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

[thenetwork]

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8268085,-108.0208266,3a,15y,186.9h,85.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC54hG9JTdbT6H1vSY8yPjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Dunno why you have to know what OPPOSING traffic must do in each lane...If you are turning left, both lanes have the right-of-way anyway.   
And if you plan to go straight, the sign makes it LOOK like opposing traffic turning left will be using your lane, because the divider on the sign is directly above the divider on the road!

[plain]

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8268085,-108.0208266,3a,15y,186.9h,85.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC54hG9JTdbT6H1vSY8yPjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Dunno why you have to know what OPPOSING traffic must do in each lane...If you are turning left, both lanes have the right-of-way anyway.   
And if you plan to go straight, the sign makes it LOOK like opposing traffic turning left will be using your lane, because the divider on the sign is directly above the divider on the road!

Agreed. This sign is both unnecessary and causes confusion. That standard keep right arrow is all that's needed there.

[wxfree]

"43 feet between highway and tracks behind you." At a RR crossing/signal in Midland. https://www.google.com/maps/@31.9766448,-102.1110157,3a,27.3y,301.16h,92.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHGg90WGB9G8SIFugpN03Hg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This is a standard sign, W10-11b. But it is a weird number, surprised they wouldn't round down to 40.

Good catch!  For those of you too lazy to look it up in the MUTCD (not judging):

Aren't the W10-3 and W10-11 the same sign? Surprised it has a different designation, but I guess some people might be unaware that you can rotate the same sign...

Well, that's probably better than one guidance statement in the MUTCD covering two different applications.  I could just see some crew installing one in the wrong orientation because that's what was shown in the book.

On a nearby road construction project, I remember seeing square object markers, the kind with the slanted lines, on the ends of guardrails.  They're like OM3-L and OM3-R, but square, so they can slant in either direction.  They're mounted level, not like a diamond.  The rectangles are unique, because they can't be mounted sideways, but a square can be put on either side of the road as long as it's rotated correctly.  I don't see it in the MUTCD.  Maybe it's called something else.  But there were two different ones, one for the right side of the road and one for the left side.  The only difference is that the word "top" is printed on the side that's meant to be on top.  There are two different designs with the word in two different places.  This way the road crew has different part numbers for each side of the road, and as long as they use the right one, and follow the "top" instruction, they'll install them correctly.

Edit: That road is open now.  Here's Street View showing a bunch of them.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3820017,-97.3708198,3a,75y,84.27h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soBXEAsVonQzwVcJtyLojXA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

[Scott5114]

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8268085,-108.0208266,3a,15y,186.9h,85.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC54hG9JTdbT6H1vSY8yPjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Dunno why you have to know what OPPOSING traffic must do in each lane...If you are turning left, both lanes have the right-of-way anyway.   
And if you plan to go straight, the sign makes it LOOK like opposing traffic turning left will be using your lane, because the divider on the sign is directly above the divider on the road!

Agreed. This sign is both unnecessary and causes confusion. That standard keep right arrow is all that's needed there.

My guess is they had problems with people turning into the path of oncoming traffic, because for some reason people didn't realize traffic didn't have to turn there.

On a nearby road construction project, I remember seeing square object markers, the kind with the slanted lines, on the ends of guardrails.  They're like OM3-L and OM3-R, but square, so they can slant in either direction.  They're mounted level, not like a diamond.  The rectangles are unique, because they can't be mounted sideways, but a square can be put on either side of the road as long as it's rotated correctly.  I don't see it in the MUTCD.  Maybe it's called something else. 

I think those are considered just part of the crash attenuator cap on the end of the guardrail, thus why they don't have an MUTCD code. Square crash attenuators with the slant-line markings like that have been Oklahoma standard for a couple decades now.

[cjk374]

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8268085,-108.0208266,3a,15y,186.9h,85.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC54hG9JTdbT6H1vSY8yPjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Dunno why you have to know what OPPOSING traffic must do in each lane...If you are turning left, both lanes have the right-of-way anyway.   
And if you plan to go straight, the sign makes it LOOK like opposing traffic turning left will be using your lane, because the divider on the sign is directly above the divider on the road!

Agreed. This sign is both unnecessary and causes confusion. That standard keep right arrow is all that's needed there.

My guess is they had problems with people turning into the path of oncoming traffic, because for some reason people didn't realize traffic didn't have to turn there.

