"CHURCH" warning sign

[kphoger]

But those aren't standard signs. Church is/was.

MUTCD W11-11

MUTCD W15-1

[kphoger]

(And I'm an athiest, but this P.C. crap is going bonkers.)

+1.  Thank you.

[Scott5114]

(And I'm an athiest, but this P.C. crap is going bonkers.)

+1.  Thank you.

Totally agreed. Everyone should use Macs.

[J N Winkler]

An observation:  most European countries have standard warning signs for playgrounds, but not for churches (or, for that matter, mosques, synagogues, or other types of religious institution).

I agree that "CHURCH" signs (and, for that matter, "HOSPITAL" warning signs) are largely a holdover from the days of third restrooms, ecclesiastical school districts, and text-message warning signs for everything but curves and intersections.

[NJRoadfan]

Quite a few of these signs appear on the aptly named Church Road in Toms River: http://goo.gl/maps/BFpJf

[M3019C LPS20]

Quite a few of these signs appear on the aptly named Church Road in Toms River: http://goo.gl/maps/BFpJf

Funny you posted that, since that is the exact one that I drive by on almost a daily basis.

[formulanone]

My uncle-in-law worked for AAA some years ago, and at time from time, he'd get questions about why every church wasn't listed on a map. His response was "because then they'd have to include every liquor store as well". (Mind you, he's a devout Catholic, all that, et cetera.)

I've seen a lot of these signs in rural areas, particularly in The South. Can't say I've seen them much in urban areas at all, which stands to have a far greater concentration of non-church houses of worship, no?

[kphoger]

If the concern is a highway dept or DOT establishing religion ...that is a bit too much phobia of Christians. Its not like the sign says "CHURCH AHEAD YOU HAVE TO TURN IN DO AN ALTAR CALL AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR PERSONAL LORD AND SAVIOR AND IF YOU DON'T YOU WILL BE ARRESTED."

I recognize that the intent behind posting these signs is normally not to promote an established religion or even the act of religious worship.  However, it is not self-evident from these signs how the presence (or otherwise) of a church is relevant to traffic using the road.  Also, while the federal MUTCD allows state DOTs and local agencies complete flexibility in devising word-message signs to fit a given situation, many state MUTCDs do not, so in those states "CHURCH" is the only off-the-shelf option for religious institutions which generate significant foot and automobile traffic, such as temples, synagogues, or mosques.  That disparity looks a lot like official endorsement of Christianity.

To me, that seems more like a fault of the state MUTCDs for not allowing flexibility than anything else.  I really don't think a CHURCH warning sign is any less obvious in its intent than a SCHOOL sign; after all, it's not any more self-evident from SCHOOL sigsn how their presence is relevant to traffic using the road, yet any reasonable person makes the connection easily.  Frankly, there should be enough flexibility in the erection of warning signs to allow things like MOSQUE signs.



And, for any who might think that erecting a CHURCH warning sign officially endorses the Christian religion...that's like saying that erecting a SCHOOL warning sign outside a private school is officially endorses the views taught by its teachers.  Nonsense.



I do find that the signs are more useful in rural areas (where, as I've mentioned, places of worship in this country are more likely to be Christian).  Toodling along at 60 mph, coming over a hill, and then finding a bunch of cars pulling out of a funeral service–that can be quite a surprise.

[hbelkins]

There used to be quite a few "THEATER ENTRANCE" signs in Kentucky when drive-ins were more prevalent.

[kphoger]

What states don't allow flexibility in signing?  That just seems so weird.....

[NE2]

In other news, President Oniama announced that the next version of the MUTCD will include an ABORTIONPLEX sign.

[deathtopumpkins]

But those aren't standard signs. Church is/was.

MUTCD W11-11

MUTCD W15-1

Those are signs warning of a specific hazard crossing the road (golf carts, and children playing). The playground one is similar to church, but still refers to a specific hazard (playing children) rather than a generic one (people crossing, and vehicles turning/entering).

