Unlit Signs in Residential Area

[FleetlinePhil]

I hope this is a silly question. Our recent house move has brought us next to a one-way street, and the No Entry / Two-way Traffic signs at the point it ceases being one-way are all unlit, we have noticed.

All four lights having failed seemed more than a coincidence, so before I fire off an email to the local authority, could it be they have been left unlit due to complaints from adjacent properties? The signs are very close to the terraced houses, although I can think of others in the town where this does not seem to be a problem.

I clearly hope the answer is a resounding "No", but does anybody have experience of this being the case?

[Conekicker]

The two-way traffic sign (Diagram 521) is not required to be directly lit, TSRGD Regulation 8 applies to it:

Illumination of upright signs and associated plates
8.—(1) Paragraph (2) applies to an upright sign unless elsewhere in these Regulations in relation
to a particular sign—
(a) requirements are imposed as to the illumination of the sign; or
(b) provision is made that the sign need not be illuminated.
(2) The upright sign must be—
(a) illuminated throughout the hours of darkness by internal or external lighting; or
(b) reflectorised.

So reflectorised as a minimum.

TSRGD 2016 S3-4-4 applies to the no entry sign (Diagram 616), N.B. sub-paras 2 to 5 don't apply to a 616:

4.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) to (5), where the sign is placed on a road subject to a speed limit greater than 20 mph, and is within 50 metres of any lamp which forms part of a system of street-lighting, the illumination requirements for the sign are—
(a) where that system of street-lighting is illuminated throughout the hours of darkness, the sign must be illuminated by internal or external lighting for so long as that system is illuminated and may also be reflectorised; or
(b) where that system of street-lighting is not illuminated throughout the hours of darkness—
(i) the sign must be illuminated by internal or external lighting for so long as that system is illuminated and must also be reflectorised; or
(ii) the sign must be illuminated throughout the hours of darkness by internal or external lighting and may also be reflectorised.

Whether or not someone has complained is not relevant, the regulations are quite clear as to the illumination requirements. Some local authorities are very bad at lighting maintenance, which may explain - but not excuse - the outage. Some erect the signs and associated lights but never connect them to a power source. The bad lads.

Ask them why the 616s aren't lit and if the 521s are reflectorised, if you don't know what reflectorised sign sheeting looks like.

Bet you're glad you asked...

[FleetlinePhil]

The two-way traffic sign (Diagram 521) is not required to be directly lit, TSRGD Regulation 8 applies to it:

Illumination of upright signs and associated plates
8.—(1) Paragraph (2) applies to an upright sign unless elsewhere in these Regulations in relation
to a particular sign—
(a) requirements are imposed as to the illumination of the sign; or
(b) provision is made that the sign need not be illuminated.
(2) The upright sign must be—
(a) illuminated throughout the hours of darkness by internal or external lighting; or
(b) reflectorised.

So reflectorised as a minimum.

TSRGD 2016 S3-4-4 applies to the no entry sign (Diagram 616), N.B. sub-paras 2 to 5 don't apply to a 616:

4.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) to (5), where the sign is placed on a road subject to a speed limit greater than 20 mph, and is within 50 metres of any lamp which forms part of a system of street-lighting, the illumination requirements for the sign are—
(a) where that system of street-lighting is illuminated throughout the hours of darkness, the sign must be illuminated by internal or external lighting for so long as that system is illuminated and may also be reflectorised; or
(b) where that system of street-lighting is not illuminated throughout the hours of darkness—
(i) the sign must be illuminated by internal or external lighting for so long as that system is illuminated and must also be reflectorised; or
(ii) the sign must be illuminated throughout the hours of darkness by internal or external lighting and may also be reflectorised.

Whether or not someone has complained is not relevant, the regulations are quite clear as to the illumination requirements. Some local authorities are very bad at lighting maintenance, which may explain - but not excuse - the outage. Some erect the signs and associated lights but never connect them to a power source. The bad lads.

Ask them why the 616s aren't lit and if the 521s are reflectorised, if you don't know what reflectorised sign sheeting looks like.

Bet you're glad you asked...

Thanks for your time in replying, Conekicker, that is very...illuminating, excuse the pun.

Reflectorised 521s - difficult to tell, because basically they are filthy. I assume they are the original signs from when the street was made one-way, which would have been about 1985 I think. The one on the right-hand side is particularly bad, and near invisible after dark because the street light just beyond it leaves it in deep shadow. It is barely possible to even make out its triangular shape against the back of the 616.

