Talk:Road signs in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

There are a number of repeated signs I wonder whether some were missed?--Rjstott 11:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a picture of a pre-Worboys sign that could be added to the history section? There are still a few of these around in use, particularly in rural locations. Mazzy 16:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bilingual signs

Do they have Irish names in Northern Ireland? Aren't there also signs in foreign languages at major ports in England - 'Drive on the Left'?--JBellis 21:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Late comment but yes. Added information to reflect this. --Nidonocu 16:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No - Road Traffic Signs in Northern Ireland do not have Irish on them. Exceptions are made by some local councils for mainly nationalist areas within some towns, however this only extends to street-name signs and not to Road Traffic signs. Road Traffic signs in Northern Ireland are identical to those in England, however as mentioned in the article, are governed by a separate law specific to the Northern Ireland Assembly. This means that the agility is there should the Northern Ireland Assembly wish to introduce such a change. Jonnyt (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

History

There should be a link to Margaret Calvert here, and some expansion of the history. Justinc 11:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yellow squares, circles and triangles

On some signs there are small yellow symbols (squares, circles and triangles). The one web site that seemed to have an answer no longer functions. I guess they are military. Does any one have a definitive answer? JMcC (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

They are nothing more exciting than official diversion routes in the event of a major road closure. They seem to be rarely used, but overnight roadworks especially may use yellow diversion signing that says: "Diversion, follow {symbol}" at the start, with no further marks than the symbol on the permanent signs. They are not military. If you follow the Highways Agency documentation (and probably the Highway Code) you'd find it documented. The HA do have planned preferred diversion routes depending on which section of the motorway network is compromised. Dogbiscuit (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

They're not just for the event of a road closure. They are used for drivers unfamiliar to the route, especially haulage drivers, to direct them around towns etc. SimonTrew (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Heights in metric?

Is that true they are only in metric? I think the other way round.

I recall a case where a Swedish driver who took his truck under a low bridge got off because it was not signed in Imperial. It would say some trouble finding it (and fairly obviously he knew how tall it was in metric) but he got off cos the sign was only in metric not Imperial. If this is true and not an urban legend this needs fixing in the article (an my looking up the referene of course). SimonTrew (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Heights on roads signs are in imperial units (mandatory) with metric as an optional extra. Heights on garage canopies, entrances to buildings etc are often only in metric units - A Very Britsh Mess. Martinvl (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Design errors

The first two pictures on the page are described as having 'design errors'. What are the errors? Murray Langton (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well at least one of them was introduced by an anon IP editor with no edit summary, and since they couldn't be bothered to explain/justify it at the time I think that, unless there's a response soon, it would be appropriate to simply remove the "errors" bits. To be honest I don't think they can ever work well in the captions - they would need to be properly explained in the text where there's more room. At least the rather nauseating "unfortunately" which used to be attached to the upper caption is long gone! So if they can be explained in a nice clear way then great - otherwise I think they should just come out. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I've removed the 'design errors' from the captions. Murray Langton (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If any editor wishes to add pictures showing errors, then they should be in a specific section that deals with errors. Pictures, especially in the lede should depict typical road signs. Martinvl (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, seems reasonable to me. I don't think the lead photos and their captions can accommodate drive-by snarky comments - I am assuming that the people who made those comments are some sort of experts and can justify them (in fact I'd bet good money that that is the case), but, as you say, doing it in the right place would be good. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: the editor who wanted them in has shown up again and I've invited them to pop in here and help us out! Cheers, DBaK (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm that editor. The problem is that these 2 photos (not mine - they've been on the page for years) are very bad and do not illustrate the topic well. Each has about 6 major errors. For example, on both signs there are arms with blue panels, which indicate that they lead directly onto a motorway, but they each also have a non-motorway route on that same arm, which is impossible. I agree this page is not the place to talk about bad signing or to explain common errors. Basically these photos need removing and replacing with good examples, otherwise there is a danger that they will be taken as typical of UK traffic signing, which they are not.77.44.42.53 (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The second sign (presumably at Gatwick Airport) has the motorway numbers in brackets, indicating that the road leads to the indicated motorways rather than being a direct connection to a motorway; hence the blue panel is not an error on this sign. Can you detail the other 5 major errors please. Murray Langton (talk 14:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Also, come to look at it, isn't there a slightly odd duplication - both the top two photos show (errors notwithstanding) roundabout signs on primary routes. Am I going nuts or are these just two examples of the same thing? Because, if so, surely we only need one of them, which for a start would leave us only discussing one photo. Or?? Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Murray, but a blue panel indicates a motorway being joined immediately, irrespective of the brackets. You are thinking of a blue patch (around the route number alone) that indicates a motorway some distance away. Read Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 7 and TSRGD if you're still unclear on this. The lower (Gatwick) sign is the worse of the two: other errors on it include the use of the large Motorway alphabet (it's only used actually on motorways) and a parking destination not on a white panel. The upper sign has the borders and corner radii that are too large on its blue panels, too small an x-height for "Services" (which for current rules should be on a blue or white panel) and spacing generally is too tight (i.e. closer than Chapter 7 specifies). Not good examples, and I agree the Gatwick one should be deleted immediately; has anyone got any better ones?77.44.42.53 (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The white non-primary route sign (starting "Stoke Gifford") further down the page is well designed and should be promoted to the top, where I recall it was originally. The construction joins are rather prominent, but it's good apart from that.77.44.42.53 (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That all sounds perfectly reasonable to me, so I've done it. It would be nice to get a less error-prone green one for the top, as that's so familiar, but for the time being this seems quite a nice compromise. No? Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. Murray Langton (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"UK signs depict classical silhouetted persons."

