Very Short Signal Ahead Sign/Flasher Assembly in Chattanooga TN

[Brian556]

SR 319 (FMR SR 58) Amnicola Hwy EB Approaching SR 153. This is rediculous. Chattanooga is the capital of improper traffic control, but, still, where do they come up with this s***?

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0890997,-85.2232699,3a,19.7y,135.58h,87.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soJGo7dHzCcDn5FQazFhIRQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[mrcmc888]

Guess the TDOT employee who was in charge was too busy calling into Sports Talk demanding Butch Jones be fired to get the signals right 

[txstateends]

That looks about like the height that the NTTA is trying on the Dallas N. Tollway for Do Not Enter/Wrong Way signs -- they think that drunks will look down toward the pavement for any lights/signs/markings.  It also reminds me of the early signage assemblies where some shields were down about that low for some reason.

[jakeroot]

This is [ridiculous]. Chattanooga is the capital of improper traffic control, but, still, where do they come up with this s***?

Massive over-reaction. Signs aren't always mounted up high. The "pass either side" sign is one that is often mounted lower than usual.

While it might be lower than usual, I don't see why it's an actual issue.

[Brian556]

This is [ridiculous]. Chattanooga is the capital of improper traffic control, but, still, where do they come up with this s***?

Massive over-reaction. Signs aren't always mounted up high. The "pass either side" sign is one that is often mounted lower than usual.

While it might be lower than usual, I don't see why it's an actual issue.

Its very non-standard and incorrect.

[NE2]

Its very non-standard and incorrect.

I know you are but what am I?

[jakeroot]

This is [ridiculous]. Chattanooga is the capital of improper traffic control, but, still, where do they come up with this s***?

Massive over-reaction. Signs aren't always mounted up high. The "pass either side" sign is one that is often mounted lower than usual.

While it might be lower than usual, I don't see why it's an actual issue.

Its very non-standard and incorrect.

"Very" would be a different color or something. We're talking about vertical placement here. It's not a big deal. Belongs in the "unique" thread, methinks.

[adventurernumber1]

This is [ridiculous]. Chattanooga is the capital of improper traffic control, but, still, where do they come up with this s***?

Massive over-reaction. Signs aren't always mounted up high. The "pass either side" sign is one that is often mounted lower than usual.

While it might be lower than usual, I don't see why it's an actual issue.

Its very non-standard and incorrect.

"Very" would be a different color or something. We're talking about vertical placement here. It's not a big deal. Belongs in the "unique" thread, methinks.

I agree with Jake. I know it's not completely normal, but it's not too horrific. I am a Dalton, GA native, so I am in Chattanooga all the time, and I've been on this very stretch of road countless times, but I've never had too much of a problem with this sign.

[roadfro]

It's just so odd to see it posted so egregiously below standard mounting height. Assuming this is an urban area and given its in a median, I believe it should be 7 feet minimum from bottom of sign to top of curb/pavement.

[jakeroot]

It's just so odd to see it posted so egregiously below standard mounting height. Assuming this is an urban area and given its in a median, I believe it should be 7 feet minimum from bottom of sign to top of curb/pavement.

I wouldn't consider it any more egregious than mounting a signal lower than usual. I don't know why it's mounted as low as it is, but it's not really posing an issue. Would I question it? Sure, as virtually all warning signs are posted higher than what's seen here. But I wouldn't start questioning the morals of TDOT.

[freebrickproductions]

TBH, TDOT as a whole seems to have an issue with post height sometimes. I can think of several examples of signage, especially route shields, that are lower than they should be off the top of my head.

[Mapmikey]

It appears to me the height of the overall structure (new since Nov 2016) is the same as the sign that it replaced, which was just the sign with no flashing light or solar panel.  Could be a misreading of contract spec or poor wording of it.  The pavement markings right in front of it do not offer any clues.

[roadman]

That looks about like the height that the NTTA is trying on the Dallas N. Tollway for Do Not Enter/Wrong Way signs -- they think that drunks will look down toward the pavement for any lights/signs/markings.  It also reminds me of the early signage assemblies where some shields were down about that low for some reason.

Has nothing to do with drunks looking down at the pavement.  The concept behind low mounting of Wrong Way signs is that a passenger car's headlights will catch the sign more readily than at the standard 7 foot mounting.  Keep Right signs in medians, and warning clusters at gores, are often mounted at a 4 foot height for the same reason.

[UCFKnights]

That looks about like the height that the NTTA is trying on the Dallas N. Tollway for Do Not Enter/Wrong Way signs -- they think that drunks will look down toward the pavement for any lights/signs/markings.  It also reminds me of the early signage assemblies where some shields were down about that low for some reason.

Has nothing to do with drunks looking down at the pavement.  The concept behind low mounting of Wrong Way signs is that a passenger car's headlights will catch the sign more readily than at the standard 7 foot mounting.  Keep Right signs in medians, and warning clusters at gores, are often mounted at a 4 foot height for the same reason.

So why not put all side mounted signs at that lower height? Only real reason I can think of is to reduce tagging.