Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs aka The good, the bad, and the ugly

[kphoger]

Towns all over the country use black-on-white street blades.  That's not what we were talking about.

[Mr. Matté]

Another black-on-white directional sign but this one is more like cralG coUnt^y but could have just been handled like elsewhere in Middlesex County, NJ with a standard CR 527 shield with the bidirectional arrows below (with S-N inscribed within):

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3230977,-74.3611731,3a,15y,327.76h,92.92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSW1bdAQ-zilrhdCFxp0ovA!2e0!5s20160601T000000!7i13312!8i6656

[wanderer2575]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/45624290164
Those arrows on the exit guide for MO Route 370 are very strange.

A similar sign design in Novi, before the current MUTCD standard of black arrows in the yellow Exit Only field.  I haven't seen this anywhere else in Michigan.

[ipeters61]

Another black-on-white directional sign but this one is more like cralG coUnt^y but could have just been handled like elsewhere in Middlesex County, NJ with a standard CR 527 shield with the bidirectional arrows below (with S-N inscribed within):

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3230977,-74.3611731,3a,15y,327.76h,92.92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSW1bdAQ-zilrhdCFxp0ovA!2e0!5s20160601T000000!7i13312!8i6656

That actually reminded me of something.  On I-84 WB in Connecticut, through the Exit 57 (CT-15 South) sequence, each Exit 57 sign had a different error (last I was there was August 2017 and I think all the signs were still there): https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ct/i-84/w1.html

1½ mile advance: no exit only marker
½ mile advance: arguably okay in original form, but replacement I-91 shield too small
Second to last advance: would be perfect except "N.Y. Cit^y"
Final advance: Why is that "15" so bold and wide?

[6a]

Ohio was Black-on-White until the early 80s when they started replacing them with white-on-green.  There were still some rarities in the wild as of the early 00s.

Michigan was unusual as they were a white-on-blackish/brown on their destination and many other supplemental signs as well until the early 80s.

On E. Broad St. at the Columbus/Whitehall line, there was an old black on white "Columbus Corporation Limit"  sign. It recently got replaced...with a black on white sign. I'll try to grab a pic of it soon.

[6a]

I've never seen this used for anything but a speed limit reduction.

[jakeroot]

^^
Better than signing the prohibition at the last second.

[thenetwork]

Ohio was Black-on-White until the early 80s when they started replacing them with white-on-green.  There were still some rarities in the wild as of the early 00s.

Michigan was unusual as they were a white-on-blackish/brown on their destination and many other supplemental signs as well until the early 80s.

On E. Broad St. at the Columbus/Whitehall line, there was an old black on white "Columbus Corporation Limit"  sign. It recently got replaced...with a black on white sign. I'll try to grab a pic of it soon.

Toledo kept the black-on-white ENTER/LEAVE TOLEDO signage on regular surface streets as well. 

[adventurernumber1]

I've never seen this used for anything but a speed limit reduction.

^^
Better than signing the prohibition at the last second.

I agree it does look odd, but that's probably only simply because this is not done that often, so it seems unusual. I agree this is definitely much better than signing the information too late, or not at all. Perhaps they should do this more often - it is intriguing to me, and it certainly increases safety and preparedness. 

[kphoger]

I've never seen this used for anything but a speed limit reduction.

You're forgetting the obvious:  W3-1.

[jakeroot]

I've never seen this used for anything but a speed limit reduction.

You're forgetting the obvious:  W3-1.

There is, ultimately, a lot of uses that (I believe) are currently occupied by the directional arrows that are otherwise used for route guidance markers (or even route markers themselves, to indicate the route to follow). I don't know how helpful "no through trucks ahead" is, since it's better to actually tell the trucks where to go, rather than tell them where they can't, but points for creativity anyway.

Of course, isn't the idea of the yellow diamond to warn of something ahead? Making the arrow redundant? Or is that only half its job?

[kphoger]

Of course, isn't the idea of the yellow diamond to warn of something ahead? Making the arrow redundant? Or is that only half its job?

I think people would reasonably assume that a sign saying "NO THROUGH TRUCKS" means no through trucks are allowed on that road.  The arrow clarifies that the restriction actually begins further down the road.

[jakeroot]

Of course, isn't the idea of the yellow diamond to warn of something ahead? Making the arrow redundant? Or is that only half its job?

