History of British Traffic Signs

6: The 1987 Direction Signs Review

This study was the first major reconsideration of directional signing strategy since the Worboys report in 1963.

Consultation

The DoT carried out a consultation exercise with local highway authorities, police and road user groups, to get their opinions on what changes, if any, would be necessary.

The main comments received were:

• The Worboys system was basically sound, and still suitable for the traffic conditions. However, the signing had not been fully and consistently applied across the country.
• Tourist attractions should be better signed; since the Worboys report, tourism in Britain had grown tremendously.
• Signing in urban areas was unsatisfactory: there was a lack of continuity (of destinations, route numbers) in signage, and many pre-Worboys signs remained.

A ten-year deadline (ie 1997) was imposed on the removal of pre-Worboys signs. The exception was fingerposts on unclassified roads in rural areas, where traffic was travelling more slowly anyway. The introduction of modern signs in these locations was deemed intrusive and out-of-place.

The problem of urban signing was to be addressed by a 'good practice' project in Guildford, Surrey. The existing signage would be replaced by more consistent, and less cluttered signs. 'Before' and 'after' pictures of the signing would be presented, to enable other highway authorities to make improvements. As well as improvements in consistency, the changes included use of junction nameplates (eg "Apex Corner") on the top of signs, and colour-coded signing of car-parks.

Signage in London was particularly bad; much of it was to long distance destinations rather than localities within, or immediately outside, the urban areas. However, as the M25 had just been completed (in 1986), such long-distance signage was no longer appropriate or necessary. In addition, there were still a large number of thirty-year old pre-Worboys signs. A review of London signage was announced for 1988 (carried out by MVA Consulting).

Research

In parallel with the consultation, the TRRL carried out some research in 1985 to assess the public understanding of direction signage. They found that:

• Most respondents did not know the difference in meaning between black-on-white signs with black borders (non-primary routes) and black-on-white signs with blue borders (local destination signing): only 23% correctly identified what a blue-bordered sign meant, and 32% a black-bordered sign.
• 45% of respondents correctly recognised green-background signs as being for "major/primary roads"; the use of green 'patching' on a non-primary route to indicate a primary route ahead was also generally understood (66% of respondents).
• The most recognised sign sample was an example of a motorway direction sign. 87% of those asked correctly identified what the blue background meant.
• Although understanding of the signage system was mediocre, it was much better than in 1966/7 (just after introduction of the Worboys system), when as many as 50-70% didn't recognise green signs or green 'patching'.

In the light of this, the TRRL looked at ways of reinforcing the difference between blue-bordered and black-bordered signs. Among the options proposed were:

• The introduction of blue (rather than black) chevrons on the flag-type signs for local destinations;
• The merging of the functions of the two signs into black-bordered signs;
• The merging into black-bordered signs, but with capital letters for non-local destinations;
• Blue lettering for local signs.

The first option would only work for flag-type signs. Blue lettering and capitals would be less easy to read at speed, which would threaten the aims of the Worboys system. The second option was thus recommended by the steering-group, and then adopted by the DoT. The change would not be immediate; old blue-bordered signs would be replaced with black-bordered ones at the end of their lives.