(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGShEpv9.jpg&hash=ebb7a3bdf2622fcc6b84daf839ce0e224556b177)
I'll start by nominating this one, on CA 36 westbound just outside Red Bluff (even though there are many reasonably straight sections in that 140 miles).
I think you win. I got nothing.
I'd be shocked to see if there is a sign with a greater distance than that.
I've never seen one even close to that...
Are there additional signs along that route? What about coming from the other end?
Quote from: Zeffy on August 31, 2014, 06:09:43 PM
I'd be shocked to see if there is a sign with a greater distance than that.
Ditto. Highest I've seen was somewhere in the 60s (US 12 in Eastern Idaho).
Quote from: Rainking75 on August 31, 2014, 07:47:08 PM
Are there additional signs along that route? What about coming from the other end?
There's another one with about 80 miles to go, but I didn't stop for a picture. And at the other end, I was so relieved to be done with it (I didn't know about the extended 1.5-lane segment with the blind curves and the steep dropoffs!) that I got on 101 and didn't look back. :)
Pennsylvania has advisory signage that reads Wear Seat Belts, Next Million Miles.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2014, 09:41:35 PM
Pennsylvania has advisory signage that reads Wear Seat Belts, Next Million Miles.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-qX140YhbXRw%2FTaOoYIZj4CI%2FAAAAAAAALBI%2FLwQSgxgLs2Y%2Fs1600%2FSeat-Belts-Please.jpg&hash=669609bd73875a59b82e2782beafc796d8f668ff)
Quote from: jake on September 18, 2014, 04:45:29 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2014, 09:41:35 PM
Pennsylvania has advisory signage that reads Wear Seat Belts, Next Million Miles.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-qX140YhbXRw%2FTaOoYIZj4CI%2FAAAAAAAALBI%2FLwQSgxgLs2Y%2Fs1600%2FSeat-Belts-Please.jpg&hash=669609bd73875a59b82e2782beafc796d8f668ff)
Thanks jake!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2014, 05:29:32 AM
Quote from: jake on September 18, 2014, 04:45:29 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2014, 09:41:35 PM
Pennsylvania has advisory signage that reads Wear Seat Belts, Next Million Miles.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-qX140YhbXRw%2FTaOoYIZj4CI%2FAAAAAAAALBI%2FLwQSgxgLs2Y%2Fs1600%2FSeat-Belts-Please.jpg&hash=669609bd73875a59b82e2782beafc796d8f668ff)
Thanks jake!
Isn't that erroneous? If that roads leads to a road that leads to a road........and so on that goes through New Hampshire then they've misled the driver. :P
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 18, 2014, 11:15:43 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2014, 05:29:32 AM
Quote from: jake on September 18, 2014, 04:45:29 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2014, 09:41:35 PM
Pennsylvania has advisory signage that reads Wear Seat Belts, Next Million Miles.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-qX140YhbXRw%2FTaOoYIZj4CI%2FAAAAAAAALBI%2FLwQSgxgLs2Y%2Fs1600%2FSeat-Belts-Please.jpg&hash=669609bd73875a59b82e2782beafc796d8f668ff)
Thanks jake!
Isn't that erroneous? If that roads leads to a road that leads to a road........and so on that goes through New Hampshire then they've misled the driver. :P
A candidate for the sign design errors thread, with it's unapproved negative contrast Clearview...
Quote from: Kniwt on August 31, 2014, 05:32:53 PM
I'll start by nominating this one, on CA 36 westbound just outside Red Bluff (even though there are many reasonably straight sections in that 140 miles).
I'd like to see that "in person". Judging by the alignment of the type, it looks like someone doctored the sign by adding a 1 before 40.
Quote from: pderocco on November 18, 2019, 01:37:43 AM
I'd like to see that "in person". Judging by the alignment of the type, it looks like someone doctored the sign by adding a 1 before 40.