Essentially, for a church it would also suffice to post a pedestrians and/or "WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES" sign, or even "CONGESTED AREA AHEAD", while for a golf course this would not suffice, since at a golf course you must also watch for golf carts crossing the road, and at a playground you have to be especially watchful for playing children darting out into the road, rather than just generic pedestrians crossing.

[kphoger]

In other news, President Oniama announced that the next version of the MUTCD will include an ABORTIONPLEX sign.

That's so bad  awesome  insensitive  good  evil  freaking hilarious!*


* or possibly bad

[bugo]

I agree that "CHURCH" signs (and, for that matter, "HOSPITAL" warning signs) are largely a holdover from the days of third restrooms, ecclesiastical school districts, and text-message warning signs for everything but curves and intersections.

When were the hospital diamond warning signs used?  The only one that I know about is hanging on my wall.

[hbelkins]

^^^

I remember those in Kentucky as well.

[J N Winkler]

I recognize that the intent behind posting these signs is normally not to promote an established religion or even the act of religious worship.  However, it is not self-evident from these signs how the presence (or otherwise) of a church is relevant to traffic using the road.  Also, while the federal MUTCD allows state DOTs and local agencies complete flexibility in devising word-message signs to fit a given situation, many state MUTCDs do not, so in those states "CHURCH" is the only off-the-shelf option for religious institutions which generate significant foot and automobile traffic, such as temples, synagogues, or mosques.  That disparity looks a lot like official endorsement of Christianity.

To me, that seems more like a fault of the state MUTCDs for not allowing flexibility than anything else.  I really don't think a CHURCH warning sign is any less obvious in its intent than a SCHOOL sign; after all, it's not any more self-evident from SCHOOL signs how their presence is relevant to traffic using the road, yet any reasonable person makes the connection easily.

The two situations are not strictly comparable--"CHURCH" is a single diamond warning sign which has traditionally been posted without further elaboration, while school signing consists of multiple signs in which the word "SCHOOL" is only one part of the message, is its own chapter in the MUTCD, and receives special emphasis in formal driver instruction.

I haven't checked, but I don't think "CHURCH" has actually appeared in any edition of the national MUTCD, with the possible exception of one or two of the very early editions.  I can remember having seen it only in state MUTCDs and sign drawing books.  For that matter, I think it has to have been at least four decades since a warning sign saying just "SCHOOL" appeared in any edition of the national MUTCD.

Frankly, there should be enough flexibility in the erection of warning signs to allow things like MOSQUE signs.

In the national MUTCD there is.  Whether the erection of such signs is a good idea is a different matter altogether.  I stick with my view that any special warning sign that is placed in the vicinity of a church for traffic reasons should reference those directly, rather than relying on "CHURCH" (or for that matter "MOSQUE" etc.) as a shorthand for the traffic conditions being warned against.

The traffic conditions associated with worship services are a marginal case for warning signing--rather like "BRIDGE ICES BEFORE ROAD" (some states use these signs, while others deliberately choose not to post them on the basis that it should be general knowledge among drivers that bridges ice before roads).  This means that many drivers will wonder why, exactly, a church has to figure on a warning sign, and why churches (or houses of worship in general) merit this treatment, and not other establishments (say, bars, wedding venues, funeral homes, or the previously cited example of drive-in theatres) which similarly generate heavy traffic congestion or disruption in short bursts.

Warning of traffic conditions directly instead of just specifying the type of roadside facility also eliminates the need for drivers to guess exactly what hazard is being warned against--not everyone goes to church (or otherwise engages in organized religious worship), not everyone sees movies in the theatre, not everyone drinks at a roadside bar (I, for one, have never done so), etc.

What states don't allow flexibility in signing?  That just seems so weird.....

