Wanted to get opinions on the prospect of posting accurate-but-rogue fully-MUTCD-compliant
guide (not regulatory or warning) signs on public ROW (both where necessary and where unnecessary). I was thinking about why it's ok for people to post
- Yard Sale, Garage Sale, etc signs
- Business opportunities (We buy gold, make money fast)
- Political Signage (elect so and so)
- Organization (neighborhood watch/xxx club)
on public ROW, in many cases right on the official square/u-channel posts; yet no one is going around putting up much-needed missing route shields, destination signs, and other such tidbits that would require 10 seconds and 2 bolts. Would jurisdictions even really notice if a county route shield or a destination sign was there one day when it wasn't there before? Obviously if it looks DIY, its a dead giveaway; but I'm talking to-spec signage.
in before Richard Ankrom
Many roadgeeks probably consider it for a few minutes before realizing the cost.
Yeah ... but ... what if you could afford it? Give me reasons why I shouldn't start fabricating fully spec shields for secret routes and mounting them to posts.
I've long thought it would be hilarious to, say, steal a Nebraska (or other state with the state name on the shield) state highway shield and post it in Idaho but I don't do it because when it comes down to it I have something resembling a life and that just isn't a priority.
One time I was drunk in high school I almost convinced some of my friends to help me reroute the state highway onto the bypass (which for legal reasons can not be signed as the state highway or even marked as a bypass despite being state maintained) in our town, but I think girls showed up or something and we obviously didn't do it.
I don't have any reasons against it. Would be good for a laugh, I know that much. Hell, the state DOT might even keep them.
Quote from: _Simon on April 05, 2013, 07:22:13 PM
Yeah ... but ... what if you could afford it? Give me reasons why I shouldn't start fabricating fully spec shields for secret routes and mounting them to posts.
Because you should start with missing signs for non-secret routes? But that would require braving the ghettos of Newark and Trenton.
Site admitting doing it in California: http://ankrom.org/freeway_signs.html
Wow, I wasn't even thinking about BGS's. Then again, everytime I pass this sign, I feel the need to get an adhesive "TO NJ-18" shield and a long stick:
https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.547331,-74.495888&spn=0.048263,0.117159&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=40.547199,-74.496082&panoid=VanIAagAOjmzlua9XPI2Nw&cbp=12,69.26,,0,3.77
Next time I visit VA 28, I'm posting my I-366 shield.
I'm hoping the people here who actually work in transportation could explain what they would do if they encountered such rogue signage. Can we get a list of pros and cons going? I'm still not convinced that I shouldn't use portions of my disposable income on fabricating cool shit that Wasn't There The Day Before™.
Caltrans was quite a good sport about Ankrom's guerrilla revision of a large panel sign, but state DOTs in general would hate DIY signing (or "signing vigilantism," to coin another term for it) if it occurred on a large scale, because that creates all kinds of maintenance, public-relations, and liability headaches for them.
* Because the state DOT did not place the guerrilla sign, it will have no record of its location, placement, size, substrate type, sheeting type, erection date, etc. What happens when the sign wears out and needs to be replaced? How will the state DOT even know that has happened?
* The sign was not placed by state DOT maintenance forces or under the supervision of a state DOT resident engineer, so the state DOT has no guarantee that its standards were followed in erecting the sign. These standards are important, especially in respect of frangible posts, because the state DOT can be sued if anyone runs into a guerrilla sign and sustains injury that would have been avoided if breakaway posts had been used. The erector of the guerrilla sign could be named as a co-defendant in the suit only if his or her identity were known, and even if it were, the state DOT would still be sued because (a) it is the DOT's responsibility to maintain control of the roads within its inventory, and (b) DOTs (and government agencies in general) have much deeper pockets than any individual member of the general public.
* In a hidden-route-being-signed scenario (call the route in question X), suppose a member of the general public contacts the state DOT's public-affairs office, saying, "Why don't you sign Route Y? You already sign Route X." Public-affairs officer goes to Traffic Engineering and asks, "Do we in fact sign Route X?" Traffic Engineering replies, "No, we don't, our sign inventory shows no entries for M-series marker signs on Route X. In fact, our policy manual says neither route should be signed." So public-affairs officer goes back to Joe Public and says, "Our records show we don't sign Route X. In fact we are not supposed to sign either route." Joe Public thinks, "This runaround is what my tax dollars buy?" See where this is going?