On a nearby road construction project, I remember seeing square object markers, the kind with the slanted lines, on the ends of guardrails.  They're like OM3-L and OM3-R, but square, so they can slant in either direction.  They're mounted level, not like a diamond.  The rectangles are unique, because they can't be mounted sideways, but a square can be put on either side of the road as long as it's rotated correctly.  I don't see it in the MUTCD.  Maybe it's called something else. 

I think those are considered just part of the crash attenuator cap on the end of the guardrail, thus why they don't have an MUTCD code. Square crash attenuators with the slant-line markings like that have been Oklahoma standard for a couple decades now.

We have had these in Louisiana for a long time as well.

[CoreySamson]

Interesting use of a "NOTICE" banner on a highway shield (which, oddly, is just called "TRUCK ROUTE") in Kermit, TX:

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.8526279,-103.0674696,3a,15y,289.82h,89.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIZ6eMYKzDoLpQtLJMq5lew!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Frankly I like it better than those "NEW" signs that are posted in Canada (and sometimes in the US?)

[jakeroot]

Found this in Tacoma. This would be "erroneous" if only for the first issue, but there are other things:

(1) sign is upside down;
(2) the sign is old but was originally installed right-side up...perhaps some people came and flipped it for fun?;
(3) sign is in the middle of Tacoma's downtown in a grid system of signals (the sign is redundant);
(4) the sign is very difficult to see, being to the right of a parking lane and behind trees that are normally thick with leaves.

[D-Dey65]

Somebody posted a video on the signs he only saw when he came to the US.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa7WBZeyWHc
There aren't any Amish Buggy warning signs that are of European standards, are there?

[J N Winkler]

There aren't any Amish Buggy warning signs that are of European standards, are there?

There are warning signs for horse-drawn vehicles--Britain has one, for example.

We didn't actually have such a warning sign in the national MUTCD until a recent edition (2003, I think).  Symbol signs were in use in several states before then, and they nearly all used an Amish buggy design, but I don't think they were ever intended to be specific to the types of horse-drawn vehicles that the Amish use.

[riiga]

There aren't any Amish Buggy warning signs that are of European standards, are there?

The closest are warning signs for horse-drawn carriages. Example of Swedish signs, all variants:

[thenetwork]

There aren't any Amish Buggy warning signs that are of European standards, are there?

The closest are warning signs for horse-drawn carriages. Example of Swedish signs, all variants:

The one on the far right makes me think there is a harness racing track ahead, or that you are about to cross the track itself!

[D-Dey65]

There aren't any Amish Buggy warning signs that are of European standards, are there?

The closest are warning signs for horse-drawn carriages. Example of Swedish signs, all variants:

The one on the far right makes me think there is a harness racing track ahead, or that you are about to cross the track itself!

Okay, so I can see those signs being used in Europe. But the video is presenting the European signs (not the Swedish variants) as if they're in the United States.

[kphoger]

But the video is presenting the European signs (not the Swedish variants) as if they're in the United States.

Unusual.  I've been watching his videos for a couple of years now, and he usually either (a) does enough research to get the graphic correct, or else (b) catches the error later and then pokes fun at himself for making the mistake.

[jakeroot]

Wasn't it just the horse-drawn buggy sign that he got wrong? Seems like the rest (no turn on red, yield, detour) he got right. The bear graphic was a little off but was close enough.

[J N Winkler]

But the video is presenting the European signs (not the Swedish variants) as if they're in the United States.

Unusual.  I've been watching his videos for a couple of years now, and he usually either (a) does enough research to get the graphic correct, or else (b) catches the error later and then pokes fun at himself for making the mistake.

Wasn't it just the horse-drawn buggy sign that he got wrong? Seems like the rest (no turn on red, yield, detour) he got right. The bear graphic was a little off but was close enough.

I actually watched the video this time, which I hadn't done before I commented yesterday.  The impression I get is that this guy hasn't actually looked at the MUTCD (for the US) or the TSRGD (for Britain).  He isn't representing the British sign (which he does show) as something that is found in the US.  He just uses it as a jumping-off point for a long tangent on the Amish.  I suspect it didn't even occur to him to look in either the MUTCD or Standard Highway Signs for the symbolic warning sign that depicts an Amish buggy.

[kphoger]

I actually watched the video this time, which I hadn't done before I commented yesterday.  The impression I get is that this guy hasn't actually looked at the MUTCD (for the US) or the TSRGD (for Britain).  He isn't representing the British sign (which he does show) as something that is found in the US.  He just uses it as a jumping-off point for a long tangent on the Amish.  I suspect it didn't even occur to him to look in either the MUTCD or Standard Highway Signs for the symbolic warning sign that depicts an Amish buggy.