That same street light does at least light up the left-hand 616 quite effectively when coming in the opposite direction, which is arguably the most crucial sign for drivers to see. However, you will notice I have put your reference to the "speed limit greater than 20mph" in bold: I think this is the defining point, as the road is indeed subject to a 20mph limit, as are most residential streets and the A646 and A6033 through the town centre. So no illumination is required for the 616s?

If that is the case, I assume Calderdale would be able to simply disconnect all the lighting to the signs when the 20mph zone was imposed a few years ago. The "one-way traffic" signs (652s I believe) at the entrance to the street are also unlit I have now discovered. But on a similar set-up on a street near my old house, also 20mph limit of course, one 616 and one 652 are still lit, which suggests it was not a blanket switch-off, or perhaps not a well executed one.

I will contact Calderdale after the holiday, see what their response is. Thanks for the ammunition!

[Conekicker]

The 20mph thing is something new, only introduced in the 2016 TSRGD. Before that the signs were required to be lit.

If they're in a 20 limit, then they don't now have to be illuminated at all, either by direct lighting or reflectorisation. However, the local authority should consider where the signs are located and make a judgement as to whether or not they could be reflectorised or lit, if they think it would be helpful to drivers. Although they are under no legal obligation to do so.

If these signs are from 1985, the chances of them being reflectorised is probably low. At best they might be old Engineer Grade sheeting. There's a chance they might be High Intensity sheeting but, as I recall, some authorities were resistant to providing signs that were both lit and had HI sheeting due to the cost. Whatever they are made from, being so old the sheeting is likely less than effective by now.

As to whether or not Calderdale could simply disconnect the lights - that will depend. They might be directly fed from a YE supply, in which case YE will do it and charge very handsomely for doing so. So that might not happen. If they're tapped off the streetlighting, then the council should be able to do it. Funds permitting...

[FleetlinePhil]

Apologies for bumping my own thread, but yesterday the signs in question were replaced, although one of the filthy 'two-way traffic ahead' signs did make an appearance on the Manky Signs thread in between. One other thing I found after the original thread was written is that once or twice a year, the signs were actually illuminated - rather odd!

Anyway, now we have an unlit but reflectorised 'two-way traffic ahead', and on the reverse of same post, a 'no entry' with new LED lighting, which was certainly switched on last night - great!

What is now puzzling me is that the other identical pair of signs on the opposite side of the road were removed yesterday, with no suggestion from the contractors that they were returning to replace them at a future date. The remaining signs are on the O/S as you approach the 'two-way traffic ahead' sign on the one-way section, and obviously thus on the N/S as you approach the 'no entry' on the two-way section. Is this sufficient, I wonder, legally, or is a pair of 'no entry' signs required?

Traffic approaching the 'no entry' is required to turn left down a side-street, so should this be indicated with a 'turn left ahead' sign (sorry can't place the manual with the Diagram numbers on my new computer at the moment )? And for that matter, any traffic coming from that side street has no 'no left turn ahead' warning at the junction, and has now lost the 'no entry sign' they might have found easier to see.

Compliance is generally good, these are only residential terraced streets without huge volumes of traffic. However, any traffic that does deliberately or inadvertently travel the wrong way soon finds itself on a narrow stretch (briefly S1) leading to a junction with a pretty awful sightline to the right - the whole reason the street was made one-way back in the mid 1980s.

[Bryn666]

Apologies for bumping my own thread, but yesterday the signs in question were replaced, although one of the filthy 'two-way traffic ahead' signs did make an appearance on the Manky Signs thread in between. One other thing I found after the original thread was written is that once or twice a year, the signs were actually illuminated - rather odd!

Anyway, now we have an unlit but reflectorised 'two-way traffic ahead', and on the reverse of same post, a 'no entry' with new LED lighting, which was certainly switched on last night - great!

What is now puzzling me is that the other identical pair of signs on the opposite side of the road were removed yesterday, with no suggestion from the contractors that they were returning to replace them at a future date. The remaining signs are on the O/S as you approach the 'two-way traffic ahead' sign on the one-way section, and obviously thus on the N/S as you approach the 'no entry' on the two-way section. Is this sufficient, I wonder, legally, or is a pair of 'no entry' signs required?

Traffic approaching the 'no entry' is required to turn left down a side-street, so should this be indicated with a 'turn left ahead' sign (sorry can't place the manual with the Diagram numbers on my new computer at the moment )? And for that matter, any traffic coming from that side street has no 'no left turn ahead' warning at the junction, and has now lost the 'no entry sign' they might have found easier to see.

Compliance is generally good, these are only residential terraced streets without huge volumes of traffic. However, any traffic that does deliberately or inadvertently travel the wrong way soon finds itself on a narrow stretch (briefly S1) leading to a junction with a pretty awful sightline to the right - the whole reason the street was made one-way back in the mid 1980s.

