Tinfoil Traffic Sign Syndrome

MT

Was driving on the new Carrickmacross bypass recently and came across another consequence of what might best be coined as Tinfoil Traffic Sign Syndrome.

This is a rare condition that seems to have been contracted by traffic sign designers/engineers down there. The result is that on virtually every highway and byway across Ireland(Rep.) signs made from inadequate aluminium sheeting have been erected to guide the driver. Such an engineering oversight is made all the more remarkable when just over the border in Northern Ireland signs complying to UK standards are cut from considerably more robust aluminium sheets. So it’s not as if there’s a dearth of exemplary best practice in this area to inform budding engineers on how things should be done.

Indeed, this phenomenon of flimsy signs appears to be unique to Ireland amongst the countries of the advanced world. In Canada, the US, throughout the EU and, as mentioned, in the UK the relevant authorities seem to have no difficulty in selecting aluminium sheets tough enough to withstand everyday wear and tear without coming to resemble the rapping of the Christmas Turkey.

Anyway, back to the bypass. Towards the Dublin end of the new road I noticed that several of the signs from the original road had been placed on the new layout. No harm in that. It’s an efficient use of resources to reuse older signs on new routes where possible so to avoid the expense of having updated versions manufactured. However, this common sense approach doesn’t factor in the madness of Tinfoil Traffic Sign Syndrome – let’s use the abbreviation of TTSS.

When builders go to work on a project the existing signs of course have to be removed. Here, in NI, the signs are robust enough to be man handled and thrown about as inevitably happens without suffering significant deterioration. This toughness ensures that any deemed still to be relevant can be reused having not suffered damage to the point where their readability is reduced. At odds with this experience is that resulting from TTSS in the Republic. When major road works are undertaken there the signs are just too flimsy to withstand the abuse they suffer on the building site. This lack of robustness results in reused signs appearing as if someone has went to work on them with a sledgehammer. Factor in the knocks they’ll take from passing vehicles in later years and you have a recipe for crumpled and incomprehensible signs. And sure enough, at least one of the older signs on the new route around Carrickmacross is in a right state.

It seems strange that such well publicised expense is being incurred while closing the nation’s road infrastructure deficit and yet the authorities appear too stingy to purchase signs strong enough to survive the abuse public structures inevitably suffer.

In the long run, whatever saving is made through acquiring cheapo signs is more than lost through the reduced life span of such fragile objects. I’d estimate that the durable life span of Irish signs is only a fraction of their UK and European counterparts. For that matter, any major knock and they tend to be done for from what I’ve seen. All in all, to maintain as good a standard in signage as NI etc. authorities in the south would probably have to replace signs at something like three times the frequency. I mean there are signs in busy locations up here that have stood for years in good shape where equivalents down there would have long since disintegrated.

As an aside, from an aesthetic point of view the shoddy state of signs in the Republic detracts from the appearance of streetscapes etc. All in all, it just seems like common sense to use materials that will last without the need for constant repair or replacement. After all, that’s why engineers use reinforced concrete and tarmac as opposed to wooden planks and gravel elsewhere in road improvements; so why is an exception made for the durability of signs?

Interestingly, the Germans are even further ahead yet again when it comes to road building. Apparently, they’ve been experimenting with high intensity aluminium sheeting to create signs robust enough to withstand all but the most catastrophic collisions. Compare this to Irish signs which I witnessed in a manufacturer’s can be bent fairly easily by hand. Clearly, it wasn’t an Irish plant that supplied Germany’s Panzer tanks!

atheist

It is annoying on country junctions when the directions sighns have been twisted around. Make the poles square.

Hounslow borough in UK make most signs used in London.

MT

It is annoying on country junctions when the directions sighns have been twisted around.

The cause of this problem is the use of only one pole when erecting many important signs down south. The result, as you state, is that many signs can be twisted around to face/point in the wrong direction. The solution - now employed across most of the UK - is to place all important signage (information/regulatory/warning) on at least two poles. This ensures that signs are no longer knocked around after a brush with a passing vehicle.

Strange thing is, authorities in the Republic have already made this leap of logic with regards directional signage on major routes. All of this is now displayed on no fewer than two poles. The question is why can't this standard be repeated everywhere and in particular for the placement of warning or regulatory signs. I mean, what's the point in putting up a sign to warn of a dangerous bend if it soon gets knocked around the wrong way due to only one pole being used? The hazard may as well have never been signed in the first place.

This problem would seem to stem from no greater reason than a lack of forsight or complete idiocy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that a sign attached to a circular pole by brackets could easily be rotated with enough force.

This point that you highlight and my previous comments on inadequate aluminium sheeting are two of the major reasons why signage in Ireland deteriorates so much. Signs either get battered beyond readability or knocked around to face the wrong way or both, for that matter.

Make the poles square.

It's certainly an idea but another poster on an earlier thread on this issue made the valid point that they put pedestrians at greater risk. Sharp edges and heads don't go together - presumably why the corners of signs are rounded. With square poles you'd have every con merchant in the country head butting signs for a Carribean crui... er, compensation payment from the council.



In my view, Ireland's substandard signage is the result of inadequate construction methods/maintenance as well as the more common complaint of a lack of relevant info to aid the driver.

murphaph

It's a shame alright, building nice new roads and furnishing them with sub-standard signage. We can't seem to do anything 100% right in this country. Are these the culprits or is it that they're told to use x gauge aluminium plate by x County Council/NRA?

DubTony

MT wrote:

The result is that on virtually every highway and byway across Ireland(Rep.) signs made from inadequate aluminium sheeting have been erected to guide the driver.

They're cheaper. If you lived "Down here" you'd realise that almost everything like this is done on the cheap

MT wrote:

In the long run, whatever saving is made through acquiring cheapo signs is more than lost through the reduced life span of such fragile objects.

