Today, I noticed a couple of backwards road construction signs here in Wichita. They were construction-orange W6-3 signs, except that the arrows were in the wrong spots, perhaps leading one to believe the two-way traffic was supposed to circulate on the left instead of the right. And that got me thinking...
There have been several examples on the forum of
warning sign goofs (curve pointing the wrong way etc.), but let's see some pictures of
regulatory sign goofs. Signs that require you to do something that you should not actually do.
Here's an example. Do not obey this R3-9b regulatory sign. Turning right from the center lane is a dangerous maneuver. Yet the sign has the force of law behind it.
Quote from: peterj920 on August 26, 2016, 10:59:55 PM
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8362/29220403046_8c9317e6b6_k_d.jpg)
In Escanaba, MI
Let's see some more.
^ That exact same center lane sign error appears on US 1 northbound in Yarmouth, Maine. It's still there as of October 2016 as per the Google Street View (https://goo.gl/maps/3vYpwukUJrz).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQw1FJnPl.jpg&hash=15a05f5a39bc0ff1eb085b77e6939e03a2c74534)
In a similar instance, if you obey where the arrows are relative to each other on the road on this sign in Cullman, AL, you'll likely end up in a head-on collision!
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/2/1564/25042083792_a20072a9aa_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/E9Te4o)Cross Traffic Doesn't Stop (https://flic.kr/p/E9Te4o) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
That's actually not a regulatory sign, despite being a white rectangle. It should have been yellow.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2003-01-27/news/0301270109_1_lane-orwin-dear-jim
Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2017, 08:28:03 PM
That's actually not a regulatory sign, despite being a white rectangle. It should have been yellow.
Actually, that sign falls in the same category as the supplemental
EXCEPT RIGHT TURN signs (MUTCD sign R-1-10P) I've seen posted below some
STOP signs. Granted, this particular example was not fabricated to MUTCD standards.
The issue that Freebrickproductions brought up is the erroneous (unless one is in England) orientation of the black arrows.
I knew someone would bring up the fact that the plaque is in the regulatory section of the MUTCD. However, my point is that it isn't actually telling you to do anything. The "STOP" part is what must be obeyed.
The results of these signage messups just go to show how relieant on them we are. People who use signage as a guide more than common scene are the people who cause wrecks.
I wonder how many people would do the right thing (i mean left turn), and then think there was something wrong with that sign.
I also feel for those designers who - like yours truly - are lost between "left" and "right". I, for one, have to recall how I hold a pen to tell right from left. In terms of directions, I usually go "your side/my side" or "driver/pax" to avoid confusion
Quote from: kalvado on April 28, 2017, 12:01:25 PM
I wonder how many people would do the right thing (i mean left turn), and then think there was something wrong with that sign.
I also feel for those designers who - like yours truly - are lost between "left" and "right". I, for one, have to recall how I hold a pen to tell right from left. In terms of directions, I usually go "your side/my side" or "driver/pax" to avoid confusion
I once had a girlfriend who would give directions by saying "turn left," no matter which direction you were supposed to go. Sometimes she'd point to the right and say "turn left." I can't live like that.
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2017, 01:42:29 PM
Quote from: kalvado on April 28, 2017, 12:01:25 PM
I wonder how many people would do the right thing (i mean left turn), and then think there was something wrong with that sign.
I also feel for those designers who - like yours truly - are lost between "left" and "right". I, for one, have to recall how I hold a pen to tell right from left. In terms of directions, I usually go "your side/my side" or "driver/pax" to avoid confusion
I once had a girlfriend who would give directions by saying "turn left," no matter which direction you were supposed to go. Sometimes she'd point to the right and say "turn left." I can't live like that.
Would she do this every time to be an ass or would it be every now and then? I would agree if it were every time you took a trip with her, I would pull over and let her out and pull forward every time she reached for the door, just to be an ass! Hehe :spin: :bigass:
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2017, 01:42:29 PM
Quote from: kalvado on April 28, 2017, 12:01:25 PM
I wonder how many people would do the right thing (i mean left turn), and then think there was something wrong with that sign.
I also feel for those designers who - like yours truly - are lost between "left" and "right". I, for one, have to recall how I hold a pen to tell right from left. In terms of directions, I usually go "your side/my side" or "driver/pax" to avoid confusion
I once had a girlfriend who would give directions by saying "turn left," no matter which direction you were supposed to go. Sometimes she'd point to the right and say "turn left." I can't live like that.
I get a response "
my right, or
your right?" implying that my right is actually left...
You should stop sitting on the dashboard, then.
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2017, 11:27:27 AMI knew someone would bring up the fact that the plaque is in the regulatory section of the MUTCD. However, my point is that it isn't actually telling you to do anything. The "STOP" part is what must be obeyed.
