Road Signs: Just how stupid do you have to be?

A little while ago I came across a road sign which read 'Road liable to flooding'. How bloody useless is that? I need to know if the road is flooded/impassable or not. It's no use telling me that it might be flooded on certain occasions because that doesn't help me at all. Let's suppose I continue on my journey, still unaware of the prevailing condition until I find myself immobilised and hip-deep in dirty water. Might I expect to see another road sign at this point saying "See, we told you" because that would be just as bloody useful. You might just as well say 'Cows liable to explode'.

The second one I saw which inspired a totally mystified reaction was on the outskirts of Buckingham. It reads "Street lights not in use" and it's attached to a streetlight. This message dropped me into a philosophical maze and left me there. Firstly, to whom is the warning addressed? If a motorist is going along in broad daylight and sees the sign then it conveys no useful information at all. The motorist does not need the streetlights because it's broad daylight. Switch to night time scene then. The same motorist, perhaps on a return journey notices the sign a second time, looks around and can confirm that the streetlights are not working. The sign has not helped him since it is obvious without consulting the sign that, from the lack of street lighting, the streetlights are not working. Therefore the sign forms no useful function. Alternatively the motorist might not see the sign at all because it is dark, and the streetlights are not working hence the sign cannot be seen. Its function is negated by the same phenomenon the sign itself warns of. Let's suppose a man is walking his dog along this road. The first thing he notices is that the streetlight are not working. He is perturbed. Perhaps there has been a power cut. He is concerned about his own safety since in the absence of any street lighting he may be struck by a passing car who has not observed his presence in the gloom. AS his concern gathers he notices the sign, perhaps in the lights of a passing car and hurries to read it. Doing so, either by the lights of passing cars or using a pocket torch he sees the street lighting is not in use. He is thus assured that his dim perceptions of his surroundings are not due to any sudden dimming of his own faculties but because the street lighting is not in use. This may comfort an older dog walker and thus be the purpose of the sign but it's a far-fetched proposition you'll agree.

So somewhere in Buckingham there is an official who has ordered that sign to be manufactured and placed there at a cost to the public but with no benefit. The sign achieves absolutely nothing. Who is this official? Has he no supervision? Is his supervisor frightened of him or something? But wait, there's a bigger question. The street in question has street lighting but it has been turned off. By whom? Who is risking the life and limb of night-time dog walkers by this neglect. Who ordered the street lighting erected in the first place and shouldn't he have checked if it was required? The paradox merely becomes deeper and more baffling each time it is explored.