In retrospect it is clear that Caltrans was a good sport about Ankrom's guerrilla signing project precisely because most of the considerations quoted above did not apply. Ankrom added his sign as a message revision, using Caltrans' own standards, to a substrate and sign structure which Caltrans had already furnished. He went public with what he had done, so his guerrilla sign was not a landmine waiting to blow up in some unlucky civil servant's face later on. But even so Caltrans still had to send out a maintenance person--with all the expense that implies in terms of employee time and traffic management on probably the most congested part of the Los Angeles freeway network--to verify that its standards had, in fact, been followed.
Are you asserting that we are incapable of mimicking the standards of the DOT in question; or are incapable of understanding the difference between posting an additional shield on an already-installed frangible post, and, erecting an immobile post where none was before? I'm talking about modifications that take seconds to minutes; not digging a post hole and pouring cement and installing new posts in some unsafe way. As for point #3, that's generally the entire point is to cause confusion and a general state of "why exactly isn't this signed? should it be so unsigned that we should remove the signs? and maybe the public is filling a much-needed gap that we should look into." If the signs didn't make people think; there wouldn't be a point. Likewise, it's obvious the DOT doesn't have a record of such signs -- that's the reason the (much-needed) signs don't exist in the first place. I've sent letters to agencies asking them to fix signage and in very few cases does anything occur. In more than once case I've asserted "If you won't install the sign, I'll do it myself". The problem is that if I'm going to start signing things myself, I have a backlog of much-more interesting signs I'd like to errect rather than fix the DOT's lazywork. It's understandable that vigilante signing causes headaches because we've all sign when contractors, shopping malls, and the public sign things incorrectly -- this is a chance to do it the right way. If someone other than the DOT is going to sign something and do it all fucked up, then I can't think of a better group of people besides us to go in and show them the correct way. Maybe I'm just trying to find some cause to fight for or something, but I have not yet heard a convincing argument as to why i should not fabricate DOT-spec signage, put it up, and then notify the DOT that the public has done their job for them in some location where they did not.
Edit: Another thing I haven't even mentioned is simply getting a contractor that normally does DOT work to install the signs; this ensures that not only are they installed by a qualified resource, but that they are fabricated to the exact specs as they would if the DOT ordered them.
Quote* Because the state DOT did not place the guerrilla sign, it will have no record of its location, placement, size, substrate type, sheeting type, erection date, etc. What happens when the sign wears out and needs to be replaced? How will the state DOT even know that has happened?
I think you're really overestimating the inventory control of some state DOTs- I have it on good record Montana doesn't have more than a rudimentary sign inventory that's not even necessarily correct. Sign maintenance in Montana involves a district supervisor driving around in his truck, keeping an eye out for worn out signs/missing signs.
You should get started on signing Georgia 401.
And if you have that much money, perhaps you should put it towards a cause that actually has a point.
Quote from: corco on April 06, 2013, 11:46:48 AMI think you're really overestimating the inventory control of some state DOTs- I have it on good record Montana doesn't have more than a rudimentary sign inventory that's not even necessarily correct. Sign maintenance in Montana involves a district supervisor driving around in his truck, keeping an eye out for worn out signs/missing signs.
I know there is considerable variety in how state DOTs carry out periodic audit of the performance of their highway signs: some DOTs maintain sign inventories, others rely on periodic replacement of everything to keep sign sheeting fresh, others use photologging, still others use retroreflectivity testers, etc. My point is that when a DOT goes down the inventory route, having unlisted guerrilla signs can interfere with maintenance programming.
Quote from: _Simon on April 06, 2013, 11:42:27 AMAre you asserting that we are incapable of mimicking the standards of the DOT in question; or are incapable of understanding the difference between posting an additional shield on an already-installed frangible post, and, erecting an immobile post where none was before?
I make no assertions of this kind. Rather, I assert that when any mistakes are made in following those published standards, it is the state DOT's prerogative to make them, because (1) it has the responsibility, and (2) it has the financial capacity to meet any liability concerns that may arise (in part because most state DOTs are covered by a limited form of sovereign immunity which limits the claims that can be made against state DOT officials in the performance of their duties).
QuoteI'm talking about modifications that take seconds to minutes; not digging a post hole and pouring cement and installing new posts in some unsafe way.
