Instances Where Backplates Don't Apply

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

So, I was looking through ArDOT's Standard Drawings, specifically SD-11, and found that the standards call for backplates on certain signals. But, I have come across many that don't meet this requirement.

Do you know which signals in your area are not to requirement?

[jakeroot]

British Columbia does not require backplates when signals are mounted on the mast, though when mounted alone on a pole, they often have backplates. Otherwise, overhead signals always have backplates (minus a few in Victoria).

Spokane, WA does not backplates for the mid-level (pole/mast) signals, only overhead.

[traffic light guy]

Where I live, signals don't have backplates if they're side-mounted, or if they're extremely old

[US 89]

While Utah now generally requires backplates with a reflective yellow outer border, the standards explicitly call for backplates to not be installed on doghouses. To my knowledge, this has always been the case. A few doghouse backplates have slipped through over the years, but they are few and far between.

[steviep24]

NYSDOT started using backplates for all new signals maybe about 5 years ago so most signals in NY are without backplates. In Rochester, Monroe county started using them at around the same time. As far as New York City goes due to outdated signal designs which they continue to use even for new signals I don't think they ever will use backplates.

[Big John]

IDOT District 1 does not use them fot side- or pole-mounted signals but uses them for overhead signals.

[roadfro]

Nevada uses backplates on all installations That's been the standard for a long time.

You may find some older signals mounted on a mast without backplates. Not sure that that was ever a standard; more likely broken backplates never replaced.