http://www.bbc.co.uk/new...eford-worcester-14540670 The BBC article starts by saying the signs were "removed for 'health and safety' reasons" but surely the signs were put up for health and safety reasons and removed for 'Traffic Signs Regulations' reasons...

As MarcusB suggests, it seems from the limited information available, i.e. the BBC report, that whoever wrote the report grabbed the phrase for "health and safety" reasons. As with many instances where the media cite "health and safety" as a convenient phrase, there is clearly no health angle involved in this case though there might be a possible road safety angle. Also, judging from a web search a few minutes ago, there are no reports so far of any discussion between 1) the Highways Agency and 2) the county council which reportedly requested the foreign language signs in response to requests from local and district councils and local businesses. Do any forum users happen to know if there have been incidents and/or problems involving migrant workers and visiting lorry drivers on the roads in the area involved which may have prompted the requests to the county council? The reason reportedly given by the Highways Agency for removing the foreign language signs is that they could potentially distract English-speaking drivers who tried to read them. This is curious: Though there are vast numbers of permanent and temporary road signs in Wales which are not written in English, it seems that English-speaking drivers are not significantly distracted by them!!!!

Hereford borders Wales where road markings become.....confusing! I think the proximity to the level crossing and the sheer volume of text was maybe the issue here. There is a significant eastern European migrant workforce in the Hereford and Worcestershire area.

I can understand why the signs were put by the crossing as there was a multiple fatality collision at an unmanned crossing only a few miles from this one about 7 years ago. A transit van carrying a number of migrant workers was struck on the crossing by an Intercity 125 express, and it is believed the driver could not read the English warning signs and instructions by the crossing. It is true that the Polish community is sizeable in the Evesham area. So good public safety reasons to put the temporary signs up, but not sure why they were taken down.

But when do you stop? I live in a multy cultural area large Asian populations as well as growing eastern European population. If the road signs were to be put up in all appropriate languages then the road would probably be blocked due to the number of signs! I lived in Wales for a few years and you quickly get used to the standard signs in two languages not sure about the amount of information on the sign pictured.

Seems to me we had a standardised set of clear pctographic signs that were clear and unambiguous we wouldn't need multilingual signs. Try navigating around any NHS hospital and picking out the language of your choice! Soemof the road signs we see today are only obvious because we are familiar with them through the UK driving test, sit back and look again with an open mind and tell me they give a true representation of what they are supposed to portray. We live in a multicultural society, we trade with nations who have a different language and need this free trade to survive. Like it or not we have to have foreign drivers on our roads it's part of being in a consumer society. Common road signs should be common sense clear and portray exactly what the issue is in an instant without having to spot your language among a myriad of others.

I can't wait to see the clear and unambiguous pictographic representation of "Road ahead closed B4085 at Blackminster level crossing, please follow diversion".

Maybe the responsibility lies with the drivers and no allowance should be made for language issues? But is that good enough?

Is that the same case you mentioned before cliveg? If you put up signs in English and Polish, what happens when someone who only speaks another language comes along? How many signs do you end up displaying for every possible hazard?

Hello Marcus At the last count the United Nations reckoned there were 50,000 recognised languages - so yes that would be a lot of signs! You can only go so far. And as SafetySmurf suggests not everyone is keen to comply with road traffic law.....

A while ago I produced an eye protection poster with a warning message in all the recognised European languages on it - I think it would be a squeeze to get 50,000 languages on there!

Another thought - Surely it's not beyond the wit and ability of relevant employers and community groups in the area involved to take practical steps to advise and regularly remind their employees and members, plus visiting lorry drivers, especially those who may have a poor grasp of the English language, about ongoing road diversions, standard road signs and safe driving at level crossings. Also, level crossings very probably have pictorial and/or standard signs to warn approaching drivers. Such signs are likely to be common or similar to those in most or all European countries. Also, perhaps my internet skills are poor, but I can't readily find anything about the transit van tragedy mentioned by cliveg at #10. No doubt there was an inquest regarding the deaths and also recommendations to help prevent similar tragedies in future. However, without at least some reported information, mere knowledge that the tragedy happened seems of little help in this discussion topic. However, there are plenty of interesting websites regarding level crossings of railways in the UK and other countries. Some include ample details about their design, signage and safety, including the pros and cons of half barriers and full barriers.

cliveg - thanks for the Google search hints especially the name of the crossing, a private one apparently leading to a farm. For those who are interested, details about the crash investigation findings and subsequent trial & conviction of the minibus driver (an Iraqi asylum seeker with no driving licence and no grasp of English, allegedly a gangmaster taking casual workers to the farm) can be found at http://www.corporateacco...orcestershire.html#Kumar Viewers will probably need to scroll down the long page to find the details under the heading "Deaths of Satish Kumar, Soran Karim and Islam Uddin Ahmed". The website entry also provides links to other websites, including one which reports the local MP speaking in the House of Commons about the case during a debate about a bill to licence gangmasters. Near the end of his speech he expressed doubt as to whether or not the proposed legislation would have prevented the tragic crash. There's no mention of the farmer being prosecuted in connection with the crash. If there were different nationalities of casual workers arriving at the farm, perhaps the investigators and/or prosecutors decided it was not reasonable for the farmer to have displayed signs in a range of languages about how to use the crossing, especially the need to use a permanent phone at the crossing to get prior clearance from a signal box controlling the stretch of line involved. Also, it is a matter for speculation as to whether or not the driver would have used the phone (or got one of his passengers to do so, assuming that any of them spoke sufficient English) if he had known of the need to use the phone. On a much wider scale the case tragically demonstrates how established essential safety procedures can be rendered futile during potentially hazardous activities (work-related and non work-related) where people of different nationalities and with little or no grasp of English are involved.

You don't need a good grasp of English to know your going to loose a fight with several hundred tons of rolling stock! But if you come from a land where you can see a train coming 10 minutes before it reaches you, you will be inclined make your own decisions about when it is safe to cross the lines. The issue is about attitude towards risk and a lack of understanding of it.