Poor Road Signage Pictures

MT

Yeah, couldn’t agree more. I’m not familiar with the area there but I think I’m right in believing that’s a sort of a cross roads on a bend with the R121 being the priority road. Up here, depending on the junction’s importance, you’d have an advance map sign showing the bend, cross etc with the next destination on the R121 shown; then a plates pointing down the minor roads at the junction and two plates on each side of the main road showing directions in both ways for traffic joining the R121 – there’d be no direction signage for traffic already on the R121 as is the case here. Further destinations, such as Blanch. and Dublin in this case would be shown on a route reminder/mileage sign some time after the junction. Essentially three stages of signage, as in these unrelated pictures – advance, at the junction and route reminder with distance to further destinations (could only find primary).

Usually there would be no more than two or three destinations signed on the flag plates at the actual junction. Destinations further away would be left until the route reminder sign. The latter also takes care of distances reducing clutter on the pointing along signs. Up here distances are usually only printed on pointing along signs at minor junctions with no advance or reminder signage.

This three step approach to signing important junctions is followed in places in the Republic – Donegal has had a lot of this new signage erected – but often it’s lacking. I think many local authorities are finding it difficult to adapt to this new comprehensive form of signage when for generations they’ve signed everything not just from the actual junction but from one single post. These signs frequently encompass the very opposite of the clear three step approach with just about every destination, distance, tourist attraction, B&B, etc. being signed from this one point – it’s total info overload!

Where advanced signage is used in the Republic I feel it often suffers from a lack of a map layout plumping instead for the less description stack type. Indeed, you really only see the former down there for roundabouts and motorway or dual carriageway fork signs. This is a pity for while the stack layout is fine for a straight road with a routine junction the map version is so much more informative when there’s a curve or peculiar junction shape. Stack and map.

Half the people in Ireland don't even know the primary route numbers!

This is a problem both north and south with everyone using the 'such and such road' for directions. So we could always adopt the American system of solely route numbers and cardinal compass points. I could just imagine the chaos!

MT

I should make it clear that the stack form of advance signage is still used up here but it appears to becoming less common as map layouts are opted for more and more. This seems to be signage policy right across the UK with stacks seemingly being phased out.

The benefit of map signs is that you can provide much more detailed information about the junction or road ahead.

When it comes to route confirmation signs there’s a strange inconsistency down there with some signs consisting of one plate – as in the UK – while others have the route number on a separate plate attached above. The latter seems like more hassle to mount and to add to this I’ve seen a number of these signs where the smaller route plate has been knocked off. Surely having everything on the one panel would avoid these problems. And why where two different methods used on the same stretch of road (N18)?

murphaph

Our signs manual would rarely call for a map type sign unless at a particularly complex junction. Of course you'll usually just find a crappy finger post at such junctions. I'm gonna draw a clear diagram of what should be erected at Clonsilla and send it to the council. They do listen they just don't seem to know what to do. The poor fellows who go out to erect signage probably have no training and are just doing things as they've always done.

That stack sign in Donegal isn't too bad compared to 90%+ of the signage down here MT-I'd be well pleased if we got to a stage where such signage was commonplace and then work on getting map signs!

MT, are you near the border at all?

I've heard that northerners ar as bad as us for ignoring route numbers, isn't the M1 still called the 'motorway' and the M2 the 'new motorway' (despite both being built over 30 years ago!)?

murphaph

Check out Rennicks extensive site. These goons have the monopoly on road signs in Ireland and even their own site pictures have glaring breaches of the TSM. The M11 gantry, being the worst offender! Amazingly however these people make signs for the UK too, so are familiar with doing it properly! The damn factory is just 5 mins from me here. I'd like to go up there and crack some skulls together.

It's a good site however, you can see the spec sheets for anti-rotation clips. On the new Ongar Distributor scheme near my house, there is a speed limit sign which has been rotated numerous times since it went up just a few weeks ago. They have now installed those anti rotation clips on it but the other 40 odd signs on the scheme are not mounted with anti-rotation brackets-just how long do they think it'll be before kids figure that out?!

Bloody contractors.

Victor

Remind me which one of you works for a signage company?

murphaph

I wish I did, I might be able to influence things then! Rennicks are the only signmaker's signs I have ever seen in the Republic. They should know that the big M11 gantry sign on their homepage is totally at odds with the TSM, with a ridiculous amount of duplicate text that only confuses the driver. They have a design house within their company so surely they should be famliar with the TSM and when a local authority orders a sign that contravenes the regs, Rennicks should be able to flag this to that authority. I imagine they just want the money and know that if/when a comprehensive signage review takes place, they will get to replace the shoddy signs and make more money on the same job. Obviously the buck stops with the local authorities and not a private company but it would be nice if that company who make all the signs i the state would flag poor designs.

MT

MT, are you near the border at all?

I've heard that northerners ar as bad as us for ignoring route numbers, isn't the M1 still called the 'motorway' and the M2 the 'new motorway' (despite both being built over 30 years ago!)?

Yeah, I’ve moved back to my routes in culchiedom from Belfast. I’m now in the sticks – Fermanagh to be precise. This is what got me interested in signage in NI and the Republic: the shear contrast between the two. On one side of the border you’ve got UK signage, which for primary and secondary routes is probably some of the best in the world. But cross the border and you’ve got, er… finger posts. And I think my current location also disproves the notion that rural hicks can’t figure out basic signage – the culchies here in Fermanagh have managed to put up and maintain excellent signage but drive into Cavan and it’s another story completely. Having said that Donegal is better than average by the Republic’s standards but still some way behind here.

It’s just the contrast that really amazes me, you go from excellent to appalling within the space of a few miles.

