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

Started by mass_citizen, December 04, 2013, 10:46:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

PurdueBill

Quote from: renegade on March 07, 2015, 07:00:21 PM
It should be posted, "No Re-Entry," not "Exit Only."

Except the Ohio Turnpike use of Exit Only white on green like that isn't meant as "no re-entry"....it's a well-meaning but inappropriate use of the conventional Exit Only and they use(d) it at many interchanges.  A couple pictures at the top of Steve's I-80/90 page show what I mean. 


6a

I really wasn't sure which thread this belongs in, so I'm using the interesting clause of the title here. Reform, AL


riiga

Looks like they should've gone for a mini roundabout instead.

jeffandnicole

Trenton has done this on a few of their signs:

Take a sign that is center justified for "No Parking", then instead of adding a single long arrow indicating the beginning of the no parking zone, use two short arrows facing the same direction.  If you squint, you can see the next "No Parking" sign has two arrows, facing opposite directions. While correctly applied in its location, usually a long arrow pointing both directions would be used.



jeffandnicole

NJ's law was "Yield to Pedestrians". The new law is "Stop for Pedestrians". In most cases, the sign was replaced or "yield to" became "stop for". In some cases, only yield was replaced with Stop, resulting in the weirdly sounding "Stop Here To Pedestrians" or "Stop To Pedestrians". Look closely and you can see they attempted to cover up the old "Yield" graphic also, but slightly missed the corners.



Zeffy

At least Trenton's sign is better than:



:bigass:

That being said, I don't appreciate those stupid 'STOP FOR PEDESTRIAN' signs they place in the center of most roads in pedestrian-heavy areas, because combine that with with people parked on the sides and you have to navigate to avoid the sign and the cars. I would rather them post signs and stick them on the sidewalk.
Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders

1995hoo

One thing I dislike about "Stop for Pedestrian" signs is that some cities place them in crosswalks controlled by "Walk/Don't Walk" lights. If the pedestrian has a "Don't Walk" light, HE is supposed to yield to vehicles with a green light. But I've seen a number of belligerent pedestrians who think the "Stop for Pedestrian" sign trumps thag.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

kphoger

A pedestrian disobeying the DON'T WALK signal is still someone a driver has to yield to.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2015, 09:33:03 AM
A pedestrian disobeying the DON'T WALK signal is still someone a driver has to yield to.

To avoid hitting, yes.  Legally, no.

Zeffy

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 09, 2015, 11:01:41 PM
One thing I dislike about "Stop for Pedestrian" signs is that some cities place them in crosswalks controlled by "Walk/Don't Walk" lights. If the pedestrian has a "Don't Walk" light, HE is supposed to yield to vehicles with a green light. But I've seen a number of belligerent pedestrians who think the "Stop for Pedestrian" sign trumps thag.

That happened to me in Lambertville on Sunday. Sure, 'stop for pedestrians' means do it at crosswalks, but if the damn traffic signal has a picture of a hand up, you still don't cross.
Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Zeffy on March 09, 2015, 10:48:34 PM
At least Trenton's sign is better than:



:bigass:

:bigass:

There are a few of these signs still around where "Yield" hasn't faded.  There was one just down the street from where I took my pictures. (At least I think it still said 'Yield" and not "Stop")

kphoger

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 10, 2015, 10:26:17 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2015, 09:33:03 AM
A pedestrian disobeying the DON'T WALK signal is still someone a driver has to yield to.

To avoid hitting, yes.  Legally, no.

Legally, yes. You, as a driver, are in fact legally obligated to yield to pedestrians even when they have broken the law and entered the roadway in violation of laws pertaining to them.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

spooky

Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2015, 10:54:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 10, 2015, 10:26:17 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2015, 09:33:03 AM
A pedestrian disobeying the DON'T WALK signal is still someone a driver has to yield to.

To avoid hitting, yes.  Legally, no.

Legally, yes. You, as a driver, are in fact legally obligated to yield to pedestrians even when they have broken the law and entered the roadway in violation of laws pertaining to them.

Not in Massachusetts. from M.G.L. c. 89, § 11:

QuoteSection 11. When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be so to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk marked in accordance with standards established by the department of highways if the pedestrian is on that half of the traveled part of the way on which the vehicle is traveling or if the pedestrian approaches from the opposite half of the traveled part of the way to within 10 feet of that half of the traveled part of the way on which said vehicle is traveling.

1995hoo

Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2015, 10:54:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 10, 2015, 10:26:17 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2015, 09:33:03 AM
A pedestrian disobeying the DON'T WALK signal is still someone a driver has to yield to.

To avoid hitting, yes.  Legally, no.

