
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>Lateral Placement/ Sideways clearance</title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775841</link>
<description></description>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 7 Jun 2026 17:13:04 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 09:41:39 GMT</pubDate>
<copyright>Copyright &#xA9; 2024 Institute of Highway Engineers</copyright>
<atom:link href="https://members.theihe.org/forums/topic_rss.asp?group=214541&amp;id=1775841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link>
<item>
<title>Lateral Placement/ Sideways clearance</title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775841</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775841</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Afternoon,

Is there any actual guidance other than what's in TSM chapter 1 on the lateral placement(sideways clearance) from the front of the kerb to the edge of a sign face?

We've been generally using 450mm, obviously depending on each site location etc. ]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:45:42 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775843</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775843</guid>
<description><![CDATA[I've never known where that 450mm came from but is what I use, too. I suppose because the general idea is to position the sign so it doesn't get hit there isn't much guidance. For urban, low speed (<30mph) roads, I use 450-500mm but will consider other factors such as : Is it adjacent to a steeply cambered, narrow bus lane for double-deckers? I'd try to calculate how much "lean" a high-sided vehicle would do. This might show that a tall sign would be more vulnerable than a short sign in the same position.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:27:43 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775854</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775854</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The ‘old’ Chapter 1 provided guidance of 450mm offset for low speed roads, 600mm for severe camber or central reserves, and 1200mm for high speed dual carriageways. <br /><br />It doesn’t seem to be in there any longer, but remains a good rule of thumb (in my opinion), subject to site specifics (eg regular turning buses with frontal overhang). ]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:49:03 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775894</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775894</guid>
<description><![CDATA[TSM Chapter 1 Section 5.3.1. "To prevent damage from passing vehicles, signs should be set back from the edge of <br />the carriageway. Wherever possible, signs should be set at the back of the footway or highway. <br />Lateral placement at roundabouts should also allow for circulatory visibility."<br /><br />450 mm from the face of the kerb is a useful reference point to avoid casual collateral and collision damage. ]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:31:21 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775907</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775907</guid>
<description><![CDATA[As R.Cooper says, it used to be specified in the old Chapter 1. For some reason DfT decided to remove the quoted distances in the latest issue. It would be interesting to know why, if anyone is aware of what their thinking on this was/is?]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 19:41:11 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775962</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1775962</guid>
<description><![CDATA[I agree with R Cooper. 450mm is the general recommendation for highway clearance but this isn't adequate for tall signs and roads with severe camber. The reason that is vehicles with higher bodywork such as large lorries and double decker buses tend to lean outwards over the edge of carriageway into the footway or verge. It's not uncommon to see roadside direction signs damaged by passing vehicles. Sometimes conflicts occur with the driving mirrors or worse, with the bodywork itself.]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:35:28 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1776154</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1776154</guid>
<description><![CDATA[A. Sturrock 'at a guess', due to the many variables (as this chat has highlighted) I would imagine the DfT removed the specific values from the advice, leaving it up to engineering judgement, so as not to be held accountable. Much of the guidance has gone in that direction, which does enable LAs etc to have a greater degree of flexibility. However, I do think it is unhelpful for new practitioners who do not have the benefit of remembering the previous advice. It would have been better if values could have remained but with caution on their application in 'all' situations. ]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:41:39 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
