Ninjasigning

[corco]

I'm down

[deathtopumpkins]

Go ahead and do it then. It sounds like you don't care what anyone says if they question or disagree with you, no matter how factual and well-thought their response is, so go ahead.

Though by the way, I don't think:

The thing briantroutman mentioned sounds like it would have been fun.   I'm in the mood to do something along the lines of an MIT hack and I just think we should start a large collaborative project to change a route number or something.  Just wondering if anyone else thinks something like that would be hilarious.

sounds hilarious at all. It sounds like it would create a lot of driver confusion just for the small amusement of a handful of people, at considerable expense. The average route shield can cost upwards of $50 or $100 to have fabricated, plus all the hardware you'll need to mount it. Then consider that a four-way intersection with this route might have 8 signs for it (advance JCT sign and sign for each direction approaching from each direction, plus reassurance afterwards), and you're potentially looking at an estimated cost of $800 per intersection. Most people don't have that kind of money just for a joke.

And I advise you to remember that road signs exist for the benefit of motorists. There could be serious repercussions resulting from people getting lost due to your replacement signs, and if found out you will be held liable. Things like Ankrom's sign modification in CA are harmless, and, if anything, benefit the motoring public. Changing all the signs for a route is not harmless.

[corco]

Oh come on, you guys need to pull those giant sticks out of your asses

[_Simon]

Let a man dream.  Seriously..

[deathtopumpkins]

Like I said, go ahead and do it if you want to. You just need to be aware of the cost and potential repercussions. I, for one, don't have a stick up my ass, I just think road signs are a useful tool for navigation and wouldn't exactly find it funny if I were looking for the turn for route 34 only to miss it because someone's replaced all the signs with ones for route 43 because they find it funny.

[corco]

I, for one, don't have a stick up my ass,

You're awfully worked up about this for somebody who doesn't have a stick up their ass

And half of the amusement of doing something like that is watching people with sticks up their asses get all pissed off at a harmless prank (lives aren't at stake here- just minor inconvenience that most people traveling down the road wouldn't even notice/would ignore)

[_Simon]

Like I said, go ahead and do it if you want to. You just need to be aware of the cost and potential repercussions. I, for one, don't have a stick up my ass, I just think road signs are a useful tool for navigation and wouldn't exactly find it funny if I were looking for the turn for route 34 only to miss it because someone's replaced all the signs with ones for route 43 because they find it funny.

Word.  There's a huge difference between changing route 43 to 34 for no reason and fixing missing TO banners, rearranging upside-down JCT assemblies, signing missing route shields, correcting misspellings, and cosigning I-99 with an interstate that is numerically appropriate.  What do you think we haven't taken the standard set of roadside ethics?  You think we haven't read the MUTCD chapter on how to make signs that are not only accurate but definitive.  The fact remains that the great government we've built has left gaps where their work is not the definitive work.  It is not clearly or concisely numbered, or is of a nature that is ordered.  We have all taken oaths to fit in with the grid; and to provide speedy and accurate results regarding the correction of mishapen; misnumbered; or misdesigned traffic control devices and while I personally think I'm too lazy to ever actually do any of this; I don't know why you can't lay back and dream for a couple minutes on this beautiful saturday -- we're all adults and we're all enjoying the weather; stop trying to be Tom Chiusano over there with your facts and numbers and legislation.  Instead, sit down, grab an iced tea, with some ice cubes, maybe a slice of lemon, and a bendy straw; and tell us about the signs you want to ninja if you had the cash, means, and immunity to do so.  I've already told you mine.

Cheers

[_Simon]

And half of the amusement of doing something like that is watching people with sticks up their asses get all pissed off at a harmless prank (lives aren't at stake here- just minor inconvenience that most people traveling down the road wouldn't even notice/would ignore)

Like someone said in another thread.. it's not like we're putting up blue stop signs or anything .  It would be cool to have some generic signs built that just say "One or more of the above signs is inaccurate or was incorrectly designed" pre-fitted with pre-spaced pegs that you could just stap into the standard spacing on a post right under some sign that pisses you off.

[deathtopumpkins]

I thought I made it quite clear I was only speaking with regard to changing signs for your amusement - rather than fixing things DOTs won't.

I would not have a problem with you fixing missing or incorrect signs in an Ankrom-esque move, though I still wouldn't do it myself, since my tax dollars go towards signing roads, so there's little chance I'd spend my own money on it.  I just associate pranks like changing signs for no real reason with delinquent kids who get off on laughing at other people's misfortune.

[_Simon]

I thought I made it quite clear I was only speaking with regard to changing signs for your amusement - rather than fixing things DOTs won't.

I would not have a problem with you fixing missing or incorrect signs in an Ankrom-esque move, though I still wouldn't do it myself, since my tax dollars go towards signing roads, so there's little chance I'd spend my own money on it.  I just associate pranks like changing signs for no real reason with delinquent kids who get off on laughing at other people's misfortune.

Would you object to this?

[deathtopumpkins]

That's a tough one. I generally obey the speed limit, and don't have a problem doing so as I drive an SUV that is not the most aerodynamic thing, as such I don't really have a problem with speed enforcement in practicality, though in principle I do have a problem with revenue-generating speed enforcement that depends on artificially low speed limits.

One reason I would object to those signs though is that speed traps, unlike most speed cameras, are not fixed points. If you really intended to sign every place a cop has ever sat behind something running radar, roads would just be a forest of signs.

[_Simon]

Playing devil's advocate:  Bus stops, school bus stops, school crossings, falling "rock", ice, freezing, hail, wetness, all animal crossings, ped crossings, etc. are all signed even when the hazard isn't there, and/or when the hazard's location can't possibly be known.  I can guess where a cop will be with a higher accuracy then the "duck crossing" sign I pass by my job that has been correct 0% of the time.

