Yet more proof that motorway matrix signs are frequently wrong

Bennifred

scotsbob wrote: »

The sign was correct.
The 50 was an indication of maximum speed, not the number of pedestrians.

Oh bless......:kisses3:

forgotmyname

There were 50 pedestrians, But by the time you reached them 48 had been run over and carted away. Or thrown into the hedgerow.

Depending if they were NHS or had private healthcare.

Lum

Mrs_Imp wrote: »

Similar to 'Slow workforce in road'

Given how long it takes to do even the simplest of roadworks in this country, I'm OK with this variant. It's almost certainly accurate, though I suspect it's less to do with the workers speed and more to do with terrible planning.

The most disturbing one I've seen is: Slag trucks crossing.

londonTiger

It always annoys me when people !!!!! about road signs and other stuff, how things are so badly designed etc. Like they could do a much better job. Withoutconsidering that there are people much smarter than them who manage the roads and use tried and tested methods to manage traffic.

YYou're not going to get the bigger picture sitting in your little car and just looking at it from the point of view of just seeing the road ahead.

Lum

@londonTiger: I have the utmost respect for traffic engineers. They are a highly skilled bunch and, at least for the ones I've personally encountered, very passionate about what they do.

The problem, as with so many industries, is senior management meddling in the technical stuff; only it's worse than in the private sector as the senior management have elections to win and so only care about short termism and placating the general public, as opposed to more subtle long term solutions.

The consequences of the meddling are also somewhat worse. In the private sector the worst case scenario is a project fails and some shareholders lose money, boo-hoo. In this industry the consequence is that more people die.

Please don't take my OP as my stated opinion on anything, it was intended as a bit of humour and if anything should be read in the context of night blogging.

londonTiger

I wasn't going after you but more the overall reaction by people on this thread. People are just too self centred to consider the bigger picture. Speed limits need to be reduced from time to time to calm traffic down. If there is a bottleneck somewhere in the motorway where drivers have to squeeze into 2 lanes in the 3 lane motorway it will cause slowdown in traffic. In this case it will not help matters of more cars are driving full on at 70mph to join the tailbacks. it's not going to ge them to their destination any faster. It's also dangerous.

Even after the blockage on the lane has cleared and police have tended to the scene there may still be reduced speed limits for miles back until cars begin to move again and is safe for cars to drive at 70mph.

Cars driving at 70mph need more distance between them than cars driving at 50mph. If there is a lack of space to create that distance then speed limits will be reduce to allow traffic to move safely.

anotherbaldrick

londonTiger wrote: »

It always annoys me when people !!!!! about road signs and other stuff, how things are so badly designed etc. Like they could do a much better job. Withoutconsidering that there are people much smarter than them who manage the roads and use tried and tested methods to manage traffic.

You're not going to get the bigger picture sitting in your little car and just looking at it from the point of view of just seeing the road ahead.

Like This ?

Iceweasel

Johno100 wrote: »

There's a sign near me that states, "13 casualties in 3 years, SLOW DOWN SPEED KILLS". However, the sign has been up at least 5 years totally unchanged. So unless accidents are happening at a spookily constant rate then the sign is a total lie.

Grammar Pedant's answer:

They didn't say the last three years though. So any three years with 13 casualties will do - even from the last century. Which is when they probably thought of it.

Lum

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

Like This ?

See that's exactly the kind of thing I'm on about. Someone, somewhere, realised that the yellow borders make drivers pay more attention to the sign. So suddenly management decide that clearly the yellow borders need to go on every sign, then people will pay attention to all of them.

Which as anyone with a bit of common sense will tell you, is rubbish. The yellow borders work(ed) because they stood out as unusual and demanded attention. Once on every sign they just become part of the background and do nothing but add to the clutter, if anything making it harder to read the signs on that bit of road.

anotherbaldrick

Lum wrote: »

See that's exactly the kind of thing I'm on about. Someone, somewhere, realised that the yellow borders make drivers pay more attention to the sign. So suddenly management decide that clearly the yellow borders need to go on every sign, then people will pay attention to all of them.

Which as anyone with a bit of common sense will tell you, is rubbish. The yellow borders work(ed) because they stood out as unusual and demanded attention. Once on every sign they just become part of the background and do nothing but add to the clutter, if anything making it harder to read the signs on that bit of road.

And to add insult to injury the DVLA guidelines advise older drivers that if they find they cannot cope with the confusion of reading road signs they should surrender their licences

Those responsible should be castigated- with a rusty hacksaw blade