I've heard that northerners ar as bad as us for ignoring route numbers, isn't the M1 still called the 'motorway' and the M2 the 'new motorway' (despite both being built over 30 years ago!)?

Oh yeah, that’s certainly true. I think it stems from the chaotic numbering system in use up here and NI’s small size and isolation. As the numbering seems illogical people simply ignore it preferring the traditional ‘Dublin road’ and so on. On top of this NI is cut off from the rest of the UK while at the same time not being connected to the numbering network of the rest of Ireland. So people here have probably got used to giving directions in very parochial terms as locals don’t need the numbers while those from further away (Britain/Republic) come from fairly different systems so it was likely assumed they wouldn’t understand anyway.

MT

Ah Rennicks, partners in crime when it comes to misleading signage. They seem to have a good grasp of the materials needed to produce good sign faces but their design team ain’t sh!t hot to say the least.

I think this page sums up the problem, someone’s thoughtfully using a computer program to design a sign that needlessly uses two plates where one would be much more practical. And these pictures are supposed to be promotional?!

Hmm, I wonder are those non-slip brackets as good as the ones with indentations? And, given their production of signs both in the UK and Ireland, have they figured out that the plates in use in the Republic are clearly less robust and not as durable as those used up here?

I see on that site that Rennicks did the signage for the South Eastern section on the M50. I’d keep that quiet if I were them. Then there’s the Mountcharles N56 bypass. At the start of this they placed advance warning signage at a junction, I think one of the signs for Mountcharles fell off and some of the lettering peeled off the other. So as far as motorists are concerned it could be anywhere. The LA doesn’t seem too interested either.:rolleyes:

Pic: Another gem from Rennicks! It seems they’re actually proud of this finger but strangely they didn’t advertise any fingerposts on their site (probably don’t want to scare customers in the UK). Oh, and 13,000km is about the distance Rennicks should be kept from the design of any future signage projects! :mad:

MT

I wish I did, I might be able to influence things then!

Much better to be a regulator. You could spend your entire time driving round the country saying 'No, take that down', 'No, that won't do', 'No, remove it', 'No, try again', 'No, no, no, that's terrible'...

icdg

MT wrote:

When it comes to route confirmation signs there’s a strange inconsistency down there with some signs consisting of one plate – as in the UK – while others have the route number on a separate plate attached above. The latter seems like more hassle to mount and to add to this I’ve seen a number of these signs where the smaller route plate has been knocked off. Surely having everything on the one panel would avoid these problems. And why where two different methods used on the same stretch of road (N18)?

The rule seems to be that if there's a single destination it gets a one-plate, any more and the route no is separate. I've seen one-plate route confirmation signs (with just one destination) as far away as Portlaoise on the M7 - a sign that could just as easily have signed Newbridge, Naas, or Monestervin as major destinations.

And why oh why are there only a handful of route confirmation signs in the entire of Dublin, including practically none on the M50 (supposedly a national primary route). After J13 northbound there's one, but all it says is, er, "M50 Northbound". Useful.

On the N4, the first route confirmation sign outbound after Hueston is after the M50, then the next is Leixlip. Inbound the last route confirmation sign is Leixlip (there was until recently one at Parkgate Street, 1970s-style, still baring the "N4" route number but having been long bypassed).

MT

The rule seems to be that if there's a single destination it gets a one-plate, any more and the route no is separate.

But I’ve seen a single destination/route confirmation sign on the N15 for Sligo that had a separate plate for the route number. Not long after that when I passed it again the N15 plate had been knocked off. Here is another one on the M1.

I can understand the logic of a separate plate when there are multiple distances – they may not all be on that road. However, the use of brackets around destinations or additional bracketed route numbers solves this problem. They could also just have a line separating the route number from the rest of the sign face and this too would do away with the impractical added plate.

This one on the M7 makes a mockery of any logic there might have been. It has the separate plate at the top but with a bracketed M9 in it despite the fact that destinations on the M9 are in brackets further down the sign?!

These signs are yet another example of the lack of consistency that’s often found on signage in the Republic. Why not go for the most durable approach of putting everything on the one plate?

And why oh why are there only a handful of route confirmation signs in the entire of Dublin, …

I think this is the case right across the Republic where there is a lack of both advance and confirmation signage in general. Again it comes from the practice followed down there until fairly recently of attempting to sign everything at junctions on a finger post. Of course this resulted in a baffling myriad of destinations, route numbers, distances, attractions, etc. The new approach of using three steps (advance, junction and confirmation) as in the UK hasn’t fully been grasped yet by many local authorities it would seem.

MT

I’ve just been flicking through that Sabre site and found a link to this major sign supplier in Wolverhampton – Morelock Signs Ltd. If you click on the design tab you’ll be taken to a page where they state: ‘…the design team will check over any drawings you may supply to confirm that that they comply with DfT (Department for Transport) regulations.’

So if they can do this why can’t Rennicks do likewise with the Department of Environment regulations? There’s even a full link to the DfT(UK) signage section on the Morelock site.

Was that thread started by you, Murphaph?



I also see on that thread Rennicks have mucked up the 20 speed limits in a contract in Aberdeen, erecting signs that don’t comply with legal regulations. Inept or what?

Pic: Warning! Rennicks signage conference ahead.

Pic: A Rennicks' delegation deep in discussion.

Pic: Rennicks' Technical Committee discuss new sign support technology. ‘Jayz lads, would we get one of them there plate things on this?’

