Jump to content
 

The non-railway and non-modelling social zone. Please ensure forum rules are adhered to in this area too!

Whacky Signs.


Colin_McLeod
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
On 05/11/2020 at 18:12, PhilJ W said:

On our payroll at work we had a Richard Head.

 

Twenty odd years ago now the name of the building manager at one of the buildings in W1 I visited to carry out insurance inspections was Rick O'Shea.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 minutes ago, Nick C said:

I don't get what's whacky about that - they've even added a pair of little arrows to the pedestrian instructions to make it clear where the traffic will come from.

 

Conflicting messages.

 

click on the red link only...

 

RED          GREEN

 

 

Kev.

  • Like 2
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
44 minutes ago, SHMD said:

 

Conflicting messages.

 

click on the red link only...

 

RED          GREEN

 

 

Kev.

Where's the conflicting messages? There's a pedestrian message to look to our right, and a traffic message indicating to head to our left. Two different indications for two different types of road users. If people can't tell the difference, that's not a problem with the signs, it's a lack of basic education.

 

I don't like signs painted on the road, but not for that reason - principally because they're too easily obscured by stopped/park vehicles, standing water, etc.

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

One of those things I hate.

 

Whatever happened to "Look Both Ways"?

 

Seen loads of people nearly get ran over when a taxi suddenly does a U turn even on one way streets. But everyone is looking the other way.

 

Needs this bloke to sort them all out.

 

spacer.png

 

It's a one way street...

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

And you've never seen a van suddenly come backwards out of a one way street!

 

See it all the time. 

 

Not nearly as often as I have seen cars going in the correct direction, which is where the main risk lies.  Indeed the signage should be chosen to emphasise that as it might not be readily apparent, and painting "look both ways"  would encourage the pedestrian to look only the wrong way if they do not realise it is one way.

Edited by Titan
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

One of those things I hate.

 

Whatever happened to "Look Both Ways"?

 

Seen loads of people nearly get ran over when a taxi suddenly does a U turn even on one way streets. But everyone is looking the other way.

 

Needs this bloke to sort them all out.

 

spacer.png

Better still, same guy with the black suit and helmet

 

download.jpeg.03db3835f1650e9c497c26ea9b069eb4.jpeg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Nick C said:

Where's the conflicting messages? There's a pedestrian message to look to our right, and a traffic message indicating to head to our left. Two different indications for two different types of road users. If people can't tell the difference, that's not a problem with the signs, it's a lack of basic education.

 

I don't like signs painted on the road, but not for that reason - principally because they're too easily obscured by stopped/park vehicles, standing water, etc.

 

... and to a kid there is only a big arrow pointing left!

 

 

Kev.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Hi Martin.

 

To be absolutely pedantic, (most unlike RMweb):

  1. The sign could easily have been shot at from a piece of ground that allows both free access and shooting, also that the sign backed up by the tree stopped the bullets from entering the prohibited area.
  2. The holes in the sign are presumed to have been made by the projectiles fired from a gun.
  3. The sign does not follow the rules of English grammar for it is written in all capital letters, technically it is written in American Sign Language otherwise known as Dog Latin, therefore anyone that reads English in the correct manner can not actually read the sign and would be correct to ignore it.

Gibbo.

  • Like 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Being even more pedantic, the sign contains a logical inconsistency. It is clearly impossible to do any shooting without first trespassing, so by explicitly banning shooting the sign is saying that the ban on trespassing can be ignored. In order to take advantage of this waiver, those wishing to trespass should carry a gun but not use it.

 

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/11/2020 at 00:25, Tankerman said:

 

Twenty odd years ago now the name of the building manager at one of the buildings in W1 I visited to carry out insurance inspections was Rick O'Shea.

 

Whenever me and a colleague found the stress of work a bit too much we would get the corporate MS Outlook address book up on screen and console ourselves with a good chortle at the fact that Mr & Mrs Janus had chosen to call their son Hugh...

  • Funny 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

Kudos, Gull, from a fellow rebel and ingnorer of notices/walker on the grass.  Go get 'em, birdie.

 

There is a policeman in all of our heads.  He must be eradicated.

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

Being even more pedantic, the sign contains a logical inconsistency. It is clearly impossible to do any shooting without first trespassing, so by explicitly banning shooting the sign is saying that the ban on trespassing can be ignored. In order to take advantage of this waiver, those wishing to trespass should carry a gun but not use it.

 

 

What if the tree is on the perimeter of the restricted area and can be shot at from a non trespassing position?

 

Mike.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

What if the tree is on the perimeter of the restricted area and can be shot at from a non trespassing position?

 

Mike.

Hi Mike,

 

Only a high quality pedant would come up with such an explanation and I'm really quite put out that you beat me to it !!!!

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...