I think people would reasonably assume that a sign saying "NO THROUGH TRUCKS" means no through trucks are allowed on that road.  The arrow clarifies that the restriction actually begins further down the road.

See, I would too. But, aren't diamond signs always used to warn of something ahead? Thinking about it for a moment, I can't think of any that are used on the spot, short of pedestrian crossing signs (which are accompanied by downward-pointing arrows). Some signs literally say 'ahead', but the entire point of diamonds is to warn of something ahead, thus all messages could very well be read out, "no through trucks ahead", or "left lane ends ahead".

To use a more common sign as an example, you don't see "narrow bridge" or "roundabout" used at the narrow bridge or roundabout themselves. They are used before the fact, so that drivers are prepared.

Maybe it's the text that's throwing me off? Perhaps if it was a symbol on top of the diamond, it might be more obvious that it's a warning of something ahead (short of using an arrow)?

[kphoger]

But, aren't diamond signs always used to warn of something ahead? Thinking about it for a moment, I can't think of any that are used on the spot, short of pedestrian crossing signs (which are accompanied by downward-pointing arrows). Some signs literally say 'ahead', but the entire point of diamonds is to warn of something ahead, thus all messages could very well be read out, "no through trucks ahead", or "left lane ends ahead".

W12-1 is decidedly not an advance warning sign.

Some of the ones in the W8 range aren't necessarily used in advance, such as W8-5 and W8-11.

W6-3 is generally not used in advance.

Some of the ones in the W11 range aren't necessarily used in advance, such as W11-1, W11-14, and W11-4.

[jakeroot]

^^
Although, of those listed, virtually all are used to warn of things that are occurring from the point of the sign, on-wards (so still in some sense "ahead"). The two exceptions are the double arrow, and two-way traffic sign, which IMO should be black-on-white, since they're regulating traffic flow (and are telling you do something). The W8 signs, at least in WA, are always used prior to the fact.

In your opinion, which of these two is better at warning of "no through trucks ahead" without actually spelling out "ahead" or using an upward arrow?

[kphoger]

The two exceptions are the double arrow, and two-way traffic sign, which IMO should be black-on-white, since they're regulating traffic flow (and are telling you do something).

I interpret those signs differently.  The first warns me of a median/splitter/curb/whatever, which I might run into if not paying attention.  The second warns me of oncoming traffic, as I might not be used to watching out for that, having been on a one-way road up till that point.

In your opinion, which of these two is better at warning of "no through trucks ahead" without actually spelling out "ahead" or using an upward arrow?

The first one I would modify to use a standard red slash in a circle, but then move the arrow from within the sign to the top of the sign.

The second one I would pair with a plaque indicating the distance to the beginning of the restrcition.

[DaBigE]

I'll throw a third option out there, granted, it's more regulatory, but gets a similar message across: https://goo.gl/maps/B42c6BeuQJL2 (could also fit in the redundancy thread, with both the arrow and the text 'AHEAD')

In any case, the advanced notification is only good if you know how far ahead the prohibition begins, as kphoger eludes to. So in that light, I'd say none of the options do a good job of that.

In your opinion, which of these two is better at warning of "no through trucks ahead" without actually spelling out "ahead" or using an upward arrow?

I'd argue they could be interpreted differently. The symbolic could mean no trucks whatsoever can travel on that road. The text could mean that trucks are ok as long as they don't use the roadway to access another road (cut-though). IMO, it's too similar to the regulatory No Through Traffic variation to be a viable alternative.

[jakeroot]

The two exceptions are the double arrow, and two-way traffic sign, which IMO should be black-on-white, since they're regulating traffic flow (and are telling you do something).

I interpret those signs differently.  The first warns me of a median/splitter/curb/whatever, which I might run into if not paying attention.  The second warns me of oncoming traffic, as I might not be used to watching out for that, having been on a one-way road up till that point.

But are warning signs meant to be interpreted from a distance? I always thought they were to warn you of actions that might be required from beyond the sign (with your job being to at least acknowledge the sign by the time you get to it). The double arrow and two-way traffic symbol are only of any use as a warning when read from a distance, which is perhaps a bit unfair to people with less-than-stellar vision, assuming they are, in fact, meant to be warnings. If you don't act upon them before reaching the sign, you're going to potentially have a crash.

