[olduser]

More from the BBC;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4m4r8ym19o

As far as I can see they are upset because cars turn right (near point of the Ahead Only Arrow) but they have not painted No Entry on the road to the right?
I looks as though there are 7 signs to be considered at that point.

[Beelzebub]

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but it seems anyone turning right has missed, or is ignoring, both the "ahead only" arrow, and the "no right turn" sign, both of which are mandatory.

[TC1474]

I really do not see the problem.

It is quite clear IMO that the "No right turn" sign is intended for the first element of the junction (nearest the camera) with a right turn being permitted in the second element.

Straight slam dunk for failing to comply and it would not take much to secure a conviction for careless driving on the basis that clearly drivers are not reading the signs and are failing to observe and plan properly.

[Rolebama]

Agree 100% with Beelzebub and TC1474 on this one. Signage is clear to me.

[Drivingforfun]

I don't agree with those sneaky bus lanes with cameras on them, but I also have to add my +1 to the above comments... yes a no-entry sign would make it clearer, but if one requires that level of clarity on top of the existing signs then perhaps their suitability to hold a driving license should be considered!!!

[olduser]

I do agree that there is no excuse due to the no right turn sign but there are many different signs in the picture, throw into that someone finding there way, and I can see how it will happen.
As to regular users, it will be very tempting if that is where they are wishing to go.

In my experience in general safety, the rule, 'if it can happen it will happen', would apply here.

[NMNeil]

Originally Posted by Beelzebub

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but it seems anyone turning right has missed, or is ignoring, both the "ahead only" arrow, and the "no right turn" sign, both of which are mandatory.

But not to everyone. there are a few entitled drivers who believe that no parking signs, red traffic lights and bus lanes apply to everyone else, but not to them.

[Drivingforfun]

Yesterday I watched a sporty RS Audi pull up outside a tanning salon on double yellows with a shiny-looking young bloke driving. In his defence he did used his park anywhere lights, otherwise knows as hazards, if you push them you are allowed to park anywhere you wish

I don't really like stereotypes but it was amusing how many boxes he ticked, he was only missing a cloud of vape coming out of his window

[Rolebama]

NMNeill's picture, above, is just perfect for a Caption Competition. My entry is: "But I live here, and I have always parked outside my house!" Any takers?

[olduser]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

NMNeill's picture, above, is just perfect for a Caption Competition. My entry is: "But I live here, and I have always parked outside my house!" Any takers?

Sod the pedestrians, they don't pay a licence fee.

[olduser]

Originally Posted by TC1474

I really do not see the problem.

It is quite clear IMO that the "No right turn" sign is intended for the first element of the junction (nearest the camera) with a right turn being permitted in the second element.

Straight slam dunk for failing to comply and it would not take much to secure a conviction for careless driving on the basis that clearly drivers are not reading the signs and are failing to observe and plan properly.

If we go ahead, isn't the next set of signs (on the next traffic island) a no U turn and no entry?

[Rolebama]

@olduser There is a No U-Turn and Clearway sign at the traffic light controlled junction. The No Right Turn sign, to me, would indicate no right turn into the road at the edge of the picture.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by olduser

If we go ahead, isn't the next set of signs (on the next traffic island) a no U turn and no entry?

I can see the No U-Turn, but where's the No Entry?

[olduser]

Originally Posted by Beelzebub

I can see the No U-Turn, but where's the No Entry?

Ah yes I see what you mean, one reference describes a red circle with red cross can mean No Entry but Highway Code shows a Red circle with red cross and blue background as Clearway.
The first reference I found on an AI thing, I did specify UK road signs.
HC just has Clearway.
Sorry about that.

But my original comment was pointing out the shear number of signs, OK if the driver knows where they are going they can ignore most of them but if a driver is finding their way there is an awful lot to read, and, 'make progress'.
The council was installing camera's because driver were ignoring signs rather than reviewing the signage first.

Taking the Clearway sign, why? I don't think any UK driver would choose to park there!
But the problem I see is, going Ahead Only to where? A set of lights and a turn right but then the traffic you want to join are flowing left to right, so even if there is another set of lights I can only turn right again, and I think that is a U turn?

