DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 87383--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith - main NMV sign
   DIR By: John_S
       Date: August 27, 2025, 3:51 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [member=3617]Bustagate[/member] further to #8 above.
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/omKmbMf.jpeg
       Another new sign has been placed on the A4 Great West Road (e/b,
       about 10m east j/o Weltje Road). I noticed this on Tuesday 14
       August, but only managed to photograph it yesterday.
       The x-height appears to be the same as the other temporary
       advance direction sign mentioned in #8 (although I haven’t
       confirmed this). In addition to the points already raised, it’s
       worth noting:
       (1) The sign is positioned behind a lamp post making it almost
       invisible to approaching traffic. The TSM Chapter 3 (para 1.8)
       specifies a minimum clear visibility distance of 60m for 40mph
       roads.
       (2) The sign has a disproportionately large NMV roundel for the
       stroke-width used.
       (3) The sign has disproportionately small lettering on the
       supplementary plate compared to the roundel and stroke width
       sizes used. The supplementary plate’s x-height should = 3.2 x
       stroke width.
       In short, this sign is littered with design errors!
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/7L4z7HW.jpeg
       #Post#: 87436--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith - main NMV sign
   DIR By: Bustagate
       Date: August 27, 2025, 9:41 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [member=1715]John_S[/member] Thanks. What a joke!
       Another error which a colleague has pointed out to me is that
       the diagram 619 roundel should be the end of the arm: there
       shouldn't be a stub projecting beyond it. The bar leading to the
       roundel should have a curved end.
       Paragraph 5.17.7 of Chapter 7 of TSM states:
       [indent]Where one of the following symbols are used on a
       map‑type sign, the route arm is replaced by a stub with a
       curved end (permitted variant of S12‑7‑6). This has
       the effect of removing that section of the route arm beyond the
       symbol. The symbols are:
       [indent]a) “no right turn” or “no left turn”,
       b) “no entry”,
       c) “all vehicles prohibited”,
       d) “motor vehicles prohibited” or
       e) any version of “bus only” or “tram only”[/indent][/indent]
       It strikes me that the absence of a stub beyond the diagram 619
       does help suggest that the turn is a restricted one. Including
       the stub beyond the roundel misleads motorists who
       subconsciously pick up what the absence of a projecting stub
       means. That could be useful in other challenges against PCNs.
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 2
   DIR Previous Page