Streetview has the sign with 140, (https://goo.gl/maps/H3V7gUw42GDbCmVu8) so it's not a doctored photo.
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 18, 2019, 10:14:33 PM
Quote from: pderocco on November 18, 2019, 01:37:43 AM
I'd like to see that "in person". Judging by the alignment of the type, it looks like someone doctored the sign by adding a 1 before 40.
Streetview has the sign with 140, (https://goo.gl/maps/H3V7gUw42GDbCmVu8) so it's not a doctored photo.
Actually it looks like the 1 & 0 were added, as "4 Miles" would be nicely centered justified.
But looking at it from an aerial view, 140 is probably legit. Advance a little and there's a sign saying the road is subject to closures 96 miles ahead!
Is the "Animals" sign on US 93 near its Southern terminus in Wickenburg AZ still up? IIRC it had a sightly longer distance: 144 miles (232 km).
Quote from: Kniwt on August 31, 2014, 05:32:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGShEpv9.jpg&hash=ebb7a3bdf2622fcc6b84daf839ce0e224556b177)
I'll start by nominating this one, on CA 36 westbound just outside Red Bluff (even though there are many reasonably straight sections in that 140 miles).
There are similar signs on CASR-58 west of I-5 and several places on CASR-1, but those distances are still double digits.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on November 19, 2019, 09:49:49 AM
Is the "Animals" sign on US 93 near its Southern terminus in Wickenburg AZ still up? IIRC it had a sightly longer distance: 144 miles (232 km).
Only sign there now says 37 miles (same as GMSV in 2011)...
https://goo.gl/maps/ofw5zg4K13RroxkK6
144 miles would be well past Kingman...
Quote from: roadfro on September 18, 2014, 10:34:21 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 18, 2014, 11:15:43 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2014, 05:29:32 AM
Quote from: jake on September 18, 2014, 04:45:29 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2014, 09:41:35 PM
Pennsylvania has advisory signage that reads Wear Seat Belts, Next Million Miles.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-qX140YhbXRw%2FTaOoYIZj4CI%2FAAAAAAAALBI%2FLwQSgxgLs2Y%2Fs1600%2FSeat-Belts-Please.jpg&hash=669609bd73875a59b82e2782beafc796d8f668ff)
Thanks jake!
Isn't that erroneous? If that roads leads to a road that leads to a road........and so on that goes through New Hampshire then they've misled the driver. :P
A candidate for the sign design errors thread, with it's unapproved negative contrast Clearview...
These signs were installed well before Clearview negative contrast signs were disallowed.
Negative contrast Clearview was never approved.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 19, 2019, 02:37:46 PM
Negative contrast Clearview was never approved.
Pertinent portions of
the IA (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/ia_clearview_font.pdf) quoted below...
Quote from: MUTCD — Interim Approval for Use of Clearview Font for Positive Contrast Legends on Guide Signs – September 2, 2004
Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to issue an Interim Approval for the optional use of the Clearview font for positive contrast legends on guide signs
Research on the Clearview font: ... Both the Pennsylvania and Texas Departments of Transportation have reviewed the research on the use of Clearview font for guide signs and have requested that Clearview font be allowed to be used for positive contrast guide signs.
Conditions of Interim Approval: ... The Clearview font should not be used on negative contrast signs until research demonstrates the effectiveness. / Interim Approval for the use of Clearview font for positive contrast legend on guide signs will be granted to any jurisdiction that submits a written request to the Director of the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations. The request must state the location(s) where the devices will be used and the jurisdiction's agreement to comply with ...
PennDOT and the PTC used to be much worse with using Clearview where it wasn't approved, but their latest Clearview signs are usually 100% correct. I haven't seen any of those black-on-yellow advisory signs installed new since brief switch to Highway Gothic, though, so I don't know if they're still being made in Clearview.