Legally, yes. You, as a driver, are in fact legally obligated to yield to pedestrians even when they have broken the law and entered the roadway in violation of laws pertaining to them.

That's the sort of thing that varies from state to state, just like whether the law calls for "stopping for" or "yielding to" pedestrians varies from state to state. In a state that requires you to "yield" to pedestrians, you don't necessarily have to stop for a pedestrian in the crosswalk, for example if it's a wide street and the pedestrian is nowhere near your lane. But some states require you to stop if the pedestrian is anywhere in the crosswalk.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2015, 10:54:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 10, 2015, 10:26:17 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2015, 09:33:03 AM
A pedestrian disobeying the DON'T WALK signal is still someone a driver has to yield to.

To avoid hitting, yes.  Legally, no.

Legally, yes. You, as a driver, are in fact legally obligated to yield to pedestrians even when they have broken the law and entered the roadway in violation of laws pertaining to them.

So when driving on the 75 mph Kansas Turnpike, if a pedestrian wanders into the road, legally everyone has to stop for him?  I don't think so.  That's why these blanket statements are almost always wrong.

Here's NJ's law pertaining to pedestrians.  While a pedestrian within a crosswalk (or unmarked crosswalk at intersections) are perceived to have the right of way, they certainly can't just wander willy-nilly:

Quote
39:4-36  Driver to yield to pedestrians, exceptions; violations, penalties.

39:4-36. a. The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except at crosswalks when the movement of traffic is being regulated by police officers or traffic control signals, or where otherwise regulated by municipal, county, or State regulation, and except where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided:

(1)The driver of a vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway within a marked crosswalk, when the pedestrian is upon, or within one lane of, the half of the roadway, upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning.  As used in this paragraph, "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes conveying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

(2)No pedestrian shall leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield or stop.

(3)Whenever any vehicle is stopped to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.

(4)Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

(5)Nothing contained herein shall relieve a driver from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway. Nothing contained herein shall relieve a pedestrian from using due care for his safety.

Now, since you're from Kansas, maybe their law is different.  So I looked it up...and it's extremely similar to NJ's law.  In fact, there's nothing to indicate that "You, as a driver, are in fact legally obligated to yield to pedestrians even when they have broken the law and entered the roadway in violation of laws pertaining to them."  There is a provision that requires drivers to exercise due care to avoid hitting pedestrians, but that's not the same as saying the pedestrian is always right.

Kansas' laws pertaining to pedestrians:  http://www.ksdot.org/bureaus/burRail/bike/biking/KssidewalkStatutes.asp

ethanhopkin14

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.448399,-81.330634,3a,82.2y,139.16h,84.01t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZqh4hQTeinCz_0qkDhvmdg!2e0

This is on the west side of the Orlando International Airport.  One of the very rare instances of a public road with a non MUTCD stop sign.

kkt

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 11, 2015, 10:59:57 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.448399,-81.330634,3a,82.2y,139.16h,84.01t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZqh4hQTeinCz_0qkDhvmdg!2e0

This is on the west side of the Orlando International Airport.  One of the very rare instances of a public road with a non MUTCD stop sign.

Are you sure that's a public road?  It's past the "authorized personal only, permit required" sign.  Probably put up by the airport authority.

PHLBOS

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 11, 2015, 10:59:57 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.448399,-81.330634,3a,82.2y,139.16h,84.01t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZqh4hQTeinCz_0qkDhvmdg!2e0

This is on the west side of the Orlando International Airport.  One of the very rare instances of a public road with a non MUTCD stop sign.
While the font on that STOP sign certainly isn't standard, I'll give you that (looks like a private fabrication/install); however, that alone does not make it non-MUTCD complaint.  As long as it's octagonal, red w/white lettering and has the word STOP on it; it's MUTCD complaint for a STOP sign.

To be honest, when I first clicked on your link; I was expecting to see either an odd-shaped and/or different colored STOP sign.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

vtk

Quote from: PHLBOS on March 11, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 11, 2015, 10:59:57 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.448399,-81.330634,3a,82.2y,139.16h,84.01t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZqh4hQTeinCz_0qkDhvmdg!2e0

This is on the west side of the Orlando International Airport.  One of the very rare instances of a public road with a non MUTCD stop sign.
While the font on that STOP sign certainly isn't standard, I'll give you that (looks like a private fabrication/install); however, that alone does not make it non-MUTCD complaint.  As long as it's octagonal, red w/white lettering and has the word STOP on it; it's MUTCD complaint for a STOP sign.

To be honest, when I first clicked on your link; I was expecting to see either an odd-shaped and/or different colored STOP sign.

