No straight ahead sign

monument

Deleted User wrote: »

I saw it today on the N4 between Heuston & the M50.

So the new ones (with the white bar on a red background) are being replaced by the old ones with a black arrow on a white background?

monument

monument wrote: »

So the new ones (with the white bar on a red background) are being replaced by the old ones with a black arrow on a white background?

Yep!

BrianD

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes this is essentially the point I am getting at, I was driving around for several weeks before I actually saw one!! (NO, I didn't go the wrong way down any on way streets!).

My main point is have an internationally recognised standard sign ( not just recognisable to motorists) , not use the alternative design that makes visitors think twice or worse not notice!.

As to why it was chosen.. Just to be different from the neighbours :rolleyes:

The signage that you refer to at motorways is more than adequate and more than obvious to what it is. The people you refer to would make the same mistake regardless of what the signage was. Unless you put a man and a gate on it, it will be done by some people.

In regard to standard signage, every country has it's own variations and rules. Germany has some signs regarding rights of way that are completely unfamiliar to me and even the rules even more so.

icdg

Deleted User wrote: »

Most of the new signs have be removed and replaced by the old ones! WTF
Left hand doesne't know what the right hand is doing! :rolleyes:

Hazarding a guess, the problem would appear to be that the old No Entry sign is one of the few signs actually provided for in the Road Signs Regulations 1997-2006 and the new one from TSM 2010 hasn't been provided for in regulations anywhere.

The Traffic Signs Manual is not a law. It is a direction to local authorities in respect traffic signs, but where it and the Regulations are in conflict the Regulations take precedence, since they are the law.

icdg

icdg wrote: »

Hazarding a guess, the problem would appear to be that the old No Entry sign is one of the few signs actually provided for in the Road Signs Regulations 1997-2006 and the new one from TSM 2010 hasn't been provided for in regulations anywhere.

The Traffic Signs Manual is not a law. It is a direction to local authorities in respect traffic signs, but where it and the Regulations are in conflict the Regulations take precedence, since they are the law.

I suspect that someone "jumped the gun", and started installing them before the manual was rubber stamped.
OH well, they'll all be changed again soon....

Solair

Put

No entry!
Risk of death!
Keep out!

On motorway exit ramps.

Breezer

I have no objection to either sign, and I can see the advantage to international standardisation. But can someone please explain to me how the old signs were confusing, other than lack of familiarity to foreigners who might have to think for a second? Even if they interpret them as 'no straight ahead', how is that any different to 'no entry'?

munchkin_utd

Breezer wrote: »

But can someone please explain to me how the old signs were confusing, other than lack of familiarity to foreigners who might have to think for a second? Even if they interpret them as 'no straight ahead', how is that any different to 'no entry'?

Its a double negative

the circle itsself means "forbidden" internationally
i.e. a red circle with a man inside means no pedestrians.
No need for a stroke across it.

so the first problem might be that someone thinks its the end of a no straight ahead section, i,e, the circle being the "no straight ahead", and the stroke being the end of the regulations.

Also, this is part of a group of signs like no left, no right, no u turn etc.
But unique to Ireland is the no straight ahead variant.
For you as an irish driver the no straight ahead is logical as you place it as part of this not allowed maneuveure group.
Abroad its COMPLETELY different.
If you cannot turn right, theres a blue sign to say you can ONLY go straight on or left. So you arent told whats forbidden, youre told whats allowed.
So in that vein if a foreigner sees a sign with an arrow, their inner auto pilot might simply follow the arrow.
Or brake suddenly and have a wee think about it. Who knows.

Sure (by inventing our own no entry) we didnt even copy the yanks properly who we were trying to ape in the first place.
Their no entry is this variation of the international standard sign

The australians the same.

etchyed

munchkin_utd wrote: »

Its a double negative

the circle itsself means "forbidden" internationally
i.e. a red circle with a man inside means no pedestrians.
No need for a stroke across it.

so the first problem might be that someone thinks its the end of a no straight ahead section, i,e, the circle being the "no straight ahead", and the stroke being the end of the regulations.

That's REALLY not the problem. A sign with a red border means a prohibition, and a red stroke can be added to it. I don't think anyone could misinterpret that as a double negative.

The No Smoking sign is known all over the world. Nobody interprets that as End of No Smoking.

