Thanks.
How could you argue against this?
OK, the photo gives a distorted impression of the sign's clarity because it's taken from a stationary position on the footway and head-on, but this isn't the view of a driver.
If me, I would also undertake a critique of the siting of the 2 signs at the beginning of Crownhill at this point. There are two of them parallel to the carriageway. But why?
Look at the road layout. Cornhill on the opposite side is one-way and the traffic island prevents any traffic from this direction (travelling NE) even attempting to enter the road. Manor beyond the junction is one-way(SE) so no-one could enter Cornhill from this direction. The only drivers who need to be warned are those travelling SE along Manor i.e. you. Given this particular layout why the F*** has the council placed a pair of signs parallel to the carriageway when even the most elementary analysis shows than ANY SERIOUS ATTEMPT to bring the prohibition to motorists' attention must mean that BOTH signs should be orientated towards the only traffic lane affected.
IMO, no-one has given any serious thought to the council's obligation to use signs to bring a prohibition to motorists' attention but instead just thought 2 signs, let's just stick them at the limit of road facing (non-existent in this case) oncoming traffic like we always do.
