[TCUG] Re: "Traffic signals not working" signs
- From: "Kinnaird, Dave" <D.Kinnaird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 14:53:11 +0100
Peter, (or should I say Sherlock Holmes), Mike has just emailed me and his
reply confirms what you have identified.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Bull Peter [mailto:Peter.Bull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday 03 October 2003 10:59
To: 'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [TCUG] Re: "Traffic signals not working" signs
Like Dave, I've struggled to find the exact reference, but now I've got it!
In TSRGD 1994 7019 is described as "Light signals ahead not in use" in TSRGD
2002 it's "Light signals not in use". It's subtle but it works.
Peter Bull
-----Original Message-----
From: Kinnaird, Dave [mailto:D.Kinnaird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 03 October 2003 09:22
To: 'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [TCUG] Re: "Traffic signals not working" signs
Ian, where exactly does it specify that 7019 can now lawfully be used at
signals rather than in advance and does it allow you to only use at signals
or do you have to still use advanced in addition?. Also does the speed of
the road have any bearing? e.g. ok to use only at signals in 30mpg but need
in advance on 40mph or greater?
Would appreciate comments as we currently erect in advance but I would like
to use on signals poles as I believe particularly in city centres that they
would be much more visible.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Wallis, Ian [mailto:Ian.Wallis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday 25 September 2003 14:07
To: 'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [TCUG] Re: "Traffic signals not working" signs
I have previously asked Mike Middleton of DfT and this was his response
(16/9/03)
Chapter 8, 7.2.7.6, of the Traffic Signs Manual says that 7019 should be
erected if traffic signals are not working. This has not been changed by
issue of TSRGD 2002. The sign to 7019 can now be lawfully used at the
signals rather than only in advance.
The intention is to move towards a situation where an unilluminated signal
head with a white border is a sign in its own right. The Highway Code
already says that a driver should proceed with caution if signals are not
working.
However, to get to that stage it would be necessary for white borders to be
standard, which currently is not the case. In London, which has the highest
concentration of signals, borders are the exception rather than the rule.
The reason for not using a white border in most cases was that the
additional width made the signal head vulnerable to damage from passing high
sided vehicles.
With the issue of EN 123688:2000 (and its subsequant adoption into TSRGD
2002) the white border can now be added directly to the signal head and the
overall width reduced.
It is hoped that the white border will now be adopted as the "norm" and we
can look towards the diminishing requirement for 7019.
Ian Wallis
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Andrews [mailto:RAndrews@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 25 September 2003 14:03
To: 'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [TCUG] Re: "Traffic signals not working" signs
DfT wanted the bulk of the signals provided with edging strips before
proceeding with the change to Chapter 8. At the time we were waiting on
action from TfL to fit edging strips to their signal heads. No doubt they
can give an update on progress?
Dick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fleckney, Kevan [SMTP:Kevan.Fleckney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 25 September 2003 13:47
> To: 'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: [TCUG] Re: "Traffic signals not working" signs
>
> I would have thought that signals out with no boards would be safer than
> signals on with boards. This is assuming that signals have white
> reflective
> backing boards. Signals out encourage caution amongst most motorists.
> Signals on do not.
>
> I understand that the DfT were going to look at whether signals that are
> off
> but are equipped with white reflective backing boards would be considered
> to
> be effectively self-signed, whilst sognals with no backing boards would
> still require signals out boards.
> Can anyone confirm this?
>
> For the record, Torbay has the same procedure as that of Derby City.
>
>
> Kevan Fleckney
> Torbay Council
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wallis, Ian
> > Sent: 25 September 2003 11:42
> > To: 'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> > Subject: [TCUG] "Traffic signals not working" signs
> >
> > *** Before reading or acting on this e-mail, or opening any attachment,
> > please read Derby City Council's disclaimer and confidentiality
> statement
> > at the end of this e-mail ***
> >
> >
> > I have just found out that the proposed change regarding traffic signals
> > not
> > working boards was not incorporated into the final TSRGD ie they still
> > need
> > to be provided when signals are out.
> >
> > Our policy has always been to provide them except where the all out was
> > caused by mains failure. In this case we don't provide them because the
> > supply could be restored at any time and there would then be conflicting
> > messages.
> >
> > What do other authorities do?
> >
> > Ian Wallis
> > Derby City Council
> >
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> > The views expressed in this email are personal and may not
> > necessarily reflect those of Derby City Council, unless explicitly
> > stated otherwise
> >
> > This email, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and
> > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> > are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please
> > notify me immediately.
> >
> > If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you should not
> > copy it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other
> > person.
> >
> > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
> > swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> > However, we cannot accept liability for viruses that may be in
> > this e-mail. We recommend that you check all e-mails with an
> > appropriate virus scanner.
> >
> > www.mimesweeper.com
> > **********************************************************************
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
> > the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
> the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
**********************************************************************
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery
of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions,
conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the
official business of the Council of the City and County of Cardiff shall be
understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. All e-mail sent to or from
this address will be processed by Cardiff County Councils Corporate E-mail
system and may be subject to scrutiny by someone other than the addressee.
**********************************************************************
Mae'n bosibl bod gwybodaeth gyfrinachol yn y neges hon. Os na chyfeirir y
neges atoch chi'n benodol (neu os nad ydych chi'n gyfrifol am drosglwyddo'r
neges i'r person a enwir), yna ni chewch gopio na throsglwyddo'r neges.
Mewn achos o'r fath, dylech ddinistrio'r neges a hysbysu'r anfonwr drwy
e-bost ar unwaith. Rhowch wybod i'r anfonydd ar unwaith os nad ydych chi
neu eich cyflogydd yn caniatau e-bost y Rhyngrwyd am negeseuon fel hon.
Rhaid deall nad yw'r safbwyntiau, y casgliadau a'r wybodaeth arall yn y
neges hon nad ydynt yn cyfeirio at fusnes swyddogol Cyngor Dinas a Sir
Caerdydd yn cynrychioli barn y Cyngor Sir nad yn cael sel ei fendith. Caiff
unrhyw negeseuon a anfonir at, neu o'r cyfeiriad e-bost hwn eu prosesu gan
system E-bost Gorfforaethol Cyngor Sir Caerdydd a gallant gael eu harchwilio
gan rywun heblaw'r person a enwir.
**********************************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be
disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. If you are not the
addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your email software
as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any responsibility
for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has been transmitted
over a public network. If you suspect that the message may have been
intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
Other related posts:
