IHE team checking the new TSRGD https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489167 Sun, 7 Jun 2026 22:21:53 GMT Thu, 23 May 2019 08:28:37 GMT Copyright © 2019 Institute of Highway Engineers IHE team checking the new TSRGD https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489167 https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489167
SimonMorgan 
Five heroic members of the IHE Traffic Signs Panel are nearing completion of a thorough check of regulatory signs using the new schedules. All in our own time and for free we have checked all 300-odd diagrams and illustrations in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual to ensure that they work under the new regime. And just as well we did, because we have found over 50 errors so far, ranging from minor typos to signs completely missing. 

Doubtless DfT themselves would have spotted most of these things in due course, but it's perhaps worrying that there might still be some that slip through the net and that there are many other schedules (the non-regulatory signs) that we haven't had time to look at.

The team of checkers has made quite a few comments as well as pointing out errors. These mostly relate to the removal of most of the Directions (at the back of TSRGD) that currently tell you how you must (or must not) use signs and what signs have to be used together or with a particular road marking. 

Any views on any of the above, or other comments on the 2015 TSRGD would be most welcome.
]]> Thu, 23 May 2019 09:26:28 GMT https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489168 https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489168 August 2014

I presume you picked up Diagram 543 was missing?
Majority of my comments on the consultation were about the Guildford/arm width proposal and missing diagram numbers for new signs/signals and from signs which already have them.]]> Thu, 23 May 2019 09:26:42 GMT https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489169 https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489169 August 2014

Has Direction 54 (including it's schedule) been copied across from TSRGD2002?
It always seemed odd to me that it was never included in the list of Directions below relevant traffic signal diagram numbers to which it applied.]]> Thu, 23 May 2019 09:26:52 GMT https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489170 https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489170
SimonMorgan 
August 2014

 

Hi Mark
Welcome to the forum and thanks for posting.

DfT gave the IHE team a slightly newer draft of 2015 TSRGD for checking than the consultation draft. This one does have 543 (and various other signs relating to signals and crossings) added to Table 69.

We haven't yet seen what Directions will remain following the DfTs bonfire of 'unnecessary' ones. Most of the Directions to be retained already appear in Tables in the draft TSRGD, but Annex B of the draft Circular that formed part of the consultation (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/307150/draft-dft-circular.pdf) against Direction 54 says "Note for consultation", but I don't recall that this was referred to in the questionnaire. 

IHE also commented strongly on arm widths and Guildford rules. You can read our response here: http://www.theihe.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2015-TSRGD-Consultation-IHE-response.pdf 

Time will tell what changes DfT will make as a result of the consultation. We should know next month.
]]> Thu, 23 May 2019 09:27:18 GMT https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489171 https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489171 August 2014

Thanks Simon, a very good response from the IHE.

My response was very similar in it's objection to the guildford rules/arm widths, there were a few other things I picked up I felt needed improving, hope you don't mind if I copy them here for sharing.

Table 1 and Table 6:
The supplementary plate shown under the triangular warning and regulatory signs has not been given a diagram number; a diagram number for the supplementary plate would be very useful to be able to distinguish between different supplementary plates for warning signs and regulatory signs as these will have different permitted variants.

Table 31:
None of the items in this table have been given diagram numbers, diagram numbers are easier to remember and use on drawings, schedules and specifications. Referring to signs only using Table number and Item number, given the sheer volume of Tables and Item numbers present in the new format of TSRGD this will make correct specification of signs and markings more complicated and difficult.

Table 33 Item 6:
The mini-roundabout sign to Diagram 611.1 does not include any clear reference to the fact that it must only be placed in conjunction with the road marking to Diagram 1003.4. While this requirement is referred to in the Table 35 Item 5 for Diagram 1003.4 and may also be referred to in the Regulatory requirements table it should be clearly referred to here to prevent incorrect use of mini-roundabout signs at small roundabouts with kerbed central islands. (Despite this being in the Traffic Signs Manual I've seen it frequently and felt it needs greater attention).

Table 49:
Item 7 permits Services to be shown on a white panel on primary route signs which directly contradicts the proposal to remove white panels from primary route signs.

Tables 60 & 61:
None of these Items have been given diagram numbers despite many of them already currently having them, as identified previously diagram numbers are useful in the accurate design and specification of signs.

Table 62:
The description for item 8 refers to 950 and 950V1 but the only difference between the two seems to be orientation of the symbol which in previous examples has not been given individual numbers.

Table 69:
Item 30 is missing any measurements for the black and white stripes to ensure consistency with existing regulations and the flashing rate of the beacon does not appear to have been defined to ensure consistency with existing regulations.]]> Thu, 23 May 2019 09:27:35 GMT https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489172 https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489172 August 2014

Lots of good points you've made there, Mark.

Regarding white panels remaining on primary route signs for services, they do so also for parking destinations (Table 50 items 24-26), but as an option: "The symbol and associated legend may be shown on a white panel..." So some authorities will use a white panel for this and some will place parking destinations directly on the green background! But perhaps the Traffic Signs Manual will guide us in one direction or the other to try to maintain consistency.]]> Thu, 23 May 2019 09:27:48 GMT https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489173 https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489173 October 2014

Are you aware of much feedback with respect to the need to have illuminated globes at zebra crossings? Since the need to illuminate bollards and signs seems to be massively reduced, together with the existence of high performance retroreflective materials, this would appear to be the perfect time to remove this requirement and perhaps lead to zebras (and their combined ped/cycle equivalents) becoming more ubiquitous.]]> Thu, 23 May 2019 09:28:02 GMT https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489174 https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489174 October 2014

Welcome to the forum (whoever you are) and thanks for your question.

I've never heard anyone complain about the need to illuminate zebra crossing beacons or cite energy or connection costs as a reason for not providing a crossing. Most authorities go the other way and give zebras more lighting than legally necessary, with illuminated stripes, halos around the globes or additional street lighting. So, no, your proposal is not amongst those being considered as part of the consultation on the 2015 TSRGD.

Incidentally, we were told that the results of that process would be published in September, but nothing has appeared yet.]]> Thu, 23 May 2019 09:28:15 GMT https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489175 https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489175 November 2014

I am undoubtedly being somewhat optimistic in the hope that the delay in publishing results is because changes to some of the proposals are being made. I sincerely hope the contentious proposals to have a solitary map width and remove Guildford are under review as we speak.

Traffic signs in this country are some of the best in the world and it would be tragic for us to lose this edge on the basis of change purely for the sake of change.

One difficulty the DfT will always face is ensuring that those entrusted to design traffic signs do their job correctly; we can all cite examples of appalling signing schemes and tackling the causes of these should really be more of a concern than scrapping 20 year old rules to accommodate poor understanding of, what I feel are, the fundamental concepts.]]> Thu, 23 May 2019 09:28:26 GMT https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489176 https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&topic=1489176 November 2014

Hi Bryn.
You seem to have missed the other thread I posted here yesterday morning: link The consultation outcome is now out, and I'm pleased to say that directional signs are to remain unchanged (but defined differently).

On the subject of this thread, IHE will shortly be checking these innovative directional sign schedules, to ensure that they cover all the signs and options in the existing TSRGD.

Simon]]> Thu, 23 May 2019 09:28:37 GMT