Old age covers a very wide spectrum so I like the sign with "getting on a bit" folk crossing the road and the one in the front is carrying a guitar.

I agree with Soon.. and others - if they're not elderly and decrepit why do they need a sign warning drivers that they might be crossing?

When I came across this thread I thought, Hear, Hear, Sally James... Not before time!
And my favourite is Brand 42, followed by Margaret Calvert....
Then I read through the thread, and find that I'm in the minority...
Hey ho... it's not for the first time, and I can live with that.
I agree too with jinglbellsfrocks ...!
Cheers
(That's because I'm half way through a rather generous G&T...
Does it show?!

What we need is an all purpose sign to warn drivers that they are entering an area where vulnerable pedestrians will be crossing, whether elderly, children or just disabled, mentally or physically.

To my suggestion of having a pedestrian crossing, I add the suggestion of a 20 mph speed limit and scrap all these signs completely.

Is it just me or is this "Spring Chicken" thing condescending in itsself. what we need is older people to be treat as individuals and not as some "special group". They have one or two older people involved but most are not.

"But older people aren't like that anymore."

I think you'll find that, sooner or later, they are.

Don't be silly.

On the road where I live there is a preponderance of older people in terraced houses and in a sheltered complex. So pedestrians walking to the shops are likely to be older and there are a good many using mobility scooters. A line of parked cars means that one has to be very careful crossing the road. We are all quite old enough to be aware of such hazards. Drivers have to go quite slowly past our houses as the parked cars effectively create a one-way-at-a time system. There are two of the 'elderly crossing' signs, one of them immediately opposite my house (which my family think highly amusing!. Drivers who frequently use this road probably don't even notice these signs any more. I know the current sign is demeaning to the majority who are still reasonably mobile, but I don't think the proposed alternatives showing us doing activities like dancing are any more informative and could be confusing as they don't give any indication of age or possible infirmity. What we really need here is a programme of repairs to our dangerously cracked and broken pavements which pose far more of a risk to us than speeding drivers.

If drivers need to be warned of disabled people (of any age) likely to be crossing a road at any point then the solution isn't a special sign, it is a zebra crossing with/without traffic lights.

I think the visual impact of the present signs is sufficient to warn us that elderly people may be crossing and these signs are usually near care homes.
If seeing them makes us slow down and be aware, then it works. It works, too, for foreign drivers where words could take a few seconds to interpret.
I suppose the sign outside schools is to warn us that children might dash into the road, irrespective of age. As someone said, if it ain't broke....

The fact that there are active 60 and 70 year olds is irrelevant. The sign is meant for places where there are numbers of people crossing the road who are infirm- now probably in their 80s and 90s. If we are fit and active we don't need a sign if we are older and less mobile the sign conveys this well. I'd rather see a different sign outside secondary schools than the present one that covers all children. A large teenager running across the road wearing earphones and looking at a mobile phone would be better!

While we're at it - a couple of years ago there was a campaign to replace the wheelchair-user disablilty sign with one that's more dynamic. The passive seated wheelchair user becomes someone else with just a change of angle - think of her italicised - or there are more ideas. Anyone know how far the campaign has come, since?
.

The current signs are usually near old people's homes, so they are not to warn us about energetic old people whose speed of movement is not compromised. The current signs are used in a similar way to signs warning drivers there is a school nearby and to watch out for children.

I agree with soon and janea: if it aint broke, don't fix it.

The idea seems a bit silly to me.

just a warning sign saying 'old peoples home' or school/nursery/hospital would be enough. I do find these examples funny though

I agree with you soon.
I think the new signs are funny, but unnecessary.
Due consideration should be given to all pedestrians.
It's useful to be aware that children are around, as they might dash into the road. And infirm people would be slower at crossing.
But ballroom-dancing, fell-walking oldies can surely look after themselves.

Here in the USA the signs on every sidewalk warning drivers they face $1000 fines if they don't yield to pedestrians seem remarkably effective!

If the people crossing have energy and life, then there doesnt need to be a sign at all.

The elderly crossing sign makes no mention of age.
It is about the imfirmity I presume.

The website is called SpringChicken[I havent looked it up]. If they are spring chickens they could be out dancing, so they can cross the road, and no need for a sign.

I think the sign should stay as it is. I havent heard that the sign causes problems, so I dont believe in messing with something that works, and is fully understood by drivers.

I think a couple with two walking poles plus rucksacks and walking boots would be good . On the other hand a mobility scooter rampant might be better as they are proliferating here.