Signs With Design Errors

[TEG24601]

Not really an error, but not as straightforward and clear as it could be.  This is on northbound I-75 approaching Flint, MI.  The right lane becomes exit-only to I-475.  The I-75 sign should be a pull-through (with or without down arrows) without the yellow banner, while the I-475 sign should have a yellow Exit Only banner.

They've even touched up/replaced the yellow section in the last 10 years.  Prior to the Clearview Installation, I recall the right-hand saying "Exit Only 1 Mile", and the left one being two down arrows.  Apparently, that was too confusing.

[PHLBOS]

When there's a shortage of Ns

Link replaced

[jakeroot]

Not a good link. It's not even pointing at the error.

Here's a better one: https://goo.gl/maps/yB3EbDVLDH9AcR959

[PHLBOS]

Not a good link. It's not even pointing at the error.

Here's a better one: https://goo.gl/maps/yB3EbDVLDH9AcR959

Thanks for the link & I've since edited my earlier post to include such.

However & in my defense; the old link did show one of the signs with the error & for some reason, I wasn't able to get a better GSV close-up of that sign yesterday.

It's worth noting that these particular street-blade signs have been there at least since 2012.

[jakeroot]

However & in my defense; the old link did show one of the signs with the error & for some reason, I wasn't able to get a better GSV close-up of that sign yesterday.

Yes...yes it did. I stand corrected, as I did not notice it before.

[US 89]

From SR 55 in Price, Utah:

[JoePCool14]

The speed discrepancy might be a bit much here...

[CardInLex]

From SR 55 in Price, Utah:

I actually think this is MUTCD compliant. Section 2C.60.

[roadfro]

From SR 55 in Price, Utah:

I actually think this is MUTCD compliant. Section 2C.60.

Compliant use of "Share the Road" plaque, per 2C.60. The wheelchair warning sign is standard sign (W11-9). So no design errors in this assembly.

What's more interesting is that the sign assembly is posted at the point at which a seemingly ADA-compliant sidewalk begins, so theoretically there would not be a reason to share the road with wheelchair-bound persons past this point. So the unnecessary sign package may be the real error here.

[US 89]

From SR 55 in Price, Utah:

I actually think this is MUTCD compliant. Section 2C.60.

Compliant use of "Share the Road" plaque, per 2C.60. The wheelchair warning sign is standard sign (W11-9). So no design errors in this assembly.

What's more interesting is that the sign assembly is posted at the point at which a seemingly ADA-compliant sidewalk begins, so theoretically there would not be a reason to share the road with wheelchair-bound persons past this point. So the unnecessary sign package may be the real error here.

Hm. I posted this because I'd never seen a wheelchair symbol oriented that way - every time I've ever seen a wheelchair symbol, it's been the mirror image. Wonder why the MUTCD chose to diverge from the international wheelchair sign.

[roadfro]

Hm. I posted this because I'd never seen a wheelchair symbol oriented that way - every time I've ever seen a wheelchair symbol, it's been the mirror image. Wonder why the MUTCD chose to diverge from the international wheelchair sign.

It is a good question, as the MUTCD is the only place I've ever seen the symbol oriented this way as a standard as well.

Nothing preventing an agency from installing the reverse orientation though. There's a statement in chapter 2A of the MUTCD that allows agencies to use the mirror image of a standard symbol (and also allows rotating the orientation of a standard symbol if it fits the direction of travel).

[Scott5114]

My guess is because signs are always on the right side of the road, so mirroring the wheelchair sign makes it face toward the road. (If the wheelchair sign were facing right, it would look like the wheelchair user is going away from the road, and thus not posing a threat to a driver.)

[roadfro]

^ That would make sense. Which also explains why some places (such as this RRFB crosswalk in Reno) mirror the pedestrian symbol when the warning sign is placed on the left side of the road.

[US71]

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20200513/collage-or-college-venice-sign-misspells-scfs-name

State Collage of Florida

[thenetwork]

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20200513/collage-or-college-venice-sign-misspells-scfs-name

State Collage of Florida

For all the retirees down there with leather as skin, it could also be where they stockpile all of Florida's Collagen supplies...

[formulanone]

Minor design error in De Pere, Wisconsin. Highway 32 usually has the red arrow insignia on it, but it's missing...



...but where did it go? Well, a few blocks before that...

[mrsman]

Why are there red arrows?  Does it designate something to do with Native Americans?

[formulanone]

Why are there red arrows?  Does it designate something to do with Native Americans?

It's a semi-obscure feature...From wiki:

It is named the 32nd Division Memorial Highway after the U.S. 32nd Infantry Division, and the highway shields have red arrows–the division's logo–on either side of the number 32. The route of WIS 32 and the Red Arrow marking is set in state statute by the Wisconsin Legislature.

[Takumi]

Saw this 006 shield on US 29 southbound a couple weeks ago when I was clinching VA 6.
https://goo.gl/maps/W6X9NYfFBcj5a4qV6

[Scott5114]

Does that mean VA-6 got its license to kill?

[Takumi]

And then faked its death for some reason.

[JoePCool14]

A set of BGS on I-565 West in Huntsville, AL that I happened to find while going on GMSV adventures. The classic mistake of uppercase versus lowercase letter sizing.

https://goo.gl/maps/VMdZArSTro6dhqtU7

[roadfro]

A set of BGS on I-565 West in Huntsville, AL that I happened to find while going on GMSV adventures. The classic mistake of uppercase versus lowercase letter sizing.

https://goo.gl/maps/VMdZArSTro6dhqtU7

Weird to say this, but it doesn't look all that bad. Likely because it's Clearview, and the lower-case letter x height in Clearview is greater than in FHWA. The design error in interpreting x height and capitalization provisions looks a lot worse with regular FHWA legends. (But the legends still look a bit compressed though.)

[Ned Weasel]

I hope this thread isn't too old to bump.  I noticed these the other day:

https://goo.gl/maps/GsmfTc4JpHV1eX27A
https://goo.gl/maps/AGox25GVbjKG6oZz7

Slide the time travel device back and see what got changed.  Instead of bringing these up to 2009 MUTCD compliance, KDOT made them less compliant.  Not a bad-looking set of signs to the untrained eye, but a roadgeek would notice the error right away.

[plain]

I hope this thread isn't too old to bump.  I noticed these the other day:

https://goo.gl/maps/GsmfTc4JpHV1eX27A
https://goo.gl/maps/AGox25GVbjKG6oZz7

Slide the time travel device back and see what got changed.  Instead of bringing these up to 2009 MUTCD compliance, KDOT made them less compliant.  Not a bad-looking set of signs to the untrained eye, but a roadgeek would notice the error right away.

An APL would definitely be better here