Moto Services
You are here: Home - In Depth - Moto Services
There are a handful of big companies that dominate the running of the UK's motorway service area franchises: Welcome Break, Road Chef and Moto are the big three. A few years ago, Moto refurbished most of its service areas to mark the change from its previous brand name, Granada. One of the changes was the introduction of a new system of traffic signing that was rolled out across its entire network of service areas.
It is these signs that are up for discussion here. But before we begin, let's have a short refresher course on the basics of road signing from the Highway Code:
Warning signs are mostly triangular.
Signs with red circles are mostly prohibitive.
Signs with blue circles but no red border mostly give positive instruction.
The Highway Code
Moto's traffic signs were developed to reflect a "brand identity", and also seem to have been designed with an eye to emulating the standard UK road signs. The most noticeable point is that all of them, for some elusive aesthetic reason, are circular. Moto like circles.
Unfortunately, as a short walk around Tamworth services on the M42 demonstrates, sticking to circles and corporate colours produces some problems.
This one's simple enough - it's easily identifiable as its partner in the Highway Code instructing traffic not to turn left. No problem. Next, please.
This one is trying to direct traffic to the on-site motel. But the lower sign is a blue circle with a white symbol - therefore a positive instruction. "You Must Travelodge"? That's more of a hard sell than motoring information.
Here's some more direction signs. Ignoring the classy curved support, these are bizarre - why three separate signs to convey one piece of information?
This one's fairly clear. The top sign means "no entry". The bottom one is a red circle, meaning a negative instruction. Therefore it means "no authorised access". Easy - but somehow I don't think that was the intended message.
The speed limit is signed like this when you enter the service area. It's painted using the corporate pale green colour. To me this is a dead ringer for the sign that means "minimum speed 20 mph".
On a section of two-way road in the compound, this sign is a bit confused. It's meant to be a warning, but as a red circular sign, it's actually a prohibition. What's it forbidding, driving on the left or using the road for two-way traffic?
A zebra crossing in the car park is valiantly guarded by this sign, which is even more confusing. It's another prohibition. No pedestrians? This is not a pedestrian crossing? Don't allow pedestrians to cross?
This last one is my personal favourite. Its meaning is entirely clear - "Do Not Give Way"!
Johnny spotted this sign at Oxford Peartree services - it's very clearly telling us that we are forbidden to use the A34. That might slow down your onward journey.
And then there were more
I thought I'd seen all there was to see of Moto's idea of traffic control. Then I visited Southwaite services on the M6, where many of the signs date from Moto's previous incarnation, Granada. And it turns out Granada wanted motorists to do a whole range of strange things...
This one is just confusing. It's obviously there to tell drivers that parking is free for two hours. But as a blue circle it's a positive instruction. "You must park free for two hours"?
I honestly have no idea what this sign is trying to say. The best guess I can come up with is that it's to do with parent and child parking, but there's no marked bays of any kind nearby. I can only suggest that it demands that women and children stay with their vehicle.
And now we get the surreal ones. "You must dog"?
"You must picnic"?
And the best of the bunch - "you must rocking horse"!
The above examples are somewhat tongue in cheek. I have no doubt that the average motorist would interpret them as they were intended rather than taking them the way I have done (in fact, I'd put money on the average driver not spotting anything wrong with most of them). However, the point is that they're a pretty crude attempt at traffic signing in what is supposed to be a public place - and, given that they don't actually promote or reinforce the Moto brand in any way, is there really any point in coming up with your own road signs instead of using the prescribed ones that everyone already understands?
The good news is that the Highways Agency has now announced that all new service areas will be required to use standard UK road signs instead of anything of this kind. With any luck this will, one day, be expanded to cover all service areas.
If you're an irate service station user, or you're affiliated with Moto and want to argue back, please get in touch.
Toby Speight can be described as irate:
I think that Moto (and others) do the public a disservice with these signs. As well as the points you mentioned, there is a real risk of users becoming habituated to signs such as their "pedestrian crossing" sign, and mistaking a real "no pedestrians" sign once they're out in the Real World, for example.
And their "two-way traffic" sign looks too similar to a standard "give way to oncoming traffic" sign - only the colour and size of the arrows are different.
The point about red-bordered circles containing negative instruction would be stronger if there were not DfT-approved signs out there doing the same thing!
Richard Welsh agrees:
I fully agree with you about the unbelievably poor design of the Moto signs - ever since I first saw them I have thought so!
They are a classic example of breaking a rule which shouldn't be broken: that of mixing advertising messages (i.e. branding) with information messages.
Moto aren't the only culprits though: Welcome Break mix branding and information by inappropriately slapping their road signage (e.g. Give Way triangles) on corporate green swishes. Hence the actual physical shape of the sign is removed from the message it should be portraying.
Mixed thoughts from an anonymous contributor:
I agree that if you interpret the Moto signs to the letter of the Highway Code, most of them will convey the opposite message to the one intended. However I actually interpret the bit in the middle as Moto intended and the signs always strike me as Moto's distinctive ones. Not that I'm saying that Moto wins here, that accolade's down to the agency who probably charged them an arm and a leg for something which won't exactly bring extra custom through the doors!
Seamus MacBride has been in touch with Moto:
I complained to Moto about these ridiculous signs in May 2003. I received the following answer:
"Mr MacBride,
"Thank you for taking the time to give us feedback regarding our service areas. One of our customer services team will process your feedback, and if necessary contact you shortly. If there is anything else we can help you with in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us by replying to this email.
"Regards, Moto Hospitality Limited."
Never heard from them again! If, by some strange oversight, neither British nor European law requires Moto to use standard signs, surely a risk assessment ought to have persuaded moto that it ought to use standard signs.
Phil Reynolds has been to the Royal Veterinary Collage who have some similar signage problems. He sent this picture.
That one at the top is clearly "no exit". And we clearly have to turn left. So we must turn left to avoid the exit we aren't allowed to use. Simple!
Epilogue
Odd signs at motorway services have now received some attention from the Highways Agency - not a lot, but some. Neww service areas are now required to use signage that would be compliant with the regulations for use on a public road.
With thanks to Rob Baker, Mark Hewitt and Jason for information on this page.