It is the kind of thing Pennsylvania has done in the past and may still do.  The rationale is to keep a lid on municipal traffic engineers (who tend to be less qualified and to operate at a lower skill level than traffic engineers working for the state DOT) by telling them, in effect, that they can use only the signs that are actually diagrammed in the state traffic manual.  (The national MUTCD allows creation of ad hoc word messages to meet circumstances not addressed by standard signs, but if a given state has its own MUTCD, then traffic engineers operating in that state have to follow the provisions of the state MUTCD.)

Edit:  I checked the current edition of Publication 236M (PennDOT's sign drawings book).  "CHURCH" is identified as W11-102 and the following language governs its use:  "The Church Sign (W11-102) shall be authorized for use to indicate an access point to a church.  Its use shall be limited to locations where traffic conditions such as approach speeds, visibility, and conflicts are such that special warning is desirable."  "HOSPITAL" still exists as an option in Pennsylvania, BTW (sign code W11-101), as does "HEARING IMPAIRED CHILD" (sign code W11-108:  sign title "Impaired Child Sign"; sign to be used only at the request of parents of an impaired child under age 16; "HEARING" may be varied to "VISION" as applicable, "CHILD" may be varied to "PERSON" "if special circumstances exist").  (Refer to Publication 12 in the same FTP directory to translate publication numbers to titles; unfortunately, the old edition of Publication 212--"Official Traffic-Control Devices," with hundreds of pattern-accurate illustrations of warning signs, including many now considered hilariously non-PC--is long gone.)

I also checked Texas, Nevada, California, Virginia, and Washington state.  The current edition of TxDOT's SHSD identifies "CHURCH" (sign code in Texas:  W8-16) as a sign removed in 2012--"HOSPITAL" is still in SHSD.  Nevada DOT's SHS supplement (2006) doesn't have "CHURCH" or "HOSPITAL," nor do I think either sign was included in the previous print-only edition (1999, I think).  "CHURCH" and "HOSPITAL" are similarly absent from the current Caltrans sign specs distribution and the Virginia DOT SHS supplement.  WSDOT's Sign Fabrication Manual includes "HOSPITAL" but not "CHURCH."  This is a selection of red and blue states in which, ironically enough, it is a blue state that not only is alone in retaining "CHURCH" as a standard sign but also has the richest selection of signs that could be considered culturally insensitive, representative of obsolete traffic engineering practice, or both.

[Big John]

I came across one today in Georgia, but it had a left arrow on a yellow sign under it referring that there was a church on the side road.  Google maps did not provide a clear view of the sign assembly.

[lepidopteran]

How many "Synagoge Street" or "Mosque Street" are there?

There's a Synagogue Rd. in Ellenville, NY.  Doesn't appear to be a house of worship on that road anymore, if there ever was one, or for that matter much of anything.  As nature has reclaimed much of the once-booming Catskill resort region.

Regarding the HOSPITAL signs, I remember reading about (but never actually saw) signs that read "QUIET, Hospital Zone" or something similar.   I suspect these date back before the advent of air conditioning, and patient windows were open on hotter days.  And "hot rod" starts could be not only annoying, but downright lethal for some conditions.

[PHLBOS]

I agree that "CHURCH" signs (and, for that matter, "HOSPITAL" warning signs) are largely a holdover from the days of third restrooms

Actually (and this is another topic for another thread), 3rd restrooms have been making a comeback; but for completely different reasons/demographics (ADA-equipped or Family restrooms).

Back on topic.

Essentially, for a church it would also suffice to post a pedestrians and/or "WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES" sign, or even "CONGESTED AREA AHEAD", while for a golf course this would not suffice, since at a golf course you must also watch for golf carts crossing the road, and at a playground you have to be especially watchful for playing children darting out into the road, rather than just generic pedestrians crossing.

The reasoning for posting a CHURCH sign rather than your suggested WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES and/or CONGESTED AREA AHEAD signs is that those 2 signs falsely gives the motorist the impression that such traffic/pedestrian conditions exist at all times, not just when an event at a church is taking place.  Please note that an event taking place at a church doesn't necessarily have to be for services only or church-related activities.  Some churches allow for their facilities to be rented out for secular functions at times.

