Erroneous road signs

[mefailenglish]

Another (business) US route downgrade...

[Eth]

Where is that? If that's actually Business US 1, I'd expect a state route to be posted with it. A standalone Business GA 1 is entirely plausible, though, as many Georgia cities bypassed by US routes have only a business state route without the corresponding US route (which would be US 27 in this case).

[mefailenglish]

Where is that? If that's actually Business US 1, I'd expect a state route to be posted with it. A standalone Business GA 1 is entirely plausible, though, as many Georgia cities bypassed by US routes have only a business state route without the corresponding US route (which would be US 27 in this case).

Waycross GA, a bit north of US 84.  Definitely supposed to be a US 1.

[New to Seattle]

I'm sure someone has already mentioned this, but I don't have the patience to find it in 113 pages: I had the good fortune to be driving through Easthampton, MA, in 2005 when I saw these signs:




(Photo: Boston Globe)

Astute readers may note that these signs do not actually conform to the standard MA shield design. I did quite a double-take when I saw a map of my home state on the signage there.

Apparently the contractors looked at some manual that just had a sample of a state sign, and because Alabama is first alphabetically, that's the one they used. And for some reason, the contractors didn't think anything was odd about it. I mean, it's not like they used Kansas or Oregon or New York or even Michigan with its block "M"; it's hard to associate that shield with anything else but a map of Alabama.

Alas, they fixed it after about a week.

[mrsman]

And worse - the drug free school zone sign?

That's a New Jersey standard in most towns and cities from what I can tell. My town has them.

As far as I'm aware it's a national standard. They're all over the place in Georgia and look exactly like that one.

The ones we have here are black on yellow and in a more legible font.

In Michigan, I nearly always see this one:



...except it's in Helvetica and has a blank line at the bottom to put the district's name. (My district had a 17 letter hyphenated name and kept it blank.)

But the blue and white sign is apparently widespread enough that you can buy it on a hat, button, or shirt.

I don't like this sign.  What safety related purpose does it have?  Every road sign should have a purpose of informing a driver or other road user of a hazard or a destination or some kind of traffic condition.  Any extraneous sign only serves to divert the driver's attention from the road.

Drugs are (generally) illegal everywhere.  Why should there be a sign saying that you're entering a drug free school zone.  The simple pentagon shaped school zone signs are the only signs that are needed.

[1995hoo]

I think in Virginia there is a steeper penalty if you are caught with drugs in a school zone. I've never really paid close attention, though, because it's not something that affects me!

[hbelkins]

Kentucky doesn't use the drug-free school zone signs, but it does enhance penalties for trafficking within 1,000 yards of a school.

[signalman]

I think in Virginia there is a steeper penalty if you are caught with drugs in a school zone. I've never really paid close attention, though, because it's not something that affects me!

Aren't you an attorney though?  Couldn't you have a client whom this would have an effect on, or do you not do criminal defense?

NJ has stiffer penalties for both posession and sale of drugs in a school zone.  The blue on white with ugly font signs are also used to mark the boundaries of said zone.

[jakeroot]

I thought WashDOT was better than this:

[txstateends]

How about a yellow speed limit sign I just found, but it's not the advisory style with a diamond, it's a speed limit that should be white, oh and, warning, for those not into arialyadayadaesk--you've been warned.

http://goo.gl/maps/zWEUD

from Cherokee Co., in east TX.  Most speed limits they're putting up are white, but have the arialyadayadaesk font on them.  And they're too small.  And most are tooooooo low to the ground.

[1995hoo]

I think in Virginia there is a steeper penalty if you are caught with drugs in a school zone. I've never really paid close attention, though, because it's not something that affects me!

Aren't you an attorney though?  Couldn't you have a client whom this would have an effect on, or do you not do criminal defense?

....

The latter. I don't do any criminal work.

[vtk]

I thought WashDOT was better than this:

I actually wouldn't mind that style of ordinal superscript if it were done that way consistently.  Less appealing is the white border on the yellow panel, and the arrangement of elements (particularly the arrow) in the green area.

[mefailenglish]

These are scattered all over Port Clinton OH.  Though I like the red, they lead the way to OH 53, not US 53.

[Scott5114]

Picking on construction signs always feels like cheating, but...