I removed the above sentence which constituted its own separate second paragraph of the lead in splendid isolation. To be honest I am not even sure what it means but I would have thought that if the point needs making, it needs making more clearly and at an appropriate point in the body text. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, slightly clearer now - this user had a sort of categorization drive - see their edits on 13/9/2010 - in which all the road sign articles were categorized into stick or classical figures. I sort-of see the point, but I don't think that adding all these random-looking sentences to the lead was the right way to go about it. I'm not, however, thinking of starting a war over this so I will just leave my edit, and these comments, and see what develops. I am not saying it is necessarily bad information, just misplaced and somewhat contextless. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree Martinvl (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Old style road signs

I noticed an old style road sign still (just about) in use in my town earlier today, and uploaded a photograph of it if anybody would like to use it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roadsign_uk_oldstyle.jpg --Beeurd (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:A38DriverLocationSign km415.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:A38DriverLocationSign km415.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Illegal signs

My understanding of the word "illegal" is that a criminal offence is being committed. Unjustly making such an assertion could be libellous. Wikipedia policy is quite clear - libellous statements are to be deleted. Unless you can quote a reliable legal source which contradicts my statements, then don't make them. Moreover, making an assessment that a road sign is illegal, esopecially when http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/contents/made Section 8 of the TSRGD 2002] explicitly gives the minister the authority to authorise any sign that is not in the TSRGD is WP:OR. Either way, the word "illegal" should not be used. (updated) Martinvl (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're over-reacting a bit here, Martinvl. I'm sure that "libellous statements" in Wikipedia policy would refer to statements about people, not inanimate objects! I suspect that you and I know full well that though TSRGD allows for the Minister for Transport to authorise any sign he or she wanted to, that Hell would freeze over long before a sign giving only metric measures would ever receive such treatment!

