Erroneous road signs

[Brandon]

I blame Clearview for this. While you're making the sign just seeing the font makes one lose their mind, and suddenly they forget how to spell.

Source: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/Oops_Road_sign_gaffe_is_a_laugher.html

Could be the sign maker's comment on Clearview. 

[roadfro]

I blame Clearview for this. While you're making the sign just seeing the font makes one lose their mind, and suddenly they forget how to spell.

Source: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/Oops_Road_sign_gaffe_is_a_laugher.html

And PennDOT says it will cost $800-$1200 to replace--that's ridiculous. Apparently PennDOT hasn't heard of greenout...somebody give them the number to CalTrans!

[vtk]

Actually, I think I've heard a ridiculously high figure for the price of diamond-grade retroreflective sheeting which, combined with how big those letters really are, would support a cost of several hundred just for a greenout to transpose two letters.

[thenetwork]

And while they're at it, let's come up with a better US-322 shield -- that one looks kind of acorn-y.

[kphoger]

And while they're at it, let's come up with a better US-322 shield -- that one looks kind of acorn-y.

And....just four posts before yours....

the use of Clearview isn't nearly as bad as what appears to be an extra-bloated '70 spec shield.  WTF?

[CentralCAroadgeek]

So going around town yesterday and I stumbled upon this sign error on the US-101 onramp from Laurel Road here in Salinas. I don't have a picture of it, so I'll just describe it using two other pictures of mine.

It is basically this sign:


Where this old gem once stood:


Yes, I typed that correctly, a CA-1 directional sign on a US-101 onramp. Fail.

Well, an update on the sign I described with those two pics. We drove past it today (still no pictures) and I saw that they covered up the erroneous CA-1 shield with what seems to be a standalone US-101 shield slapped on top of it (I saw a "US" at the top of the shield, like a standalone CA-style US shield).

[hbelkins]

I blame Clearview for this. While you're making the sign just seeing the font makes one lose their mind, and suddenly they forget how to spell.

Source: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/Oops_Road_sign_gaffe_is_a_laugher.html

And PennDOT says it will cost $800-$1200 to replace--that's ridiculous. Apparently PennDOT hasn't heard of greenout...somebody give them the number to CalTrans!

If Pennsylvania used demountable copy like Kentucky does, it wouldn't cost anymore than the cost of a few rivets and the time for a couple of workers to uninstall two letters and then rivet them back in the correct place.

[PHLBOS]

If Pennsylvania used demountable copy like Kentucky does, it wouldn't cost anymore than the cost of a few rivets and the time for a couple of workers to uninstall two letters and then rivet them back in the correct place.

Agree.  That said, I don't believe that PennDOT ever had demountable lettering post-button-copy.

One upon a time, Massachusetts used to have demountable copy letters as well; but ditched them over 20 years ago.

[Mapmikey]

How about a NH-9 shield embedded in a US shield cutout...

At least they have a US 202 cutout to go with it...

http://goo.gl/maps/keRFO

Mapmikey

[Kacie Jane]

Technically, I'd put that in the "Design errors" category, rather than signs that are actually erroneous. Although, I might imagine that the sign was originally purely erroneous (a regular US 9 shield) and someone put the NH outline on it to "correct" it after the fact.

[yakra]

OK, how about that NH103 shield? NH103 doesn't begin till Hopkinton.
Or maybe they meant TO NH13?

[Duke87]

Soooo....

[PHLBOS]

Soooo....

Shouldn't that be in the below-thread (Odd companion to red light)? lol 

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9910.0

[Zeffy]

Soooo....

Shouldn't that be in the below-thread (Odd companion to red light)? lol 

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9910.0

So if that's a green light... do I still have to stop?  Seriously, who didn't take out the STOP sign when the light was placed?

[Duke87]

So if that's a green light... do I still have to stop?  Seriously, who didn't take out the STOP sign when the light was placed?

The signal has been there since the shopping center that occupies this site opened ~2005. I'm guessing the stop sign has been there at least that long as well... possibly a holdover from the previous buildings that occupied the site, which had a driveway in exactly the same spot but no signal.

I suspect it's a question of what's on who's turf. The signal is NYCDOT installed and operated but the stop sign is on private property. NYCDOT therefore didn't remove it because they can't, it's not theirs. And the owners of the shopping center haven't cared enough to do anything about it, perhaps figuring something dumb like "having both makes it safer!"
To be fair, though, there is a lot of pedestrian traffic here, and the sight lines around the corners of the buildings to both sides are very poor...

[djsinco]

How about an even more confusing intersection, compliments of my home state of NJ, of course!

[xonhulu]

On WA 504 near Mt St Helens:



Hope you have good brakes!

[NE2]

Falling trucks, next 2 miles?

[Billy F 1988]

😄 Oh, shit! We're gonna fall off the cliff in 2 miles! No where to turn around and go back!  😄

[SidS1045]

Soooo....

Shouldn't that be in the below-thread (Odd companion to red light)? lol 

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9910.0

So if that's a green light... do I still have to stop?  Seriously, who didn't take out the STOP sign when the light was placed?

Every state has laws specifying the order in which traffic directions at intersections must be obeyed.  Usually it's police officer first, traffic signal second, sign third.

[kphoger]

Every state has laws specifying the order in which traffic directions at intersections must be obeyed.  Usually it's police officer first, traffic signal second, sign third.

Really?  I've seen laws stating that speak to the first one, but I've never seen one stating signals should be obeyed over signs.  Can you provide, for example, the reference to that law on the Kansas books?  You said "every state", so I assume you can.

[Kacie Jane]

So if that's a green light... do I still have to stop?  Seriously, who didn't take out the STOP sign when the light was placed?

Every state has laws specifying the order in which traffic directions at intersections must be obeyed.  Usually it's police officer first, traffic signal second, sign third.

I'd actually be inclined to assume the opposite. That is, if the light is green, you still have to stop at the sign and yield to pedestrians, but after stopping you'd have right of way over the cross traffic stopped at their red signal.

[1995hoo]

Frankly, I'd be less concerned about state law than I would about how drivers would react when they'd see it. I'd expect reactions to be all over the place with some people stopping because of the sign, others going because of the green light, and the result being brake-slamming, horn-honking, middle-finger raising, and possible crashes.

[PHLBOS]

Every state has laws specifying the order in which traffic directions at intersections must be obeyed.  Usually it's police officer first, traffic signal second, sign third.

From the 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.04 (Bold emphasis added):

Standard:

10 Because the potential for conflicting commands could create driver confusion, YIELD or STOP signs
shall not be used in conjunction with any traffic control signal operation, except in the following cases:

A. If the signal indication for an approach is a flashing red at all times;

B. If a minor street or driveway is located within or adjacent to the area controlled by the traffic control signal, but does not require separate traffic signal control because an extremely low potential for conflict exists;

or

C. If a channelized turn lane is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by an island and the channelized turn lane is not controlled by a traffic control signal.

[SidS1045]

Every state has laws specifying the order in which traffic directions at intersections must be obeyed.  Usually it's police officer first, traffic signal second, sign third.

Really?  I've seen laws stating that speak to the first one, but I've never seen one stating signals should be obeyed over signs.  Can you provide, for example, the reference to that law on the Kansas books?  You said "every state", so I assume you can.

The rules of the road in Kansas are at http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/statute/008_000_0000_chapter/008_015_0000_article/ .  The copy I had, had such a rule in it, but it's apparently not in the current rules on that site.  It does provide for a police officer's direction to supersede all others.  I guess Kansas doesn't think they need such a rule.