Forum Replies Created
I agree, Andy. It’s perfectly legal to put up such a sign and marking (with the appropriate TRO to back it up). I think a number of authorities have done so, with no major enforcement problems, as far as I’m aware.
I think that’s exactly right, Stu. But I would guess that a number of humped parallel crossings have been installed without specific authorisation.
TSRGD was amended in rather a hurry, as it had already missed its target date of early 2015, so I don’t think DfT had the time or the legal resource to consider changing the Humps Regs as well.
All the best, Simon
Diagram 560 (S2-6-2) gives a minimum of 75 mm diameter for a circular reflector, or 45 cm² for a rectangular one. So arguably a reflector on a marker post should comply with that. But it may well be legal to put up a smaller reflector if you deem it not to be a traffic sign.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by Simon Morgan.
Glad you found the Forum in its new location.
Self-righting bollards are required to conform to BS 8442:2015, which includes:
13.1.5 Conspicuity panels
Conspicuity panels shall be applied to the front and sides of all RSRB types; rear
conspicuity panels are optional. Conspicuity panels shall be retroreflective,
fluorescent and yellow in colour.
NOTE RSRBs rely on the brightness of retroreflective panels to be conspicuous at
night. Daytime conspicuity of these devices is enhanced by the use of fluorescent
The minimum projected area of the front or side conspicuity panels shall
conform to Table 6. Where both faces display a traffic sign both shall display a
conspicuity panel. The lower edge of the front conspicuity panel shall be a
minimum of 100 mm and a maximum of 200 mm above the ground line.
Table 6 Projected area of the conspicuity panels
Projected area, mm2
Front view Side view
150 000 20 000
BS EN 12899-2:2007 covers normal internally illuminated bollards. It has lots on the dimensions but doesn’t seem to give the minimum size of retrofeflective panels.
So apart from that, I think it’s up to the engineer to design what is safe and sensible.
Well spotted and researched, Claire. You’re a step ahead of DfT on this!
I hope readers of this forum have had a chance to look at the new SSG now. Any thoughts (positive or negative)?