That still has the potential to raise lots of problems. Let's say you use an existing signpost to add a new sign. Can it bear the added wind load? Can you combine your new sign with the other signs on the same post in the order required by the
MUTCD and the DOT's policy guidance without rearranging the signs already on the post? Do you have the DOT's approved mounting hardware? Are you sure you have a complete set of relevant policy documentation from the DOT? (In some states, such as Kansas, getting hold of this can be quite a challenge.) When you finish adding your sign, will the post have enough length to ensure that the bottom of the lowest sign meets the minimum clearance specified in the
MUTCD?
Or, alternatively, let's suppose you choose to attach the sign to an utility pole instead, using strap mounts. Do you have a pole use agreement with the utility company? Does the state DOT?
QuoteAs for point #3, that's generally the entire point is to cause confusion and a general state of "why exactly isn't this signed? should it be so unsigned that we should remove the signs? and maybe the public is filling a much-needed gap that we should look into." If the signs didn't make people think; there wouldn't be a point.
But the basic point still stands--any omissions or inaccuracies in signing are the state DOT's mistakes to make. If you approach them directly, you protect yourself from liability (which is not limited in your case by any residue of sovereign immunity), and also give them an opportunity to diagnose problems in signing policy or process which can then be attacked in a systematic way.
QuoteLikewise, it's obvious the DOT doesn't have a record of such signs -- that's the reason the (much-needed) signs don't exist in the first place.
First, it is not necessarily true that the DOT does not have an inventory. Many states do, while some don't. Second, it is not always as a result of simple omission that routes are not signed. In many cases the actual responsibility for signing some types of routes in urban areas rests with the city, and in others the state DOT has made a conscious policy decision that the route will not be signed.
QuoteI've sent letters to agencies asking them to fix signage and in very few cases does anything occur. In more than once case I've asserted "If you won't install the sign, I'll do it myself".
Years ago I appeared in person at the Riley County (Kansas) Department of Public Works to suggest that a curve advisory speed sign should be installed on a left-hand bend on a county-maintained road near the Tuttle Creek Dam reservoir. The next time I drove down that road, the advisory speed sign had not been installed. When I drove down it six months later, it had been installed. Sometimes it just takes time to get things done. In the case of the curve it might have been necessary to send out an engineer with a ball bank, while for signing routes some research may have to be done into whatever undertakings the state DOT has given in regard to that route.
I wouldn't use the phrase "I'll sign it myself" when contacting a DOT about any apparent deficiency in signing. First, it invites a circle-the-wagons response that gets in the way of your suggestion being seriously considered. Second, if the route is subsequently signed in a way which attracts liability, you become the prime suspect.
QuoteEdit: Another thing I haven't even mentioned is simply getting a contractor that normally does DOT work to install the signs; this ensures that not only are they installed by a qualified resource, but that they are fabricated to the exact specs as they would if the DOT ordered them.
If a contractor got wind that you planned actually to erect such signs in the field, rather than on your bedroom wall or barn door or whatever, they would probably turn you down flat because they have no interest in taking on the vicarious liability. When they work for the state DOT on the public right-of-way under contract, they are protected as long as they follow the terms of the contract; as a private citizen you cannot offer them this protection.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 06, 2013, 01:58:41 PM
Can it bear the added wind load?
Yes. We can do math.
QuoteCan you combine your new sign with the other signs on the same post in the order required by the MUTCD and the DOT's policy guidance without rearranging the signs already on the post?
We can rearrange the signs if they need to be rearranged. In fact mosts of these projects would probably be putting the "JCT" banner ABOVE the shield instead of below it where contractors seem to think it goes.
QuoteDo you have the DOT's approved mounting hardware?
Yes.
QuoteAre you sure you have a complete set of relevant policy documentation from the DOT?
Yes, they're published, and even if we're not 100% to spec, it's better than nothing.
QuoteWhen you finish adding your sign, will the post have enough length to ensure that the bottom of the lowest sign meets the minimum clearance specified in the MUTCD?
Again with the math...
QuoteOr, alternatively, let's suppose you choose to attach the sign to an utility pole instead, using strap mounts. Do you have a pole use agreement with the utility company? Does the state DOT?
Who says I need to? I don't see people being fined for posting yard sale signs. If the utility doesn't like it they'll remove it -- if they even notice.