Might I suggest that in cases like this that the phrase "not prescribed by TSRGD 2002" be used rather than "illegal". I agree that "illegal" seems to imply criminal offence, yet failing to comply with TSRGD does not appear to carry any such weight. Steve Hosgood (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No entry sign in Gibraltar

Does thw "No Entry sign in Gibraltar" picture add anythbing to the article? I don't think so, unless the point of this picture is to draw attention to the "10 km/h" sign (in which case a better picture whoudl be used). Martinvl (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is called "Road Signs in the United Kingdom". I don't understand why Gibraltar's signs are in here at all. If there's enough interest in Gibraltar's signs, may I suggest a new page "Road Signs in Gibraltar"?. I do like the "no roller blades or bikes" sign though! Steve Hosgood (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a section "Northern Ireland, Crown Dependencies and overseas territories " - which says "Roads signs in ... are teh same as those in the United Kingdom except ...". Martinvl (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Rare metric signs

Are metric signs in metres really rare and illegal? There is one near my house that is in metres. Could someone confirm if they are actually rare. Here is a google maps link to a sign in metres near my house. https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=ll26&hl=en&ll=53.129419,-3.777752&spn=0.036513,0.104628&sll=49.5,22&sspn=40.673602,107.138672&hnear=LL26,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=53.129405,-3.777621&panoid=458KEwkq2_2Vwbuo0J7RPw&cbp=12,260.66,,1,5.49 I am refering to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metric_UK_road_sign.tif Owen4004 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

By law all distances on distance signs must be in either imperial yards or miles so yeah, that sign is illegal 86.133.62.150 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Distance Signs

Yous forgot about the signgs that show distances to certain places 86.133.62.150 (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Urdu Signs

Does anyone have any facts about the claim that Bradford is makeing signs in Urdu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.157.195.129 (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The only "fact" is that the signs shown in the photos here - and most if not all the supporting text - are FAKES. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's the original image, before the Urdu was photoshopped on. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.8165562,-1.7197972,3a,75y,143.4h,75.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3p5-RXP6P9cbV3b4LVYp3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

http://newobserveronline.com/urdu-street-signs-new-britain/ is now a dead link. I guess they realise they've been conned. Now it just "never happened".

Although Google still has a cached copy at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o1iSDpVpT-UJ:newobserveronline.com/urdu-street-signs-new-britain/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Complete overhaul

Do you support the idea of making this page a list of SVG Diagrams of UK Road Signs like Road Signs in the United States and Road Signs in Australia --^TheSpaceFace _{Let's Chat} 05:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I would prefer the current style, which makes for a more interesting and informative article, with the history, design styles, etc. If readers just want a simple list of road signs there are better places online to get that information, eg [1]. --TBM10 (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Road signs in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100317184907/http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/16043.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/16043.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608080725/http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/14730.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/14730.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Abbreviations

'DS' and 'ADS'? Used liberally throughout the article but explained nowhere. Not even in the TSRGD. 86.160.245.27 (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed some 'What?' flags for that in the motorway section.

The term "directional sign" covers both Advance Direction Signs (ADS), placed on the approach to a junction,Ref 18 and Direction Signs (DS) at the junction itself, showing where to turn.Ref 18

I'll go up and revise the 'motorway' section, just above this, that uses these terms without first explaining it.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 15:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Overseas territories

The overseas territories are not "in the United Kingdom". "These territories do not form part of the United Kingdom" - see the opening paragraph of British Overseas Territories. So, either they should be removed from this article and placed in another article, or the title of this article should be changed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing has been done about this. To include sections on "Crown dependencies" and "Overseas territories" in an article entitled "...in the United Kingdom" is wrong, in my view, unless someone can demonstrate that other articles of similar scope use the same format. I'm surprised that no-one has yet created a separate article for them. Does anyone have any views? In the meantime I've taken matters into my own hands., and made a couple of adjustments Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Motorways are not 'restricted roads" within the meaning of the Act

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Section 81 says:

81    General speed limit for restricted roads.

(1)   It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour.

— "Road Traffic Regulation Act: Section 81", legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 1984 c. 27 (s. 81), retrieved 2 May 2020

and section 82 says

82   What roads are restricted roads.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 84(3) of this Act, a road is a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of this Act[F1if—

(a) in England and Wales, there is provided on it a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart;

(b) in Scotland, there is provided on it a system of carriageway lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 185 metres apart and the road is of a classification or type specified for the purposes of this subsection in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers.