Pic: Back in Dublin at the Rennicks HQ to write up the report.
‘Gerry, what’s that?’
‘They say it’s a computer…’

icdg

MT wrote:

This one on the M7 makes a mockery of any logic there might have been. It has the separate plate at the top but with a bracketed M9 in it despite the fact that destinations on the M9 are in brackets further down the sign?!

Those signs follow no consistancy! Between junctions 7 and 9 southbound on the M7, every time M7 appears it is followed by (M9) in brackets. Even on the "Motorway Regulations Apply" signs at J7!. (In fact at J8, the "Motorway Regulations Apply" sign is, continental-style, simply the motorway symbol - the only place in Ireland where I think this is done - with the "M7 (M9)" a seperate plate a while down. Northbound everything is simply M7.

The only thing I think they are trying to indicate is that the M7 and M9 motorways are multiplexing on this section. But its not done anywhere else...

murphaph

From reading the declaration of roads act I don't believe roads multiplex anywhere in Ireland. Certainly in the city centre, O'Connell Street is the N1 but the N2, N3 etc all start at junctions furrther noth in the city centre, none of which overlap.

Victor

Collapseable posts. The posts are designed to collapse if struck by a vehicle, hopefully minimising damage.

http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/displayimage.php?album=150&pos=0

MT

Collapseable posts. The posts are designed to collapse if struck by a vehicle, hopefully minimising damage.

Yeah, those collapsible posts are a good idea. They’d also solve the problem of sign rotation once and for all as they don’t have a round surface. But again there seems to be a lot of inconsistency. I’ve only seen those posts used in occasional instances, such as in that pic, and on a number of those speeding kills signs. Are these trials for a future plan to install collapsible posts right across the network or just another whimsical detour on the part of some contractor?

The use of stripes on posts is another approach that's just as hit and miss, as these pics demonstrate:
stripes, no stripes, stripes, no stripes, stripes, no stripes, stripes, no stripes, stripes, no stripes, stripes, no stripes, stripes, no stripes, stripes, no stripes, stripes, no stripes, stripes, no stripes... What unearth is the policy – stripes or no stripes?

The ‘modern’ plastic cap type stripes don’t fit around the sharp bends in modern posts, as this peculiar colour selection demonstrates.

Then there seems to be the mistaken use of the wrong colours for the sign displayed. Why has yellow and black been used for this yield? And how are you supposed to read that St Mullans finger when it’s mounted right behind the other sign?

I’m also convinced that the use of plastic stripes provides less grip for sign brackets.

However, it appears that stripes are so wonderful they can also be used to remedy bodge jobs. Clearly no one will notice the utter mess this local authority have made of what should be a simple plate swap. I see something that looks suspiciously like baler twine has been used to secure the new 40 limit. Cowboy builders couldn’t do worse – but then, the stripes make it all better! :rolleyes:

I think that even if installed comprehensively striped posts would still have many draw backs but when the policy is followed as inconsistently as these pictures show then it should be ditched altogether. After all, I don’t think signage in the UK has suffered from the phasing out of zebra stripes decades ago.

MT

More cluttered finger posts in the midst of this tourist's pics:

Link

Snickers Man

I just want to say this is a brilliant ****ing thread.

Irish people can't give directions. I think it is so ingrained now that it is genetic.

the old joke is that an Irishman starts directions with "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here"

We don't say that in as many words, but we do the same thing in a slightly different manner.

Ask an Irish person for directions and the first thing they will ask you is 'Where do you know that is near where you're trying to go?"

Do you know the Square?
Do you know Blanchardstown Shopping Centre?
Do you know O'Neils pub?

Why?

Because the task of directing anyone to somewhere a little distant is just too damned hard given our total lack of signposts or the confusing, illegible or just plain stupid signposts we have. (Conduire a droite indeed!)

My pet nomination for the most stupid signpost is the one for the Helix Theatre from the dual carriageway beside it. If you are approaching from town, the signpost is on the far side of the dual carriageway almost completely out of sight for anybody approaching in a car.

Stupid.

murphaph

If you could get a picof that sign Snickers Man it'd be appreciated.

I today wrote to FCC roads dept (I have been emailing them repeatedly over the past few weeks). I mailed them because of the rubbish attempt to fix the so-salled direction signage at Clonsilla Station.

This rime I provided them with detailed drawings of what should be present by way of directional and waning signage at this complex and potentially very dangerous junction.

Please find attached the pics I sent them.

MT

Great presentation, Murphaph. Do you work in sign design by chance?

This is the sort of thing everyone should do when they find fault with something an LA has botched. A diagram speaks a thousand words and all that. If you could come up with standard ‘proposal sheets’ containing a box for an aerial diagram and boxes for signage (advanced, junction and confirmation) then anyone here could print them off and inform the local powers that be how confusing road layouts should be properly signed.

Just on your proposed signage I’m thinking that up here the Roads Service would now put in a mini-roundabout if they were going to tackle an intersection like that. They seem to act as traffic calming devices making cars slow down and easing the lives of nearby pedestrians.


At the junction

If I were you I’d ditch the pointing along Clonsilla flag at the top of the picture. Traffic already on the R121 should know from having seen the advance signage that they’re already on the road to Clonsilla. I think the Republic needs to get away from using at junction signage as a sort of route reminder – it would teach people to pay more attention to advance signage.

I think I’d put the Ongar flag in the top right in the place of that top left Clonsilla flag. This would make it more visible to the traffic that needs to see it – cars heading in the Clonsilla direction on the R121.

The Ongar flag at the bottom seems fine but I’d stack the Lucan sign above it with a vertical arrow, as in this layout. Again, this is because I don’t believe a sort of route reminder flag should be provided for R121 traffic that’s already seen the advance signage. So, the only drivers in need of this Lucan sign are those actually changing road. Those coming from the right have been catered for with a Lucan flag so that just leaves drivers coming from the road at the top. The straight on arrow would simply inform them that all they need do is continue straight over the junction.