To your credit, downward arrows are used at pedestrian crossings, but at least there's a warning of them beforehand (usually). Double arrows have no warning beforehand that I've ever seen. The pedestrian crossing strangeness is probably why I prefer Canada's black-on-white pedestrian crossing signs, which make better sense to me than the US's diamond signs, as they are meant to regulate the flow of pedestrians across traffic.

Two-way traffic signs could easily be replaced by something like this:

The first one I would modify to use a standard red slash in a circle, but then move the arrow from within the sign to the top of the sign.

I kept the arrow in the first design within the sign, because I wasn't trying to indicate "no trucks ahead". The arrow within the symbol was meant to indicate "through trucks", as far fetched as it may be!

I'll throw a third option out there, granted, it's more regulatory, but gets a similar message across: https://goo.gl/maps/B42c6BeuQJL2 (could also fit in the redundancy thread, with both the arrow and the text 'AHEAD')

In any case, the advanced notification is only good if you know how far ahead the prohibition begins, as kphoger eludes to. So in that light, I'd say none of the options do a good job of that.

I think that's good! Signing a truck route is ultimately the best option.

In your opinion, which of these two is better at warning of "no through trucks ahead" without actually spelling out "ahead" or using an upward arrow?

I'd argue they could be interpreted differently. The symbolic could mean no trucks whatsoever can travel on that road. The text could mean that trucks are ok as long as they don't use the roadway to access another road (cut-though). IMO, it's too similar to the regulatory No Through Traffic variation to be a viable alternative.

I think your aforementioned linked sign is far better than either of my designs!

[Max Rockatansky]

Rare uni-sign US 19/98 junction on Citrus County, FL Route 490:

19USb by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

[kphoger]

downward arrows are used at pedestrian crossings, but at least there's a warning of them beforehand (usually).

Wow, in your part of the country there are advance warning signs of a ped crossing?  I don't remember ever seeing one of those before, but I could be mistaken.

The pedestrian crossing strangeness is probably why I prefer Canada's black-on-white pedestrian crossing signs, which make better sense to me than the US's diamond signs, as they are meant to regulate the flow of pedestrians across traffic.

Again, to my mind, W11-2 is warning me to watch out for pedestrians–not actually telling me what to do if there are any.  If there's a downward-pointing arrow, then it's merely telling me exactly where the crosswalk is;  it doesn't tell me to stop or yield or anything.

I have a vague memory of driver's ed, in which the teacher talked to us about either pedestrian warning signs or school signs (can't remember which).  One variant had a marked crosswalk in the sign and the other variant did not.  The one was intended to indicate a crosswalk, but the other was merely to warn drivers of either pedestrians or school children in the area.  The reason the memory sticks around is that, a bit later, he showed us a video of driving down a street while he talked to us.  At a certain point, he stopped the video and asked us all what the last sign we saw was–to test how well we were paying attention, showing what it's like to be driving while a conversation is going on in the car.  One of those signs was the last one before he stopped the video.

Did this type of distinction use to exist in our signage?

[kphoger]

as kphoger eludes to

I didn't intend to be elusive.

[CardInLex]

I've never seen this used for anything but a speed limit reduction.

I personally prefer the design featured here (changing "THROUGH"  to "THRU" ).

However, I do want to point out that the MUTCD standard (Section 2C.53) has a provision for advanced warning of a regulatory condition (that don't have a standard warning sign). They are supposed to use the regulatory sign with a yellow supplemental plaque below ("AHEAD"  or distance). I had to do this with a weight limit sign a while back.

[sprjus4]

This has always bothered me on VA-168 in Chesapeake, Virginia.



What is Exit B-A supposed to mean?

It's Exit 10B-A, not Exit B-A. Also, the little Great Bridge sign attached to the post.

The sign overall should read -

Exit 10B-A
Hanbury Rd
Great Bridge
1 Mile

The 1/2 reassurance marker also features the lovely Exit B-A.

At the interchange, it's correct, but the first exit heading north, Exit 10B, has an offset exit tab, along with an oddly small "East" text. Exit 10A's exit is signed correctly and with a properly placed exit tab. Exit 10A also has a really odd exit, squeezed in the original interchange about 10 years ago. They didn't bother to make the northbound acceleration lane turn into the exit, they just left it like original. It merges in just past the truck in the picture.




You can see the full interchange here, where they squeezed in that odd loop in the upper right corner.

[jakeroot]

downward arrows are used at pedestrian crossings, but at least there's a warning of them beforehand (usually).

