Changes to the TSRGD in 2015

[Type R Tom]

Has anyone been paying attention to the changes to TSRGD in 2015? Generally it will reduce a lot of street clutter and need for lighting signs; it’s going to make life a lot easier.

What is interesting is that as far as I can tell, as long as it’s clear what is intended by signing and lining you will no longer be able to get off a ticket due to a technicality.

Currently in consultation, I was meant to go to a presentation last week but missed it due to other commitments but you can have a read here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Thoughts?

[Rovinghawk]

There's many on here that won't know this stands for "Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions"- just putting the abbreviation won't encourage them to read up.

[Type R Tom]

Rovinghawk said:

There's many on here that won't know this stands for "Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions"- just putting the abbreviation won't encourage them to read up.

Possibly but most in SP&L seem to be pretty knowledgeable.

For those who don’t, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) is the law that sets out the design and conditions of use of official traffic signs that can be lawfully placed on or near roads in England, Scotland, Wales, and the Isle of Man.

Basically it’s a large document that regulates the all road signs & lines, there placement, size, colour etc.

The changes will mean a lot of the “get offs” will no longer be available

[Stoofa]

From a person point of view, if it's obvious what a sign is attempting to tell someone then there shouldn't be a "technicality" to get off.
I'm not for a second suggesting that any symbol a local council likes should be used instead of the "official one". I'm not for allowing signs to be placed where nobody can see them, hidden away etc.
I'm not for allowing a sign to fade away to nothing and still be enforceable.

It just urks me when I hear "Sign was 5cm too small" or "White border was missing" or something along those lines.
If it's obvious what the sign is telling then it should stand.

[anonymous-user]

Long overdue IMO.

The yellow line/TRO (potential) proposals are a good thing.

Removing the cycleway illumination is a good thing (I work in Cambridge, 17% of all traffic is cycle...)

Paras 5.9 and 5.10 (a cyclist's "zebra" crossing) share the st out of me and should be buried right now before they have a chance to be picked up on by the cycling lobby. We've recently been looking at installing one and everybody except the Cycling Officer (who, incidentally, is the only one without an Engineering degree) think it's a recipe for disaster.

I have other views but won't bore the world with them here!

[Truffles]

As a mere road user, it seems to me that a most of this is a good idea.

[Dwight VanDriver]

Go to
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
for more detailed description on sings and changes

dvd
(Tvrgit are u reading)

[anonymous-user]

I should have been at the Leeds seminar/consultation event today, Thankfully I got out of it .

http://www.theihe.org/ihe-events/traffic-signs-pol...

There is a massive amount of 'unlawful' signs out on the road network.
Some are so bad/poor they are quite funny

And for more 'boring' facts
http://www.cbrd.co.uk/roadsfaq/

The Tsrgd keeps plenty of people in work

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...