As an example of how the truth is the exact opposite of your argument, look at the sign the French use for No Motorized Traffic. Despite usually just having a red border on their prohibitory signs, in this instance they add a red bar, eschewing the British-style motorbike floating over a car, presumably as it's a little confusing to motorists. I very much doubt there's a problem with French people thinking this means Motorized Traffic Now Permitted.

Also, this is part of a group of signs like no left, no right, no u turn etc.
But unique to Ireland is the no straight ahead variant.
For you as an irish driver the no straight ahead is logical as you place it as part of this not allowed maneuveure group.
Abroad its COMPLETELY different.
If you cannot turn right, theres a blue sign to say you can ONLY go straight on or left.
So you arent told whats forbidden, youre told whats allowed.

I'm not so sure this is the case everywhere. Looks like that's what they do in Germany but it doesn't seem to be done in the UK. There, if 2 of the 3 directions are prohibited you get a mandatory sign. If 1 of 3 is prohibited you get a prohibitory one. That makes sense to me.

So in that vein if a foreigner sees a sign with an arrow, their inner auto pilot might simply follow the arrow.
Or brake suddenly and have a wee think about it. Who knows.

Like Breezer, I remain unconvinced that this is a problem

Sure (by inventing our own no entry) we didnt even copy the yanks properly who we were trying to ape in the first place.

That's conjecture. This whole national identity through road signs thing is ridiculous. The fact is that Ireland started using yellow diamond signs before red triangles became the standard across Europe. Our mandatory signs in red-border-prohibitory style were allowed by the Vienna convention and they've now been scrapped. Ireland's signs have never been different for the sake of being different, or to be closer to America, or to distance ourselves from the UK. They're different because that's just how things panned out.

To Breezer, IMO the best reason for changing this is the one you've already acknowledged. Standardization of road signs is genrally a good thing. I think that there's no reason for it to cost too much money, however, and I don't see why the two types of sign can't coexist for many years while the non-standard ones are replaced.

Red circle means NO! so what do foreigners do when they saw this sign, thank god they're gone! It really spooked me the first time I drove in Ireland! :eek:

Carawaystick

I can't see how changing from the existing set of 3 signs to having a new one with no connection between the sign and meaning in a time when the country's broke is helpful.

Carawaystick

Carawaystick wrote: »

I can't see how changing from the existing set of 3 signs to having a new one with no connection between the sign and meaning in a time when the country's broke is helpful.

Job creation,

Solair

Somehow Ireland ended up with a strange combination of North American and European road signs with some.

The symbol in a red circle crossed out is used in the US and Canada too e.g. no parking.

A red circle does not mean "no" in those systems either.

Our signage is far closer to the US, Canada, Australia, NZ than it is to Europe.

We should have just adopted standard EU roadsigns, even if we'd kept the crossed out symbols. The red circles used in Ireland are very confusing for foreign drivers e.g. a red circle with a left arrow meaning keep left to an Irish driver, means don't turn left to a lot of continental drivers!

Zoney

Solair wrote: »

Somehow Ireland ended up with a strange combination of North American and European road signs with some.

The symbol in a red circle crossed out is used in the US and Canada too e.g. no parking.

A red circle does not mean "no" in those systems either.

Our signage is far closer to the US, Canada, Australia, NZ than it is to Europe.

We should have just adopted standard EU roadsigns, even if we'd kept the crossed out symbols. The red circles used in Ireland are very confusing for foreign drivers e.g. a red circle with a left arrow meaning keep left to an Irish driver, means don't turn left to a lot of continental drivers!

We adopted our signs very early - if I'm not mistaken it was even before the UK standardised to their current system.

It was coming out of an era where both the UK and Ireland had been using square signs with text. I'm sure a lot of European countries were using their own adhoc signage back then too. So the context is very different to today.

etchyed

Solair wrote: »

e.g. a red circle with a left arrow meaning keep left to an Irish driver, means don't turn left to a lot of continental drivers!

Yes, but those signs are few and far between now. Ireland has unofficially (and now officially in the new TSM) been using blue circles for years. The vast majority of mandatory signs are now blue circles. The only remaining example of a red circle being used incorrectly is on-street parking signs.