Wow, in your part of the country there are advance warning signs of a ped crossing?  I don't remember ever seeing one of those before, but I could be mistaken.

Oh yeah, absolutely. I thought that was normal? Example in Federal Way ... example in Tacoma (more often, lately, a bike/ped combo warning sign). There's also this school crossing variant in Puyallup (normal design for school crossings in WA). They're almost all accompanied by distance or "ahead" messages, but not always. The only time you don't see warnings is when there's more than two within a block, or sometimes at intersections where it's more expected anyways.

The pedestrian crossing strangeness is probably why I prefer Canada's black-on-white pedestrian crossing signs, which make better sense to me than the US's diamond signs, as they are meant to regulate the flow of pedestrians across traffic.

Again, to my mind, W11-2 is warning me to watch out for pedestrians–not actually telling me what to do if there are any.  If there's a downward-pointing arrow, then it's merely telling me exactly where the crosswalk is;  it doesn't tell me to stop or yield or anything.

I have a vague memory of driver's ed, in which the teacher talked to us about either pedestrian warning signs or school signs (can't remember which).  One variant had a marked crosswalk in the sign and the other variant did not.  The one was intended to indicate a crosswalk, but the other was merely to warn drivers of either pedestrians or school children in the area.  The reason the memory sticks around is that, a bit later, he showed us a video of driving down a street while he talked to us.  At a certain point, he stopped the video and asked us all what the last sign we saw was–to test how well we were paying attention, showing what it's like to be driving while a conversation is going on in the car.  One of those signs was the last one before he stopped the video.

Did this type of distinction use to exist in our signage?

In the case of the "telling you what to do" issue, they're basically warning you of a condition which you are obligated to obey: yield to pedestrians at crosswalks. Which, in my mind, is no different than a stop or yield sign, and you don't see those written on a yellow diamond at the "point of action" (although the original black-on-yellow yield sign may have been the result of it being a "warning" condition, as in "warning: you don't have the right of way"). In this sense, at least in my mind, they're regulatory messages, demanding that you give way to those who have greater ROW than you.

As to your memory, the marked crossing variant was apparently discarded. I don't know why this was done, per se, although I know that not all states use longitudinal markings like those portrayed in the design. That could be part of it (just that it wasn't completely accurate in representing the crossing).

I think the replacement for this were my first two examples: a ped symbol against a yellow diamond, and then another with a downward-pointing arrow. I don't think I've seen a single pedestrian crossing sign installed at a crosswalk without a downward facing arrow. At least, I don't know of any.

[DaBigE]

downward arrows are used at pedestrian crossings, but at least there's a warning of them beforehand (usually).

Wow, in your part of the country there are advance warning signs of a ped crossing?  I don't remember ever seeing one of those before, but I could be mistaken.

We occasionally have them around here. They're usually reserved for high-speed roadways and/or crossings that are hidden by horizontal or vertical curves. It's the W11-2 diamond with an 'Ahead' plaque below it.

Again, to my mind, W11-2 is warning me to watch out for pedestrians–not actually telling me what to do if there are any.  If there's a downward-pointing arrow, then it's merely telling me exactly where the crosswalk is;  it doesn't tell me to stop or yield or anything.

I have a vague memory of driver's ed, in which the teacher talked to us about either pedestrian warning signs or school signs (can't remember which).  One variant had a marked crosswalk in the sign and the other variant did not.  The one was intended to indicate a crosswalk, but the other was merely to warn drivers of either pedestrians or school children in the area.  The reason the memory sticks around is that, a bit later, he showed us a video of driving down a street while he talked to us.  At a certain point, he stopped the video and asked us all what the last sign we saw was–to test how well we were paying attention, showing what it's like to be driving while a conversation is going on in the car.  One of those signs was the last one before he stopped the video.

Did this type of distinction use to exist in our signage?

Yes, it did and I remember them [fondly?]. They switched to the Ahead and arrow plaques because it was felt that the crosswalk lines were too subtle for drivers to notice the difference. Occasionally, you'll still see a new crossing installation of a Ped or School sign with the crosswalk lines AND an arrow or Ahead plaque: https://goo.gl/maps/bxoFQZ1fa1N2. Personally, I think the Ahead plaque is redundant, given the nature of a warning sign. IMO, the Ahead plaque should not be used or it should be replaced with a distance plaque.

as kphoger eludes to

I didn't intend to be elusive.

  Fingers going to fast for my brain again.