Raised lettering on road - maximum height?

[Armegatron]

Hello,
Short question that I'm hoping someone can help with. 2 weeks ago I was cycling on a high street at 20mph and next thing I know I'm on the floor. On checking the area, it appears I hit raised lettering on the road at a bus stop. The lettering is over 2cm higher than the road surface in the area that I would have hit it (thank god for the GoPro) and I'm wondering if anyone knows whether this is over a maximum recommended height for paint on a road surface?

On inspecting the paint it appears the council have just painted over the existing layers time after time to a level which was enough to buckle my front wheel and throw me from the bike.

Much appreciated!

Armegatron

 

[Recycler]

I used to work for a road marking company, but I'll try not to get too complicated!

The main thing you are want to refer to is TSRGD (Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/32/made
in which regulation 32 (2) says:-
"No road marking or stud shall project above the surface of the adjacent carriageway more than 6 millimetres at any point except— " .........it then lists some exceptions which are unlikely to be relevant in this case, but I would need more details to be able to tell.

If you want more information the "Traffic Signs Manual" Chapter 5 http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/traffic-signs-manual/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf is also relevant as it shows how all road marking are supposed to be made. There is a section (No. 16) on cyclists which, though heavy going is of some interest to all of us. Section No 17 is on Bus Markings and may be relevant for you.
The Traffic Signs manual shows what good practice is and is not legally enforceable. However, a Local Authority which ignores the manual would have some serious explaining to do if a problem occurred.

A few other comments.
1. I don't know where this happened, but most road markings would be the responsibility of the County council rather than the District Council or the Highways Agency.
2. There is also a requirement for skid resistance which may be relevant in your case.
3. The documents I referred to above may not be the latest versions....I haven't checked. In any event I doubt that later versions would make much change.
4. Strictly (and a little pedantically!) speaking, most markings in UK are not "paint" but a material generally referred to as "thermoplastic" (think "white tar"; technically inaccurate but a reasonable layman's explanation.)
5. I'm surprised that you say the marking was 2cm high. That is very unusual indeed. The usual problem is that it is too thin!

Let me know if you need more info.

 

[HovR]

"No road marking or stud shall project above the surface of the adjacent carriageway more than 6 millimetres at any point except— " .........it then lists some exceptions which are unlikely to be relevant in this case, but I would need more details to be able to tell.

Interesting.. I notice in the same document that there is an exception for non-depressible studs, which are allowed to protrude up to 20mm. I find these a great pain, as they are extremely heavily used around here, especially at crossings, in a size of about 100x100mm each.

If they are hit when wet (or even dry), especially when taking a corner, the front wheel of a bike could easily slide out and cause a crash.

 

[Recycler]

Yes, studs, like drain covers, are best avoided.
Studs, however, are very good for increasing night time visibilty so they do have a job to do in improving road safety.

 

[I like Skol]

4. Strictly (and a little pedantically!) speaking, most markings in UK are not "paint" but a material generally referred to as "thermoplastic" (think "white tar"; technically inaccurate but a reasonable layman's explanation.)

A little off topic but I'll throw it in anyway.... While riding up a gert big hill on one of the hot days last week I had to stop at some mobile road works (the type with the stop/go boards and the guys in communication with walky-talkies). While I was waiting the guy apologised for the delay and explained that they were re-doing the road markings and it had to be done on a hot day as the paint wont dry otherwise. He also advised me not to ride across the fresh markings as it takes quite a while to dry. This confused me because, as suggested above, I thought road markings were like a tar that is applied hot and sets as it cools, so a cool, dry day would be best. Once I set off and went past the equipment that appeared to be spraying the lines onto the road I got a strong smell of solvents. I guess modern methods and materials differ somewhat from the old 'white tar' we are used to if you take notice of such things?

 

[Recycler]

A little off topic but I'll throw it in anyway.... ......old 'white tar' we are used to if you take notice of such things?

Well over 90% of the markings in this country use thermoplastic ("white tar") materials. They are far more durable than paints...if only because of the thickness (1-2mm is common).... whereas paint is applied at the kind of thickness which we are all familiar with when we do DIY.

Thermoplastic is also quicker to set....typically a couple of minutes. Hot weather makes only a small difference when you are cooling something down from around 200C down to an ambient temperature of say 10-25C. Paint, as the guys said to you, needs more time to dry even with modern solvents. Hot weather makes a big difference to drying time, as we all know from decorating at home..

Paint is used in some cases; mainly because it is cheaper to apply. It is usually only used in low trafficked areas and locations, as it simply doesn't wear so well.

 

[Orange]

I tend to deliberately ride on the white lines as they are the only smooth bits of road around here!

 

[YahudaMoon]

If they impregnated the signs into the tarmac theyed never have to be re-painted ever !

Ive always wondered why they never use my idea ?

 

[heppy]

Maybe I need to get out more but I found this thread really interesting for some bizarre reason, maybe because the replies were really well put......or is it the sun?