There is room for disagreement on this point. In California, for example, "Pass With Care" (at the end of no-passing zones) is specified to be black on yellow, because the California traffic control devices committee considers it to be a warning message, not an informatory or regulatory one. The
MUTCD and pretty much the rest of the US considers it regulatory or informatory, so if it is used at all (not all no-passing zones have upright signs), it is in black on white.
Informatory signs have never been broken out as a separate chapter in the
MUTCD, but most of them are still black on white because that is the color and contrast combination that has traditionally been used. Most of these apparent warning/regulatory "gray cases" (the "Divided Highway" supplementary plate, used with side-road stop signs at expressways, is another that comes to mind) have to do with signs that inform and don't regulate.
As regards this particular application ("Cross Traffic Does Not Stop"), Nebraska's variant (double-headed arrow below Series F "LOOK") is black on yellow.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 01, 2017, 10:33:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2017, 11:27:27 AMI knew someone would bring up the fact that the plaque is in the regulatory section of the MUTCD. However, my point is that it isn't actually telling you to do anything. The "STOP" part is what must be obeyed.
There is room for disagreement on this point. In California, for example, "Pass With Care" (at the end of no-passing zones) is specified to be black on yellow, because the California traffic control devices committee considers it to be a warning message, not an informatory or regulatory one. The MUTCD and pretty much the rest of the US considers it regulatory or informatory, so if it is used at all (not all no-passing zones have upright signs), it is in black on white.
Informatory signs have never been broken out as a separate chapter in the MUTCD, but most of them are still black on white because that is the color and contrast combination that has traditionally been used. Most of these apparent warning/regulatory "gray cases" (the "Divided Highway" supplementary plate, used with side-road stop signs at expressways, is another that comes to mind) have to do with signs that inform and don't regulate.
As regards this particular application ("Cross Traffic Does Not Stop"), Nebraska's variant (double-headed arrow below Series F "LOOK") is black on yellow.
It's interesting to have you refer to informational signs, but it makes sense. But it becomes interesting to distinguish informational (divided highway, regulatory colors) versus info/warning (cross traffic does not stop, warning colors) when used in almost identical contexts...
Discussion for another thread perhaps, but makes more wonder if a slightly different color scheme could be devised for the informational category, and what signs would go in that scheme...
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 01, 2017, 10:33:06 PM
There is room for disagreement on this point. In California, for example, "Pass With Care" (at the end of no-passing zones) is specified to be black on yellow, because the California traffic control devices committee considers it to be a warning message, not an informatory or regulatory one. The MUTCD and pretty much the rest of the US considers it regulatory or informatory, so if it is used at all (not all no-passing zones have upright signs), it is in black on white.
I think "Pass With Care" should be black-on-white, not because it's necessarily regulating how one should pass (or that one should pass), but that it's negating its counterpart, "Do Not Pass". A black-on-yellow sign wouldn't have the same regulating impact or effect in order to negate or reverse the effect of a black-on-white sign. Take advisory speed signs for example - they don't set a speed limit or override the black-on-white speed limit signs. In that same vein, a black-on-yellow "Pass With Care" sign might not be viewed as having the "authority" to override a black-on-white "Do Not Pass" sign.
Of course, road markings, if they take precedence over signage, makes my entire point above moot, but having the signs match in color is beneficial for consistency and driver expectation.
Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2017, 08:28:03 PM
That's actually not a regulatory sign, despite being a white rectangle. It should have been yellow.
I am wondering why the arrows are necessary. Do people not understand what cross traffic is? If you don't know English the arrows alone don't convey any meaning either.
Quote from: Ace10 on May 04, 2017, 03:59:32 PMI think "Pass With Care" should be black-on-white, not because it's necessarily regulating how one should pass (or that one should pass), but that it's negating its counterpart, "Do Not Pass". A black-on-yellow sign wouldn't have the same regulating impact or effect in order to negate or reverse the effect of a black-on-white sign. Take advisory speed signs for example - they don't set a speed limit or override the black-on-white speed limit signs. In that same vein, a black-on-yellow "Pass With Care" sign might not be viewed as having the "authority" to override a black-on-white "Do Not Pass" sign.
This is a reasonable argument, and (to cite one example) New Mexico's standard approach to signing no-passing zones is to start with the pennant on left and "Do Not Pass" on right, and finish with "Pass With Care." In others, the pennant is the only upright sign advising of the start of the no-passing zone, so black-on-white "Pass With Care" effectively cancels a black-on-yellow sign.
(Since this gets a bit off topic for this thread, we probably should have a separate one to catalogue various states' approaches to signing no-passing zones.)