Argument about road-related terminology on news article comments

[A.J. Bertin]

There was a pretty bad-looking car accident this morning on M-6 in the Grand Rapids area (where I live) that I just read about a few minutes ago on local news station WOOD-TV8's website. For those who don't know, M-6 is a state highway (a freeway) that bypasses suburban Grand Rapids on the south side.

There are lots of people who make comments that can be construed as less than sensitive given the serious nature of this particular accident. Here's part of a rather strange (and road-related) comment in which a Facebook user is critiquing the writer of the article on semantics:  "Highway and expressway are not interchangeable words, they are two different things. M6 is an expressway, M37 is a highway."

I have two remarks to make in regard to this:

First, it's inappropriate and shows poor taste for this guy to make such a comment only critiquing the writing of the article and not commenting on how serious the accident was (or giving some kind of hope that the motorist is okay).

Second, he's not even correct in his definitions! The word "highway" is a more general term that can include any kind of road connecting cities of any distance - two-lane roads, expressways, and freeways. Not to mention the fact that he doesn't realize that "expressway" and "freeway" are separate words and with separate meanings. M-6 is a freeway - not an expressway.

I just thought I'd share this interesting observation. If anyone would like to see the article, you can find it here: http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/kent_county/crash-on-m-6-may-16-2012

[Scott5114]

I've found that it's rare that anyone commenting on an article news site has a clue about what they're discussing.

[hbelkins]

Ditto. There was an opinion piece in the Lexington paper the other day about a road funding decision made by the governor, and the comments section was eaten up with The Stupid.

[J N Winkler]

The bar is indeed very low, as Scott says, but in the case of the Wichita Eagle I have noticed that the quality of the comments has improved over time.  This is partly because comments are removed if they are considered sufficiently objectionable (the comment threads are moderated) and partly because the only way to register to leave comments is to use an identity that is portable from site to site and eventually acquires a reputation (I use Disqus, but Facebook is also an option).  I particularly like "Karen in Delano"'s comments.

[kurumi]

I've found that it's rare that anyone commenting on an article news site has a clue about what they're discussing.

Often the article just serves as a springboard for whatever political agenda they're pushing.

I blame Obama for this trend. (just kidding)

[Scott5114]

I've found that it's rare that anyone commenting on an article news site has a clue about what they're discussing.

Often the article just serves as a springboard for whatever political agenda they're pushing.

I blame Obama for this trend. (just kidding)

I've found that as well. Often, an article about any government project will draw the attention of some Tea Party supporter railing shallowly about the government spending any money at all, or an environmentalist offering substance-less complaints that a road is being built, or whatever.

[Kacie Jane]

Second, he's not even correct in his definitions! The word "highway" is a more general term that can include any kind of road connecting cities of any distance - two-lane roads, expressways, and freeways. Not to mention the fact that he doesn't realize that "expressway" and "freeway" are separate words and with separate meanings. M-6 is a freeway - not an expressway.

Concur with all of the above re: people commenting on news articles.  Generally speaking, reading an article's comments is a complete waste of one's time.

Regarding your second point, I will point out that the definitions of "expressway" and "freeway" are extremely muddled.  California has definitions of both (I believe) written into law, but those definitions are not necessarily the same everywhere you go.  I don't know what typical usage is in Michigan, but given that Chicago uses the word "Expressway" for several of its Interstates (i.e. the Dan Ryan Expressway), I don't think he's unreasonable in calling M-6 an expressway.

But regardless of which definitions you use, expressways and freeways are both types of highways.

[Brandon]

I've run into "The Stupid" when commenting on Chicago Tribune articles regarding roads.  On one of them, the article was about ISTHA performing maintenance on the Tri-State.  Several morons whined about how come they were repaving when they just finished the road.  I had to reply that it is the central Tri-State being repaved, a section last touched 20 years ago.

Bunch of idiots.

[Alps]

"Dear User,

M-6 and M-37 both have hyphens. M6 and M37 would be British motorways. Also, M-6 is a freeway, and M-37 is an arterial. Hi-ho."