I should reiterate, I don’t think the authorities down there should provide flags at junctions for traffic that doesn't have to change from one road to another.


Advance

For a complex and irregularly shaped junction like this map type signage would really come into its own. But I agree with your previous point that LAs in the Republic should aim to get stack advance signage right for now.

For Clonsilla bound traffic on the R121 I’d go for a diagonal arrow pointing top right as this gives a fairer representation of the junction – a bit like the R263 Killybegs plate on this sign. It should also be within TSM guidelines without going fully diagrammatic. Maybe a diagonal top left arrow for the R121 Lucan bound traffic? Then another diagonal arrow, again pointing top left, for Clonsilla bound drivers joining the R121 from the road to the right.


Warning

Looks good from here. But again if map advance signage was used the railway crossing could be signed much more clearly on the direction signs. The other advantage of map signs, as that pic shows, is that you can show major and minor roads with thick and thin arrows negating the need for the any warning signs in this instance at all. This would cut down on clutter and compensate for the extra cost of larger diagrammatic direction signs.


Interestingly, some authorities have made a stab at diagrammatic signage on stacks as in this pic. Some Australian states have tried this too. However, these look a bit cramped to be clearly decipherable and you also don’t get the benefit of placing warning signs, etc. on them as you do with the larger UK version.


Route confirmation?

What about two of these on the R121 – one on each side for traffic having passed through the junction on the priority route.



Don’t take these comments as a negative swipe at what you’ve produced, it’s just my tuppenceworth that’s all.

murphaph

All comments welcome MT, criticise away!

Wrt the map type directional signs combining into them the warning signs for the gates, I did think of that but I honestly can't see the LA 'getting it' and this scheme would be fairly quick and easy to implement. Currently there is ONE sign immediately before the gates approaching from the north and this has been twisted because it's too close to the carriageway.

If this was the UK this junction would have accurate map type advance direction signage.

The pointing along sign at the top right of the pic has to remain because there is a train station between the advance direction signage at the bottom of the pic and the junction, so train users (perhaps using bicycles too!) would be in 'no man's land' and need that sign to direct them along the R121 towards Clonsilla. The roads aren't just for motorists MT!

The eason I included the R121 on the flag signs was that I think in reality this is all I'll get (at best) and so without the advance direction signs these flags still 'work' pretty well. Advance direction signs of any type are NOT mandatory on an R road according to the TSM, but are left to the judgement of the designer. I don't trust this judgement so don't expect them to do one iota more than they have to (if they manage that).

I did consider the arrows being angled to 45 degrees and 135 degrees as you mentioned but the problem I saw was that in conjunction with the crossroads sign (all 90 degree angles) there might be some confusion, whereas this way you can't make a mistake, if you get me.


What should really happen with this junction is that the unclassified road approaching from the north should be closed at the junction and this 4 way crossroads becoming a T-junction, thereby making the signage and road marking (and vehicle movements) much more straightforward. The road just goes around the back of that house anyway! Closing it here does not cause anyone any problems.

I don't work in graphic design no! I'm an engineer-I knocked those up with humble MS Paint! And it's still better than some of the sh!te the LA's 'design'.

murphaph

Just to add, route confirmation signs are highly unlikely to be installed as they are not mandatory in the TSM for R or lower roads, so they build the R number into the flag (in theory).

MT

The pointing along sign at the top right of the pic has to remain because there is a train station between the advance direction signage at the bottom of the pic and the junction…

Ah, well it in that case…

The roads aren't just for motorists MT!

I realised that after several traffic jams involving sheep in Mayo.

I’m not sure what’s mandatory for secondary routes up here but there’s certainly a lot of advance and route confirmation signage on them. It’s a great pity there isn’t more on R roads down south. Having said that, the new signage that was put up in Donegal over the past number of years seems to have the three stages of signage for loads of R road signage. Indeed, it was my experience there that prompted me to mention the flags for traffic on the R121. The local authority in Donegal having done a good job of stack signage prior to junctions and confirmation after then went and made the junctions themselves somewhat needlessly confusing by placing flag signs at odd angles to ‘help’ motorists on the priority route. It was the one flaw in an otherwise reasonable overhaul.

And, yeah, I’m all for the closing of minor unclassified roads where ever possible. They’re just a waste of tarmac, or tar and chips as is usually the case, they’re often dangerous and make junctions even more so. Then they’re also the ‘drive way’ for someone’s dream one-off mansion which ruins the countryside and exacerbates the other problems.

As for that twisted warning sign (any pics?) I hope you’ll be demanding the LA mounts you’re new large versions on two posts each.

Again, it’s a pity about the lack of route confirmation/distance signs but if they ever did relent and put them up the single plate version common in the UK and used also in Australia would be a more durable option than the Republic’s current two-piece sign.

I'm an engineer-I knocked those up with humble MS Paint! And it's still better than some of the sh!te the LA's 'design'.

Too true. The current monopoly signing major road projects in the Republic don’t seem to know their arse from their elbow either when it comes to proper design! Time to send Rennicks a copy of MS Paint.

MT

Pic: Came across this Australian warning sign that would be perfect for signing the R121 junction. It just needs to be rotated through 90 degrees for each approach.

Pic: Another warning sign from that site. These are used in the US and Australia to warn of stop signs ahead, presumably not in every instance but just prior to overly hazardous junctions. Such an advance warning might be beneficial for the minor roads approaching the R121. Conversely the UK doesn’t use anywhere near the same number of stop signs as the Republic. Up here it’s mostly give ways. However, like the Americans, when a junction is overly hazardous advance warning is given by a blank give way triangle with a sign giving the distance to the junction mounted below. I think this is standard across much of Europe as well.