Doesn't matter. They're hardly ever replaced. How many motorway junctions are missing one, two or all of the 3-2-1 countdown to exit signs

MT wrote:

As an aside, from an aesthetic point of view the shoddy state of signs in the Republic detracts from the appearance of streetscapes etc.

Doesn't matter either. Because nobody really gives a sh!te.

MT wrote:

Clearly, it wasn’t an Irish plant that supplied Germany’s Panzer tanks!

Nor a British one, one would hope.

So. What is it with you and road signs in the "Rep."?

Tony

MT

They're cheaper. If you lived "Down here" you'd realise that almost everything like this is done on the cheap

Come on, that can't really be the case. You shouldn't be so harsh. Despite suggesting that cost was a factor in the use of thiner aluminium sheets I think the more likely reason is an engineering oversight. The reasoning for this is despite acquiring what are presumably cheaper signs the Republic now errects far more signs on its major routes than NI. Too many I'd suggest. Warning signs are a case in point. Put up too few and the driver is left unprepared but erect too many and their impact is dimished. When I see a whole rash of warning signs the info becomes a blur as there's just too much to take in while driving at anything over 40 (or its km/h equivalent).

I think the UK gets the balance on warning signs better than down south.

Doesn't matter. They're hardly ever replaced. How many motorway junctions are missing one, two or all of the 3-2-1 countdown to exit signs

I think this could be a bureaucratic failing. I feel there needs to be a serious look into who is responsible for road infrastructure. The current arrangement where the Dept. of transport only has control over a minority of the road transport network is farcical. All regional routes and below need to be placed within its purview. Furthermore, councils should by now have forfitted their powers in this area. The management of roads under their control has been nothing short of diabolical. Again control should be passed from the dept. of environment and local authorities to the dept. of transport. Work could then be carried out by the one agency for the entire network - the NRA. The current mish mash of multi-agency responsibility is an inefficient, unresponsive mess straight out of Yes Minister.

Doesn't matter. They're hardly ever replaced. How many motorway junctions are missing one, two or all of the 3-2-1 countdown to exit signs

Clearly, the good folks of commuting/transport do. With enough letter writing, who knows what can be achieved.

Nor a British one, one would hope.

You're right there. Britain wasn't even fit to make tanks for itself. The American Sherman was used by all the allies with the exception of Russia as far as I'm aware.

So. What is it with you and road signs in the "Rep."?

Well the other thread was actually moved here by Mike so I haven't actually started two in this section. As for the interest, I drive quite a bit and it has always been puzzling as to why the standard of signage is so low down south. I mean, it's not rocket science to put in place what is in reality such a simple system. Like the roads, the system has improved greatly in recent years but sadly is still inadequate.

And before anyone says it, I'm equally critical of the many flaws found up north. There too the current standard is hardly excellent just not quite as bad as what you guys are stuck with.

sceptre

MT wrote:

... the Republic now errects far more signs on its major routes than NI. Too many I'd suggest. Warning signs are a case in point. Put up too few and the driver is left unprepared but erect too many and their impact is dimished.

I was driving to Galway the other night from Limerick and just before coming into Gort I came upon a turn in the road that somehow managed to have at least 12 signs in one very small area. It reminded me of that Simpsons episode (Homer's Odyssey from season 1 IIRC) where Homer gets all the signs erected all over the place. Apart from the idea that the turn was dodgy and that there might be Something Very Important up ahead I've little idea of what most of those signs were trying to tell me.

atheist

A few months ago there was a pole on the stretch between Newlands cross and the mad cow that had both a 30 mile and 40 mile limit on the same pole. I assume one was twisted around and was intended for traffic in the other direction.

MT

sceptre wrote:

I was driving to Galway the other night from Limerick and just before coming into Gort I came upon a turn in the road that somehow managed to have at least 12 signs in one very small area. It reminded me of that Simpsons episode (Homer's Odyssey from season 1 IIRC) where Homer gets all the signs erected all over the place. Apart from the idea that the turn was dodgy and that there might be Something Very Important up ahead I've little idea of what most of those signs were trying to tell me.

I believe I have a recollection of that bend, though I may be thinking of somewhere else. Just off the the N4 dual carriageway south of Sligo there are upwards of five new signpost one after the other indicating the route to the airport at Strandhill. Unbelievable.

Another thing that I find peculiar is the habbit of not removing older signs that have been replaced. I can think of numerous stretches where a larger and more prominent warning sign has been erected to update the previous version and yet it's still left there. The result is two signs side by side telling you the same thing. Surely, the workmen paid to put up the new sign should be asked to remove the other as part of the same job?

Another aspect of signage placement in recent years that adds to effect of too much info. is the idea of duplicating major warning signs on both sides of the road. I think this is money wasted as the result is just more crowding of the drivers field of vision. One prominent sign should be enough.

MT

atheist wrote:

A few months ago there was a pole on the stretch between Newlands cross and the mad cow that had both a 30 mile and 40 mile limit on the same pole. I assume one was twisted around and was intended for traffic in the other direction.

This is a further demonstration of the need to employ a system that stops sign rotation after a knock by a passing vehicle. Whether it's the method of at least two poles for all important signage used in the UK or bolting the sign directly onto the pole as in the US, the current approach needs to be reviewed. If bridges, junctions and roads are built to be by and large driver full proof, then why not signs?

dingding

also junction signs on the M50 at the junction giving you no chance to get to exit safely. Dublin must be the worst city in Europe for direction signs.

MT

Yes, I've never grasped the logic of those direction signs in the gore between the slip road and the motorway. By the time you've seen these, your either past the turn off or on it. They're irrelevent in determining which route you've taken.