QuoteI wouldn't use the phrase "I'll sign it myself" when contacting a DOT about any apparent deficiency in signing. First, it invites a circle-the-wagons response that gets in the way of your suggestion being seriously considered. Second, if the route is subsequently signed in a way which attracts liability, you become the prime suspect.
Suspect of what? Putting up the sign that I said I would? I'm still waiting for you to tell me why this is bad, other than that I could get sued if someone crashes into my sign or the like.
Quotethey have no interest in taking on the vicarious liability. When they work for the state DOT on the public right-of-way under contract, they are protected as long as they follow the terms of the contract; as a private citizen you cannot offer them this protection.
Protect from what? You still haven't shown me where putting up my own signs is illegal (the entire point of this thread).
For the first several years of I-99's existence, it was pretty poorly signed with most overheads still indicating only US 220. The I-99 shields that did exist were primarily ground-mounted. It almost seemed as if PennDOT was noncommittal about signing the new Interstate...as if hoping the whole "99" fiasco would blow over.
Anyway, I remember thinking that a well-organized strike force of roadgeeks could replace all of the I-99 shields with, say, 976, overnight. And then hopefully PennDOT would shrug its collective shoulders and say "OK...it's I-976 now."
Quote from: _Simon on April 06, 2013, 02:11:37 PMProtect from what? You still haven't shown me where putting up my own signs is illegal (the entire point of this thread).
That is actually pretty trivial to show. I haven't bothered to do it before now because I assumed you were pushing your idea in full awareness that it is illegal.
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Government/City-Departments/Departments/Public-Works-Department/newsletters/signs.htm
I am sure most states and municipalities have similar laws.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 06, 2013, 02:25:08 PM
Quote from: _Simon on April 06, 2013, 02:11:37 PMProtect from what? You still haven't shown me where putting up my own signs is illegal (the entire point of this thread).
That is actually pretty trivial to show. I haven't bothered to do it before now because I assumed you were pushing your idea in full awareness that it is illegal.
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Government/City-Departments/Departments/Public-Works-Department/newsletters/signs.htm
I am sure most states and municipalities have similar laws.
That document is regarding temporary signs, not permanent guide signage for public roads.
Quote from: _Simon on April 06, 2013, 02:29:37 PMThat document is regarding temporary signs, not permanent guide signage for public roads.
It cites chapter and verse in the actual legislation, however. Perhaps you would like to have a go at substantiating a counterclaim of legality?
Quote from: _Simon on April 06, 2013, 02:48:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 06, 2013, 02:41:53 PM
words
Yeah ok great. So no one wants to do this?
Do what? Where exactly are you going with this? What's the point of this topic?
The thing briantroutman mentioned sounds like it would have been fun. I'm in the mood to do something along the lines of an MIT hack and I just think we should start a large collaborative project to change a route number or something. Just wondering if anyone else thinks something like that would be hilarious.
In Florida it's a "noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation".
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.077.html
Quote from: NE2 on April 06, 2013, 03:16:05 PM
In Florida it's a "noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation".
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.077.html
Nice, sounds like my cracked windshield would cost me more than a ticket for fixing the DOT's signs.
I'm down
Go ahead and do it then. It sounds like you don't care what anyone says if they question or disagree with you, no matter how factual and well-thought their response is, so go ahead.
Though by the way, I don't think:
Quote from: _Simon on April 06, 2013, 02:57:10 PM
The thing briantroutman mentioned sounds like it would have been fun. I'm in the mood to do something along the lines of an MIT hack and I just think we should start a large collaborative project to change a route number or something. Just wondering if anyone else thinks something like that would be hilarious.
sounds hilarious at all. It sounds like it would create a lot of driver confusion just for the small amusement of a handful of people, at considerable expense. The average route shield can cost upwards of $50 or $100 to have fabricated, plus all the hardware you'll need to mount it. Then consider that a four-way intersection with this route might have 8 signs for it (advance JCT sign and sign for each direction approaching from each direction, plus reassurance afterwards), and you're potentially looking at an estimated cost of $800 per intersection. Most people don't have that kind of money just for a joke.
And I advise you to remember that road signs exist for the benefit of motorists. There could be serious repercussions resulting from people getting lost due to your replacement signs, and if found out you will be held liable. Things like Ankrom's sign modification in CA are harmless, and, if anything, benefit the motoring public. Changing all the signs for a route is not harmless.