Pic: Here’s one for a yield ahead too.

Pic: New Zealand has a slight variation on this (no arrow).

daymobrew

murphaph wrote:

Traffic Signs Manual

In the 'correct' picture, are there advance signs for the two signs on the left and right of the picture?

A good while back I drove to Portmarnock, via M50, turning left off N32 at Clare Hall. Then there is a right turn at traffic lights (with an advance sign).
The next sign I saw was on the opposite side of the junction I needed to take (low down type as shown in the 'correct' picture above). The sign was obscured by a car coming out of the junction. In this instance the 'wrong' picture would have been more useful than the 'correct' picture - sign not hidden.

A mile further on the same thing happened again. While no car obscured the sign, I didn't see it until it was too late to make the turn (I would have been rear ended).

I wrote to Fingal County Council (with junction layout diagrams). I was told that a traffic engineer would contact me but I heard nothing. I didn't pursue it because it is so rare that I go out there, and now I know the junctions. The LA wear you down by ignoring you.

murphaph

daymobrew wrote:

In the 'correct' picture, are there advance signs for the two signs on the left and right of the picture?

It would depend on the road class and the individual designer who should take into account the particular requirements of the junction. The signs manual is a guide, not an all-encompassing reference manual. Higher classified roads should automatically get advance signage (and route confirmatory signage after the junction).

daymobrew wrote:

A good while back I drove to Portmarnock, via M50, turning left off N32 at Clare Hall. Then there is a right turn at traffic lights (with an advance sign).
The next sign I saw was on the opposite side of the junction I needed to take (low down type as shown in the 'correct' picture above). The sign was obscured by a car coming out of the junction. In this instance the 'wrong' picture would have been more useful than the 'correct' picture - sign not hidden.

A mile further on the same thing happened again. While no car obscured the sign, I didn't see it until it was too late to make the turn (I would have been rear ended).

I wrote to Fingal County Council (with junction layout diagrams). I was told that a traffic engineer would contact me but I heard nothing. I didn't pursue it because it is so rare that I go out there, and now I know the junctions. The LA wear you down by ignoring you.

I know how you feel Damien. I don't believe the LA's really have properly qualified/experienced engineers. If they did, we'd see some results. IT's not that there's no money to spend (the usual reason engineers don't get what they want) because we see new (incorrect) signage erected all the time.

For example, here's a BRAND NEW sign on the Clonee-Clonsilla road, installed as part of the Ongar Distributor Scheme (it's spposed to be an advance direction sign but it's an 'in-junction' type sign!).....

murphaph

MT wrote:

As for that twisted warning sign (any pics?) I hope you’ll be demanding the LA mounts you’re new large versions on two posts each.

Yes and already done in that order!

You can see the sign face head on on one of the pics, unfortunately that shot was taken from directly across the road from the sign, so clearly doesn't so a good job of warning oncoming road users!

The other pic is taken from behind the sign. You can see it's almost invisible as it has been twsisted parallel to the carriageway. It's a useless sign and warns of a bloody important hazard, 300 tonne trains and all that!

murphaph

As promised elsewhere, here's a pic of an improved gantry on the M1 northbound. The first defect with this sign is that the lane drop is not the R132, it's a spur of the M1 so R132 should be (R132). The other defect is that M1 is repeated needlessly on the panel above the mainline and that "GET IN LANE" is superfluous as it is implied by the downward arrows. It should also have been give a junction number (it is now J2 as can be seen on the fork sign behind the gantry). It should have looked more like the attached image! It's a LOT better than the SE Motorway rubbish however.

mackerski

I think the brackets for the R132 are a little superfluous, since the M1 spur leads inescapably to it - there's a very fine line between spur and slip road. There is a further error in the signing used: exits should be signed with fork signs or gantries, but not both.

Dermot

murphaph

mackerski wrote:

I think the brackets for the R132 are a little superfluous, since the M1 spur leads inescapably to it - there's a very fine line between spur and slip road. There is a further error in the signing used: exits should be signed with fork signs or gantries, but not both.

Dermot

The second point is spot on Dermot. The fork should go. It's just needless clutter once a decent gantry is up. The first point is a fine line between me being anal and the right way to do it. I would argue that the M1 spur (albeit a short one) is a spur and not a slip road and doesn't lead inescapably to the R132 cos if you take the second exit at the M1 spur terminal roundabout you are heading into the airport, not the R132, so I reckon R132 should be in brackets. I can live with it the way it is however-it's a huuuge improvement on the stuff we've seen before.

MT

Comments on gantries for off-slips

This is an area where I think the Republic would be well advised to steer clear of what’s went up in the UK. This is one aspect of British signage I really deplore. I think UK gantries get it wrong in so many ways.

The huge amounts of superfluous grey panelling only increases wind impact and looks unsightly. Separate plates seem to work fine elsewhere so why not here.

The text on the signs is frequently difficult to follow due to a right to left layout in contrast to the international norm of a vertical list. Then there’s often far too many destinations given resulting in almost a paragraph of impenetrable wording.

Where a list style is used I feel the text could be given a central alignment as opposed to placing it to the left. This would improve appearance and provide a stronger visual emphasis between overhead info and the lane beneath.

Lanes on the mainline could also do with a straight on arrow each for reassurance/clarity.

