5th March 2015 at 8:34 am #3391Peter BullParticipant
I presently have a looming maintenance time bomb in the form of a vast number of Dia. 652 signs which were installed in the 1970s and 1980s on standard CHS with no illumination. These obviously are not compliant with Schedule 17 of the current regulations.
My problem arises in that many of these CHS are Now corroded and the plates themselves are faded and would not meet any retroreflectivity standards.
A bulk replacement to introduce illuminated Dia. 652s would exceed the annual sign maintenance pot yet I am fairly certain there is little to no chance of obtaining a retrospective special direction from the Department as Schedule 17 is rather explicit on the issue of lighting signs.
A number of these signs are now within 20mph Zones but unless I have misinterpreted the draft Regs Dia. 652 will still need to be illuminated unless used as a repeater more than 50m away from a side road?
Any suggestions would be most welcome as I am receiving further requests for reviews of one way systems and I don’t particularly wish to perpetuate something that may be wrong as if a special direction was issued it has since been lost in subsequent local government reorganisation.5th March 2015 at 11:37 am #3483Ryan BoydKeymaster
In the current (2002) TSRGD 652 only has to be electrically lit if it needs to be seen by drivers who have just turned into that road within the last 50 m. Otherwise retroreflective is fine. (Schedule 17 is pretty difficult to follow on this!)
DfT have clearly stated that in the new Regs electrical lighting on all signs within a 20 mph speed limits will be optional, including ones that are safety critical like 616 (no entry). So if their latest draft of the 2015 TSRGD says something different, that is clearly an error that will hopefully be picked up in the imminent “technical review and general sense check”.
So I would only put forward for electrical lighting those 652s that are within 50 m on the start of a road (or a side turning at which you can join it in the relevant direction) and are unlikely to be within a 20 mph speed limit of either sort in the the near future. You might also wish to consider whether they are all actually needed or whether some can be removed completely.5th March 2015 at 7:40 pm #3484Peter BullParticipant
That’s great advice, thank you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.