Botched Roadsigns

[Chris5156]

Is A14 in the wrong colour?
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4043609 ... ?entry=ttu

Yes, it should have "(A14)" in yellow on a green patch.

[multiraider2]

OK. Had booked a day's holiday to use it up before March year-end and had nothing much to do or people to see it with. I had a bit of a travel day. All public transport, but including passing the King George V stop on the DLR. I got off there and went to look at the sign I last posted. The lane allocation sign has been replaced with a Primary Route version. With the addition of a traffic island plus keep left bollard at the crown of the bend, it's actually probably not as potentially dangerous as before. Still think as it is situated before the traffic is separated with the later dualling it still qualifies as botched, but hey ho. Onward!

[Chris5156]

OK. Had booked a day's holiday to use it up before March year-end and had nothing much to do or people to see it with. I had a bit of a travel day. All public transport, but including passing the King George V stop on the DLR. I got off there and went to look at the sign I last posted. The lane allocation sign has been replaced with a Primary Route version. With the addition of a traffic island plus keep left bollard at the crown of the bend, it's actually probably not as potentially dangerous as before. Still think as it is situated before the traffic is separated with the later dualling it still qualifies as botched, but hey ho. Onward!

I agree it's still botched - the destination "through traffic" leads to a non-primary route so should be in a black on white panel.

[swissferry]

Not a bodged roadsign, but how on earth did the Google car end up here given they would have to drive through a no entry sign on each end...
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4032023 ... ?entry=ttu
(well I know how, but it's not a good look!)

Are roads allowed to be no entry in both directions? I thought they should have used no vehicle or no motor vehicle signs.

[jnty]

Not a bodged roadsign, but how on earth did the Google car end up here given they would have to drive through a no entry sign on each end...
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4032023 ... ?entry=ttu
(well I know how, but it's not a good look!)

Are roads allowed to be no entry in both directions? I thought they should have used no vehicle or no motor vehicle signs.

To drag a topic of conversation in from another thread, perhaps it should be a blue circle with "ambulance" in it...

[Big L]

Not a bodged roadsign, but how on earth did the Google car end up here given they would have to drive through a no entry sign on each end...
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4032023 ... ?entry=ttu
(well I know how, but it's not a good look!)

Are roads allowed to be no entry in both directions? I thought they should have used no vehicle or no motor vehicle signs.

Maybe Google requested and received specific permission?

[Nathan_A_RF]

No
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.74436 ... ?entry=ttu

[Truvelo]

No
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.74436 ... ?entry=ttu

I suppose it gets the message across, if not in an entirely legal way.

And I guess someone from another country did the text on this sign.

[wallmeerkat]

Is there convention for when Ramp should be used vs Speed humps?

Ramp - https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4422,0. ... ?entry=ttu

[Chris5156]

Is there convention for when Ramp should be used vs Speed humps?

Ramp - https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4422,0. ... ?entry=ttu

I think the convention is that this sign shouldn’t exist!

[Darren]

I think the convention is that this sign shouldn’t exist!

I'm not sure the proper sign *did* exist when those went up - it was in the early 90s, IIRC, when the council spent a load of money making Bluetown look more prosperous. In came "traffic calming", and those signs ahead of every single ramp/speed bump/whatever you'd call them.

[Conekicker]

Is there convention for when Ramp should be used vs Speed humps?

Ramp - https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4422,0. ... ?entry=ttu

I think the convention is that this sign shouldn’t exist!

The road hump sign (Diagram 557.1) was first prescribed in 1994. The triangle in the photo is very old, based on the visible rivets on the sign face. I can't recall exactly when visible rivets were removed from the BS but sometime in late '80s rings a vague bell. So perhaps the installation is an early road hump installation from the late '80s or early '90s, with the supplementary plate being (hopefully) authorised by DfT (or whatever they were called) at the time.

Although you'd like to think someone would have replaced such an old sign by now.

[MotorwayGuy]

A similar situation to these "Queues Likely" signs, presumably they predate the introduction of the symbol.

[Conekicker]

So if you want to go to Brid or Hull, you can either turn left or go straight ahead, because both are good. The number of idiots who design signs like this is frightening.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.95885 ... &entry=ttu

[swissferry]

Think this no right turn is botched. If not its out of date but I cannot recall there ever being a gap in the crash barrier.

[swissferry]

More fixed than botched but patch could have been better.

[Truvelo]

More fixed than botched but patch could have been better.

So what's the difference between a round and triangle height sign? One's regulatory and the other's a warning but both have the same meaning in that a vehicle over the height won't be able to get under the bridge.

[swissferry]

More fixed than botched but patch could have been better.

So what's the difference between a round and triangle height sign? One's regulatory and the other's a warning but both have the same meaning in that a vehicle over the height won't be able to get under the bridge.

I've happily driven under this bridge with a warning triangle but I wouldn't if it was a roundel as I'd be committing an offence.

[Octaviadriver]

I've happily driven under this bridge with a warning triangle but I wouldn't if it was a roundel as I'd be committing an offence.

They can't decide how high the bridge is. On the advance warning signs, it's 4'6" but on the sign over the bridge it's 4'9".

[swissferry]

I've happily driven under this bridge with a warning triangle but I wouldn't if it was a roundel as I'd be committing an offence.

They can't decide how high the bridge is. On the advance warning signs, it's 4'6" but on the sign over the bridge it's 4'9".

The 4' 6" signs replaced some of the 4' 9" ones. Lowest point I measured was around 5' 1": viewtopic.php?p=1329944#p1329944