Not to be pedantic, but I believe the MUTCD says signs "shall" use the approved fonts, to the same degree of force as it says stop signs "shall" be octagonal and red.

Edit: not literally true, as it turns out.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: vtk on March 11, 2015, 02:22:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 11, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 11, 2015, 10:59:57 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.448399,-81.330634,3a,82.2y,139.16h,84.01t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZqh4hQTeinCz_0qkDhvmdg!2e0

This is on the west side of the Orlando International Airport.  One of the very rare instances of a public road with a non MUTCD stop sign.
While the font on that STOP sign certainly isn't standard, I'll give you that (looks like a private fabrication/install); however, that alone does not make it non-MUTCD complaint.  As long as it's octagonal, red w/white lettering and has the word STOP on it; it's MUTCD complaint for a STOP sign.

To be honest, when I first clicked on your link; I was expecting to see either an odd-shaped and/or different colored STOP sign.

Not to be pedantic, but I believe the MUTCD says signs "shall" use the approved fonts, to the same degree of force as it says stop signs "shall" be octagonal and red.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/mutcd2009edition.pdf

Amazingly, doing a word search, "Font" only comes up once in the entire document.  And it's under the 'changeable message sign' section.

As for the section under Stop signs, it only states that the stop sign "shall be an octagon with a white legend and border on a red background".  So as long as that condition is met, which it was, then it's a legal stop sign.

1995hoo

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2015, 03:26:06 PM
Quote from: vtk on March 11, 2015, 02:22:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 11, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 11, 2015, 10:59:57 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.448399,-81.330634,3a,82.2y,139.16h,84.01t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZqh4hQTeinCz_0qkDhvmdg!2e0

This is on the west side of the Orlando International Airport.  One of the very rare instances of a public road with a non MUTCD stop sign.
While the font on that STOP sign certainly isn't standard, I'll give you that (looks like a private fabrication/install); however, that alone does not make it non-MUTCD complaint.  As long as it's octagonal, red w/white lettering and has the word STOP on it; it's MUTCD complaint for a STOP sign.

To be honest, when I first clicked on your link; I was expecting to see either an odd-shaped and/or different colored STOP sign.

Not to be pedantic, but I believe the MUTCD says signs "shall" use the approved fonts, to the same degree of force as it says stop signs "shall" be octagonal and red.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/mutcd2009edition.pdf

Amazingly, doing a word search, "Font" only comes up once in the entire document.  And it's under the 'changeable message sign' section.

As for the section under Stop signs, it only states that the stop sign "shall be an octagon with a white legend and border on a red background".  So as long as that condition is met, which it was, then it's a legal stop sign.

I didn't try searching it because it was taking forever to load to the point where I could do that, but do they perchance use the word "typeface" instead of "font"? Most people would regard the distinction between the two words as pedantic, but there is a difference. The "font" is what you use, the "typeface" is what you see. Times New Roman is a typeface, for example (and Times New Roman Bold is a different typeface). Times New Roman 12-point is a font. A font is a single weight, width, and style of a typeface.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

spooky

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2015, 03:38:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2015, 03:26:06 PM
Quote from: vtk on March 11, 2015, 02:22:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 11, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 11, 2015, 10:59:57 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.448399,-81.330634,3a,82.2y,139.16h,84.01t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZqh4hQTeinCz_0qkDhvmdg!2e0

This is on the west side of the Orlando International Airport.  One of the very rare instances of a public road with a non MUTCD stop sign.
While the font on that STOP sign certainly isn't standard, I'll give you that (looks like a private fabrication/install); however, that alone does not make it non-MUTCD complaint.  As long as it's octagonal, red w/white lettering and has the word STOP on it; it's MUTCD complaint for a STOP sign.

To be honest, when I first clicked on your link; I was expecting to see either an odd-shaped and/or different colored STOP sign.

Not to be pedantic, but I believe the MUTCD says signs "shall" use the approved fonts, to the same degree of force as it says stop signs "shall" be octagonal and red.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/mutcd2009edition.pdf

Amazingly, doing a word search, "Font" only comes up once in the entire document.  And it's under the 'changeable message sign' section.

As for the section under Stop signs, it only states that the stop sign "shall be an octagon with a white legend and border on a red background".  So as long as that condition is met, which it was, then it's a legal stop sign.

I didn't try searching it because it was taking forever to load to the point where I could do that, but do they perchance use the word "typeface" instead of "font"? Most people would regard the distinction between the two words as pedantic, but there is a difference. The "font" is what you use, the "typeface" is what you see. Times New Roman is a typeface, for example (and Times New Roman Bold is a different typeface). Times New Roman 12-point is a font. A font is a single weight, width, and style of a typeface.