Oh come on, you guys need to pull those giant sticks out of your asses
Let a man dream. Seriously..
Like I said, go ahead and do it if you want to. You just need to be aware of the cost and potential repercussions. I, for one, don't have a stick up my ass, I just think road signs are a useful tool for navigation and wouldn't exactly find it funny if I were looking for the turn for route 34 only to miss it because someone's replaced all the signs with ones for route 43 because they find it funny.
QuoteI, for one, don't have a stick up my ass,
You're awfully worked up about this for somebody who doesn't have a stick up their ass
And half of the amusement of doing something like that is watching people with sticks up their asses get all pissed off at a harmless prank (lives aren't at stake here- just minor inconvenience that most people traveling down the road wouldn't even notice/would ignore)
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 06, 2013, 03:49:43 PM
Like I said, go ahead and do it if you want to. You just need to be aware of the cost and potential repercussions. I, for one, don't have a stick up my ass, I just think road signs are a useful tool for navigation and wouldn't exactly find it funny if I were looking for the turn for route 34 only to miss it because someone's replaced all the signs with ones for route 43 because they find it funny.
Word. There's a huge difference between changing route 43 to 34 for no reason and fixing missing TO banners, rearranging upside-down JCT assemblies, signing missing route shields, correcting misspellings, and cosigning I-99 with an interstate that is numerically appropriate. What do you think we haven't taken the standard set of roadside ethics? You think we haven't read the MUTCD chapter on how to make signs that are not only accurate but definitive. The fact remains that the great government we've built has left gaps where their work is not the definitive work. It is not clearly or concisely numbered, or is of a nature that is ordered. We have all taken oaths to fit in with the grid; and to provide speedy and accurate results regarding the correction of mishapen; misnumbered; or misdesigned traffic control devices and while I personally think I'm too lazy to ever actually do any of this; I don't know why you can't lay back and dream for a couple minutes on this beautiful saturday -- we're all adults and we're all enjoying the weather; stop trying to be Tom Chiusano over there with your facts and numbers and legislation. Instead, sit down, grab an iced tea, with some ice cubes, maybe a slice of lemon, and a bendy straw; and tell us about the signs you want to ninja if you had the cash, means, and immunity to do so. I've already told you mine.
Cheers
Quote from: corco on April 06, 2013, 03:52:25 PM
And half of the amusement of doing something like that is watching people with sticks up their asses get all pissed off at a harmless prank (lives aren't at stake here- just minor inconvenience that most people traveling down the road wouldn't even notice/would ignore)
Like someone said in another thread.. it's not like we're putting up blue stop signs or anything ;). It would be cool to have some generic signs built that just say "One or more of the above signs is inaccurate or was incorrectly designed" pre-fitted with pre-spaced pegs that you could just stap into the standard spacing on a post right under some sign that pisses you off.
I thought I made it quite clear I was only speaking with regard to changing signs for your amusement - rather than fixing things DOTs won't.
I would not have a problem with you fixing missing or incorrect signs in an Ankrom-esque move, though I still wouldn't do it myself, since my tax dollars go towards signing roads, so there's little chance I'd spend my own money on it. I just associate pranks like changing signs for no real reason with delinquent kids who get off on laughing at other people's misfortune.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 06, 2013, 04:13:11 PM
I thought I made it quite clear I was only speaking with regard to changing signs for your amusement - rather than fixing things DOTs won't.
I would not have a problem with you fixing missing or incorrect signs in an Ankrom-esque move, though I still wouldn't do it myself, since my tax dollars go towards signing roads, so there's little chance I'd spend my own money on it. I just associate pranks like changing signs for no real reason with delinquent kids who get off on laughing at other people's misfortune.
Would you object to this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fexit-only.net%2Fcop1tx.png&hash=b280a51767502be5259a9a5035d3212c0f7d032e) (http://exit-only.net/cop1.png)
That's a tough one. I generally obey the speed limit, and don't have a problem doing so as I drive an SUV that is not the most aerodynamic thing, as such I don't really have a problem with speed enforcement in practicality, though in principle I do have a problem with revenue-generating speed enforcement that depends on artificially low speed limits.
One reason I would object to those signs though is that speed traps, unlike most speed cameras, are not fixed points. If you really intended to sign every place a cop has ever sat behind something running radar, roads would just be a forest of signs.