CIE

Solair wrote: »

We should have just adopted standard EU roadsigns

I don't believe there are any. What Europe mostly uses (but not consistently) are the signs of the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals (Ireland is not a signatory or contracting party at present IIRC). As such, Ireland's road signs (especially the red circle ones) will have different meanings to those of the Vienna Convention.

Solair

At the very least we should ensure that the red circles are phased out as they need replacement with blue background signs, or some alternative for parking eg a green circle like Australia.

I actually think it is important that the "look and feel" of our signage is different to the continental versions to constantly remind drivers that they are in a country that drives on the opposite side of the road even if the symbols are the same. The yellow diamond warning signs and the yellow lines on the edge of the roads are useful for this.

The yellow line on the edge of the road is also very useful in poor visibility as you can orientate yourself more easily than with two white lines as you know where the road efhe is!

I also think there is more space to print large, clear symbols on a yellow diamond than a triangle, as used elsewhere.

British and continental signs often look a bit squashed!

Zoney

Solair wrote: »

I also think there is more space to print large, clear symbols on a yellow diamond than a triangle, as used elsewhere.

I do agree with this, but some of the symbols currently used here suffer from having been designed for using inside a triangle. I may be mistaken, but I think rock falls and steep inclines would be examples? Also there are some bizarre attempts to fit european-style zebra crossing symbols into diamond signs (actually I think officially the signs here are only supposed use dashed lines for all pedestrian crossings). Of course that European sign is usually square, but the symbol is in a triangle nevertheless.

ardmacha

I think it looks quite cute

galwaycyclist

CIE wrote: »

I don't believe there are any. What Europe mostly uses (but not consistently) are the signs of the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals (Ireland is not a signatory or contracting party at present IIRC). As such, Ireland's road signs (especially the red circle ones) will have different meanings to those of the Vienna Convention.

Hmmm I dont have source to hand but as far as I know Ireland was among the original signatories to the Vienna convention. As I recollect it, among Western European states it was the Netherlands that stayed out.

icdg

Solair wrote: »

Somehow Ireland ended up with a strange combination of North American and European road signs with some.

The symbol in a red circle crossed out is used in the US and Canada too e.g. no parking.

A red circle does not mean "no" in those systems either.

Our signage is far closer to the US, Canada, Australia, NZ than it is to Europe.

We should have just adopted standard EU roadsigns, even if we'd kept the crossed out symbols. The red circles used in Ireland are very confusing for foreign drivers e.g. a red circle with a left arrow meaning keep left to an Irish driver, means don't turn left to a lot of continental drivers!

We adopted the yellow diamond signs with the Traffic Signs Regulations 1956, the UK didn't adopt the red triangle signs until the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964 some eight years later. The liklihood is had we waited we would have ended up with red triangle signs like the rest of Europe, but we decided to jump early.

Remember that while our warning/harzard signage is very different, our directional signage is for the most part a straight copy of the UK design (or at least, that was its starting point, some of it has moved a good bit away since)

Our man in Havana

They should follow the Guildford rules and be done with it.

Solair

I find the European keep-out sign very effective.

Perhaps it should be put up on motorway exits for drivers attempting to enter the wrong way along side the usual no entry signs and "wrong way turn back!"

etchyed

Our man in Havana wrote: »

They should follow the Guildford rules and be done with it.

The Guildford rules are to do with patching on directional signage. They have absolutely nothing to do with this.

Victor

Solair wrote: »

"Do not put your hand in black paint"?

monument

Wrote a quick bit on this aimed at daily newspapers, nobody picked it up, not even in silly season, so might as well post the responses I got...

Dublin City Council:

The new no entry sign you refer to is included in the latest version of the Traffic Signs Manual published by the Department of Transport Tourism and Sport. This is a national manual and compliance is mandatory for all local authorities. However, this particular sign has not yet been included in the Traffic Regulations and cannot be used until these Regulations are updated.

Dublin City Council erected a small number of signs to photograph and prepare an internal report on the matter. These signs have now been taken down. The total cost of replacing the signs is €7,000.

...

There are approx 100 signs and the total costofreplacing them is €7,000 -approx €4,800 is the cost of the actual signs. As stated below, compliance with the national manuel is mandatory so we will replace all 100 signs.

Department of Transport:

Could the Department outline if and when the continental style of ‘no entry’ signs will be backed by Regulations?