[deathtopumpkins]

Buses stop at bus stops at a regular interval, and are likely to be blocking a travel lane, or doing something else that requires drivers exercise extra caution. Speed traps do not block a travel lane, and do not require a driver to do anything other than obey the posted speed limit.

The same applies for school bus stops, though these require even more caution since small children have a tendency to run out into the road without looking for cars coming. A police officer running radar is not going to run out into the road in front of your car.

School crossings, same thing again - little kids potentially running out into traffic. School zones do not always need their reduced speeds, but a crosswalk in front of a school is another legitimate cause for a driver to have to react to a hazard.

Falling rocks are another hazard that drivers should watch out for. A giant boulder could roll out in front of you. A few small rocks may smash your windshield. Admittedly this doesn't happen very often, but it is still a legitimate concern, because a boulder rolling into the road in front of them would require a driver to brake and/or swerve suddenly. A speed trap doesn't require a driver who is going the legal speed to brake, and doesn't require any driver to swerve.

I've never seen a warning sign that just says "ICE" so I can't address that one, but things like "Bridge freezes before road" are a legitimate concern, because in below-freezing temperatures, a bridge will freeze before the road on either side of it, meaning the road might be perfectly fine to drive, but all of a sudden isn't on an overpass. A speed trap might not suddenly cause you to spin out of control or slide into a tree.

Skipping ahead a few, slippery when wet signs are one that is generally considered a "no duh!" sign, but often could be useful if a driver might not expect a certain portion of the road to be more slippery than parts around it due to something like a different pavement type.

Animal and pedestrian crossings don't ALWAYS have an animal or pedestrian crossing nearby, but are still posted somewhere where there is a known issue with animals running across the road or where there is either a marked crosswalk or high pedestrian traffic. If a pedestrian runs out in front of you, you need to brake for them or swerve around them. A cop running radar would not randomly step into the road in front of you.

I've never seen a legitimate, official, duck crossing sign. I know most places you'd be likely to see a duck or a goose though they are generally not far. I used to live across the street from a stormwater retention pond, and there was almost always a flock (is that the correct word for ducks?) of both ducks and geese nearby. They'd be in my front yard at least once or twice a day. So while you can't guarantee the hazard will be nearby, there's a fair likelihood you'll encounter it there.



The difference between hazards like these and a speed trap is that the hazards listed above require a driver who is driving along obeying the law either A) alter his behavior in some way, or B) pay extra attention to his surroundings. A speed trap does not require a driver who is obeying the law to alter his behavior in any way whatsoever. It merely legitimizes breaking the law, and provides further evidence that we ought to increase our speed limits to reflect what the road is safe for, not what will bring in the most revenue.

[_Simon]

It merely legitimizes breaking the law, and provides further evidence that we ought to increase our speed limits to reflect what the road is safe for, not what will bring in the most revenue.

Exactly

[NE2]

Speaking of sticks up asses, I-99 exists and isn't going away. Seriously.

[deathtopumpkins]

It merely legitimizes breaking the law, and provides further evidence that we ought to increase our speed limits to reflect what the road is safe for, not what will bring in the most revenue.

Exactly

So then why do you want to post those signs?

[_Simon]

To legitimize breaking the law, and to provide further evidence that we ought to increase our speed limits to reflect what the road is safe for, not what will bring in the most revenue.

[deathtopumpkins]

So in other words to waste everyone's money.

You'd have an easier time getting states to raise their speed limits than to post these signs.

[Takumi]

Actually, I wouldn't mind adding some NC 615 shields on the mainland...

[NE2]

If you have the money to waste, do this: http://www.google.com/search?q=speed trap billboard&tbm=isch

[SteveG1988]

Time to direct this to seriousness, has there ever been a DOT that did a ninjasign...fix as in one day the sign was screwed up/damaged/etc, and before you could call it in...it was fixed?

[hbelkins]

This thread seriously needs to be moved to Fictional Highways.

As for missing or incorrect signage, DOTs generally do respond if there are problems. We had a request recently for a Deer Crossing sign in an area where a lot of deer had been sighted. Our personnel went out and evaluated the situation and put up the sign within a week.

I suspect more than a few sign errors have been fixed after photographic evidence has been posted on the Internet.

If you have a problem with signage, contact the DOT in a nice, non-confrontational way and state your case as to why you think signage needs to be changed. Rest assured that someone with knowledge of the situation will evaluate your correspondence and get back to you. There are probably reasons that some routes aren't signed that you may not like, but are there anyway.

Having said that, if you want to waste your money buying and erecting rogue signs, it's your paycheck.

As for speed traps, you can always rent a billboard.

[jeffandnicole]

I know of more signs that I would rather take down (seemingly needless No Turn On Red signs) than I would put up.

I did write a Letter to the Editor of the paper one time many years ago about several signs in a localized area that needed replacing - badly.  Within a few weeks, they were replaced!  Whether my letter had anything to do with it...who knows.

[kphoger]

What I've semi-seriously considered is having labels made that say something like

  W R O N G    S I G N
See MUTCD §_________

I just fill in the blank, peel off the label, and slap it on the sign.

[hbelkins]

What I've semi-seriously considered is having labels made that say something like

  W R O N G    S I G N
See MUTCD §_________

States have their own sign manuals and supplements to the MUTCD that don't always go along with what the feds want. Which is fine with me. A sign may not agree with the MUTCD, but it may agree with X state's policy, said state having made a conscious decision to depart from the MUTCD in that instance.

I know of more signs that I would rather take down (seemingly needless No Turn On Red signs) than I would put up.

Those are banned in certain instances for specific reasons. Sight distance, turning radius, etc.