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 20, 2019, 12:51:25 PM
PennDOT and the PTC used to be much worse with using Clearview where it wasn't approved, but their latest Clearview signs are usually 100% correct. I haven't seen any of those black-on-yellow advisory signs installed new since brief switch to Highway Gothic, though, so I don't know if they're still being made in Clearview.
Last time I drove through Pennsylvania (September 2017), I noticed that most of the Clearview 'advisory message' black on yellow signs had been removed, but not replaced with Highway Gothic ones.
Quote from: roadman on November 19, 2019, 12:56:54 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 18, 2014, 10:34:21 PM
A candidate for the sign design errors thread, with it's unapproved negative contrast Clearview...
These signs were installed well before Clearview negative contrast signs were disallowed.
Thank God you filled him in. Can't imagine how he got by without that clarification for the last five years.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 20, 2019, 01:11:43 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 19, 2019, 12:56:54 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 18, 2014, 10:34:21 PM
A candidate for the sign design errors thread, with it's unapproved negative contrast Clearview...
These signs were installed well before Clearview negative contrast signs were disallowed.
Thank God you filled him in. Can't imagine how he got by without that clarification for the last five years.
My point is this: If a sign is fabricated to a standard that is acceptable at the time of fabrication, but is later deemed to be unacceptable (for whatever reason), it doesn't qualify as a design error.
Quote from: roadman on November 20, 2019, 02:19:09 PM
If a sign is fabricated to a standard that is acceptable at the time of fabrication
It wasn't. Negative contrast was specifically excluded in the IA.
Quote from: kphoger on November 20, 2019, 04:47:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 20, 2019, 02:19:09 PM
If a sign is fabricated to a standard that is acceptable at the time of fabrication
It wasn't. Negative contrast was specifically excluded in the IA.
The sign may actually pre-date the interim approval, but I can't say for certain.
Nevertheless, the interim approval did not specifically disallow negative-contrast Clearview. Note that "should" statements are different from "shall" statements (former is recommended, latter is required). This was an interim approval, but, as far as I know, the MUTCD legalese (should vs shall) was still applicable.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2019, 01:48:26 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 20, 2019, 04:47:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 20, 2019, 02:19:09 PM
If a sign is fabricated to a standard that is acceptable at the time of fabrication
It wasn't. Negative contrast was specifically excluded in the IA.
The sign may actually pre-date the interim approval, but I can't say for certain.
Nevertheless, the interim approval did not specifically disallow negative-contrast Clearview. Note that "should" statements are different from "shall" statements (former is recommended, latter is required). This was an interim approval, but, as far as I know, the MUTCD legalese (should vs shall) was still applicable.
But the purpose of the IA specifically included the phrase "use of the Clearview font for positive contrast legends". That is to say, the purpose of the IA was
not for the use of the Clearview font for negative contrast legends, or else it would not have specified positive contrast at all.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2019, 01:48:26 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 20, 2019, 04:47:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 20, 2019, 02:19:09 PM
If a sign is fabricated to a standard that is acceptable at the time of fabrication
It wasn't. Negative contrast was specifically excluded in the IA.
The sign may actually pre-date the interim approval, but I can't say for certain.
PA's black on yellow "nanny" signs did predate the IA.
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2019, 12:04:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2019, 01:48:26 AM
Nevertheless, the interim approval did not specifically disallow negative-contrast Clearview. Note that "should" statements are different from "shall" statements (former is recommended, latter is required). This was an interim approval, but, as far as I know, the MUTCD legalese (should vs shall) was still applicable.
But the purpose of the IA specifically included the phrase "use of the Clearview font for positive contrast legends". That is to say, the purpose of the IA was not for the use of the Clearview font for negative contrast legends, or else it would not have specified positive contrast at all.
I think that's a safe assumption, but the actual guidelines are not as restrictive. I don't think the title of the IA is legally binding, in and of itself.
Quote from: roadman on November 21, 2019, 02:39:05 PM
PA's black on yellow "nanny" signs did predate the IA.
Thanks. I was thinking so.