Gantry signs in this part of the world could also do with lighting as in the US and the Netherlands. The lack of it here often reduces readability at night as you’re frequently driving with dipped beams. In addition, the Republic should include electronic message signs in its gantries as these are excellent for conveying lane closers, variable speed limits, etc.

Pic: Poorly laid out UK gantry

Pic: Much clearer Dutch version (big pic)

Pic: French gantries are quite unique also but again I like the vertical emphasis though the proper inclusion of route numbers would be helpful.



******************
I realise the gantry snapped on the M50 is for a lane drop but again many of the above flaws appear here also.

In total I feel they are: grey panelling, text not centrally aligned, Belfast and Swords not stacked adding confusion, repitition of M1, text appears too large for plates, lack of lighting, no junc. number, superfluous ‘get in lane’ instruction and lastly a needlessly cumbersome piece of scaffolding that passes for a gantry. Electronic lane panels would be nice too.

I’ve repeated some of what’s already been highlighted but I thought I’d stick my entire thoughts together.

As for the brackets around R132, I’m just not sure.

Pic: An American layout for a lane drop. Maybe the half-gantry displayed after the lane drop signage for Florida 13 might be a better alternative to a fork sign.


Murphaph, to attach images do they have to be hosted somewhere on the net?

Victor

At last, boards.ie has reached true nerdiedom.

murphaph wrote:

As promised elsewhere, here's a pic of an improved gantry on the M1 northbound. The first defect with this sign is that the lane drop is not the R132, it's a spur of the M1 so R132 should be (R132). The other defect is that M1 is repeated needlessly on the panel above the mainline and that "GET IN LANE" is superfluous as it is implied by the downward arrows. It should also have been give a junction number (it is now J2 as can be seen on the fork sign behind the gantry). It should have looked more like the attached image! It's a LOT better than the SE Motorway rubbish however.
http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10640/M1%20nb%202.JPG

I would suggest that Swords and Belfast be stacked, not side by side.

Pic: An American layout for a lane drop. Maybe the half-gantry displayed after the lane drop signage for Florida 13 might be a better alternative to a fork sign.

Terrible layout, the sign for one lane is wider than the sign for two lanes. I had difficulty making ot the arrows from the lights.

Murphaph, to attach images do they have to be hosted somewhere on the net?

You can attach images from anywhere, only linked photos need to be on the web.

When you reply to a message, scroll down and use the "Attach Files
Valid file extensions: bmp doc gif jpe jpeg jpg kmz pdf png psd txt xls zip" section, there are reasonable limits on image size.

murphaph

I quite like the UK way (which is officially our way too!) when it's done properly. The problem is that oftentimes too many local destinations are included on UK signage and as well as that, the way the GB motorway network is far more dense than ours will ever be, they have many more multiple motorway junctions than we will ever have (unless our population rises to 55 million!). We can thus use the UK system quite well. In any case, they are the ones in our manual and if ony we at least had this level of signage we'd be doing well.

MT

Victor wrote:

At last, boards.ie has reached true nerdiedom.

Gee, I think in the rest of Europe it’s known as doing things properly and paying attention to detail. Maybe if your public servants down there took more of a nerdish attitude there’d be less need for it here. But when in Rome…

‘Jaysus boy, planning? Ye’ll never catch the like a me at that craic. Sure we just throw up whatever comes to mind at the time. Who d'ye think I am, some sorta bleedin' nerd? And this TSM malarky, what’s that? Some sorta new speed limit?’ said the head of transport planning…

Victor wrote:

You can attach images from anywhere, only linked photos need to be on the web.

Great. I think I’ll have to replace my digital camera.

Murphaph wrote:

I quite like the UK way…

I understand the logic behind it but I just find it awful to look at. As signage goes it just ain’t pleasing to the eye and the layout is often as clear as mud. I really think that when starting from fresh the Republic should have assessed gantry signage right across Europe and beyond. Had they done so – I’m assuming transport chiefs there just copied the UK – they might have realised that many countries easily surpass Britain. My own favourite is the Netherlands. Clear, simple, pleasing to the eye, it ticks all the right boxes from a good design perspective. Indeed, I think the latest gantry designs to be used in Spain closely follow the Dutch approach. Spain being a country being a country that’s started over with a new signing policy several times.

Murphaph wrote:

We can thus use the UK system quite well. In any case, they are the ones in our manual and if ony we at least had this level of signage we'd be doing well.

I’d agree that paying close attention to what the UK does couldn’t do the Republic any harm. For the most part British signage is up there with the best internationally. But as with anywhere there are flaws and I think you need to take a more outward approach than simply copying your nearest neighbour as there’s plenty of stuff abroad that the UK could do with adopting too. And I think some of the continental gantry signage is a good example. Another is the new world warning signs in the Republic – much more visible, if only they were put up right.

By all means consider what the UK does, but do so in conjunction with assessing what’s done elsewhere too.

Here endeth my weighty moralising on the need for internationalism in signage policy.

Oh, and if the Republic has to have fingerposts then it would also be worth paying attention to the Dutch approach. Their fingers can’t be rotated. Hence the popularity of clogs with no shoelaces, ho hum. Victor, I’ll just get my anorak.

MT

What’s with the green patching for primary routes on these Mway signs?

Pic: In addition to no green, I’d stack the two mainline destinations and centralise M4 (M5). The arrows could go inside the destination (the blue backed arrow underneath the green panel looks incongruous here) panels and the grey could be ditched. I’d put 11 in the top left hand corner and maybe include the French exit symbol.

Pic: More green. I don’t like those the use of those French style arrows for confirming a split. For this scenario and advance slip road signage I’d much prefer arrows pointing top left. As with Dutch practice these provide a greater visual differentiation with the straight ahead arrows. This then allows the Dutch to use the French type for signalling the ending/merging of one lane into another.

