Poor Road Signage Pictures

Terrontress

I find those confusing. Maybe if the Irish language version was always the same colour but its position on the sign is on top for Gaeltacht areas.

Cappo

Terrontress wrote:

I find those confusing. Maybe if the Irish language version was always the same colour but its position on the sign is on top for Gaeltacht areas.

Like so…








Still think the colour break helps with tourists and non-native speakers as the one-colour version could be misinterpreted as one place name.

Agreed! But with the Irish language version always green and english always black, rather than primary language black & secondary green.

Chris_533976

Although those signs look neater, I prefer the italicised version of one language. Makes it easier to spot the version you want just by looking at the sign. With the ones above, you instinctively read the whole sign, which takes longer.

Terrontress

Deleted User wrote:

Agreed! But with the Irish language version always green and english always black, rather than primary language black & secondary green.

Sorry, yeah. That was what I meant.

But in terms of typeface and case, they are extremely easy to read.

Cappo

Chris_533976 wrote:

Although those signs look neater, I prefer the italicised version of one language. Makes it easier to spot the version you want just by looking at the sign. With the ones above, you instinctively read the whole sign, which takes longer.

Don’t agree – I still think that the colour break between the languages would suffice. Italics are not the answer, as they tend to be harder to read. Perhaps a different weight of typeface would work better but I can’t see the Irish speakers agreeing to that one!

Cappo

Cappo wrote:

I still think that the colour break between the languages would suffice.

Yes, KISS (keep it simple) and consistant. Nothing worse than several different standards being seen on a journey, could confuse the hell out of visiting motorists who rely on the signs.

Richard

And also - don't have signs which can be moved - put two posts on each one so that naughty people can't change them to point in the wrong direction

murphaph

Richard wrote:

And also - don't have signs which can be moved - put two posts on each one so that naughty people can't change them to point in the wrong direction

The most important post on the page! Simple things like this are currently overlooked.

Cappo

Richard wrote:

And also - don't have signs which can be moved - put two posts on each one so that naughty people can't change them to point in the wrong direction

Not an engineer - but I am sure that there are clamps or brackets that could prevent that.

Capt'n Midnight

Richard wrote:

And also - don't have signs which can be moved - put two posts on each one so that naughty people can't change them to point in the wrong direction

rectangular / square section poles, pre drilled for holes to reduce wind loading and so you don't need brackets to attach signage.

I've seen the "Fast Lane" sign too on the way to Galway. There is no valid excuse for that as it's a safety issue.

jrar

Personally, I think the French have roadside signage down to a fine art.

This is not the best example you'll ever see, but for a t-junction in a small village, it gives both local and tourist the basic lowdown on what lies in each direction, with the road number on top so that there is no confusion.

Note the sightseeing symbol built into the finger sign for "Olargues" and the slightly italicised placename on the bottom sign for a small hamlet which happens to lie just out the road in that direction.

murphaph

Meh, I can take or leave french signage thoughundoubtedly it's better than ours. The best overall signage system in the world, when all things are considered, lies no more than 45 minutes drive from our capital! The UK has invested a LOT of time and money over decades in developing clear and consistent signage and it has even been exhibited in art forums as it is so symbolic of our times.

Our system lends heavily from theirs and if implemented as per the TSM would actually be one of the best in the world too!

jrar

jrar wrote:

Personally, I think the French have roadside signage down to a fine art.

This is not the best example you'll ever see, but for a t-junction in a small village, it gives both local and tourist the basic lowdown on what lies in each direction, with the road number on top so that there is no confusion.

Note the sightseeing symbol built into the finger sign for "Olargues" and the slightly italicised placename on the bottom sign for a small hamlet which happens to lie just out the road in that direction.

I don't like the idea of individual fingers for each destination, it makes reading the sign more difficult.

murphaph

Cappo wrote:

any idea who the consultants are

Roughan & O'Donovan.

Richard

Richard wrote:

And also - don't have signs which can be moved - put two posts on each one so that naughty people can't change them to point in the wrong direction

A simple solution to this is just to drill through the bracket and insert a screw or rivet strong enough to resist the forces of nature, vandels etc.

Cappo

murphaph wrote:

Roughan & O'Donovan.

