Page:Report of the Traffic Signs Committee (1963).pdf/33

 108. No signs are prescribed in the Protocol to give these warnings. We see no need to distinguish between a ford and a deep ford since the depth of water would in any case vary with the seasons and would be recorded on the depth gauge which should invariably be used with the sign we recommend at figure 60.

109. Owing to the possibility that brakes, after immersion in water, may temporarily fail, we consider this warning most important for a driver after passing through a ford. So as to avoid the need for a separate sign we recommend that the sign at figure 61 be used on the reverse side of that at figure 60.

110. The Protocol prescribes informatory and mandatory arrows but makes no provision for a warning arrow. Nevertheless, we believe that at exceptionally sharp bends advance warning signs and carriageway markings are not enough and we recommend use of a black and white chevron-marked barrier, as at figure 40. The white sections should be reflectorised. We recommend that these chevrons should also be placed on roundabouts liable to be approached at high speed opposite the entry road and under the mandatory sign referred to in paragraph 56.

111. These signs are used to indicate resumption of two-way traffic on a single-carriageway, after a stretch of dual-carriageways. In view of the number of short stretches of dual-carriageways in this country, and the increased vehicle speeds which these generate we regard it as most important that drivers be effectively warned before they return to a single-carriageway. This risk is especially serious where dual-carriageways are so widely separated that one cannot be seen from the other.

There is, however, no Protocol equivalent and we have considered whether two arrows on a rectangular blue informatory sign would be adequate. But we have come to the conclusion that the warning connotation is necessary. We therefore recommend the use, shortly before the end of the dual-carriageway, of the sign at figure 42 followed where the single-carriageway begins by the sign at figure 43, which should if necessary be repeated. Where there is need to give warning of two-way traffic on a single-carriageway which crosses a dual carriageway we recommend the sign at figure 44.

112. The Protocol states that the Children sign which it prescribes shall be used as considered necessary "as the approved sign to places frequented by children such as a school or a playground'. We see no need for us to continue using two different signs and we recommend adoption of the sign at figure 50. We think, however, that the difference between the risks near schools (where danger exists only when children are going to and from school) and near