While supplemental time interval placards (similar to some selected school zone signage) can help alleviate the at all times issue; churches have been known to modify their event times and service schedules periodically making the messages on those placards obsolete and/or a pain (& cost) to change to keep current.

I say keep the signs as they are.  They still serve a functional purpose.  If a synagogue or mosque want a similar warning sign made/posted for their facilities; they could always request the FHWA/USDOT to add such to the MUTCD standards.

[J N Winkler]

The reasoning for posting a CHURCH sign rather than your suggested WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES and/or CONGESTED AREA AHEAD signs is that those 2 signs falsely gives the motorist the impression that such traffic/pedestrian conditions exist at all times, not just when an event at a church is taking place.  Please note that an event taking place at a church doesn't necessarily have to be for services only or church-related activities.  Some churches allow for their facilities to be rented out for secular functions at times.

This argument actually supports the contrary position.  If churches generate traffic outside the traditional Sunday morning hours, then why use a sign which falsely reassures drivers that they don't have to watch for traffic in or out of the church except on Sunday mornings?

I say keep the signs as they are.  They still serve a functional purpose.  If a synagogue or mosque want a similar warning sign made/posted for their facilities, they could always request the FHWA/USDOT to add such to the MUTCD standards.

It seems TxDOT does not agree with you since they have killed their "CHURCH" sign.

[1995hoo]

The reasoning for posting a CHURCH sign rather than your suggested WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES and/or CONGESTED AREA AHEAD signs is that those 2 signs falsely gives the motorist the impression that such traffic/pedestrian conditions exist at all times, not just when an event at a church is taking place.  Please note that an event taking place at a church doesn't necessarily have to be for services only or church-related activities.  Some churches allow for their facilities to be rented out for secular functions at times.

This argument actually supports the contrary position.  If churches generate traffic outside the traditional Sunday morning hours, then why use a sign which falsely reassures drivers that they don't have to watch for traffic in or out of the church except on Sunday mornings?

....

I'm not sure "except on Sunday mornings" is necessarily a valid assumption, either. Many (probably most) Catholic churches have a Saturday evening Mass, usually around 5:00 or 5:30; many may also have a Sunday afternoon and/or Sunday evening one as well. I know of one in Falls Church, Virginia, that has enough of an Hispanic presence that in order to fulfill the bilingual needs they have seven weekend Masses (Saturday at 5:15 in Spanish and 7:00 in English; Sunday at 8:30, 11:00, and 5:30 in English and at 1:00 and 3:30 in Spanish). I know of one in Fairfax City that has a 10:00 PM Sunday Mass (it serves George Mason University). Just about every Catholic church has one or two Masses every weekday as well, though the attendance is far lower than it is on the weekends.

There's a Mormon church located a bit under a mile from my house whose car park was still quite full around 2:00 yesterday afternoon when we drove past. I have no idea what time they start or how long their worship goes or whether they have multiple worship services, as I don't know much about the Mormon faith.

But we don't have "CHURCH" warning signs in Virginia, so there's no issue of the sign misleading people. I suppose I've only seen "CHURCH" signs on rural highways in the Deep South (I'd count rural parts of northern Florida as the Deep South), and down there I guess the population is overwhelmingly Protestant.

[PHLBOS]

If churches generate traffic outside the traditional Sunday morning hours, then why use a sign which falsely reassures drivers that they don't have to watch for traffic in or out of the church except on Sunday mornings?

Again, and as 1995hoo mentioned, many churches aren't just open for Sunday mornings.  Many do have regularly scheduled services on Saturday (or Sunday) evenings as well as mid-weeknight prayer meetings or Bible Studies.