Yep! As I suspected - engineers - I don't see any mention on there web site of graphic designers, typographers or any other design professionals, Pity :mad:

murphaph

Kinneir and Calvert did all the typography we need 40 years ago. If only we went completely monolingual like they have in the Gaeltacht. English signs in english speaking parts and irish signs in irish speaking parts, like say Belgium does it with French/Dutch. It's so simple. I can live with An Daingean or Gaoith Dobhair if they can live with english only names. Bilingual signs are a pure waste of signface and compromise the volume of information that can be easily conveyed on one sign. Transport is an absolutely fantastic font if used correctly....

Cappo

Well said Jock Kinneir was a great type designer! Could not agree more on one language!

Richard

Although if you were to have more than one language, here is a (slightly cheeky) example of usage...

more.jpg

Victor

murphaph wrote:

Does one take exit 4 or 5 for Bristol? And Yate?

Compare to exit 2.

Terrontress

Exit 3! Only those witi arrowed ends can be driven along. Those squared off are entrances to the roundabout. I would guess the A4174 is a dual carriageway.

murphaph

Indeed. The stubby ones are offslips from a dual carriageway. British drivers know this from their education and training. They know immediately that those are not exits, but entrances to the roundabout! It's simple really: No arrow, no exit!

Our signs are supposed to work the exact same way (apart from the crappy tacked on arrow heads we use for some unknown reason!!), yet Victor wasn't aware of this which shows just what a rubbish job our driver training/education and road signage policies are!

Alun

murphaph wrote:

Indeed. The stubby ones are offslips from a dual carriageway. British drivers know this from their education and training. They know immediately that those are not exits, but entrances to the roundabout! It's simple really: No arrow, no exit!

Yep, it was blindingly obvious to me, and I couldn't figure out what Victor's problem was either! But then I was born and raised on the other side of the Irish Sea and learnt to drive there.

murphaph

.......and here's a ballsed up irish sign for comparison..........



Points to note

1) The stubby one in this pic refers to a private access to Hewlett Packard, it should show this as a no entry or show an arrowhead.

2) The TWO stubbies that should show the motorway offslips are MISSING due to poor design.

3) Also due to poor design, the 'gap' in the roundabout is MISSING.

Here's a sign which does show the motorway offslips as stubbies (correct) but which also has a missing gap (incorrect). It's actually hard to find a TSM perfect version of what is a simple sign.....



This stuff is NOT rocket science. It is shocking just how often it is done wrong.

Victor

murphaph wrote:

I assume this is a slip road coming off the M4. Shouldn't the M4 be marked?

murphaph

Victor wrote:

I assume this is a slip road coming off the M4. Shouldn't the M4 be marked?

Not according to the TSM, no. It is deemed that you have just left the M4 and so do not need direction back to it. Make of that what you will. I think I'm ok with it but it does neglect drivers who've left the motorway in error at that exit.

jrar

At least the previous couple of posts show the directional signs safely positioned behind nearside protective barriers, so how is it in 2007 that (recently opened) stretches of motorway and HQDC (N7) continue to have large sections with distance/directional signage and lamp-posts totally unprotected on the nearside especially ?

Will it take a couple of deaths, as happened to prompt the retro-fitting exercise on central median barriers, before anything is done about it ?

Do we NEVER learn anything in this country except the hard, hard, way ??

Do the NRA have no health & safety requirements to meet on road-users behalf before commissioning a road into everyday use ?

spacetweek

Alun wrote:

Yep, it was blindingly obvious to me, and I couldn't figure out what Victor's problem was either! But then I was born and raised on the other side of the Irish Sea and learnt to drive there.

I think it's just whatever you're more used to seeing. Personally I thought the Irish sign was easier to understand. Some of the criticisms I'm seeing here of Irish signage (e.g. the gap being missing on the roundabout icon) seem very unimportant to me.

Alun

spacetweek wrote:

I think it's just whatever you're more used to seeing.

Not really .. I only drove regularly in the UK for a couple of years after passing my test there, and I haven't lived there since (that was 27 years ago ). I still find the signage there to be much clearer than it is here, although the 'gap' in the roundabout thing isn't that big a deal IMO.