Playing devil's advocate: Bus stops, school bus stops, school crossings, falling "rock", ice, freezing, hail, wetness, all animal crossings, ped crossings, etc. are all signed even when the hazard isn't there, and/or when the hazard's location can't possibly be known. I can guess where a cop will be with a higher accuracy then the "duck crossing" sign I pass by my job that has been correct 0% of the time.
Buses stop at bus stops at a regular interval, and are likely to be blocking a travel lane, or doing something else that requires drivers exercise extra caution. Speed traps do not block a travel lane, and do not require a driver to do anything other than obey the posted speed limit.
The same applies for school bus stops, though these require even more caution since small children have a tendency to run out into the road without looking for cars coming. A police officer running radar is not going to run out into the road in front of your car.
School crossings, same thing again - little kids potentially running out into traffic. School zones do not always need their reduced speeds, but a crosswalk in front of a school is another legitimate cause for a driver to have to react to a hazard.
Falling rocks are another hazard that drivers should watch out for. A giant boulder could roll out in front of you. A few small rocks may smash your windshield. Admittedly this doesn't happen very often, but it is still a legitimate concern, because a boulder rolling into the road in front of them would require a driver to brake and/or swerve suddenly. A speed trap doesn't require a driver who is going the legal speed to brake, and doesn't require any driver to swerve.
I've never seen a warning sign that just says "ICE" so I can't address that one, but things like "Bridge freezes before road" are a legitimate concern, because in below-freezing temperatures, a bridge will freeze before the road on either side of it, meaning the road might be perfectly fine to drive, but all of a sudden isn't on an overpass. A speed trap might not suddenly cause you to spin out of control or slide into a tree.
Skipping ahead a few, slippery when wet signs are one that is generally considered a "no duh!" sign, but often could be useful if a driver might not expect a certain portion of the road to be more slippery than parts around it due to something like a different pavement type.
Animal and pedestrian crossings don't ALWAYS have an animal or pedestrian crossing nearby, but are still posted somewhere where there is a known issue with animals running across the road or where there is either a marked crosswalk or high pedestrian traffic. If a pedestrian runs out in front of you, you need to brake for them or swerve around them. A cop running radar would not randomly step into the road in front of you.
I've never seen a legitimate, official, duck crossing sign. I know most places you'd be likely to see a duck or a goose though they are generally not far. I used to live across the street from a stormwater retention pond, and there was almost always a flock (is that the correct word for ducks?) of both ducks and geese nearby. They'd be in my front yard at least once or twice a day. So while you can't guarantee the hazard will be nearby, there's a fair likelihood you'll encounter it there.
The difference between hazards like these and a speed trap is that the hazards listed above require a driver who is driving along obeying the law either A) alter his behavior in some way, or B) pay extra attention to his surroundings. A speed trap does not require a driver who is obeying the law to alter his behavior in any way whatsoever. It merely legitimizes breaking the law, and provides further evidence that we ought to increase our speed limits to reflect what the road is safe for, not what will bring in the most revenue.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 06, 2013, 05:30:01 PM
It merely legitimizes breaking the law, and provides further evidence that we ought to increase our speed limits to reflect what the road is safe for, not what will bring in the most revenue.
Exactly :)
Speaking of sticks up asses, I-99 exists and isn't going away. Seriously.
Quote from: _Simon on April 06, 2013, 05:39:58 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 06, 2013, 05:30:01 PM
It merely legitimizes breaking the law, and provides further evidence that we ought to increase our speed limits to reflect what the road is safe for, not what will bring in the most revenue.
Exactly :)
So then why do you want to post those signs?
To legitimize breaking the law, and to provide further evidence that we ought to increase our speed limits to reflect what the road is safe for, not what will bring in the most revenue.
So in other words to waste everyone's money.
You'd have an easier time getting states to raise their speed limits than to post these signs.
Actually, I wouldn't mind adding some NC 615 shields on the mainland...
If you have the money to waste, do this: http://www.google.com/search?q=speed trap billboard&tbm=isch (http://www.google.com/search?q=speed%20trap%20billboard&tbm=isch)
Time to direct this to seriousness, has there ever been a DOT that did a ninjasign...fix as in one day the sign was screwed up/damaged/etc, and before you could call it in...it was fixed?
