"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 2011\10\30 18:29, Mortimer wrote:

Surely lack of Traffic Order means that the restriction cannot be
applied until the TO is in effect. Incorrect or inadequate sign-posting
means that the order is not legally enforceable. And I'd expect the
signs at *all* banned turns to be consistent, and not to conform to
different standards based on what, for most drivers, is a technicality.
There is no harm in telling people essentially the same thing in more
than one way (green arrow and no turn left/right signs) - there are no
prizes for being minimalist and reducing the level of signage. If
"redundant" signs reduce accidents and maybe even save lives, they are a
good thing.

Maybe it's a power saving measure... some sustainability guru has worked
out how much power is used by having a white on blue arrow lit up all
night, when traffic is banned from moving half the time anyway.


As a general rule, where there are prohibitions and restrictions, I prefer
signs that tell me what I *can't* do rather than what I can do: if I come up
to a junction and want to turn left, it is better if I am told "you can't do
something that you were about to do" rather than "you can do something that
you weren't intending to, and by *implication* you can't do anything else" -
in other words, make the sign more immediately relevant. When some signs
give a prohibition and others give a permission that excludes everthing
else, it gets confusing.

In other words, convert all blue-backed signs at junctions into the opposite
red-circle signs, or at least supplement them with red-circle signs.