There are several signs that are missing on certain roads, and the municipality/county/state won't install. What would be the penalty for doing such a thing? Have you ever thought about doing it? Why do private drives get special treatment?
Laws vary a lot. More important may be whether the jurisdiction would (a) appreciate your help (in which case legal doubts might be resolved in your favor), or instead (b) resent your showing up their incompetence (in which case your sign might quickly disappear, or worse). Also, how much your sign would look like an official sign, including meeting technical standards (in some cases, doing too good a job at copying an official sign could be held against you, especially in situation (b) above).
Do a search in this forum for "ninjasigning", which thread includes one famous and well-received example of an unofficial improvement to an official sign.
I think the more likely scenario is that you're in the midst of posting your own I-86 trailblazer and a state trooper pulls over and arrests you for attempting theft of state property. "Honest, officer–I was putting the sign up." "Sure, you were."
But anyway, it would depend on the laws of the state or municipality in question, but for the most part, I would think that do-it-yourself signage on public roadways is technically illegal.
Many municipalities have signposting laws that forbid posting signs on public property–which rights of way are. Assumably these laws are intended to prevent Joe's Pizza from posting illegal billboards underneath stop signs, but law enforcement could use those laws against do-gooder roadgeeks at their discretion.
If your guerrilla public service is done well, perhaps no one would notice, and even if they did, it's probably unlikely they'd prosecute. The most famous such case is probably Richard Ankrom who installed an I-5 shield to an overhead guide sign on the Harbor Freeway in Los Angeles. The work was basically indistinguishable from something CalTrans would have done, and they didn't even notice it at first. Their spokespeople were careful to point out, though, that what he did was technically illegal.
Quote from: J Route Z on August 23, 2014, 05:49:46 PM
There are several signs that are missing on certain roads, and the municipality/county/state won't install. What would be the penalty for doing such a thing? Have you ever thought about doing it? Why do private drives get special treatment?
Have you pointed out these missing signs to the appropriate agency, or explained the need for the sign to be installed? Were your requests ignored or responded to in a negative manner? If so, did you go over someone's head -- for instance, to the mayor if the city street supervisor said no?
If a sign really needs to be reinstalled, I don't think a governmental agency would ignore a report of a missing sign or refuse to install a replacement.
I had a friend contact me privately about a missing advance curve sign with an advisory speed plaque. I looked the location up on both Street View and KYTC's photo log and verified that it had been there a couple of years ago. I told our sign crew supervisor and he said he would have it taken care of the next day. If you can show proof of the sign having been there previously, that should help your cause.
Even though signs appear to be randomly placed sometimes, there should be documentation and drawings the transportation office used detailing the location of each sign. Signs also must meet various criteria, mostly explained in the MUTCD.
So, factoring all of that on, not only is what you're doing
illegal, but if an accident occurs and it's somehow traced back to the road signage, and they ultimately determine you installed it, now you start becoming liable.
We weren't fined or ticketed, but we were yelled at for filling in a mud hole on a very poorly maintained county dirt road.
Also heard I was in trouble for plowing snow on a county gravel, but nobody ratted me out (they wanted the road CLEAR !!) so no problem.
I'm careful, but darn it, if the county isn't going to do anything, why piss and moan if the locals handle it ??
There used to be a homemade "No Outlet" sign on the road leading into my neighborhood (I don't know who posted it). Someone at VDOT didn't like it and it was replaced with a standard sign.....in the process removing the more important (for a residential area) speed limit sign. At least the latter was replaced promptly when some of us complained. (Speed limit is 25, but it's not unusual to see people going 45.)
I do not see how this could be considering that people install crosses at sites of fatal accidents that occur. Nothing is ever done and those makeshift memorials stay for months and maybe even years. I would think that the road agencies in this case would be glad that someone is saving them money The other one is like pollution as someone dying in a car crash is very common and can be more distracting if someone takes time away to think about the departed while driving in that case. Plus the "r" word is considered politically incorrect these days and you would figure that they would want that out ASAP and punish those who install them for mixing church and state on public property.
I've had CHP stop while I was posting some signs for a photo at Tunnel Station Junction (old US 6 / US 99 junction in Los Angeles). He asked, I told him, only thing he had to say was to make sure I took them down before I left. It wasn't a big deal in my case.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2014, 12:18:15 PM
I do not see how this could be considering that people install crosses at sites of fatal accidents that occur. Nothing is ever done and those makeshift memorials stay for months and maybe even years.
