As one who is, I got it! I also pointed out the Meat Loaf example to friends years ago, but I'll have to let PE have it!
Regarding the avoidance of confusion for drivers between bridges and signals, I noticed yesterday that there's a newly-painted bridge structure near Elephant and Castle, sporting light and darker green paint.
At the risk of seeming curmudgeonly, I still cannot accept that the painting of any line-side structure in any colour, in any lighting, should pose the slightest risk of confusion with signals to any driver who; a) has the standard of sight required to be one, and, possibly even more importantly, b) has the required route knowledge to drive it. Even the brightest sunlight striking a painted surface cannot be compared to a true light source such as a signal head. Any possible risk of confusion, if indeed it lies anywhere, may be with, for example, NR trains in 'sunlight yellow' livery that can appear anywhere on the network at any time. If confusion with painted surfaces is really a genuine risk, why hasn't there been more effort to have bright yellow paint removed from trains, now that dazzling headlights are de rigeur? By the way, I would make a very small exception in the case of the remaining semaphores, where it is just conceivable that having a yellow or red background to a signal arm could possibly pose such a risk, but this is such a small issue that it can be handled on a local basis.
This is important because it is part of the culture that oversees the inexorable removal of basic responsibility from the individual and seeks to compensate for it by imposing external measures. If we end up with every painted/self-coloured (i.e. panelled) line-side feature - bridges, buildings, other structures, etc. - having to be painted blue, for example, we will have an ugly series of eye-sores in the general landscape (in the widest sense) for no good reason.
And rest....