You can fudge the interpretation of the rules these days to get away with a single set of signs instead of doubling up; although personally I'd be reluctant when a sign is a safety critical one.

[FleetlinePhil]

Apologies for bumping my own thread, but yesterday the signs in question were replaced, although one of the filthy 'two-way traffic ahead' signs did make an appearance on the Manky Signs thread in between. One other thing I found after the original thread was written is that once or twice a year, the signs were actually illuminated - rather odd!

Anyway, now we have an unlit but reflectorised 'two-way traffic ahead', and on the reverse of same post, a 'no entry' with new LED lighting, which was certainly switched on last night - great!

What is now puzzling me is that the other identical pair of signs on the opposite side of the road were removed yesterday, with no suggestion from the contractors that they were returning to replace them at a future date. The remaining signs are on the O/S as you approach the 'two-way traffic ahead' sign on the one-way section, and obviously thus on the N/S as you approach the 'no entry' on the two-way section. Is this sufficient, I wonder, legally, or is a pair of 'no entry' signs required?

Traffic approaching the 'no entry' is required to turn left down a side-street, so should this be indicated with a 'turn left ahead' sign (sorry can't place the manual with the Diagram numbers on my new computer at the moment )? And for that matter, any traffic coming from that side street has no 'no left turn ahead' warning at the junction, and has now lost the 'no entry sign' they might have found easier to see.

Compliance is generally good, these are only residential terraced streets without huge volumes of traffic. However, any traffic that does deliberately or inadvertently travel the wrong way soon finds itself on a narrow stretch (briefly S1) leading to a junction with a pretty awful sightline to the right - the whole reason the street was made one-way back in the mid 1980s.

You can fudge the interpretation of the rules these days to get away with a single set of signs instead of doubling up; although personally I'd be reluctant when a sign is a safety critical one.

Cheers. Some 'no entry' road markings might be a help too, although I suspect residents' parked cars might partly obscure them - there is now usually a car parked close to the remaining N/S 'no entry' sign in this 2009 view. A rebuild of the junction, maybe with altered priorities, would probably just cause a different set of problems!

Ideally, the one-way section would be blocked off at the hazardous junction with Victoria Road, with the remaining section made two-way but access only. Unfortunately there is insufficient room to put in a turning head, nor is there really width for saw-tooth parking even at the near, wider end, I suspect.

[MotorwayGuy]

With the widespread of 20 limits in London boroughs, it seems unlit signs are becoming much more common. Another thing I've noticed is the use of single signs like this one here. It is lit because it's not in a 20 mph limit but there is no no-left turn sign either, the bollard was added later. Older setups such as this were a lot more bolstered (granted this is facing an open road and was a popular shortcut).

[Conekicker]

With the widespread of 20 limits in London boroughs, it seems unlit signs are becoming much more common. Another thing I've noticed is the use of single signs like this one here. It is lit because it's not in a 20 mph limit but there is no no-left turn sign either, the bollard was added later. Older setups such as this were a lot more bolstered (granted this is facing an open road and was a popular shortcut).

TSRGD Regulation 8 (1) and (2) says:

Illumination of upright signs and associated plates

8.—(1) Paragraph (2) applies to an upright sign unless elsewhere in these Regulations in relation to a particular sign—
(a) requirements are imposed as to the illumination of the sign; or
(b) provision is made that the sign need not be illuminated.
(2) The upright sign must be—
(a) illuminated throughout the hours of darkness by internal or external lighting; or
(b) reflectorised.
(3) If provision is made elsewhere in these Regulations that an upright sign need not be illuminated, it may be illuminated in accordance with paragraph (5).
(4) Paragraph (5) also applies to an upright sign which must at certain times be illuminated under these Regulations during those times when it is not required to be illuminated.
(5) The upright sign may be—
(a) illuminated by internal or external lighting; or
(b) reflectorised.
(6) Where these Regulations provide for a choice of methods of illumination for an upright sign (including where at least one method must be used), more than one of those methods may be used.
(7) The same method used to illuminate an upright sign must be used to illuminate an associated plate (and where more than one method is used, all those methods must be used).
(8) The same source of lighting used to illuminate an upright sign may be used to illuminate an associated plate provided it is adequate to do so.
(9) If an upright sign is not illuminated, any associated plate must not be illuminated.
(10) Where retroreflecting material is used on any part of an upright sign or plate, all other parts, other than any parts coloured black, must also be reflectorised.
(11) In paragraph (10) “part” means any part which is uniformly coloured and bounded by differently coloured parts.

So as long as the sign isn't required to be illuminated by lighting, (few are these days), reflectorisation is considered to be the default "illumination".