From Section 2A.06 Design of Signs:

Standard:
06 The term legend shall include all word messages and symbol and arrow designs that are intended to
convey specific meanings.
07 Uniformity in design shall include shape, color, dimensions, legends, borders, and illumination or
retroreflectivity.
08 Standardization of these designs does not preclude further improvement by minor changes in the
proportion or orientation of symbols, width of borders, or layout of word messages, but all shapes and
colors shall be as indicated.
09 All symbols shall be unmistakably similar to, or mirror images of, the adopted symbol signs, all of
which are shown in the "Standard Highway Signs and Markings"  book (see Section 1A.11). Symbols
and colors shall not be modified unless otherwise provided in this Manual. All symbols and colors for
signs not shown in the "Standard Highway Signs and Markings"  book shall follow the procedures for
experimentation and change described in Section 1A.10.


This suggests that symbol and color are the only factors that are sacrosanct.


jeffandnicole

I was trying to think of other words similar to 'font' as well.

Typeface and type face both come up negative.

Type or face come up, but nothing to do with fonts.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: spooky on March 11, 2015, 03:44:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2015, 03:38:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2015, 03:26:06 PM
Quote from: vtk on March 11, 2015, 02:22:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 11, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 11, 2015, 10:59:57 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.448399,-81.330634,3a,82.2y,139.16h,84.01t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZqh4hQTeinCz_0qkDhvmdg!2e0

This is on the west side of the Orlando International Airport.  One of the very rare instances of a public road with a non MUTCD stop sign.
While the font on that STOP sign certainly isn't standard, I'll give you that (looks like a private fabrication/install); however, that alone does not make it non-MUTCD complaint.  As long as it's octagonal, red w/white lettering and has the word STOP on it; it's MUTCD complaint for a STOP sign.

To be honest, when I first clicked on your link; I was expecting to see either an odd-shaped and/or different colored STOP sign.

Not to be pedantic, but I believe the MUTCD says signs "shall" use the approved fonts, to the same degree of force as it says stop signs "shall" be octagonal and red.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/mutcd2009edition.pdf

Amazingly, doing a word search, "Font" only comes up once in the entire document.  And it's under the 'changeable message sign' section.

As for the section under Stop signs, it only states that the stop sign "shall be an octagon with a white legend and border on a red background".  So as long as that condition is met, which it was, then it's a legal stop sign.

I didn't try searching it because it was taking forever to load to the point where I could do that, but do they perchance use the word "typeface" instead of "font"? Most people would regard the distinction between the two words as pedantic, but there is a difference. The "font" is what you use, the "typeface" is what you see. Times New Roman is a typeface, for example (and Times New Roman Bold is a different typeface). Times New Roman 12-point is a font. A font is a single weight, width, and style of a typeface.

From Section 2A.06 Design of Signs:

Standard:
06 The term legend shall include all word messages and symbol and arrow designs that are intended to
convey specific meanings.
07 Uniformity in design shall include shape, color, dimensions, legends, borders, and illumination or
retroreflectivity.
08 Standardization of these designs does not preclude further improvement by minor changes in the
proportion or orientation of symbols, width of borders, or layout of word messages, but all shapes and
colors shall be as indicated.
09 All symbols shall be unmistakably similar to, or mirror images of, the adopted symbol signs, all of
which are shown in the "Standard Highway Signs and Markings"  book (see Section 1A.11). Symbols
and colors shall not be modified unless otherwise provided in this Manual. All symbols and colors for
signs not shown in the "Standard Highway Signs and Markings"  book shall follow the procedures for
experimentation and change described in Section 1A.10.


This suggests that symbol and color are the only factors that are sacrosanct.

I guess what I was falling back to was simplicity.  Instead of dissecting the verbiage of the MUTCD, I was thinking of driver's education.  One of the first things you learn when you start learning how to drive is that stop signs are the most unique signs in the world for a reason.  There is a reason they are the only octagonal signs and one of just a hand full of signs that are mostly (or all) red.  In the interest of safety for those learning to drive, the MUTCD came up with strict guidelines on how a stop sign should look so it will not look "foreign" when it doesn't comply to the same standards as all the others across the country.  So when I see a stop sign that is not in FHWA Highway Gothic font, I think it is very odd looking, seeing how they are supposed to be the most standardized sign across the board by MUTCH, because it is a STOP SIGN.

spooky

I suspect you are in the minority. You know what most people do when they see a sign that is not in FHWA Highway Gothic font?

They stop.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.