7db wrote:You two really are a pair of grumpy old farts. Victor Meldrew and his twin brother.
I think the guys who pay for the signs would rather it was simple and that the driver did use his common sense as you suggest he can. But every time he doesn't and someone dies, they put up another sign. I'm sure those who can use common sense can read their way through the signage forest (or just slow down until they can).
It's all very well bleating and saying it's oh-so complicated to understand the signage regs but you can't then go and whinge about things moving to the lowest common denominator (one line bad, two lines worse,, four lines...) if you are leading the charge.
I had a lovely drive today, and the signage was just peachy, thanks.
I don't know if I'm included in your grumpy old fart duo, and I'm not much bothered if I am, but
we are the ones (including you too) who pay for the damned signs, so we at least would prefer them to be less numerous; and you, with all due respect, have not proved that the heavy handed deployment of signage is actually leading to a lower shunt tally.
I could equally well assert that it is having the reverse effect, and I don't know if that would be right either, but I suspect they are not doing much good because I fear that most drivers don't see many of them anyhow, and therefore they can't be helped by them.
What we should be encouraging is more skilled reading of the road and its various hazards, and getting people to act accordingly; and never mind about the signs.
Then we can get rid of most of the signs, and save all of us a bundle of cash. IMHO that is the way we should be heading.
Best wishes all,
Dave - still a bit sceptical.