Traffic signs reduction taskforce
4th September 2015
When I typed 'traffic signs reduction taskforce' into a search engine, it couldn't offer any results, but suggested I might like to see the results for 'traffic signs reduction taskforce - the movie' instead.
I didn't want to see those alternative results, but it set me thinking. I could imagine the trailer (advertising the movie, not taking the redundant road signs away). 'It was just another day in an ordinary British town. Folks were going about their business, but under the surface, a burning sense of injustice raged in the heart of every citizen: there were just too many road signs, and they were slightly inconvenient. Only one man can rescue these good people. That man is Alan Duncan, who has been appointed to tackle overuse of traffic signs.' What do you think, straight to DVD? Less box office, more box of items for the Oxfam shop?
And yet, the official government announcement has gone all Bruce Willis. It's headed 'Ending the scourge of pointless road signs,' and below the hyperbolic headline, it says, 'A new taskforce and consultation are announced to obliterate pointless road signs.'
This obliterating, this ending of the scourge, is to be done by '...a taskforce overseen by Sir Alan Duncan MP...while a consultation proposes a range of new measures, including:
- ensuring road signs that are used far longer than needed have a 'remove by' date
- making sure traffic signs are visible on unlit roads
- stopping temporary message signs from being cluttered with adverts and distracting logos'
These three specific measures are hard to disagree with. It makes you wonder, why all the macho bluster in the headline?
Photo accompanying government announcement
There's a photo accompanying the government announcement, which I presume is intended to be an example of overuse of road signs. I've taken the liberty of reproducing the photo here. Which signs would you take down? In my opinion, none of them.
The top sign is the main directional sign, with information about weight limits (essential for buses and trucks). The 'station' sign is important for people who want to find the station. It could be incorporated into the top sign, but it would be a waste of money to take two signs down and make a new one.
The cycling signs indicate cycling routes. Note that the cycling route to Canterbury is not the same as the main route to Canterbury. Is Duncan proposing that local authorities should be banned from signing cycle routes? I hope not. If he personally doesn't get around by bike, does he think it follows that all cycling signs are superfluous?
The town centre, information, and parking sign is a brown tourist sign, presumably useful for tourists who don't know the area, and want to get to the town centre. The camping and caravan site sign could go, although I'd guess that the campsite wouldn't be very happy about that.
Cases of unnecessary signs do exist. For example, without this sign warning of road humps, people would see the humps themselves a few moments later, which would be sufficient notice of them. Each sign should be considered on its own merits.
Duncan's taskforce
Alan Duncan's taskforce is looking at reducing the number of road signs - a subject close to his heart, as evidenced by a pamphlet he wrote, called Poles Apart. In it, he called for many road signs to be scrapped, including the blue 'roundels' indicating cycle paths and shared use paths. (From reading that pamphlet, and an article he wrote in 2009 in the Daily Mail, my impression is that he is not interested in, nor sympathetic to, cycling).
Although Duncan is primarily looking at reducing the number of road signs, this shouldn't be a dogmatic exercise. He should keep an open mind. If there are cases where new road signs need to be added, he should recommend that.
Cyclist passing distance sign
In my opinion, a new cycling sign is required. Too many drivers routinely ignore the Highway Code when overtaking cyclists. This is probably the number one issue for cyclists. I read some of the comments under articles about cycling to work, for Cycle to Work Day yesterday, and close passes were mentioned time and again. Here are three below the line comments from The Guardian's Bike Blog:
'Still had my own fair share of idiots who pass way too close because they can't be ars*d to wait for 5 seconds or pull past and stop immediately in front of me. Had to politely mention to one driver that they were driving in a cycle lane too. Had their head buried in their phone, so no surprises there.'
'Cycle to work every day in a rural location. I suffer daily aggro with ignorant drivers who believe cyclists have no rights and that the speed limit of 60mph on rural roads means they have to drive at 60 plus regardless of whether they can see what's coming or not.'
'Still too many inconsiderate drivers on the road getting too close when passing me. Funny how they all back off and give me far more room when they realise I'm on a cargobike with a big aluminium box on the front that could scratch their shiny little cars.'
These close passes are likely to put many people off cycling at all. As I've argued before, we should adopt a version of the French road sign, which asks drivers to leave the correct amount of space when overtaking a cyclist.
Since signage is being reviewed, this is an opportunity to do it. It's also an opportunity for Alan Duncan to show that he is not dogmatic and determined only to 'obliterate' signs, but open-minded and prepared to adopt new signs where necessary. He has the opportunity to become an unlikely action hero for cycling.