What the junctions on the M50 need - and this is part of the planned upgrade - are overhead sign gantries prior to every junction. On multi-lane roads with heavy traffic, signs at the road side are too far away/easily obscured to be fully effective. With gantries the signs are high up over the lanes and clear for all to see. Of course, preferably they should also be lit but that's another characteristic strangely lacking from Irish signage.

d-j-k

Interestingly, all of the major intersections on the dual-carriageways (Which are built to motorway specs) around Cork City have full overhead backlit signage. Also, all of the signage approaching the Jack Lynch Tunnel (part of the same network) are fully back lit. Even the speed limits and the warning signs (for up to 2 KM on all of the roads that approach it.

Also, they've used radio-controlled signs that can display various messages by rotating bars e.g. display tunnel closed, change speed limits etc..

again fully lit and have the odd addition of what looks like a TV antenna on top. (they're too big to be vandalised)

The overhead signs are FAR FAR more effective than the pointless signage on the M50 around Dublin.

Also, in terms of traffic lights, I find Cork's system far better installed. E.g. most major junctions (all on the dual carriageways) and even in the city centre have lights at either side and also mounted at high level over each lane. It's much easier to see!

Seems that you can't really generalise about sinage in the Republic of Ireland though.. it depends on which local authority's responsible for it and what age it is.

The one thing that really gets me is the way some local authorities put direction signs ahead of a turn and others put it after and yet more just do both. It means you see "<Ballybrophey" and assume you turn after the sign only to find that the sign's actually at the far side of the junction!

Ughh..

Oh yeah and finally there's a rather odd and worrying problem with many Irish regulatory signs - they completely clash with standard european signs and in fact have the opposite meaning.

A symbol in a red circle in Europe generally means forbidden!
A symbol in a red circle in Ireland generally means you should / must do this. E.g. the old keep left sign often posted on roundabouts means no left turn to many drivers from elsewhere!
Likewise our P in a red circle means no parking to many tourists!

The standard European system is a white symbol on a blue background (being phased-in in Ireland) ... the exsiting red circle with a line through it symbols are fine.

Also, I'm not quite sure why we use American yellow diamond signage instead of the European standard red triangles for warning signs. Although, I guess provided the symbols are logical and clear it makes no difference really.

murphaph

d-j-k wrote:

Oh yeah and finally there's a rather odd and worrying problem with many Irish regulatory signs - they completely clash with standard european signs and in fact have the opposite meaning.

Agreed, should adopt the Geneva (I think that's where they signed the convention on road signs too!) style. Phase it in completely as signs are replaced (no laughing please!).

d-j-k wrote:

Also, I'm not quite sure why we use American yellow diamond signage instead of the European standard red triangles for warning signs. Although, I guess provided the symbols are logical and clear it makes no difference really.

I'm making a complete guess here but I bet it was to be different than 'the brits'. Usual old sh!te was responsible for far too many decisions like that. What a bunch of immature t*ssers. I personally believe we should phase out the non-standard diamonds and bring in the red triangles to aid our European cousins (and ourselves when we're driving there!), but really when all's said and done-if the sign's properly designed you should be able to understand it on first sight.

mackerski

d-j-k wrote:

Also, they've used radio-controlled signs that can display various messages by rotating bars e.g. display tunnel closed, change speed limits etc..

Are you sure about the speed limits? Variable speed limits have no basis in law, and were specifically ruled out in the recent reform.

Dermot

Alun

d-j-k wrote:

Oh yeah and finally there's a rather odd and worrying problem with many Irish regulatory signs - they completely clash with standard european signs and in fact have the opposite meaning.

The really, really, incredibly stupidest one is the non-standard NO ENTRY sign. I wonder how many accidents that's caused involving visitors from the rest of Europe!

murphaph

Alun wrote:

The really, really, incredibly stupidest one is the non-standard NO ENTRY sign. I wonder how many accidents that's caused involving visitors from the rest of Europe!

Oh yeah, without a doubt. Completely awful sign.

murphaph

mackerski wrote:

Are you sure about the speed limits? Variable speed limits have no basis in law, and were specifically ruled out in the recent reform.

Dermot

Hmmm, interesting point. I've often wondered about the legality or otherwise of roadworks speed limit signs which are displayed on dot matrix displays. Anybody got any info on these?

d-j-k

Well, there's no way the tunnel could safely operate without variable speed limits.

The normal speed limit is 80km/h
That reduces to 50km/h if there are maintenence works or contraflow.

They're not displayed on dotmatrix displays, they look just like normal signs but are like those bill board ads that can display multiple adverts. The sign's made up of poles that turn to display the new symbol.

The signage they use on that tunnel is extremely good in general.

As for the yellow diamonds, they're different, but they're not that big a deal as the symbols are broadly similar to those found on the European standard triangles. They're generally very clear and diagramatic, so unless you're a bit thick you'll know what they mean. However, they should pay attention to keeping them in-line with whatever standards are normal in Europe.

The round regulatory signs are utterly leathal though. Getting rid of the old red circle signs would have done a LOT more for road safety than changing to KM/H!

The conversion to KM/H, which in fairness to the various local authorities and NRA, was pretty seamless and well done, proves to me that they have ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER for not doing a similar blitz to remove all of these obsolete and dangerously confusing signs.

Also, I've seen some local authorities putting up NEW red circles !

Surely we should at the very least have a peice of legislation that specifies in detail what is permissable as a sign and outlaws anything else that could cause driver confusion.

There also should be an IS number specifiying sizes, materials, mounting systems etc.

As for turning of stop signs the simplest sollution would be a square pole or a round pole with slots cut into the top of it

The 2 pole sollution used both her and in the UK is laughable and expensive.

Who thought it was a good idea to mount signs on round posts in the first place?!

In general the problem in Ireland with signage is a complete lack of consistancy in how it's done. Sometimes it's excellent (E.g. the major roads around Cork) sometimes it's utterly confusing and inappropriate (the M50!)