I have tried to find this junction on Google but it must be out of date, I was unable to match it to the picture.

So I'm back where I started, presumably if you know the area, and don't need the signs your fine, if not your in trouble.

[Rolebama]

Some years ago The Sun newspaper ran a question about the most roadsigns at a junction. The 'winner' was a photo of a straightforward right turn off the A23 in the Ifield area with 26! These were all legitimate roadsigns!
As I posted elsewhere, there is a double bend near me with 13 signs and road markings, these have all appeared after the 7 old-style signs were taken down because it was deemed they confused drivers. There would have been 15, but the Hospital was sold off, so those 2 signs were taken down. (One was a sign pointing to the Hospital, and the other was a Quiet: Hospital sign.)

[olduser]

I remember trying to explain to one of our children why there road signs for bends.
She kept coming back to, 'but if people cannot see should they be driving?'
Even now I haven't got a convincing answer.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by olduser

I remember trying to explain to one of our children why there road signs for bends.
She kept coming back to, 'but if people cannot see should they be driving?'
Even now I haven't got a convincing answer.

What is even more worrying is the number of drivers who do not even know what the road signs mean.

When I run a course my pack of road signs come out and I ask the question of "What does this sign mean?"

If I give them 50 signs, I will be lucky if they know what 7 or 8 of them mean, for the remainder they do not have a clue.

They find it quite embarrassing when I ask them how they think they can drive safely when they have no idea what the signs are but they are there to provide advanced warning or give instruction.

That to me is worrying an d goes to show the poor standards that have become the norm in this country.

[Rolebama]

Because I spent so much time working on motorways with the AA, I was chosen to help set up a Motorway Safety Course. To deem whether I was suitable, I was given 100 road signs and asked to identify them. I pointed out that this was not a comprehensive list as they had missed out the one by Denham Aerodrome. Puzzled, they asked me to describe it. It was a triangular sign, red border, white background, and a red A in the middle. They asked me to find out what it meant. The next time I was in the area, I called in and asked staff what the roadsign meant. Nobody there knew. I wrote a letter to our Council Highways Team asking them. No reply. I later emailed them a few times, but never received a reply.

Extraneous:
The first course was attended by the 3 emergency services and council workers. Had a brilliant tour of Leicester Motorway Police Centre, where we were shown some amazing videos. I also had a great conversation with an ambulanceman about how they were advised to deal with motorway disasters, which totally conflicted with what we had been told by our own Ivory Tower residents.

[olduser]

I think the A sign means Ambulance or emergency route.

When I was kid I cycled to a disused WW2 airfield in East Yorkshire, and there was an A sign between what had been the main entrance and a crash gate leading directly onto the far end of the runway off the public road.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by TC1474

What is even more worrying is the number of drivers who do not even know what the road signs mean.

When I run a course my pack of road signs come out and I ask the question of "What does this sign mean?"

If I give them 50 signs, I will be lucky if they know what 7 or 8 of them mean, for the remainder they do not have a clue.

They find it quite embarrassing when I ask them how they think they can drive safely when they have no idea what the signs are but they are there to provide advanced warning or give instruction.

That to me is worrying an d goes to show the poor standards that have become the norm in this country.

I could not agree more.

When I was instructing, I arranged - if possible - for the student to sit (and pass) the theory test before they started practical lessons.

I'd then ask them to identify signs, and questions like "What does a red/amber/green traffic light mean?". The standard of knowledge (which should have been fresh) was generally woeful.

FWIW I blame the dismal multiple-choice theory test. Most candidates seem to "study" by doing lots of mock tests on the internet. No-one actually reads the HC, let alone the rest of the syllabus, "Know your Traffic Signs" and "Driving - the Essential Skills".

[TC1474]

I am actually what is called a subject matter expert for the DSA. What that means is I am one of those who sets the questions for the theory test.

I gave up because the DSA wanted me (and other question setters) to dumb the questions down so it would be easier for candidates to pass rather than actually learning the contents of the HC.