— "Road Traffic Regulation Act: Section 82", legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 1984 c. 27 (s. 82), retrieved 2 May 2020

Legally, therefore, there are two requirements for a road to be defined as 'restricted' within the meaning of the Act: (a) the that the maximum speed is 30 mph or less [which excludes motorways] and (b) that it has street lamps not more than 200 yds / 185 m apart [which also excludes motorways, most of which are unlit full stop and the others are lit according to road conditions. It is therefore simply wrong to assert that motorways are restricted roads within the meaning of the Act. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I have never asserted that motorways are restricted roads - quite the opposite. I have asserted that motorways provided with electric street lighting are not restricted roads. The act specifically states this. Had you not cherry picked your quotation you would have included it as it is covered by sub section 3 of section 82 ("A special road is not a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 ..."). The term used in the act is 'special roads' which includes motorways. Special roads are covered by the Special Roads Act 1949. Motorways were created special roads by the Minister of Transport, Ernest Marples by enactment of a Ministerial Order in 1958.

A special road originally had no pre determined speed limit and consequently motorways had no speed limit prior to December 1965. There was still no 'National Speed Limit' as such for motorways until 1988, which meant that motorways had to be specifically signed to have a 70 mph limit after 1965 (dual carriageways cannot be signed as 70 as they are subject to a default NSL). Post 1988, motorways no longer have 70 signs as they now have a default NSL 70 limit though a few 70 signs survive.

Curiously, in Scotland, although a single carriage way road still has a NSL of 60, it is permissible to give the road a 70 limit if the road is deemed suitable. There are a couple of sections of the A1 between Broxburn and Edinburgh that are so signed (although they have no central reservation they are marked with four lanes, two in each direction).86.164.128.246 (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Pass either side sign

User Nathan A RF keeps reinserting this sign in the section on regulatory signs and adding two references claiming that those references state that the sign is a regulatory sign. Neither reference makes that claim. On his last reversion he even misrepresented the TSRGD claiming that the regulation does make the claim. He also claims that, "The sign is clearly a regulatory sign". How it is clearly a regulatory sign is a mystery, because the presence or absence of the sign on a traffic island make no difference to any driver whatsoever. Whether it is there or not, the driver can pass the island on either side.

The sign is listed in schedule 11 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. That schedule is entitled "Signs that give information, are advisory or guide traffic". Nothing in that title even suggests that any sign listed therein is regulatory (that is: specifically instructing a driver to do something that would not be the case if the sign was not displayed). What shape or colour the sign is is irrelevant. What the diagram number is is irrelevant. The TSRGD does not state that it a regulatory sign - anywhere. In fact: quite the opposite. 86.164.128.246 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Move to Commons

The sign galleries should be moved on a commons page, as Wikipedia is not a gallery, nor an indiscriminate collection of information (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). --JTE Dimandix (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Exception plates

The No Vehicles sign is in fact used with exception plates, such as [2] and [3]. These are in the TSRGD, I've read it many times. In regards to the No Entry sign, exception plates are not yet allowed for general use, but DfT has issued special warrants, including case 4844 and case 4252. There are at least 40 such cases. So I would appreciate the IP stop vandalising the page with claims that are demonstrably untrue. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Logo signs

I'm not exactly sure if these are in the TSRGD, but I added a United Kingdom section to logo sign. It turns out in 2011, the Department of Transport authorised Motorway services to add brand logos to signage, replacing the services sign that has the fuel pump, spoon & fork, information symbol, etc.

https://www.whatcar.com/news/motorway-service-station-signs-to-change/n8371

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/346336/Guide_to_the_Signing_of_Roadside_Facilities_for_Motorists_-_September_2013.pdf

Someone on Twitter is claiming the version with the Spoon & Fork, etc is now 'illegal' on Motorways, but I'm not sure what exactly their source is

I have a image taken from a recent drive in the logo sign article. I'm not great with creating images so I don't know if someone else wants to create a SVG version to place on this page. The generic American example used in the logo sign and Road Signs in the United States articles uses actual logos, but obviously the version in the UK government document does not. TIGHazard (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Unique Signs

The article states that "conform broadly to European norms, though a number of signs are unique". Which signs are unique to Britain?