There needs to be a review of how things are done undertaken by the NRA. Funding should be made available to update all signs to whatever the results ot that review are and perhaps a small (maybe 1 or 2 person) monitoring team to patrol the country and ensure compliance by local authorities with all aspects of road safety legislation. (signs, lines, layouts etc etc). It wouldn't be that expensive to do !!! and we've apparently got so much money that we don't know what to do with it at the moment!

I don't know if the yellow signs were adopted specifically to be different from the UK. There were no official UK standards before 1958 (I checked). The UK had weird signs with a triangle on a pole and a symbol under that on a white sign. They moved to the European system in the late 1960s.

Ireland may have settled on a US standard in the interim period simply because it was an established standard. The same system was also adopted in Australia and NZ.

However, I really find this notion that road signs, currency, plugs and sockets or whatever can suddenly be items of national pride and ethnic identity utterly ridiculous. I've heard the "anti-europlug" debate in the UK it would be funny if it weren't so ridiculous! (no logic or technical sense to it.. just we don't like them Germans!! examples of how dangerous it is are all based on 1950s spanish wiring in cheap costa del sol apartments)

cyclopath2001

murphaph wrote:

Hmmm, interesting point. I've often wondered about the legality or otherwise of roadworks speed limit signs which are displayed on dot matrix displays. Anybody got any info on these?

These would be 'advisory signs' which you can ignore legally (but at your peril). If you were then involved in an accident, you could be asked why you decided to ignore the advised speed limit.

I suspect that in some locations where really low speeds are advised, e.g. 5mph, these are probably devices to avoid liabaility for damage caused by loose chippings etc.

MT

d-j-k wrote:

Interestingly, all of the major intersections on the dual-carriageways (Which are built to motorway specs) around Cork City have full overhead backlit signage. Also, all of the signage approaching the Jack Lynch Tunnel (part of the same network) are fully back lit. Even the speed limits and the warning signs (for up to 2 KM on all of the roads that approach it.

Yes, the standard of signage in Cork seems to be a cut above most other parts. It clearly exposes the inadequacies found elsewhere. However, even here the aluminium sheeting used in signs lacks the strength/robustness of that used in the UK.

There really does need to be some form of inspectorate to enforce consistency across all local authorities. This, I feel, should be part of a package of reforms that would see a concentration of responsibility for the entire road network in the Dept. of transport. With the divided control at present between two government departments and county councils any such regulator would have far too many masters to serve.

A good example of the inconsistency that exists at present can be found in Roscommon. Travel on an N route and directional signage encompasses advanced warning signs and then signs at the junctions. These are all two pole minimum signs that are large enough to be easily read at speed. Turn off onto any R route and the new signage involves no advanced warning and minute finger posts at the junctions. At unusual junctions – such as those at bends – these finger posts can be ambiguous, and this is before a passing truck knocks them around.

The reason for the woeful inconsistency in this county, like many others, is simple – divided control. The DoT and NRA manage the N routes: the DoE and the county council take care of the R roads. This daft set up should be replaced with unitary responsibility and an inspectorate/regulator to review performance and publish reports.

Victor

cyclopath2001 wrote:

These would be 'advisory signs' which you can ignore legally (but at your peril). If you were then involved in an accident, you could be asked why you decided to ignore the advised speed limit.

No. One of the things about the metrication rules was that temporary (not necessarily road works) limits were binding. People had made the point that Kildare Co.Co. actually had made permanent by-laws to enforce the 40mph/60kmh limit on the Naas Road as they had no ability to put temporary limits in place.

cyclopath2001

Victor wrote:

No. One of the things about the metrication rules was that temporary (not necessarily road works) limits were binding. People had made the point that Kildare Co.Co. actually had made permanent by-laws to enforce the 40mph/60kmh limit on the Naas Road as they had no ability to put temporary limits in place.

Well spotted. Do the temporary signs have to be of a legally documented (i.e. described in a SI) design or do the dot-matrix signs & various bits of orange card-board also count as legally binding rather than merely 'advisory'?

MT

d-j-k wrote:

Also, in terms of traffic lights, I find Cork's system far better installed. E.g. most major junctions (all on the dual carriageways) and even in the city centre have lights at either side and also mounted at high level over each lane. It's much easier to see!

Couldn't agree more. Overhead traffic lights are so vastly superior than those at ground level I can't understand why they aren't used everywhere. Most likely penny pinching. Large junctions up here could also do with the Cork approach to traffic lights. At many junctions around Belfast it's next to near impossible to see the lights until the last moment. But again - down there - Cork shouldn't be the exception: best practice should be enforced everywhere.

Also on this point of traffic lights, I wonder why there's so much variation in the traffic lights themselves. With the exception of London, all traffic lights across the UK are very similar if not the same - yet there's a huge variation throughout Ireland. One constant that should surely be maintained is the white border stripe around sets of lights. This gives greater awareness to the driver of their presence.

d-j-k wrote:

Oh yeah and finally there's a rather odd and worrying problem with many Irish regulatory signs - they completely clash with standard european signs and in fact have the opposite meaning.

I often feel that harmonisation with the rest of Europe is over rated. My view is if it works well, why change for no other reason than to be like the rest? Having said that, any such harmonisation to European standards would result in all of Ireland having the same system. This might be beneficial to north/south traffic.

Victor

MT wrote:

I often feel that harmonisation with the rest of Europe is over rated. My view is if it works well, why change for no other reason than to be like the rest? Having said that, any such harmonisation to European standards would result in all of Ireland having the same system. This might be beneficial to north/south traffic.

But that would mean actually marking the border :rolleyes: One of the ways of recognising the border in unmarked areas is the change in signage.

MT

Victor wrote:

But that would mean actually marking the border :rolleyes: One of the ways of recognising the border in unmarked areas is the change in signage.

That's just been done all along the border with the introduction of metric speed limits - these and the new km/h info. signs. This difference would still remain with a change to European standards elsewhere.