Having watched a lot of his videos already in the past, I'd say your assessment of his level of research is correct.  I doubt he dived into the MUTCD or TSRGD, except perhaps briefly.

However, when I watched the video, I did see the British sign as being presented as one found in the US.  The other graphics used in the same way are certainly US signs, and the whole point of them being shown in the first place is to illustrate those he's only seen in the US.

[jeffandnicole]

Found this in Tacoma. This would be "erroneous" if only for the first issue, but there are other things:
(4) the sign is very difficult to see, being to the right of a parking lane and behind trees that are normally thick with leaves.

???

Parking in a no-parking zone?

[kphoger]

Maybe "standing" only.  ?

[jakeroot]

Found this in Tacoma. This would be "erroneous" if only for the first issue, but there are other things:
(4) the sign is very difficult to see, being to the right of a parking lane and behind trees that are normally thick with leaves.

???

Parking in a no-parking zone?

Maybe "standing" only.  ?

I think what happened was that, back before about 2007, this part of the road was a large obround circle; the area in front of the sign would have been part of the turning area, and they likely didn't want traffic to park in the area. Once the circle was removed, the sign became a bit silly since there's really no reason an extra car can't park in front of the signal-ahead sign. That said, the red curbing continues to be painted and repainted, and the sign clearly remains. Having the transition between parking lane and drive lane painted red is something that is fairly common in Tacoma, but the extra "no parking" sign is pretty odd.

I don't know about everywhere else, but parking signs here are always posted at the front of the restrictions: the sign above would apply to everyone who can see that sign in front of them. Beyond that sign would be a different restriction (which is also posted in the image, in the background). This is normal elsewhere, right?

[Scott5114]

There's a sign the background reading "NO PARKING/TAXI STAND".

[kphoger]

I don't know about everywhere else, but parking signs here are always posted at the front of the restrictions: the sign above would apply to everyone who can see that sign in front of them. Beyond that sign would be a different restriction (which is also posted in the image, in the background). This is normal elsewhere, right?

I don't know, parking signs without arrows have always confused the heck out of me.

[jakeroot]

There's a sign the background reading "NO PARKING/TAXI STAND".

I thought it might have been related, but the signs line up with red curbing where taxis are also not permitted to park. The yellow zone seems to be for taxis.

I don't know about everywhere else, but parking signs here are always posted at the front of the restrictions: the sign above would apply to everyone who can see that sign in front of them. Beyond that sign would be a different restriction (which is also posted in the image, in the background). This is normal elsewhere, right?

I don't know, parking signs without arrows have always confused the heck out of me.

Are parking signs in your area normally parallel to the road, with arrows pointing towards the restriction? I've seen this before and I think it makes more sense. I received a ticket for parking here once; I thought the 90-min restriction applied beyond the sign.

[kphoger]

Are parking signs in your area normally parallel to the road, with arrows pointing towards the restriction? I've seen this before and I think it makes more sense. I received a ticket for parking here once; I thought the 90-min restriction applied beyond the sign.

I so rarely have to parallel-park where there are signs, that I'm not even sure.  Let's check GSV...

example near my house
example of beginning and end
another beginning and end
begin no parking zone

[mrsman]

There's a sign the background reading "NO PARKING/TAXI STAND".

I thought it might have been related, but the signs line up with red curbing where taxis are also not permitted to park. The yellow zone seems to be for taxis.

CA and some other states do use painted curbs to denote different parking restrictions.  I think it is a good thing.  It makes it easier to know exactly where to park.   

Here is an example listing:

https://ladot.lacity.org/residents/colored-curb-zones


In most states in the northeast, the colored curbs have no meaning, only the signage controls parking regulations.  You sometimes see homeowners paint yellow around their driveways, but the yellow has no official meaning.  It would really be nice if they painted curbs around fire hydrants, especially in places like NYC with lots of hydrants and little parking.

[hotdogPi]

In most states in the northeast, the colored curbs have no meaning, only the signage controls parking regulations.  You sometimes see homeowners paint yellow around their driveways, but the yellow has no official meaning.  It would really be nice if they painted curbs around fire hydrants, especially in places like NYC with lots of hydrants and little parking.

If there's more than a few inches of snow, you won't be able to see the curb color.