Thanks anyway

 

[HovR]

Yes, studs, like drain covers, are best avoided.
Studs, however, are very good for increasing night time visibilty so they do have a job to do in improving road safety.

But unlike drain covers, the ones I'm talking about are spaced strategically across the whole width of the road, with only small gaps in between (60cm?). At least with drain covers you know where they're going to be, and can easily be avoided by moving out a foot or so.

The studs I'm talking about aren't reflectives, just square pieces of metal in the middle of the road at crossings, presumably to guide the hard of sight across. Whilst this is an important job, there are much better materials for the job that won't get slippy when wet, and hence be dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians crossing.

 

[Recycler]

If they impregnated the signs into the tarmac theyed never have to be re-painted ever !

Ive always wondered why they never use my idea ?

There have been a few experiments but nobody has come up with an economic way of doing it. Find a way and you could make a few bob for yourself!

Two points though.
1. Many roads are resurfaced surprisingly often.
(In rural areas many roads are "surface dressed" every year. A coat of tar is sprayed on the road and chippings are then spread on top. That's when the signs go up telling us to go slow because, until the new surface is consolidated, chippings are flying around all over the place damaging paintwork and windscreens. We'll be coming up to the time of year when this is done in the next few weeks).
When a road is resurfaced the old markings are covered up and therefore need to be re-applied. If this was done with an indented line then the road would need a slot cutting in it, followed by the application of the line. This would be slow and expensive. It would also cause a lot of traffic disruption, possibly needing lenghty road closures.
2. The vast majority of road markings are reflectorized with glass beads (in exactly the same way as most number plates are) This is to give better nightime visibilty. Standing rainwater reduces the effectiveness of the reflectorization, so a slightly raised surface gives you the benefit of a bit of drainage to clear the rainwater.

 

[Recycler]

But unlike drain covers, the ones I'm talking about are spaced strategically across the whole width of the road, with only small gaps in between (60cm?).

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the "Cats Eye" studs.

The ones you are talking about are typically, as you say, used at Zebra crossings. They are slippery but, to be honest I've never had a problem with them. I just go between them.

In any event zebra crossings are invariably on straight stretches of road so it is rare to be turning when you find them on the road. As you say they do help the visually impaired.

 

[Armegatron]

I used to work for a road marking company, but I'll try not to get too complicated!

The main thing you are want to refer to is TSRGD (Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/32/made
in which regulation 32 (2) says:-
"No road marking or stud shall project above the surface of the adjacent carriageway more than 6 millimetres at any point except— " .........it then lists some exceptions which are unlikely to be relevant in this case, but I would need more details to be able to tell.

If you want more information the "Traffic Signs Manual" Chapter 5 http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/traffic-signs-manual/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf is also relevant as it shows how all road marking are supposed to be made. There is a section (No. 16) on cyclists which, though heavy going is of some interest to all of us. Section No 17 is on Bus Markings and may be relevant for you.
The Traffic Signs manual shows what good practice is and is not legally enforceable. However, a Local Authority which ignores the manual would have some serious explaining to do if a problem occurred.

A few other comments.
1. I don't know where this happened, but most road markings would be the responsibility of the County council rather than the District Council or the Highways Agency.
2. There is also a requirement for skid resistance which may be relevant in your case.
3. The documents I referred to above may not be the latest versions....I haven't checked. In any event I doubt that later versions would make much change.
4. Strictly (and a little pedantically!) speaking, most markings in UK are not "paint" but a material generally referred to as "thermoplastic" (think "white tar"; technically inaccurate but a reasonable layman's explanation.)
5. I'm surprised that you say the marking was 2cm high. That is very unusual indeed. The usual problem is that it is too thin!

Let me know if you need more info.

Thanks for the in depth <excuse the pun> response - just what I was after!

2. I dont believe I skidded on the paint, more so hit the raised edge of one letter which countersteered the bike in the other direction toward the raised edge of another letter before hitting the top of another letter and jolting the bike.
5. Marking was in excess of 2cm in some points

Cheers

 

[I like Skol]

I was riding my skinny tyred road bike today and was crossing an area of green painted road surface when the bike veered off in an unexpected direction. I quickly corrected with only a mild wobble but I looked back to see that I had been 'steered' by a line in the surface where there was an overlap between the strips of green paint/tar. Probably a height diffefrence of 5mm or less but just goes to show the consequences of an uneven road that may not even be considered by the engineers and planners.

I would guess that your 2cm high markings are probably a combination of repeated overpainting and the surrounding road surfacing breaking up which has exagerated the problem. Either way, it's a problem that needs addressing and should be brought to the attention of the authorities.

 

[Globalti]

I remember when my younger brother was brought down by a railway line on the quayside in Newcastle - he went down with a hell of a bang and really hurt himself, poor kid. I still feel awful about it 38 years later.