about to join you on the left hand side, if you need to turn off the next junction for the ferries etc. good luck

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6424914 ... ?entry=ttu

Which is strange because the appropriate arrowed signs exist in the '97 NI Regs (Diagrams 868 and 868.1). Too difficult to replace an obsolete sign in the intervening 27 years? A driver also has a mahoosive 635m between the nosing tips to get across - not a problem at all. Cough, cough.

[Chris5156]

This refers to a permanent gated access point and is surely not correct.

[Truvelo]

This refers to a permanent gated access point and is surely not correct.

It looks like a compound of sorts. Maybe it's not used any more.

At least it's in the correct font unlike these

[Truvelo]

Read this one carefully to spot the mistake

[SteelCamel]

Read this one carefully to spot the mistake

I see the mistake - the file name is "sine" rather than "sign"

It seems rather indecisive - there will be delays until some point in the first week of April, but we're not telling you exactly when they finish...

[Truvelo]

Read this one carefully to spot the mistake

I see the mistake - the file name is "sine" rather than "sign"

It seems rather indecisive - there will be delays until some point in the first week of April, but we're not telling you exactly when they finish...

Whatever it says, it should have finished two days ago but like everything else in this country it has overrun. No doubt the bad weather is to blame...

[swissferry]

A number of years ago two signs were installed on the A985 for Culross Abbey with the A in lowercase:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/tWBhE3Pao6B84iUr9
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HyHjY2UrhvpQrPHE8

They've now fixed one but not the other.

[Bryn666]

A light up sign on the M5 NI does nothing to warn you that 3 lanes of M2 traffic are about to join you on the left hand side, if you need to turn off the next junction for the ferries etc. good luck

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6424914 ... ?entry=ttu

Which is strange because the appropriate arrowed signs exist in the '97 NI Regs (Diagrams 868 and 868.1). Too difficult to replace an obsolete sign in the intervening 27 years? A driver also has a mahoosive 635m between the nosing tips to get across - not a problem at all. Cough, cough.

I mean, a giant internally lit old-style merge sign is lovely to see in the wild but it should probably be in a museum.

We still haven't figured out how to properly signpost urban motorways.

[Conekicker]

A light up sign on the M5 NI does nothing to warn you that 3 lanes of M2 traffic are about to join you on the left hand side, if you need to turn off the next junction for the ferries etc. good luck

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6424914 ... ?entry=ttu

Which is strange because the appropriate arrowed signs exist in the '97 NI Regs (Diagrams 868 and 868.1). Too difficult to replace an obsolete sign in the intervening 27 years? A driver also has a mahoosive 635m between the nosing tips to get across - not a problem at all. Cough, cough.

I mean, a giant internally lit old-style merge sign is lovely to see in the wild but it should probably be in a museum.

We still haven't figured out how to properly signpost urban motorways.

Area 14 haven't figured out how to sign rural ones either. Given that these are bog-standard grade separated junctions, with exit and entry slips in both directions, I fail to see the need for these signs:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.86520 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.79362 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.79362 ... &entry=ttu
I suspect they're modern replacements for old-style merge triangles that might have been erected when the junctions were first built, all those decades ago. Why anyone would think they need to still be in place is beyond me.

Then there's this nonsense. How does one sign and mark the end of a slip road where it meets a roundabout? Dare one say, "Not like this"?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.65192 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.65248 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.58349 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.58397 ... &entry=ttu

[Bryn666]

Which is strange because the appropriate arrowed signs exist in the '97 NI Regs (Diagrams 868 and 868.1). Too difficult to replace an obsolete sign in the intervening 27 years? A driver also has a mahoosive 635m between the nosing tips to get across - not a problem at all. Cough, cough.

I mean, a giant internally lit old-style merge sign is lovely to see in the wild but it should probably be in a museum.

We still haven't figured out how to properly signpost urban motorways.

Area 14 haven't figured out how to sign rural ones either. Given that these are bog-standard grade separated junctions, with exit and entry slips in both directions, I fail to see the need for these signs:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.86520 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.79362 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.79362 ... &entry=ttu
I suspect they're modern replacements for old-style merge triangles that might have been erected when the junctions were first built, all those decades ago. Why anyone would think they need to still be in place is beyond me.

Then there's this nonsense. How does one sign and mark the end of a slip road where it meets a roundabout? Dare one say, "Not like this"?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.65192 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.65248 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.58349 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.58397 ... &entry=ttu

Everything about the bit of the A1(M) is wrong, even the distance marker signs aren't standard.

[skiddaw05]

I'm not sure what this sign in Thame is trying to tell you but the route to the A418 bypass is straight on. Perhaps turning it 90 degrees anticlockwise would help

[Gareth Thomas]

Is this* a botch or an “innovation”?

*The thin line on the left. It’s on the next two signs too.

Look at the sign when it isn't showing "Tunnel Closed" (ie, go back in time on Google Street View). There's a nice blue box that is just big enough for "(M2)", but alas, no text.....

[Owain]

Have I Got News For You on Friday featured a new road sign on the A38 in Bromsgrove spelling "Birmingham" as "Brimingham". There's a photo in this local news piece here, but warning it's one of those ghastly local newspaper websites with infuriating advertising : https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/m ... s-25201193

It turns out that the modern signmakers aren't the only ones to have struggled with one...