[realjd]

WOOD-TV. Heh. 

[hbelkins]

WOOD-TV. Heh.  

Wonder if they promote their morning TV show with the ZZ Top classic, "Woke Up With Wood?"  

To get back somewhat on topic...

http://www.wkyt.com/wymt/home/headlines/Campaign_signs_considered__151790765.html

I was interviewed for this story yesterday but the video is not included on this link.

The issue is sight distance, as well as interfering with mowing and other maintenance operations. Most of those signs are mounted on small metal stakes that you stick into the ground. Let a bush hog run over one of those, and the sign can become a projectile that could hit a vehicle or a worker. Larger signs are often erected in such a way that a stiff wind could blow them into a lane of traffic, striking a vehicle or becoming an obstruction.

For a great example of The Stupid, check out the comment.

[Scott5114]

H.B., that's a perfect example of The Stupid–ignore the very good reasons given in the article by a government entity for a public policy and instead tie it into your political worldview. This article isn't about "the queers", dummy!

[NE2]

"Officials say it is against state law for the signs to be placed on right aways."

[cpzilliacus]

[snipped]

The issue is sight distance, as well as interfering with mowing and other maintenance operations. Most of those signs are mounted on small metal stakes that you stick into the ground. Let a bush hog run over one of those, and the sign can become a projectile that could hit a vehicle or a worker. Larger signs are often erected in such a way that a stiff wind could blow them into a lane of traffic, striking a vehicle or becoming an obstruction.

H.B., you are absolutely correct about the above.

However, I also think that such signs (at least those put out as part of election campaigns) are something that have (perhaps unfortunately) become a critical part of campaigning.

In my perfect world, campaign signs would be allowed on most public rights-of-way for a (short) period of time prior to an election (14 days?), with the  understanding that they:

• Cannot be put up on highways with a functional class of freeway;
• Cannot be put up where they block sight distances at and near intersections;
• Cannot be put up on parkland (at least in the D.C. area, the U.S. Park Police will arrest people for putting up signs on lands and parkways belonging to the National Park Service);
• Cannot block sidewalks, public trails and the like;
• Cannot be attached to utility poles, light poles and traffic signal poles;
• Cannot be put up on lands belonging to law enforcement and firefighting/EMS agencies;
• Cannot be put up on lands belonging to public schools; and
• The campaigns are responsible for removing them all (including stakes, mounts and brackets) after Election Day.

The above may be too complex.  What do you think?

[Scott5114]

I don't think the signs are as crucial as campaigns might want you to think. No vote is realistically going to be changed by a piece of corrugated plastic reading "Candidate X!"

On private property they could have some influence. "Oh, Betty supports Quimby for mayor...well, I tend to agree with Betty politically so I guess Quimby must be a decent guy". Or, "Wow, everyone in my neighborhood has these 'Vote Saxon' signs up. I guess the guy might be worth looking into." But on public property? "Hey, this stop sign is voting for Jim Candidson!"

[bulldog1979]

WOOD-TV. Heh. 

Grand Rapids is the "Furniture City", furniture which was made with wood. The city is still home to Steelcase and Herman Miller, leading office furniture manufacturers. The call letters were chosen as an homage to that heritage.

[bulldog1979]

In my perfect world, campaign signs would be allowed on most public rights-of-way for a (short) period of time prior to an election (14 days?), with the  understanding that they:

• Cannot be put up on highways with a functional class of freeway;
• Cannot be put up where they block sight distances at and near intersections;
• Cannot be put up on parkland (at least in the D.C. area, the U.S. Park Police will arrest people for putting up signs on lands and parkways belonging to the National Park Service);
• Cannot block sidewalks, public trails and the like;
• Cannot be attached to utility poles, light poles and traffic signal poles;
• Cannot be put up on lands belonging to law enforcement and firefighting/EMS agencies;
• Cannot be put up on lands belonging to public schools; and
• The campaigns are responsible for removing them all (including stakes, mounts and brackets) after Election Day.