This thread seriously needs to be moved to Fictional Highways.
As for missing or incorrect signage, DOTs generally do respond if there are problems. We had a request recently for a Deer Crossing sign in an area where a lot of deer had been sighted. Our personnel went out and evaluated the situation and put up the sign within a week.
I suspect more than a few sign errors have been fixed after photographic evidence has been posted on the Internet.
If you have a problem with signage, contact the DOT in a nice, non-confrontational way and state your case as to why you think signage needs to be changed. Rest assured that someone with knowledge of the situation will evaluate your correspondence and get back to you. There are probably reasons that some routes aren't signed that you may not like, but are there anyway.
Having said that, if you want to waste your money buying and erecting rogue signs, it's your paycheck.
As for speed traps, you can always rent a billboard.
I know of more signs that I would rather take down (seemingly needless No Turn On Red signs) than I would put up.
I did write a Letter to the Editor of the paper one time many years ago about several signs in a localized area that needed replacing - badly. Within a few weeks, they were replaced! Whether my letter had anything to do with it...who knows.
What I've semi-seriously considered is having labels made that say something like
W R O N G S I G N
See MUTCD §_________
I just fill in the blank, peel off the label, and slap it on the sign.
:happy:
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2013, 03:52:56 PM
What I've semi-seriously considered is having labels made that say something like
W R O N G S I G N
See MUTCD §_________
States have their own sign manuals and supplements to the MUTCD that don't always go along with what the feds want. Which is fine with me. A sign may not agree with the MUTCD, but it may agree with X state's policy, said state having made a conscious decision to depart from the MUTCD in that instance.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 08, 2013, 08:29:12 AM
I know of more signs that I would rather take down (seemingly needless No Turn On Red signs) than I would put up.
Those are banned in certain instances for specific reasons. Sight distance, turning radius, etc.
Quote from: _Simon on April 05, 2013, 07:22:13 PM
Yeah ... but ... what if you could afford it? Give me reasons why I shouldn't start fabricating fully spec shields for secret routes and mounting them to posts.
Two words - potential liability (for both you and the DOT).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 08, 2013, 08:29:12 AM
I know of more signs that I would rather take down (seemingly needless No Turn On Red signs) than I would put up.
Diverging slightly off topic here: In my opinion, the whole concept of RTOR needs to be changed. Signs (Right Turn on Red After Stop) should be placed only where it is safe and legal to take a right turn on a red ball, as opposed to the current practice of placing "No Turn On Red" signs at locations where RTOR is unsafe or illegal. This would also be consistent with the current requirements for red arrows, where (per the MUTCD and in most states) you cannot do RTOR at a red arrow UNLESS there is a sign.
Now, does anyone here really believe that the majority of drivers truly understand and follow the difference - RTOR for red ball unless there's a sign telling you no, but RTOR for red arrow only if there's a sign telling you OK.
In the mid-1970s, Massachusetts decided to adopt RTOR by implementing the "no RTOR unless there's a sign" approach for all intersections (red ball and red arrow). It was in place for about a year, until FHWA told them to change to the national standard. The biggest result of this change to conform to the national standard was an overnight visit from the "No Turn on Red" fairy, as virtually every intersection in the state sprouted new signs.
And even though Massachusetts practice was changed to conform to the Federal standard, to this day Mass. State Law (as opposed to the driver's manual) still permits RTOR on a red arrow (the law simply reads "red indication"), regardless of whether or not there is a sign permitting the movement posted.
Disclaimer - this inconsistency has been one of my top five gripes with the UVC and the MUTCD for the past 35 years
The reason I'm leaving this thread here is that it publicizes the liability of _Simon so that if anything does happen, we have plenty of evidence to furnish the lawsuit.
Seriously, hacks have been done before. A certain forum member put up to-spec (except for the substrate) MA 2/US 3 along Memorial Drive WB, on an existing signpost. It stayed for a few years. Don't ever touch the state's signs or put up incorrect signs, unless you like fines and court appearances. If you want to put up correct signs without defacing state property, go for it. (If you wanted to cover an incorrect sign with a correct one, I would support doing that as well, but do not damage the original sign because it's state property.)