Pic: A patch for the N32? Again there should be stacking, centralisation, arrows included and so on. If speed limits had to be put up they could’ve been placed in a larger blue plate. Not sure about ‘prepare to stop’ on a gantry. And there’s enough grey sheeting there to make goodness knows how many warning signs!

Pic: Agree with your comments, Murphaph. I’d just add that the duplication on the rightmost panel is pointless. This recurring fault might stem from the policy of aligning text to the left as only one ‘city centre’ displayed here would look equally confusing. However, if the centralisation used by the Dutch was employed one destination for both lanes would look fine.

Is it just me or is the text smaller/ panels larger on this gantry than the other one you snapped, Murphaph? The use of space looks better here as a result.


Dutch gantries have a superior layout than the UK/Irish variety IMO.

MT

The A1-A10 Watergraafsmeer interchange about two thirds down that page looks pretty much like what the M50/M1 junction will do when upgraded. Except there'll still be the roundabout leading to the N32 in the middle.

murphaph

The TSM is currently being reviewed by the NRA (according to correspondance I've had from 'em anyway) but until such time as a new edition is written, we have to stay within the constraints of the current one. The designers aren't clever enough to use good judgement IMO so they have to be kept under control with the manual, lacking as it may be in some quarters.

We're working on a website atm, will keep you informed when it goes live.

daymobrew

MT wrote:

Pic: More green. I don’t like those the use of those French style arrows for confirming a split. For this scenario and advance slip road signage I’d much prefer arrows pointing top left.

The biggest issue I have with this sign is that it is after the junction. Although the sign might be visible before the junction, it would only be after a point where it is safe to change lanes.

I've seen a few people reversing along the shoulder on the M7 south to turn onto the M9 south. If our motorways had more junctions people would be able to double back at the next junction. Obviously better signage would help a lot.
In California I was never too concerned if I missed an exit because the next one was never more than a mile further on.

MT

The biggest issue I have with this sign is that it is after the junction.

That sign is really just a reassurance or route confirmation sign. They have them in the UK too. Because of the design of a motorway with traffic leaving the carriageway at speed on slip roads there can’t be any such thing as proper at-the-junction signage – you have to commit to a route change in advance of the junction unlike an ordinary road. There’s no slowing down and turning off.

Many countries just place an ‘Exit’ sign at the gore so the route confirmation you get in UK/Ireland is a bonus. Drivers in the Republic simply need to become more adept at reading advance signage. But then with fingerposts and little advance directions about they don’t get much practise!


It’s unfortunate that the Republic has decided to follow the UK’s approach to gantry signage. More poor examples:

Pic: I understand the logic here but this gantry doesn’t half look ridiculous. Instant clarity isn’t its strong point.

Pic: Aha, they’ve got the centralised directions here but it looks like the needless repetition on the Republic’s gantries was inspired by the UK too - no need for M1 and the South twice.

Pic: They’ve got rid of the repetition here so maybe the Republic can do likewise.

MT

Pic: This Canadian gantry signing an off slip ahead seems to have almost been designed in response to the flaws Victor highlighted with the Florida gantry. The panel widths properly correspond to the number of lanes and the lights have been attached at the top – so there’s no confusion with the arrows. It is a bit cramped though.


A rare turn up for the books – the UK gets it wrong and the Republic gets it right! The Scots have used the wrong form of the verb, conduisez as opposed to the correct conduire. And I thought the Scottish were supposed to have had an ancient alliance with the French.

The Republic’s drive-on-the-left sign is also much clearer with the addition of a symbol and altogether more eye catching. Pity the inevitable advertising fingers have found their way onto it.:rolleyes:


This thread from archiseek with pics of Smithfield Market shows that the Republic really should come up with smaller and less obtrusive clearway signs in urban areas. These mini versions are used in the UK. This also applies to parking/restrictions signs – too big vs. mini. Having said this, the south’s clearway sign has a much better contrast with white and red than the difficult to distinguish European version.


Pic: Even locals are concerned with the growth in signs at a junction in Mayo.

MT

Pic: Outside urban areas the full size clearway sign is used in the UK. But the contrast between blue and red is terrible – much prefer the Republic’s version. Pity the full size is often used in urban spaces.

MT

Here’s the post on traffic lights I never got around to posting a while back:

These shots: pic, pic and pic show the metal studs used to mark out pedestrian crossings in the UK. I believe the thinking behind this is that the studs are clear from pedestrian eye level but blend into the road from a driver’s position and so eliminate any confusion over where the stop line is. In addition they’re a useful guide for the build as the raised studs provide a tactile boundary. In contrast the markings on a crossing in the Republic are less clear due to the use of solid white lines. Oh, and that rusty, old and overgrown sign really should be updated. And it’s amazing that yet again someone managed to get the zebra stripes wrong – why bother to start with?


The other thing I can’t understand is why so many traffic lights down there are not fitted out with white rimmed backing boards. Outside of London this is standard practice across the UK and it helps make junctions more visible – example. I mean there’d be some logic if there was a policy of no backing boards at all in the Republic but like striped posts some lights have them while others don’t. What about consistency? And I just love the way a workman has taken great care to mount that sign in the foreground horizontally: obviously straightening posts isn’t in the job description.


This junction encompasses both failings. From the seated position of a car driver all three white lines would look very similar reducing the certainty of where to stop. Studs/broken lines for the crossing would alleviate this problem – as with the dashed white lines on this German crossing. The junction itself would be more visible had backing boards been used on the lights. Pedestrians lives would also be made easier were this a pelican crossing they could operate.


