The red and white no entry sign is very clear to all motorists but not for this one (see above). It states, no parking, for authorised vehicle.
When no entry is concern, there is no issue with parking. So why no entry and no parking?
I think it will make sense if the sign just show the red and white sign with the following words “except for authorised vehicle”.
When no entry is concern, there is no issue with parking. So why no entry and no parking?
I think it will make sense if the sign just show the red and white sign with the following words “except for authorised vehicle”.
3 comments:
From my point of view, the no entry sign with for unauthorised vehicle is clear to me - those with permission can park, without permission cannot park. As for why motorists cannot park their vehicles there, where apparently there are no hazardous activities or obstructions along the pathway, that we cannot understand. The relevant authority may have their reasons for not doing so. Perhaps the path and the surrounding land are in a protected area or for reasons only best known to the authority itself. Whatever the case, there is no useful information given to the public and therefore whole setup is ambiguous.
Dear Zen,
Thanks for your comments. The place is a MOE training school near my home. I use to go there for morning walk.
Regards
pehsk
In that case, MOE should put up a no parking sign together with a written warning that the compound (having a fence) is MOE private land, and no unauthorised vehicle should park there. That is why, I always emphazise sometimes written warning is necessary, so that the public is aware of what is going on and act accordingly, otherwise motorists would be as blur as 'sotong'.
Post a Comment