[jakeroot]

I thought WashDOT was better than this:

I actually wouldn't mind that style of ordinal superscript if it were done that way consistently.  Less appealing is the white border on the yellow panel, and the arrangement of elements (particularly the arrow) in the green area.

1) I didn't notice the superscript. Interesting though.
2) The white border around the exit only tab was the erroneous part that I was going after. I was hoping someone would spot it. I've driven past the sign hundreds of times w/o noticing.
3) At the point where an exit only begins to gore away from the mainlines, WSDOT's standard is to place a free-flowing arrow in the green area, and leave the exit tab with just "exit only", and I find it incredibly annoying. And they don't seem to be interested in doing away with it, either; many of the new signs around the I-5/WA-16 interchange were just replaced and they follow this style.

[roadfro]

I thought WashDOT was better than this:

I actually wouldn't mind that style of ordinal superscript if it were done that way consistently.  Less appealing is the white border on the yellow panel, and the arrangement of elements (particularly the arrow) in the green area.

1) I didn't notice the superscript. Interesting though.
2) The white border around the exit only tab was the erroneous part that I was going after. I was hoping someone would spot it. I've driven past the sign hundreds of times w/o noticing.
3) At the point where an exit only begins to gore away from the mainlines, WSDOT's standard is to place a free-flowing arrow in the green area, and leave the exit tab with just "exit only", and I find it incredibly annoying. And they don't seem to be interested in doing away with it, either; many of the new signs around the I-5/WA-16 interchange were just replaced and they follow this style.

This sign seems to have more design issues than actual errors.

The white border around the yellow exit only field is an issue. It violates the rule of tincture, as it's light next to light–it should be black.

The other issue, at least according to the 2009 MUTCD, is that exit arrow. I understand putting the arrow in random place as a potential way to save on sign panel area, but it makes more sense to me to have the arrow position somewhat consistent. And by the new standard, the exit arrow on an exit direction sign has to be black on yellow in the exit only field at the bottom of the sign.

[roadman65]

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.109595,-108.657022,3a,75y,180h,85.42t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sIa5t65gb2c_3UK4gE_yOtQ!2e0
Should be a "EAST" header instead of "SOUTH" for US 50.

[jbnv]

The mileage sign on I-10 just past exit 48 indicates "Lafayette 58." That would put Lafayette about 6 miles past the actual city limit.

[PHLBOS]

While it's not uncommon for state agencies/DOTs to use their own shields or standards when signing for routes (mainly interchange signage) in adjacent states (near the borders); if one state uses their name (or even initials) as part of their state route shield spec, such application can be erroneous.

BGS for CT Exit 93 along I-95 South located in RI, note the R.I. initials on the state shields representing Connecticut routes 216 & 184

[jakeroot]

BGS for CT Exit 93 along I-95 South located in RI, note the R.I. initials on the state shields representing Connecticut routes 216 & 184

It never crossed their mind that some people might be confused by this? Maybe just this time they could modify the shield.

[Zeffy]

While it's not uncommon for state agencies/DOTs to use their own shields or standards when signing for routes (mainly interchange signage) in adjacent states (near the borders); if one state uses their name (or even initials) as part of their state route shield spec, such application can be erroneous.

BGS for CT Exit 93 along I-95 South located in RI, note the R.I. initials on the state shields representing Connecticut routes 216 & 184

Luckily, that sort of thing could be fixed with two small slivers of white reflective material.

[PHLBOS]

Luckily, that sort of thing could be fixed with two small slivers of white reflective material.

Agreed, but will they (RIDOT)? 

[kurumi]

While it's not uncommon for state agencies/DOTs to use their own shields or standards when signing for routes (mainly interchange signage) in adjacent states (near the borders); if one state uses their name (or even initials) as part of their state route shield spec, such application can be erroneous.

BGS for CT Exit 93 along I-95 South located in RI, note the R.I. initials on the state shields representing Connecticut routes 216 & 184

Looks better than the "Phase III" sign across the state line in CT.

If CT were still making signs that way, I would advocate having RIDOT take over. Fortunately, things have improved, as in this example from Norwalk: https://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/7769280264/

[gilpdawg]

US and IN shields are switched, besides the fact the sign looks jacked up anyway.


LG-D800

[PurdueBill]

US and IN shields are switched, besides the fact the sign looks jacked up anyway.


LG-D800

What IN shield?