Not quite. These roadside memorials are, in many states, technically illegal and have been removed in cases. Just do a Google News search for "roadside memorial removed (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=roadside+memorial+removed&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=roadside+memorial+removed&rls=en&tbm=nws)" , and you'll find several news stories in the past few months alone. Some states are adopting a common, non-religious memorial marker that is less distinctive and therefore less of a distraction to motorists but still offers some consolation to the grieving family.
If a memorial is allowed to stand, I would suspect it has much to do with individual employees' discretion or a desire to avoid bad PR than anything else. Just imagine: you're with District 4 of AnystateDOT and you remove a distracting roadside memorial–that is a collision hazard itself. Then the family of the deceased calls Channel 27, and Aimee McWhiteteeth is out on the scene immediately reporting about how AnystateDOT, that can't seem to fix a pothole, has plenty of time to harass the hapless families victims killed on AnystateDOT's poorly maintained roads.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2014, 12:18:15 PM
Plus the "r" word is considered politically incorrect these days and you would figure that they would want that out ASAP and punish those who install them for mixing church and state on public property.
Maybe on a national level, but not locally. You have state, county, and local DOT employees who are religious, creationist, gun-owning–even government-loathing, despite the fact they draw their paycheck from the government. They're not toeing any "official theological line" , except perhaps unless there's fear of reprisal from above.
Recently in Long Island a woman put up signs on her property telling people to not speed and not drink and drive with the names of people she knew that were killed in accidents. NYSDOT Region 10 was very quick to show up with a survey team to determine where the ROW boundary was. They weren't very quick to tell her that the signs were legally placed on her own property and that they wouldn't be removing them. The story generated a few complaints about how NYSDOT had time for this but not to remove potholes leftover from last winter (never mind that these are different departments!). Unfortunately I can't find a link to the news story right now. I don't know the exact headline or what news site covered the story and Google is being very unhelpful right now.
In Pine Castle, Florida along Orange Avenue at Oakridge Road someone made a sign out of wood with white spray painted lettering on it and nailed it to a utility pole at the intersection. The said intersection does have adequate street signs including the Orange County, CA back lit overheads, yet someone for fun of it (maybe NE 2 had nothing better to do and decided to make and place his own there) made this sign and over 20 years later it still stands. Not only is it on a state route, but also on the power company property and neither FDOT or Duke Energy seem to feel that it is has been necessary to remove it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.473113,-81.369313,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s3D1uvjZcEvl7RV3SUYfMrA!2e0
I was on the cape recently and there were speed limit warning signs in people's yards shortly before a speed drop on Route 6. I found them helpful. Any government attempt to remove them would be silly.
At mile 126.5 northbound on Alaska's Dalton Highway, when I traveled it in 2012, someone had put up this apparently unofficial but professionally-crafted and erected sign, at a tricky corner where speeding truckers often both literally and figuratively lose their loads:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2Foh-shit-corner_DSC4144.jpg&hash=ac9f785ed0fa10843fdf5af7cb386f1da588238e)
I'm assuming it's unofficial, based on its unofficial fonts and language, though I didn't think to check the back of the sign for a decal indicating Alaska DOT&PF installed the sign. But other landmarks on the highway, like the Beaver Slide and Ice Cut, have more official-looking signs. There are enough state maintenance yards along the highway (one less than a dozen miles to the north), that the sign would have been quickly spotted and removed if the state objected.
A censored version of the sign made it onto "Ice Road Truckers".
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2014, 12:18:15 PM
I do not see how this could be considering that people install crosses at sites of fatal accidents that occur. Nothing is ever done and those makeshift memorials stay for months and maybe even years.
Trust me, state DOTs agonize over these. They certainly don't want to appear disrespectful to the families of those killed, but at the same time they cannot allow an encroachment if it interferes with maintenance activities or with sight distance for drivers, or if it is an obstruction in the clear zone.
As for them being a distraction for drivers, no more so than a billboard or brightly-painted building or a nice-looking car parked in someone's driveway.
QuotePlus the "r" word is considered politically incorrect these days and you would figure that they would want that out ASAP and punish those who install them for mixing church and state on public property.
These aren't considered mixing church and state. Not all of them are crosses. I know of one that is heart-shaped.
Quote from: oscar on August 24, 2014, 07:38:19 PM
At mile 126.5 northbound on Alaska's Dalton Highway, when I traveled it in 2012, someone had put up this apparently unofficial but professionally-crafted and erected sign, at a tricky corner where speeding truckers often both literally and figuratively lose their loads:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2Foh-shit-corner_DSC4144.jpg&hash=ac9f785ed0fa10843fdf5af7cb386f1da588238e)
I'm assuming it's unofficial, based on its unofficial fonts and language, though I didn't think to check the back of the sign for a decal indicating Alaska DOT&PF installed the sign. But other landmarks on the highway, like the Beaver Slide and Ice Cut, have more official-looking signs. There are enough state maintenance yards along the highway (one less than a dozen miles to the north), that the sign would have been quickly spotted and removed if the state objected.
A censored version of the sign made it onto "Ice Road Truckers".
I always loved seeing that on IRT. I wish the show would go back to that road rather than Manitoba (nothing against central Canada).
Officially, at least in Arkansas, the rule is nothing on existing sign posts, utility poles, or within right of way.
However, I have seen a few rare instances where the rules have been "bent", usually on obscure city streets.
Regarding the OP's original question, it is illegal in Vermont (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=23&Chapter=013&Section=01027). Same statute also prohibits roadside commercial advertising except for certain specific (and controlled) cases which are allowed under Title 10, Chapter 21 (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/sections.cfm?Title=10&Chapter=021) of the state statutes.
But, as a general rule, highway billboards like what you see in other states are prohibited in Vermont (thankfully). And, again, private persons cannot put up signs that are MUTCD-compliant or look similar to such.
Quote from: froggie on August 25, 2014, 09:00:29 AM
But, as a general rule, highway billboards like what you see in other states are prohibited in Vermont (thankfully). And, again, private persons cannot put up signs that are MUTCD-compliant or look similar to such.
Just on or near public roads (which is what I'd assume), or also on private property? In Honolulu, there's an urban myth that a county ordinance says you can't erect signs on private property that match public road signs, which is why you see some blue stop signs out there. County officials say that private signs conflicting with public ones are prohibited (such as a private Yield sign close to a public Stop sign), but it's OK for a non-conflicting private sign to be MUTCD-compliant.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 23, 2014, 11:22:11 PMEven though signs appear to be randomly placed sometimes, there should be documentation and drawings the transportation office used detailing the location of each sign. Signs also must meet various criteria, mostly explained in the MUTCD.
State DOTs actually vary considerably in how well they have their signage inventoried. This is why "replace all signs on a given road" is quoted as an alternate to "replace all signs shown in the inventory as being more than X years old" for meeting the federal minimum retroreflectivity requirement. Some state DOTs attempt to maintain sign logs (for example, Caltrans Districts 2 and 6 have sign logs), but they are often considerably out of date because allocation of resources to log updating tends to be hit and miss. There are ongoing attempts in some state DOTs to inventory signs through an automated sign recognition process that relies on computer vision (the computer goes through photolog images, highlights what appear to be signs, assigns a
MUTCD code that appears to be the closest fit for a particular sign, and then a human does quality control), but that is still pretty rudimentary.
The bottom line is that if you choose to ninjasign, and you do so in entire compliance with the standards laid down in the
MUTCD or the agency traffic manual and also in accordance with good traffic engineering practice, and there are no witnesses or physical evidence, the state DOT probably won't even notice, let alone search for someone to prosecute.
Quote from: oscarQuote from: froggieBut, as a general rule, highway billboards like what you see in other states are prohibited in Vermont (thankfully). And, again, private persons cannot put up signs that are MUTCD-compliant or look similar to such.
Just on or near public roads (which is what I'd assume), or also on private property?
"visible to the travelling public"Which presumably would include private property if it were within view of travelers on the road.
Quote from: Cjzani on August 24, 2014, 10:27:36 PM
Quote from: oscar on August 24, 2014, 07:38:19 PM
At mile 126.5 northbound on Alaska's Dalton Highway, when I traveled it in 2012, someone had put up this apparently unofficial but professionally-crafted and erected sign, at a tricky corner where speeding truckers often both literally and figuratively lose their loads:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2Foh-shit-corner_DSC4144.jpg&hash=ac9f785ed0fa10843fdf5af7cb386f1da588238e)
I'm assuming it's unofficial, based on its unofficial fonts and language, though I didn't think to check the back of the sign for a decal indicating Alaska DOT&PF installed the sign. But other landmarks on the highway, like the Beaver Slide and Ice Cut, have more official-looking signs. There are enough state maintenance yards along the highway (one less than a dozen miles to the north), that the sign would have been quickly spotted and removed if the state objected.
A censored version of the sign made it onto "Ice Road Truckers".
I always loved seeing that on IRT. I wish the show would go back to that road rather than Manitoba (nothing against central Canada).
I assume the censored version says "Crap" instead? Either way, it's very funny :rofl:
Quote from: Henry on August 25, 2014, 10:36:29 AM
I assume the censored version says "Crap" instead? Either way, it's very funny :rofl:
It said "Sh*t". Less Photoshopping needed for that.
I'm in Indiana, where we have a growing number of state byways. On one such byway, which will remain nameless, it appears that signs were erected without working at all with state and local agencies. They mostly strapped signs to telephone poles and other existing objects. I haven't driven it in a couple years but there appeared to be little interest in having them removed.
On the other hand, I'm VP of the nonprofit org behind a different byway, and we are working with INDOT and various city and county street departments, departments of public works, etc., to have our signs placed "officially." It's been an interesting but challenging project, to be sure. The hardest part of it was getting INDOT to approve the sign design. Our original design didn't pass muster for readability, and it took us several go-rounds before we cleared that hurdle.
One of the INDOT districts wasn't been terribly friendly to us and ended up placing several signs in totally incorrect places, and another city's street department won't return our calls. But everywhere else, I've been amazed by the excellent cooperation we've received to get these signs placed. We provided the signs, but we asked all these agencies to provide poles and mounting hardware, and except for that one city we can't reach, they all said, "Sure."
A graphic of our sign is attached.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjimgrey.net%2Ffileserver%2Fmrsign.jpg&hash=3d7690f3140a3ea8a99b6157bf7b427082c5aa9a)
Instead of spending the money out-of-pocket to reinstall a missing sign, it would be easier and cheaper to call attention to it publicly, such as through writing a letter to the editor of the local newspaper about the situation. State DOTs usually notice such things and will act upon them.
This is somewhat related. It involves moving signs that were already in place. I can talk about it now since I'm sure that the statute of limitations has long run out. :)
My best friend's parents retired to the outskirts of a small town in northern Michigan. Their side road ended at a T intersection with a state highway and had a stop sign, even though you could see traffic on the highway for 1/2 mile in both directions as you approached the intersection. In town was a street dumping onto the same highway on a blind corner, and it was protected with only a yield sign even though you had to stop and peek around the corner to be safe. One night, after a few courage-building refreshing beverages, my friend and I went out and swapped them in the dark of night. They stayed that way for over 6 months before TPTB figured it out and swapped them back.
I've installed the occasional KANSAS US 66 cutout on the Rainbow Bridge.
I am quite sure someone will inevitably take them down. I hope someone takes it down and puts it up in their garage, as opposed to discarding it outright.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 23, 2014, 07:28:28 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on August 23, 2014, 05:49:46 PM
There are several signs that are missing on certain roads, and the municipality/county/state won't install. What would be the penalty for doing such a thing? Have you ever thought about doing it? Why do private drives get special treatment?
Have you pointed out these missing signs to the appropriate agency, or explained the need for the sign to be installed? Were your requests ignored or responded to in a negative manner? If so, did you go over someone's head -- for instance, to the mayor if the city street supervisor said no?
If a sign really needs to be reinstalled, I don't think a governmental agency would ignore a report of a missing sign or refuse to install a replacement.
I had a friend contact me privately about a missing advance curve sign with an advisory speed plaque. I looked the location up on both Street View and KYTC's photo log and verified that it had been there a couple of years ago. I told our sign crew supervisor and he said he would have it taken care of the next day. If you can show proof of the sign having been there previously, that should help your cause.
Well here in NJ there are several signs that are in need of repair (as with pretty much all states), and they are either missing, faded, leaning, vandalized, or all of the above. And the ones on state highways that I notice are missing, such as reassurance route markers. At a four corner intersection, you have 3 posted, but one missing and you report it online to the maintenance form, and they don't do anything. I have reported things on there many times, and they have installed a few signs, but there are still ones that are missing. I could give you at least a dozen examples. One is located on this road: U.S. 206. Where at many signalized intersections, there is a reassurance route marker southbound, but not northbound, or vice versa. These signs were present at one time, too.
Quote from: vdeane on August 24, 2014, 01:26:13 PM
Recently in Long Island a woman put up signs on her property telling people to not speed and not drink and drive with the names of people she knew that were killed in accidents. NYSDOT Region 10 was very quick to show up with a survey team to determine where the ROW boundary was. They weren't very quick to tell her that the signs were legally placed on her own property and that they wouldn't be removing them. The story generated a few complaints about how NYSDOT had time for this but not to remove potholes leftover from last winter (never mind that these are different departments!). Unfortunately I can't find a link to the news story right now. I don't know the exact headline or what news site covered the story and Google is being very unhelpful right now.
Found it!
http://riverheadlocal.com/local-news/flanders-family-to-state-dot-forget-the-signs-fix-the-road
Quote from: oscar on August 24, 2014, 07:38:19 PM
At mile 126.5 northbound on Alaska's Dalton Highway, when I traveled it in 2012, someone had put up this apparently unofficial but professionally-crafted and erected sign, at a tricky corner where speeding truckers often both literally and figuratively lose their loads:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2Foh-shit-corner_DSC4144.jpg&hash=ac9f785ed0fa10843fdf5af7cb386f1da588238e)
I'm assuming it's unofficial, based on its unofficial fonts and language, though I didn't think to check the back of the sign for a decal indicating Alaska DOT&PF installed the sign. But other landmarks on the highway, like the Beaver Slide and Ice Cut, have more official-looking signs. There are enough state maintenance yards along the highway (one less than a dozen miles to the north), that the sign would have been quickly spotted and removed if the state objected.
A censored version of the sign made it onto "Ice Road Truckers".
:-D :clap:
Quote from: vdeane on August 25, 2014, 09:18:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 24, 2014, 01:26:13 PM
Recently in Long Island a woman put up signs on her property telling people to not speed and not drink and drive with the names of people she knew that were killed in accidents. NYSDOT Region 10 was very quick to show up with a survey team to determine where the ROW boundary was. They weren't very quick to tell her that the signs were legally placed on her own property and that they wouldn't be removing them. The story generated a few complaints about how NYSDOT had time for this but not to remove potholes leftover from last winter (never mind that these are different departments!). Unfortunately I can't find a link to the news story right now. I don't know the exact headline or what news site covered the story and Google is being very unhelpful right now.
Found it!
http://riverheadlocal.com/local-news/flanders-family-to-state-dot-forget-the-signs-fix-the-road
Another Suffolk County sign poster - except this one's more professional and snarky:
http://patch.com/new-york/threevillage/mystery-christian-avenue-sign-poster-at-it-again#.U_0kZfmwLqQ
http://patch.com/new-york/threevillage/photo-rogue-christian-avenue-sign-poster-strikes-again#.U_0lRfmwLqQ
http://patch.com/new-york/threevillage/photo-where-did-this-sign-come-from#.U_0ljfmwLqQ
Quote from: oscar on August 24, 2014, 07:38:19 PM
At mile 126.5 northbound on Alaska's Dalton Highway, when I traveled it in 2012, someone had put up this apparently unofficial but professionally-crafted and erected sign, at a tricky corner where speeding truckers often both literally and figuratively lose their loads:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2Foh-shit-corner_DSC4144.jpg&hash=ac9f785ed0fa10843fdf5af7cb386f1da588238e)
I'm assuming it's unofficial, based on its unofficial fonts and language, though I didn't think to check the back of the sign for a decal indicating Alaska DOT&PF installed the sign. But other landmarks on the highway, like the Beaver Slide and Ice Cut, have more official-looking signs. There are enough state maintenance yards along the highway (one less than a dozen miles to the north), that the sign would have been quickly spotted and removed if the state objected.
A censored version of the sign made it onto "Ice Road Truckers".
That sign is funny! :-D
Quote from: ilvny on August 26, 2014, 08:44:53 PM
Quote from: oscar on August 24, 2014, 07:38:19 PM
At mile 126.5 northbound on Alaska's Dalton Highway, when I traveled it in 2012, someone had put up this apparently unofficial but professionally-crafted and erected sign, at a tricky corner where speeding truckers often both literally and figuratively lose their loads:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2Foh-shit-corner_DSC4144.jpg&hash=ac9f785ed0fa10843fdf5af7cb386f1da588238e)
I'm assuming it's unofficial, based on its unofficial fonts and language, though I didn't think to check the back of the sign for a decal indicating Alaska DOT&PF installed the sign. But other landmarks on the highway, like the Beaver Slide and Ice Cut, have more official-looking signs. There are enough state maintenance yards along the highway (one less than a dozen miles to the north), that the sign would have been quickly spotted and removed if the state objected.
A censored version of the sign made it onto "Ice Road Truckers".
That sign is funny! :-D
hahah is this sign still up??? But it's Alaska....a lot of shit goes on there.
Illegal in Tennessee
55-8-113 Unauthorized signs, signals or markings
(a) No person shall place, maintain or display upon or in view of any highway any unauthorized sign, signal, marking or device that purports to be or is an imitation of or resembles an official traffic control device or railroad sign or signal, or that attempts to direct the movement of traffic, or that hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any official traffic control device or any railroad sign or signal.
(b) No person shall sell or offer for sale any traffic control signal or device for use on any street, road, or
highway in this state unless the device conforms to the requirements of this chapter.
(c) No person shall place or maintain nor shall any public authority permit upon any highway any traffic sign or signal bearing any commercial advertising.
(d) This section shall not be deemed to prohibit the erection upon private property adjacent to highways of signs giving useful directional information and of a type that cannot be mistaken for official signs.
(e) Every prohibited sign, signal or marking is declared to be a public nuisance and the authority having
jurisdiction over the highway is empowered to remove the sign, signal or marking or cause it to be removed without notice.
(f) A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
Did not some one on here place his own END US 3 sign in Cambridge, MA? I remember that USends.com documented it in hopes jokingly that someone in DOT would get the idea and make a more official and permanent one.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 27, 2014, 12:13:24 PM
Did not some one on here place his own END US 3 sign in Cambridge, MA? I remember that USends.com documented it in hopes jokingly that someone in DOT would get the idea and make a more official and permanent one.
I recall an assembly of several 2/3 signs going east near Magazine St., crudely weatherized in plastic bags.
Quote from: J Route Z on September 15, 2014, 12:46:24 PM
hahah is this sign {Oh Shit corner] still up??? But it's Alaska....a lot of shit goes on there.
The latest Milepost indicates it is no longer there, though maybe it was (a) stolen rather than removed by the state, and/or (b) replaced by whoever put it up in the first place, after the Milepost's field checkers last drove through there.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 27, 2014, 01:21:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 27, 2014, 12:13:24 PM
Did not some one on here place his own END US 3 sign in Cambridge, MA? I remember that USends.com documented it in hopes jokingly that someone in DOT would get the idea and make a more official and permanent one.
I recall an assembly of several 2/3 signs going east near Magazine St., crudely weatherized in plastic bags.
I looked at Dale's site and he removed it from the US 3 page. I think it was someone on here as even Dale referenced to it as someone who lived in the area at the time. I can named two people on this forum for sure who resided in the Greater Boston area at the time it was done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eZyy54pM_k
This is how it was done in south Louisiana back in the day. (look starting st 2:17...end it at 5:10)
S.C. Code of Laws say yes, it's unlawful, unfortunately. Yet, neither the state nor SCDOT is doing anything about rogue sign contractors in Bamberg and Barnwell counties.
SECTION 56-5-1020. Unauthorized signs, signals or like devices prohibited; exception; removal thereof.
No person shall place, maintain or display upon or in view of any highway any unauthorized sign, signal, marking or device which (a) purports to be or is an imitation of or resembles an official traffic-control device or railroad sign or signal, (b) attempts to direct the movement of traffic or (c) hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any official traffic-control device or any railroad sign or signal, and no person shall place or maintain nor shall any public authority permit upon any highway any traffic sign, signal or control device bearing thereon any commercial advertisement. This provision shall not be deemed to prohibit the erection upon private property adjacent to highways of signs giving useful directional information and of a type that cannot be mistaken for official signs. Every such prohibited sign, signal or marking is hereby declared to be a public nuisance, and the authority having jurisdiction over the highway may remove it or cause it to be removed without notice.
HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 46-311; 1952 Code Section 46-311; 1949 (46) 466.
SECTION 56-5-1030. Interference with traffic-control devices or railroad signs or signals prohibited.
(A) No person shall wilfully without lawful authority attempt to or in fact alter, deface, injure, knock down, or remove an official traffic-control device or a railroad sign or signal or its inscriptions, shields, or insignia.
(B) A person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be:
(1) fined not less than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. The driver's license of a person convicted under this section must be revoked for not less than five years. In any case where a license has not been issued, the person is not eligible to obtain a license for five years from the date of conviction;
(2) fined not less than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years if injury results;
(3) imprisoned not more than thirty years if death results.
HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 46-312; 1952 Code Section 46-312; 1949 (46) 466; 1969 (56) 698; 1993 Act No. 184, Section 82.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t56c005.php
Let sign engineers make the decisions what signs to put up. You may think it might be needed, but the engineers in charge may have good reason for not putting a sign up. You should contact the agency, because they might not know that a sign is missing.
If you put up your own sign, you could be held legally liable if someone were to crash as a result of information on the sign or improper placement of the sign.