> Circular letter RST 01/2011 together with the 2010 Traffic Signs Manual constitutes a Ministerial Direction to Road Authorities under Section 95(16) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, in relation to the provision of information and warning traffic signs

Any new regulatory signs must be separately covered by Regulations (Statutory Instruments). In respect of the two new regulatory signs: Weight Restriction sign (RUS 015) and No Entry sign (RUS 050) the circular states that: “Similar to the Maximum Gross Weight sign above, the new No Entry sign RUS 050 should therefore not be erected by road authorities until the Regulations are completed”.

The Regulations are due to be completed later this year.

As a lot of Irish drivers aren’t familiar with the new signs; will the Department be informing the public of the changes? (For example, through a PR ad campaign before local authorities start to use these signs?)

> In advance of the new regulatory signs coming into effect the public will be advised; most likely through the RSA who will need to incorporate the new signs into the Drivers’ Theory Test and into the “Rules of the Road”.

Has the Department any estimates of how much it will cost to replace the signs -- including cost of signs, the work involved, and any publicity campaign needed?

> It is envisaged that there will be a long transition period during which both types of “No Entry” sign will have legal effect.

Once the new Regulations come into effect, there will not be an immediate need for all old signs to be replaced. As signs become faded or damaged they can be replaced by new signs. This will not involve additional cost as the signs in those circumstances would require replacement in any event.

Dublin City Council erected a small number of signs to photograph and prepare an internal report on the matter. These signs have now been taken down. The total cost of replacing the signs is €7,000.

The one at Heuston station is still the "correct type!" :pac:

chewed

Now that we've finally replaced nearly all the old style No Entry signs in Dublin city with the international standard signs, are there plans to replace the rest of them around the country? I still see them in towns and villages around Ireland!

Carawaystick

Considering the country is broke, spending money we don't have to replace signs with meaning to signs without any obvious meaning seems a poor use of scarce resources.

chewed

Well, they seemed to be able to find the money to erect useless L road number signs around the country!

markpb

chewed wrote: »

Well, they seemed to be able to find the money to erect useless L road number signs around the country!

Giving all roads a proper name is hardly useless. You might be glad of it the first time you have to direct an ambulance or fire engine to a rural location and don't have to refer to the nearest pub, barn or parked car in your directions.

chewed

markpb wrote: »

Giving all roads a proper name is hardly useless. You might be glad of it the first time you have to direct an ambulance or fire engine to a rural location and don't have to refer to the nearest pub, barn or parked car in your directions.

L53523 is not exactly a "proper name". Ask anyone who lives on or near a L road and I guarantee they wouldn't remember it. I live just off one and I've no idea what number it is.

seamus

Seems a good a thread as any to hijack:

Spent last weekend in Kerry and saw yellow diamond signs everywhere with exclamation marks and tiny text underneath them. They're not legal, right?

Arrived in the county at night and the text on most of them is so small they're impossible to read at 60km/h+ until you're right on top of them.

Mrs OBumble

Breezer wrote: »

What on earth does that sign mean and what country is it used in? To me it means 'Two way traffic' but I had to think about it and then guess.

In New Zealand it means "Narrow road - oncoming traffic has right of way, you have to give way".

Often used on one-lane bridges.

Carawaystick

seamus wrote: »

Seems a good a thread as any to hijack:

Spent last weekend in Kerry and saw yellow diamond signs everywhere with exclamation marks and tiny text underneath them. They're not legal, right?

Arrived in the county at night and the text on most of them is so small they're impossible to read at 60km/h+ until you're right on top of them.

What did the text say?
The bang (!) is a general warning.


Re L road number signs, these didn't replace any existing signs.

Victor

seamus wrote: »

Arrived in the county at night and the text on most of them is so small they're impossible to read at 60km/h+ until you're right on top of them.

It's a warning sign, slow down and maybe you could read it.

seamus

Victor wrote: »

It's a warning sign, slow down and maybe you could read it.

Slowing down randomly on an unlit carriageway in the middle of the night? Sounds pretty dangerous to me. Hence why we have standard signs where the meaning is clear without the text - so you don't have to slow down and endanger other road users.

I spotted a new one of these on the embankment road tonight, is this sign actually legal now?