Road Signage and Rights of Way

[genou]

Picture a road layout as a capital A . The left hand upright is a public road, and actually extends up and down beyond our interest. The bar of the A is an adopted road. The right hand upright is an unadopted road and does terminate at the bottom, which would make the part below the bar a cul-de-sac.

But that's not how the set up is signed. The top entry to the right hand upright is signed as a cul-de-sac. As is the entry into the cross bar from the left hand upright. But in each case you can go round two sides of the triangle to get back to the left hand upright. I can't construct any scenario of rights of access that make the signage correct, so I ask: what am I missing ?

[Lootman]

Some road signage is deliberately false. The case I have seen the most is where a sign indicates "no through road" or "cul de sac" when in reality you can go through. The authorities are simply trying to discourage drivers from using that route as a through route.

In other words, they lie. I usually like to make a point of using such routes.

[genou]

Some road signage is deliberately false. The case I have seen the most is where a sign indicates "no through road" or "cul de sac" when in reality you can go through. The authorities are simply trying to discourage drivers from using that route as a through route.

In other words, they lie. I usually like to make a point of using such routes.

I suppose that's a possibility. But unless you want to go somewhere on one of the two roads involved, it is longer and slower to go that way. I was intrigued by the idea that it might be do to do with unadopted roads, but still could not figure out how it might be working.

[swill453]

Some road signage is deliberately false. The case I have seen the most is where a sign indicates "no through road" or "cul de sac" when in reality you can go through. The authorities are simply trying to discourage drivers from using that route as a through route.

In other words, they lie. I usually like to make a point of using such routes.

A slightly similar on the M9 heading east towards the new Forth Bridge. The signs before Junction 2 tell you to stay on the motorway to Junction 1A for the bridge, despite it being twice the distance and a ridiculously indirect route. See https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/55.98 ... authuser=0

Guess which way the locals go?

Scott.

[staffordian]

My first thought was that if the road is unadopted, there might be no right of way along it, thus it might be termed a technical cul-de-sac, but whilst that might make sense for the sign at the start of the adopted road, it doesn't seem right for the one at the top of the "A". I'd have thought rather than a cul-de-sac sign, it would need an "Access Only" sign, or one signifying it's a residents only private road.

[bungeejumper]

A slightly similar on the M9 heading east towards the new Forth Bridge. The signs before Junction 2 tell you to stay on the motorway to Junction 1A for the bridge, despite it being twice the distance and a ridiculously indirect route. See https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/55.98 ... authuser=0

There'll be some reason, however obscure, why the powers that be don't want a lot of traffic using that stretch of road. Maybe it's that the road is a convenient cut-through that goes past a school gate/old folks' home/whatever? Maybe it goes past the front door of the chairman of the local council? (Don't laugh, we have a prominent local landowner who nobbles road signs so as to have a quieter life.)

Maybe the stretch of road has a high accident rate, or maybe it's too narrow for some vehicles? Maybe it's all just a way of reducing the pressure on an urban shopping street? (Devizes tries to send traffic around an ugly two mile detour because it doesn't want "non-locals" clogging up the very scenic half-mile short-cut that would get them to their destinations much more quickly.) As noted, anyone "in the know" will ignore the signs.

Of course, it might simply be a cock-up, caused by the roads belonging to two separate local authorities who aren't on the same planning page? Wouldn't be the first time.

BJ

[swill453]

A slightly similar on the M9 heading east towards the new Forth Bridge. The signs before Junction 2 tell you to stay on the motorway to Junction 1A for the bridge, despite it being twice the distance and a ridiculously indirect route. See https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/55.98 ... authuser=0

There'll be some reason, however obscure

I know, it's not obscure at all. They've just spent tens of millions extending the motorway/dual carriageway towards the new bridge, and it's not really their fault there's a castle and other land ownership issues in the way of a more direct route from the west. And more traffic for the bridge comes from the easterly direction where the links from both Edinburgh and Glasgow converge.

The other option goes through a village centre.

Scott.

[Lanark]

Some road signage is deliberately false. The case I have seen the most is where a sign indicates "no through road" or "cul de sac" when in reality you can go through. The authorities are simply trying to discourage drivers from using that route as a through route.

In other words, they lie. I usually like to make a point of using such routes.

A slightly similar on the M9 heading east towards the new Forth Bridge. The signs before Junction 2 tell you to stay on the motorway to Junction 1A for the bridge, despite it being twice the distance and a ridiculously indirect route. See https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/55.98 ... authuser=0

Guess which way the locals go?

Scott.

Looking at the history of google street view that sign went up in 2014 the Queensferry crossing didnt open until 2017.
I guess the £1.35 billion budget didnt cover taking down the old signs.

[SteelCamel]

I suspect you're over-thinking the meaning of "no through road". It's an informational sign so doesn't have to go by a strict definition, the question is whether it's useful. And it is - it tells you not to take the right side of the "A" if you're looking for a through route, and that's good advice since it would just waste time to go round two sides of the triangle. It's not a mandatory sign, so if you want to drive round the other side of the triangle you can. It's just advice that you shouldn't do that.

Now, for a really bizarre set of signs, how about this: https://goo.gl/maps/N5EGeoxxQ38x518v7
Yes, that's a road signed as both "one way" and "no through road"!

[quelquod]

I know, it's not obscure at all. They've just spent tens of millions extending the motorway/dual carriageway towards the new bridge, and it's not really their fault there's a castle and other land ownership issues in the way of a more direct route from the west. And more traffic for the bridge comes from the easterly direction where the links from both Edinburgh and Glasgow converge.

The other option goes through a village centre.

Scott.

Its always been more or less like that of course. I used always to use it because the petrol station in Newton was cheapest around although the tailbacks from the Forth Bridge were sometimes frightful. Not so bad now with the Queensferry Crossing but the petrol stop’s no longer attractive since it changed hands.

Looking at the history of google street view that sign went up in 2014 the Queensferry crossing didnt open until 2017.
I guess the £1.35 billion budget didnt cover taking down the old signs.

TBH it’s six and half a dozen with the new bridge - only about half a mile in it but they obviously don’t want to route all the heavies around the 50 limit and the village.