But not to worry, we northerners have no difficulty in spotting the border when crossing into the south. Born with only 6 teeth, we experience sharp gum pains where the other 26 used to be.

murphaph

Is the border here the only one that doesn't have the country names surrounded by the European stars? You see it everywhere else in Europe. Not that signs with "United Kingdom" and "Ireland" would last too long.

MT

d-j-k wrote:

The conversion to KM/H, which in fairness to the various local authorities and NRA, was pretty seamless and well done

I would have some issues with the design of the new signs, though. Take the km/h symbol – I could see no good reason for including this on the new signs. The change was well publicised and so – particularly with the passing of time – drivers could have easily copped on without the need for km/h to have been displayed. This symbol, in conjunction with the extra digits on many limits, squeezed into plates no larger than those used previously, has resulted in signs which are often hard to read. The 50 and 60 particularly so. Larger plates should have been used and if km/h did have to be shown it could have been bolted on below. This separate sign could have been removed at a later date when the new system had bedded in.

Again, on top of these shortcomings, nothing was done to ensure the signs wouldn’t rotate after a knock.

d-j-k wrote:

Surely we should at the very least have a peice of legislation that specifies in detail what is permissable as a sign and outlaws anything else that could cause driver confusion.

Yeah, there is a great deal of variation in many of the more ‘minor’ traffic signs. Like cul de sac or a white backed version of the no through road sign used in the rest of the EU. School warning signs are another example, not to mention all those verbose warning signs used instead of a recognised symbol. I mean, why use the eminently sensible approach of a sharp bend diagram when you can write a paragraph on the hazard instead?

The other thing that’s confusing are all the new council parking info. signs that have shot up in towns over recent years. When it comes to these there seems to be a whole array of different styles from town to town.

d-j-k wrote:

The 2 pole sollution used both her and in the UK is laughable and expensive.

Who thought it was a good idea to mount signs on round posts in the first place?!

But is it really that expensive an approach considering the vast amounts of money now being poured into new roads and new signs? After all, major directional signs all use at least two poles. Surely, extending this approach to warning and regulatory signs would amount to nothing more than small change compared to the current roads' budget.

Furthermore, two poles have the added advantage of making a sign more robust as a whole. My view is simply that tougher sheets and more poles leads to signs with greater durability thus lowering replacement/repair costs. As for why round poles were used to begin with – greater strength, safer, maybe?

d-j-k wrote:

There needs to be a review of how things are done undertaken by the NRA. Funding should be made available to update all signs to whatever the results ot that review are and perhaps a small (maybe 1 or 2 person) monitoring team to patrol the country and ensure compliance by local authorities with all aspects of road safety legislation. (signs, lines, layouts etc etc). It wouldn't be that expensive to do !!! and we've apparently got so much money that we don't know what to do with it at the moment!

Good ideas. I think the government should establish a commission to investigate and set out criteria for best practice. Such a body was created in the 60s(?) to standardise and improve signage across the UK. Something similar could happen in Ireland though it would be more of a tidying up exercise as the basis of a reasonable system is already in place.

d-j-k wrote:

However, I really find this notion that road signs, currency, plugs and sockets or whatever can suddenly be items of national pride and ethnic identity utterly ridiculous. I've heard the "anti-europlug" debate in the UK it would be funny if it weren't so ridiculous! (no logic or technical sense to it.. just we don't like them Germans!! examples of how dangerous it is are all based on 1950s spanish wiring in cheap costa del sol apartments)

Couldn’t agree more. National insecurity complexes – whether British or Irish – have long been the root of many a crap decision. Infinitely better to use best practise as a guiding principle.

Victor

MT wrote:

As for why round poles were used to begin with – greater strength, safer, maybe?

Circular poles are safer - no edges.

MT

Another practise that is actually downright dangerous is the use of chevron signs to indicate the end of a hard shoulder, narrowing carriageway, etc.

I remember being completely thrown the first time I encountered one of these at night. Thought there was a sharp bend ahead and slowed to turn only to realise the road went straight on. It was on a crest so I couldn't see what was actually a straight road ahead.

The best way to sign a dead end in the shoulder is not with chevrons, nor a wordy paragraph explaining this but simply the red/white stripes bar. Simple really!

murphaph

MT wrote:

The best way to sign a dead end in the shoulder is not with chevrons, nor a wordy paragraph explaining this but simply the red/white stripes bar. Simple really!

Ooh, ooh, we have those too! we have every kind of sign down here. Anyone ever see the standard european triangles on the N3 between Dunshaughlin and Navan?? (! exclamation mark, with 'road laible to frost' on the information plate below) Or the non-standard european triangles guarding the level crossing in Navan?! What a mish-mash.

MT

Victor wrote:

Circular poles are safer - no edges.

Yeah, makes sense. Mind you, with this in mind, it's a wonder health and safety regulations allow for signs without rounded edges. The corners may have been removed but some idiot could still fall against an edge. In this safety obsessed world I imagine signs with rubber capped rims aren't far off.

MT

murphaph wrote:

What a mish-mash.

There really is a need for a regulator to enforce a statutory set of standards. Inconsistency just leads to confusion and diminishes the systems impact. I mean, you may as well just right a description and stick that... er, hold on a minute!

Symbols and diagrams, if displayed uniformly and consistently can be interpreted and understood in the shortest amount of time. But introduce random alterations and drivers would have as much chance deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics.

dearg_doom

Interesting thread, but just a note about the pole issue:

Circular poles are:

stronger

easier to make

cheaper

than square poles. (That's also why you don't have square pipes in your houses' plumbing)


I reckon one of these points is more important then the others in this case;)

MT

Another signage change I'd suggest would be phasing out the smallest warning signs on all but unmarked roads.

As in the Republic, there are/were three sizes of warning signs in NI. The largest for motorways, a medium size for major routes (trunk, A etc.) and the smallest for B roads and lower. However, the smaller warning signs have increasingly been replaced with the next size up on B roads. The reasons are obvious - the smallest warning signs are simply not large enough to be easily read at speed.

I think a similar approach should be adopted down there. All N and R roads should be signed with the medium sized warning diamonds. Use the largest version on dual carriageways and motorways and relegate the smallest size to country lanes etc.

Having said all this, many of the N roads down there are still marked with the smallest version. Even when they're facing the right way these are much harder to comprehend given the greater width of major roads and the higher speeds of passing traffic.

mackerski

Victor wrote:

No. One of the things about the metrication rules was that temporary (not necessarily road works) limits were binding.

Not according to my reading of the act. It goes into quite a bit of detail on speed limits for road works (which, quite rightly, apply only for the duration of said works and never longer than 12 months), but there's no provision for other temporary limits.

There is Part 2 S9 (5), though:

(http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/6359-0.pdf)

(5) In making special speed limit bye-laws under this section a
county council or city council may, in the interests of road safety,
apply a special speed limit for a specified period or periods during
any day or during specified days (such periods and days being indicated
in such bye-laws) on a specified road or specified motorway or
part of it and such special speed limit shall, notwithstanding any
other provision in the said bye-laws relating to any such road or
motorway or part of it, be the speed limit for that road for that
period or periods only.

According to my reading, this allows special limits for, say, certain fixed time periods in a day, as traditionally seen on plates qualifying speed limits in many other countries. It's conceivable that the variable limits in Cork are based on this section, though that would limit their true usefulness where real-time congestion suggests the need for a limit change. If they're genuinely changing the posted limit based on actual road conditions, then you'd have to imagine that the lower limit is only advisory.

Dermot

Bogger77

mackerski wrote:

Not according to my reading of the act. It goes into quite a bit of detail on speed limits for road works (which, quite rightly, apply only for the duration of said works and never longer than 12 months), but there's no provision for other temporary limits.

The road works on the N7 Nass - Rathcoole are scheduled to last at least a year, thats why the bye law relating to that section was changed.

Variable speed limits in Cork? Where about, I've not been on the New Ballincollig section of the southern ring, but I've done the rest, I've never seen a variable speed limit, ala the UK motorways.

cyclopath2001

MT wrote:

There really is a need for a regulator to enforce a statutory set of standards.

Case in point would be cycle lane & cycle track markings. Half the signs being used are not in the regulations & none at all are in the 'Rules of the Road'.

Our man in Havana

The biggest enemy to signs in my locale is drunks twisting them round on their way home from the pub. Its not uncommon to have a "speed limit" of 80 km/h coming into the village and the dangeroous bends sign pointing the wrong way round.

d-j-k

Re: Twistable signs

Why not just have a system where the back mount of the sign's back is mounted onto to large bolts that go right through the pole at standardised points rather than using a strap around the pole?

There must be better ways of mounting something to a round pole than simply strapping it on!

Such a systme could even be applied to older poles i.e. 2 holes could be drilled through when the signs are replaced / updated


Same system used in the USA
And american signs can be pretty verbose too!


Example from Rural New England

Same tin-foil construction too ideal for using for target practice, many US signs being full of bullet holes!!!

murphaph

d-j-k wrote:

Same tin-foil construction too ideal for using for target practice, many US signs being full of bullet holes!!!

Take a drive up the Wicklow mountains and you'll see the same thing.

MT

Another problem that has occurred up here is people nicking signs. After all aluminium sheets are a saught after material, especially when you don't have to pay!


There's another difference I've noticed between northern and southern signage policy. In NI when a road leads to a dead end a no-through-road sign is always displayed on the back of the giveway/stop sign at its beginning. Obviously, placing both signs on the one pole is an efficient use of resources.

Down south a dead end is frequently not indicated leaving the driver at a loss as to whether he's turning onto a through road or not. Furthermore, where I have seen this approach adopted - in Sligo - the council clearly couldn't decide which sign to use. Some junctions had a white version of the UK/Europe's no-through-road sign, on other roads the wordy cul-de-sac sign was used and even on one road a no entry sign. Someone must have mistaken the crossed out arrow for an indication of a dead end. And that's just one town!

d-j-k

MT,

I agree with you on most points. A lot of signage in the Republic of Ireland's not exactly well implemented. However, some of the points you are making are really just pointing out differences between the UK and Irish systems of signage.

I would like to see the system that we do have implemented properly rather than harmonising it with any other system or changing major aspects of it. It's basically a good system, in many ways it's superiour to the European system! i.e. the chevron signs (when properly sized) are far easier to read and tend to be much more diagramatic than some of the signs in europe e.g. junctions being marked with "X" or hazards simply being signed with "!" ... there is excellent use of colour markers before junctions on new N roads ... i.e. all of the cats eyes along the side turn green for 300 meters before each junction on the side of the turn and the junction is marked with large green reflectors. etc etc..

I don't particularly see anything wrong with the crossed out arrow for no entry either. (mentioned by someone earlier) It's totally understandable unless you're a few cents short of a euro ! Apparently it was implemented as a large number of irish motorists didn't understand the international equivilant (red circle white horizontal bar) which, it has to be said, isn't exactly self-explanatory.

The red circle regulatory signs meaning forbidden in Europe (and the UK) are highly inconsistant too. Sometimes it's a red circle with a symbol inside, some times it's a red circle crossed out with a symbol inside... Not exactly very logical! A symbol in a red circle crossed out makes sense.. Don't do it... so it would make logical sense that a symbol in a red circle without being crossed out = do it. However, for the sake of not killing european drivers, we are supposedly changing to the blue and white version for the "positive" regulatory signs.