The above may be too complex.  What do you think?

Michigan already has something similar to that, requiring the timely removal of campaign signs after Election Day (I believe it's 14 days) and similar prohibitions on placement in the ROW.

[Brandon]

I don't think the signs are as crucial as campaigns might want you to think. No vote is realistically going to be changed by a piece of corrugated plastic reading "Candidate X!"

On private property they could have some influence. "Oh, Betty supports Quimby for mayor...well, I tend to agree with Betty politically so I guess Quimby must be a decent guy". Or, "Wow, everyone in my neighborhood has these 'Vote Saxon' signs up. I guess the guy might be worth looking into." But on public property? "Hey, this stop sign is voting for Jim Candidson!"

You sure you want Saxon?  He looks like a Master to me. 

[cpzilliacus]

I don't think the signs are as crucial as campaigns might want you to think. No vote is realistically going to be changed by a piece of corrugated plastic reading "Candidate X!"

They don't sway my decisions (and probably not yours), but apparently candidates for office and their campaign managers feel they are important.

On private property they could have some influence. "Oh, Betty supports Quimby for mayor...well, I tend to agree with Betty politically so I guess Quimby must be a decent guy". Or, "Wow, everyone in my neighborhood has these 'Vote Saxon' signs up. I guess the guy might be worth looking into." But on public property? "Hey, this stop sign is voting for Jim Candidson!"

Though thanks to planned unit developments (communities with HOAs or condo associations and the like), it is sometimes forbidden to put up such a sign in a newer (less than 30 years old community, even on private property).

[Scott5114]

I don't think the signs are as crucial as campaigns might want you to think. No vote is realistically going to be changed by a piece of corrugated plastic reading "Candidate X!"

They don't sway my decisions (and probably not yours), but apparently candidates for office and their campaign managers feel they are important.

Yes, but I think that is because if you are in such a position, you want to do anything possible just in case it snags a few extra votes. Like a business owner will use nearly any mode of advertising just in the hopes that it grabs a few extra sales. That doesn't mean signs are so important to the campaign that those of us that aren't campaign managers should have to put up with it.

Then again I think the real reason for the signs not so much to persuade the passersby, but to get people to feel involved in the campaign, like they're making a difference, and thus make them less likely to defect and support the other guy. Which would seem to underscore the fact that they make no sense on public property.

[bsmart]

Ah - Temporary signs - I'm on our local Planning and Zoning board and we recently reworked out sign ordinances.  We do not allow temporary commercial signs.  However we were told by the town lawyer that we cannot regulate political signs. Period.  Someone took it to at least the state Supreme Court and political signs cannot be regulated.  In fact a couple months ago during the primary campaign (Which overlapped our town election) A State Highway crew removed all signs in a couple mile stretch along US 40A.  The local district office had to call and apologize to every candidate whose signs they had removed and return the signs to the candidate

[hbelkins]

Ah - Temporary signs - I'm on our local Planning and Zoning board and we recently reworked out sign ordinances.  We do not allow temporary commercial signs.  However we were told by the town lawyer that we cannot regulate political signs. Period.  Someone took it to at least the state Supreme Court and political signs cannot be regulated.  In fact a couple months ago during the primary campaign (Which overlapped our town election) A State Highway crew removed all signs in a couple mile stretch along US 40A.  The local district office had to call and apologize to every candidate whose signs they had removed and return the signs to the candidate

Did the state crew restrict its removal to the state right of way, or did they go onto private property?

Kentucky's crews routinely remove political signs from state ROW, as posting them there is illegal, but we don't touch signs on private property.

[bsmart]

Mostly state right of way but in some sections of 40A that is rather vague (40A is the original 'National Road' and as I understand it the right of way is rather vague with current deeds showing ownership of the land right up to the center of the road by the property owners).

But even in the section near I-70 where the ROW is pretty clear they were apologizing to the candidates for removing the signs