I’ve never seen thislook right marking done free hand in NI. Stencils are used here. Maybe this one had been touched up but I think they always use the stencils again to fully redo road markings up here? But I’m not sure about this.

cormthechippy

MT wrote:

What’s with the green patching for primary routes on these Mway signs?

Pic:
Pic: More green. I don’t like those the use of those French style arrows for confirming a split. For this scenario and advance slip road signage I’d much prefer arrows pointing top left. As with Dutch practice these provide a greater visual differentiation with the straight ahead arrows. This then allows the Dutch to use the French type for signalling the ending/merging of one lane into another.

Whats wrong with the arrows? Oh you don't like them? Theres far greater problems with signage in Ireland or lack thereof. Who cares if you don't like these arrows? They still do the job. I don't see most of your arguments.

MT

Hang on Corm, I think you’ll find that that post focused on much more than the French style arrows. Its main focus was on the green patching that doesn’t comply with the TSM. Lack of compliance with this manual is one of the main themes running through this thread. I then went on the make some general comments about the layout of the gantries – this being important as sign face layout greatly effects the speed and extent to which the info displayed can be understood.

Again, as you see from reading this thread many of these criticisms are subjective as matters of style and visual appearance can only ever be. Yes, I don’t like those arrows. I feel they don’t differentiate as clearly from the straight ahead versions as the exit arrows used in the Netherlands and most other countries do. I also think their use could have been reserved for a further purpose leaving more future options open. However, this is only one minor criticism in a post dedicated to much else besides, most of all the erroneous use of green patching.

In addition I’ve made a fairly extensive contribution here of many flaws in the Republic’s signage. It’s only inevitable that having covered some of the more obvious failings that I’d reach more minor and less crucial ones. That’s only to be expected when you try to cover a system comprehensively.

I don't see most of your arguments.

Fair enough. But why not use this thread to make some of your own observations? The more people that contribute the better, I say, and this thread will become even more comprehensive as a result.:)

joolsveer

murphaph wrote:

All comments welcome MT, criticise away!

Wrt the map type directional signs combining into them the warning signs for the gates, I did think of that but I honestly can't see the LA 'getting it' and this scheme would be fairly quick and easy to implement. Currently there is ONE sign immediately before the gates approaching from the north and this has been twisted because it's too close to the carriageway.

If this was the UK this junction would have accurate map type advance direction signage.

The pointing along sign at the top right of the pic has to remain because there is a train station between the advance direction signage at the bottom of the pic and the junction, so train users (perhaps using bicycles too!) would be in 'no man's land' and need that sign to direct them along the R121 towards Clonsilla. The roads aren't just for motorists MT!

The eason I included the R121 on the flag signs was that I think in reality this is all I'll get (at best) and so without the advance direction signs these flags still 'work' pretty well. Advance direction signs of any type are NOT mandatory on an R road according to the TSM, but are left to the judgement of the designer. I don't trust this judgement so don't expect them to do one iota more than they have to (if they manage that).

I did consider the arrows being angled to 45 degrees and 135 degrees as you mentioned but the problem I saw was that in conjunction with the crossroads sign (all 90 degree angles) there might be some confusion, whereas this way you can't make a mistake, if you get me.


What should really happen with this junction is that the unclassified road approaching from the north should be closed at the junction and this 4 way crossroads becoming a T-junction, thereby making the signage and road marking (and vehicle movements) much more straightforward. The road just goes around the back of that house anyway! Closing it here does not cause anyone any problems.

I don't work in graphic design no! I'm an engineer-I knocked those up with humble MS Paint! And it's still better than some of the sh!te the LA's 'design'.

In the last week or so I saw a couple of men working on the Clonsilla signage. I took this photo this afternoon. The signs for Clonsilla etc. are now pointing into a row of houses! Some improvement!

murphaph

wrt Clonsill, my presentations were forwarded to the Traffic and roads depts. of the council and I got feedback from a few politicians about it, blah blah stuff. I'll keep hassling them. It's a joke atm.

I've also had to contact them about further errors on the Ongar Distributor scheme (nemerous errors). The consultants have been informed. I'd expect action faster on that as the contractor is still liable to rectify any mistakes.

Victor

This guy has a photo blog on all sort of things (from music to riots)


http://flickr.com/photos/jonosan/5485946/
http://flickr.com/photos/jonosan/5486255/
http://flickr.com/photos/jonosan/5486075/

http://flickr.com/photos/jonosan/5835259/ <---- possibly at Farmleigh
http://flickr.com/photos/jonosan/5835743/

daymobrew

Victor wrote:

http://flickr.com/photos/jonosan/5835259/ <---- possibly at Farmleigh

Certainly looks like White's Gate Road.
The 'Cattle bridge' photo is from Strawberry Beds, near enough to Strawberry Hall pub and the M50 bridge. A few planks and one could toll it, make a mint!

I wonder where the pointless pedestrian crossing is?

murphaph

daymobrew wrote:

I wonder where the pointless pedestrian crossing is?

I think it's the Nangor Road Realignment near the Happy Brig (Polly Hops) on the Peamount Road between Newcastle and Lucan. It's in that area anyway, you can tell from the mountains to the south.

icdg

murphaph wrote:

wrt Clonsill, my presentations were forwarded to the Traffic and roads depts. of the council and I got feedback from a few politicians about it, blah blah stuff. I'll keep hassling them. It's a joke atm.

On the other side of that level crossings, the start of urban area signs for Cluain Saileach/Clonsilla are in N-road colours. Not the first time I've seen the wrong colours used though, there's a sign on the R148 in Leixlip also in N-road colours (although the actual "R148" on it is patched in white).