The CUL DE SAC sign is understood south of the boarder. You'd be very supprised at the number of drivers who would be utterly baffled by a UK or Euro dead end sign! Perhaps the ideal sollution is a dead end symbol with CUL DE SAC printed below it on a seperate white sign... this would serve a few functions: 1) Be understood by foreign drivers 2) Educate Irish drivers who may be traveling abroad!

Signage in the Republic is improving drastically and I do agree that it needs to be made more uniform. The Dept of Transport or the NRA need to really get to grips with making sure that the system is implemented better and more uniformly nationwide. If they can do it with KM/H they can easily do it with the rest of the warning and other signs!

On another point, the signage in Northern Ireland is actually generally better than that found in many parts of GB. I've driven around parts of the British midlands and been quite confused by some of the A road signage and many of the warning signs are far too small (similar to some of the older N roads in the republic)

There are certainly no shortage of damaged, twisted, defaced and otherwise vandalised and deformed road signs in the Greater London area either!

MT

d-j-k wrote:

However, some of the points you are making are really just pointing out differences between the UK and Irish systems of signage.

I’m only highlighting differences where I think the policy used in the UK is better. So far, the only reason I’ve used comparisons with the UK, or more specifically the north, is because it’s what I’m most familiar with. This is not to say that the UK is in any way perfect. Indeed, it too could be improved in many areas but what we’re focusing on here is how signage in the Republic can be improved.

There are plenty of other differences I haven’t mentioned because they’re irrelevant – one approach is as good as the other. I’ve only given examples of policies the south could adopt that might improve the system used there.

d-j-k wrote:

I would like to see the system that we do have implemented properly rather than harmonising it with any other system or changing major aspects of it.

I agree entirely. I’ve always said that there’s no need to standardise with Europe just for the sake of it. I feel that with a bit of tweaking to designs and standards here and there, more robust materials and better methods of display and finally a regulator to uphold consistency, Ireland would have a system on a par with the best around.

d-j-k wrote:

the chevron signs (when properly sized) are far easier to read and tend to be much more diagramatic than some of the signs in europe e.g. junctions being marked with "X" or hazards simply being signed with "!"

Do you mean the yellow diamond warning signs? Chevrons are the arrow signs warning of a bend in the road – they’re all the same. My point about the chevrons (and this goes for most warning signs in Ireland too) was that there are too many of them. I believe that there’s a balance of warning signs that’s about right – too few and the driver is left unaware of hazards: too many and their impact is diminished. This is very much the case with chevron signs on some roads down south. There are so many and even on the slightest of bends that you begin to take them for granted. When a genuinely severe bend comes along you’re completely thrown. Again, a regulator could take care of this by insisting that they only be placed at bends that are actually hazardous.

It would also be beneficial to stop authorities misusing them when indicating a narrowing road. There are already signs for this hazard so use these and don’t confuse the driver.

<Warning: comparison with the north> I’d also increase the size of chevrons down there. In fact, I’d also increase their size up here. I think many signs – north and south – are just too small. Much prefer the Australian approach of considerably larger signs.

d-j-k wrote:

i.e. all of the cats eyes along the side turn green for 300 meters before each junction on the side of the turn and the junction is marked with large green reflectors. etc etc..

The green bollards/reflectors are definitely a good idea – though councils should be better at straightening them again when they’ve been knocked over. One thing I’d change are the road markings where a side road joins a main route down there. Instead of having the stop line at the inside of the hard shoulder I’d bring it out to just short of the carriageway (I think this may have been adopted in some areas). The reason for this is that most people pull out to here anyway and furthermore it’s safer as the driver gets a better view of oncoming traffic as opposed to staring into a hedgerow. It also makes the waiting car that bit more visible to approaching vehicles.

d-j-k wrote:

I don't particularly see anything wrong with the crossed out arrow for no entry either. (mentioned by someone earlier) It's totally understandable unless you're a few cents short of a euro ! Apparently it was implemented as a large number of irish motorists didn't understand the international equivilant (red circle white horizontal bar) which, it has to be said, isn't exactly self-explanatory.

Fair points, but I think it was someone else who objected to it. My only problem would be that drivers from Europe might make the mistake of thinking it means something like no through road for example. From an Irish point of view, I’ve often found that when partially obscured it could be mistaken for part of the P in the no parking sign - just a thought. But if it works, it works.

d-j-k wrote:

The red circle regulatory signs meaning forbidden in Europe (and the UK) are highly inconsistant too. Sometimes it's a red circle with a symbol inside, some times it's a red circle crossed out with a symbol inside... Not exactly very logical! A symbol in a red circle crossed out makes sense.. Don't do it... so it would make logical sense that a symbol in a red circle without being crossed out = do it. However, for the sake of not killing european drivers, we are supposedly changing to the blue and white version for the "positive" regulatory signs.

They’re also used to give instructions. Such as the speed limit is 60, not 60 is forbidden. But you’re right there are inconsistencies. Though this could also be said of the south’s system. If a red circle with no line through it is a positive instruction, does 100 kph mean drive at exactly that speed? Obviously not. The same could be said for the parking P in a red circle, does this mean you must park here or can park here? As it’s the latter, it would be best to change these to the blue rectangular P signs providing information: parking is allowed here. The current signs make it seem compulsory.

d-j-k wrote:

The CUL DE SAC sign is understood south of the boarder. You'd be very supprised at the number of drivers who would be utterly baffled by a UK or Euro dead end sign!

But the problem is that a version of the European no-through-road sign is used in parts of the south – it just has a white background instead of a blue one. I passed two consecutive side roads in Sligo: one marked with the cul de sac sign and the other with the white version of n-t-r. Confusing or what? What I would say is that if the cul de sac sign is preferred it should be on a blue background as it’s an informational sign.

The advantage of the European version is that it can be more easily incorporated into diagrammatic signs – it’s more compact and can easily be rotated to slot into the plan of a junction on an advanced info sign.

d-j-k wrote:

Perhaps the ideal sollution is a dead end symbol with CUL DE SAC printed below it on a seperate white sign...