To go onto the register, I had to attend a 2 day course at Cardington, and the course was run by an outside contractor who had nothing to do do with driving or road safety and clearly had no understanding of the HC themselves.

I knew then that there were going to be issues and I regret to say I was proven right.

[olduser]

In conversation with a politician (MP) mostly about transportation and roads etc.
The driving test came up and the meaning of the test certificate, and why have a test?
His view was, the test was there to ensure new drivers knew all the rules and guidelines required to safely drive, and not endanger others or themselves.
Me: Why is the standard so low then?
MP: If it was higher, fewer people would pass, there would be unrest, and there is a risk that the number of unlicensed drivers would increase, testing to a higher standard would take longer increasing the costs.

I didn't see any point in continuing the conversation.

It appears, we (society) just accept a level of deaths, injuries, and costs in exchange for the convenience of having cars.

[TC1474]

@olduser
There was a similar issue when mandatory retests were being considered.

Going back about 15 - 20 years ago it was proposed and decided in principle that all drivers passing their L test on or after a certain date would be required to undertake a retest every 10 years of so.

Because of the numbers, a few of us advanced examiners were approached to see if we would be interested in being retest examiners as we were already used to and familiar with conducting driving tests and it would take the pressure off the regular DSA examiners.

Although I considered the test back then as unfit for purpose, I did think it would be a way of making a few extra shillings, but we could have more of an influence from inside the DSA rather than being on the outside and being ignored (but that's another story)

Anyway, we attended various meetings in London with the Department of Transport and DSA and we had been meeting quite regularly when about 7 or 8 months down the line a civil servant out of nowhere suddenly said "You do realise every driver is a voter don't you?" which was clearly aimed at the politicians in the meeting.

Within 24 hours the whole scheme had been dropped. The politicians got cold feet because they saw votes washing down the plug hole even though within a short period of time retesting would have been accepted as the norm.

I was at a meeting a couple of years ago at Westminster and I raised the question of retesting again, and very quickly it got swept under the carpet and ignored.

So like you say, everything is political. The powers that be are not interested in safety, they are only interested in what's in it for them.

[Rolebama]

Not that long ago there was an instance of a lady driving one of the trunk roads through Sussex. Never having driven the road before, she was happy to follow the advised speeds around the bends and curves. Until she reached an unsigned bend. She tried to take the bend at 60mph (NSL for that road), and crashed into a tree writing her car off and giving her some minor injuries. She prosecuted the County Council on the grounds that previous signage was there, and there being an absence of a sign on that bend, meant it didn't need one. The Judge agreed with the comment that if the Council were going to put signs on bends, then all bends should have signs, or take down the ones already in existence.
I reiterate: 'Common sense is the least used of all the senses.'

[olduser]

I can't remember any appropriate road that I have driven on that did not have the relevant centre line markings at bends, I will agree that frequently they are worn but still serviceable.
The point being hazards are marked by the different centre lines but I can see the judges point, if 90% of bends are signed then the other 10% should be.
However, I wonder if his Lordship checked if the road markings were there or maybe he didn't know!
If they were, then she caused her own crash by not paying attention.

But this works the other way if none are marked then none need be, the centre line is telling you what you need to know, hazard ahead.

One other thought, doe's this relate to what TC1474 was saying about depth perception else ware on the forum?

Putting that to one side, and the judgment, if you think it through any damage really was self inflicted.
Trying to work through the stages.
Straight road 60MPH, looking about a mile ahead it's not clear what the road is doing.
I shall be there in 1 minute, 30 seconds later, and now 30 seconds away and still not sure, better start to lift off.
At 440 yards (showing my age) and I am still not sure, slow some more (because I can't see the road ahead) and look for the centre line.
At 200 yards, I ought to know there is a bend I should certainly know I cannot see the road ahead.
At 100 yards centre line hazard line will be visible but if I am still not sure onto the brakes.
I would say, at about 40 yards it will have become clear there's a bend, off the brake and gently back onto the throttle.

How did she manage to crash, unless she wasn't actually driving but just sitting in the driving seat for the ride?

I wonder what TC1474 would have made of it if he cares to comment, I may be being unfair!