Simply put, if the adjacent parking lots are occupied and/or there are vehicles parked alongside a road for a function that takes place at a church (for services or otherwise); then the CHURCH sign alerting the motorist of vehicular & pedestrian activity during said-times (note the plural) is valid.  Conversely, when no event is taking place; such additional traffic alerts aren't warranted.  This is especially true if such a church is located along an more open road.

It seems TxDOT does not agree with you since they have killed their "CHURCH" sign.

That's just one agency.  Whether other states have followed (or will follow) suit or not is anybody's guess at this point and time.

Although, I'm a bit surprised that TxDOT would do such... especially since some of the so-called mega-churches (Joel Olstein's Osteen's church & Bishop T.D. Jakes' The Potter's House) are located in the Lone Star State.  That latter's located along TX 303/Kiest Blvd. in Dallas but has a pedestrian overpass across the 6-lane highway.

[deathtopumpkins]

Simply put, if the adjacent parking lots are occupied and/or there are vehicles parked alongside a road for a function that takes place at a church (for services or otherwise); then the CHURCH sign alerting the motorist of vehicular & pedestrian activity during said-times (note the plural) is valid.  Conversely, when no event is taking place; such additional traffic alerts aren't warranted.  This is especially true if such a church is located along an more open road.

Which is why a general "watch for turning vehicles", "pedestrians", or "congested area ahead" sign would be ideal. Most people think of Sunday mornings when they think of church, and posting a sign that just says "CHURCH" implies that the only time any caution need be exercised is on Sunday mornings.

Whereas, since churches often have a variety of services at different times, and often play host to a variety of events (I took all my AP Exams in high school in a church, for example), you never know when they might be occurring, and always need to be cautious just in case, thus the generic signs.

Essentially, the hazard signs I suggested instead more implicitly apply to any time, rather than just times we typically associate with church, and any event, rather than just church services.

[J N Winkler]

It seems TxDOT does not agree with you since they have killed their "CHURCH" sign.

That's just one agency.  Whether other states have followed (or will follow) suit or not is anybody's guess at this point and time.

To be precise, that is one agency I found in a casual search of six for whom I know sign drawing books are readily available online.  There may be (indeed, probably are) others which have abandoned "CHURCH" in the past, but not in a way that would be obvious on a casual Internet search.  Some states (e.g. Missouri, Kansas) do not have their sign drawing books or traffic policy manuals online, others maintain online availability only for the latest editions of their sign drawing book, still others have put out just one online edition with all previous ones being in print, etc.  TxDOT itself is fairly unusual in including change notations in SHSD.

I do think it is telling that Pennsylvania was the only one of the six that still had a "CHURCH" warning sign.

Although, I'm a bit surprised that TxDOT would do such... especially since some of the so-called mega-churches (Joel Olstein's church & Bishop T.D. Jakes' The Potter's House) are located in the Lone Star State.  That latter's located along TX 303/Kiest Blvd. in Dallas but has a pedestrian overpass across the 6-lane highway.

I am not surprised at all, to be frank--for me the real surprise would be the use of "CHURCH" signs at either megachurch.  A quick check of Wikipedia turns up the fact that Lakewood Church, for which Joel Osteen (not Olstein) is the pastor, has been on its current premises since 2003, at which point it had a congregation of about 30,000.  At that scale engineering measures are needed which are much broader than a simple warning sign; the traditional usage scenario of "CHURCH" signs, as noted above, has been rural locations where the presence of a church is not obvious and poor visibility limits the driver's advance notice of church-generated traffic.

I think the removal of "CHURCH" from SHSD reflects a conclusion that it is better engineering practice to focus signing on the actual traffic conditions than to leave drivers to draw possibly incorrect inferences from the single word church or to wonder if the government is giving churches special protection by providing warning signs.  "CHURCH," after all, is not a traffic condition by itself, so the second question is entirely legitimate.

[PHLBOS]

Joel Osteen (not Olstein)

My bad for the typo.