Good idea. In the long run when people had become accustomed to the former there’d no longer be a need for cul de sac signs.

d-j-k wrote:

Signage in the Republic is improving drastically and I do agree that it needs to be made more uniform. The Dept of Transport or the NRA need to really get to grips with making sure that the system is implemented better and more uniformly nationwide. If they can do it with KM/H they can easily do it with the rest of the warning and other signs!

I’d very much agree with that. Signage has improved greatly. However, the use of the inadequate aluminium sheeting for the most recent wave of traffic signs in the Republic is clearly a blunder. It has resulted in many signs degrading much faster than their equivalents up here. This will lead to more frequent replacement and therefore higher maintenance costs. From an aesthetic point of view, bent and shoddy signs detract from streetscapes, urban renewal schemes, etc.

d-j-k wrote:

On another point, the signage in Northern Ireland is actually generally better than that found in many parts of GB. I've driven around parts of the British midlands and been quite confused by some of the A road signage and many of the warning signs are far too small (similar to some of the older N roads in the republic)

I think that may be because the signage in GB is somewhat older and so has experienced more wear and tear. Having said that, many signs in Belfast are decades old and showing it. There’s considerable variation in the condition of traffic signs across both the north and GB.

d-j-k wrote:

There are certainly no shortage of damaged, twisted, defaced and otherwise vandalised and deformed road signs in the Greater London area either!

True. A lot of it is now quite old and in need of updating. I think all authorities need to realise that putting up traffic signs is not a one off obligation. Signs should be replaced whenever they’re damaged and with ever busier roads they are going to be damaged with greater frequency. Hence the need for more robust materials to construct sturdier and more durable signs in the first place.

Alun

I don't particularly see anything wrong with the crossed out arrow for no entry either. (mentioned by someone earlier) It's totally understandable unless you're a few cents short of a euro ! Apparently it was implemented as a large number of irish motorists didn't understand the international equivilant (red circle white horizontal bar) which, it has to be said, isn't exactlys elf-explanatory.

That was me

The point is that it's non-standard, and anyone driving here from the UK or the continent, whether two cents short of a euro or not, will still have to look twice at it and think "I wonder what that means?". Considering the potential for disaster should it be misinterpreted, I can't see any good reason for not using the sign that is standard all across Europe. If they find it so difficult to learn what it means, maybe it's the Irish motorist who's two cents short of a euro

Also the No Entry signs here tend to be much smaller than their UK/European counterparts, and often stuck in a place that makes them hard to see, and therefore easy to overlook.

Out of interest, was this sign always as it is now? Or was it changed?

DubTony

MT wrote:

Such as the speed limit is 60, not 60 is forbidden. But you’re right there are inconsistencies. Though this could also be said of the south’s system. If a red circle with no line through it is a positive instruction, does 100 kph mean drive at exactly that speed? Obviously not. The same could be said for the parking P in a red circle, does this mean you must park here or can park here? As it’s the latter, it would be best to change these to the blue rectangular P signs providing information: parking is allowed here. The current signs make it seem compulsory.

AARGH !!!! Now you're just being silly. Will ya ever go home. Go on, give it a rest, will ya. Go on. Off with ya. Go on; go on. Get up the yard.



Tony

murphaph

d-j-k wrote:

I don't particularly see anything wrong with the crossed out arrow for no entry either. (mentioned by someone earlier) It's totally understandable unless you're a few cents short of a euro ! Apparently it was implemented as a large number of irish motorists didn't understand the international equivilant (red circle white horizontal bar) which, it has to be said, isn't exactly self-explanatory.

I don't think I could disagree more. The euro sign is visible in your local supermarket on the back of the gate that you push your trolley through. The opposite 'straight ahead white on blue arrow' is usually there on the front too. If you don't know what a sign that's listed in the Rules of the Road means you shouldn't be on the road.

I've got the best one. I've seen height restriction signs with a red circle around a given height (the correct way), but I've also seen the same sign with the addition of a red strikethrough 'sort of' crossing the maximum permitted height out. I say sort of because the strikethrough can't be the full diameter of the sign or you wouldn't be able to read the height, so there are two strikethrough 'stubs' protruding inwards from the circle. Crazy.

What's the story with the differnt type of chevron signs too?! They're not even a standard design. Some have additional orange chevrons overlaid on the black part.

d-j-k

These inconsistancies are not unique to Ireland though:



Some more standard european signage.

The red circle signs make no sense some are crossed out some arn't etc etc..
makes very little logical sense really!

Does that customs sign mean customs are prohibited here?

murphaph

d-j-k wrote:

These inconsistancies are not unique to Ireland though:



Some more standard european signage.

The red circle signs make no sense some are crossed out some arn't etc etc..
makes very little logical sense really!

Does that customs sign mean customs are prohibited here?

The inconsistancies I pointed out are between 2 types of sign meant to tell you the same thing but designed differently!

As for those Euro signs.....I much prefer them and as we're the odd man out in Europe and they paid for an awful lot of our road improvements, the least we can do is harmonise the signage to be in line with the rest of our Euro cousins.

Obviously the customs sign means there is a customs post ahead. The other red circle signs with no strikethrough are things in the control of the DRIVER, so it's pretty obvious that it's something you must do (setting up or not setting up a customs checkpoint is not in your control). The things with red symbols are clearly forbidden (passing and taking priority over oncoming traffic, note the larger arrow means priority).

mackerski

murphaph wrote:

Obviously the customs sign means there is a customs post ahead.

That's assuming you can still find one. Those signs are becoming quite rare in Europe.

Dermot

murphaph

mackerski wrote:

That's assuming you can still find one. Those signs are becoming quite rare in Europe.

Dermot

Plenty left around Switzerland