Page:Report of the Traffic Signs Committee (1963).pdf/81

 be extended to cover all roads, this would be capable of achieving a higher and more uniform standard of traffic signing and continuity of directional signing than at present exists. This may be so in theory, but we have come to the conclusion that complete centralisation in a country of the size of ours, having probably over one and a half million roadside signs as well as great lengths of carriageway markings, is not practical. Apart from the lack of staff available or likely to be available in any existing central organisation potentially capable of taking over this task, the local knowledge of the highway authority must remain very important. We thus see no alternative to leaving these authorities responsible for the initiative in and execution of the signing of their own roads. within the framework of Departmental Regulations. We would not, however, advocate that prior central authorisation be abandoned over such important safety measures as Stop signs and pedestrian crossings in view of the very understandable tendency experienced in the past for these precautions, when left to the discretion of highway authorities, to be so frequently used that they lose their impact.

There are, however, a number of signs for whose erection the prior approval of the Minister, as at present required, is in our view quite unnecessary. Examples to which we have referred earlier in this report are the signs advising the use of low gear on hills and the unsuitability of certain roads for motor vehicles. Nor do we understand why some signs prohibiting the entry of certain vehicles should not be put up without further Ministerial approval once a prohibitory Order, already requiring the Minister's prior approval, has been made.

300. We also consider that the standard of traffic signing would improve if more emphasis could be placed by responsible authorities upon specialised attention to traffic engineering. Some of the larger councils have already set up Traffic Engineering Units which in the majority of cases have achieved most successful results. But many authorities have some reason to feel themselves to be too small to be able to release staff for such specialisation. This obstacle would be diminished if an arrangement could be reached among local authorities to share essential advisory services over an area large enough to warrant this treatment, and we recommend that urgent consideration be given to this.

But whatever may be done by local authorities for the improvement of their own technique and skills in traffic engineering, we believe that the greatest potentiality for achieving greater uniformity in traffic signing and a higher standard lies in the hands of central Departments. More positive guidance should, we think, be given in official Directions or memoranda as to the standards to be aimed at, particularly as to the frequency of signs and carriageway markings in relation to given traffic volumes ; and to mounting and siting. We also feel very strongly that the provisions contained in Regulations and Directions, which are necessarily expressed in legal phraseology, would have much greater influence if they could be supplemented by a manual, explaining in simple terms readily comprehensible not only to lawyers but also to those who actually erect signs and lay carriageway markings, what is required and why it is needed. A manual of this kind could be interestingly and vividly illustrated by diagrams and photographs suggesting how particular problems, for instance, the signing of complex road junctions, should be treated. There is much else which could be more effectively put across in this manner than by present methods.