Perhaps we should develop an application that all the DOT agencies could use that would interface with a database of incorrect/missing/needed signs. Each agency logs in to see what signs in their jurisdiction are screwed up, and then they use the system to notify us once they fix them? Like Google MapMaker for signs. I'm trying to think of creative ways to fix all of the bad signs within my own lifetime without having to send independent emails for each issue I'm "asking" them to look into. There also should be some legislative bill we can pass to require the DOT to fix a sign within x time of being notified that it's wrong/missing/needed.
Quote from: roadman on April 08, 2013, 07:17:00 PM
Diverging slightly off topic here: In my opinion, the whole concept of RTOR needs to be changed. Signs (Right Turn on Red After Stop) should be placed only where it is safe and legal to take a right turn on a red ball, as opposed to the current practice of placing "No Turn On Red" signs at locations where RTOR is unsafe or illegal. This would also be consistent with the current requirements for red arrows, where (per the MUTCD and in most states) you cannot do RTOR at a red arrow UNLESS there is a sign.
Why change it this way, rather than what some states already do: a red arrow means that movement has a red light, and all the rules for a red light apply.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi696.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv321%2FFLroadgeek%2FPicture1381.jpg&hash=f9aa09b7ebdae1766c3007ca4ce5c6fa3a78de7d)
It's a...uh, start.
Quote from: _Simon on April 08, 2013, 08:21:44 PM
Perhaps we should develop an application that all the DOT agencies could use that would interface with a database of incorrect/missing/needed signs. Each agency logs in to see what signs in their jurisdiction are screwed up, and then they use the system to notify us once they fix them?
This is actually a better way of going about things. I have a page on my website that is a giant table of Oklahoma DOT errors. Some have been fixed, some haven't. It would be fun, easy, and legal. If people would be interested in contributing to such a database, it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to code.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 08, 2013, 06:37:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 08, 2013, 08:29:12 AM
I know of more signs that I would rather take down (seemingly needless No Turn On Red signs) than I would put up.
Those are banned in certain instances for specific reasons. Sight distance, turning radius, etc.
Oh, yeah, I understand that...I was just using it as an example. And I can name a few examples where I'm surprised one wasn't put up.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_2%2Fnuts.jpg&hash=3fbc090b8b2b24e5d0a3a2e7f135c3ef04df6b07)
there used to be a ninja MASS US 3 shield in the same area, but I can't find Alps' photo of it.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2013, 12:55:20 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_2%2Fnuts.jpg&hash=3fbc090b8b2b24e5d0a3a2e7f135c3ef04df6b07)
there used to be a ninja MASS US 3 shield in the same area, but I can't find Alps' photo of it.
The MASS US 3 shields weren't ninjas, those were MDC-issued fakes.
Quote from: Steve on April 09, 2013, 10:26:08 PM
The MASS US 3 shields weren't ninjas, those were MDC-issued fakes.
the very first one heading westbound after the Harvard Bridge. same gantry as MA-2/(erroneous) MA-3. I believe you had it on your website at some point.
Quote from: NE2 on April 08, 2013, 09:07:43 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 08, 2013, 07:17:00 PM
Diverging slightly off topic here: In my opinion, the whole concept of RTOR needs to be changed. Signs (Right Turn on Red After Stop) should be placed only where it is safe and legal to take a right turn on a red ball, as opposed to the current practice of placing "No Turn On Red" signs at locations where RTOR is unsafe or illegal. This would also be consistent with the current requirements for red arrows, where (per the MUTCD and in most states) you cannot do RTOR at a red arrow UNLESS there is a sign.
Why change it this way, rather than what some states already do: a red arrow means that movement has a red light, and all the rules for a red light apply.
Yes, allowing right turn on red arrow unless there's a sign present would also work.
Quote from: Steve on April 08, 2013, 07:54:06 PMdo not molest the original sign because it's state property.)
FIFY.
Also, road meet attendees should not trespass on state property and take the official meet photo there.
Federal property is OK though. Because states' rights.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 10, 2013, 11:34:49 AM
Quote from: Steve on April 08, 2013, 07:54:06 PMdo not molest the original sign because it's state property.)
FIFY.
Also, road meet attendees should not trespass on state property and take the official meet photo there.
But only if poo.
Just an update: I sent an email Wednesday about a missing blade sign, a missing BEGIN and END shield for a(n extremely short) county highway, and a missing county shield on an mast arm sign to the county and municipality and I got a reply today telling me that the blade sign will be installed Monday; the county shields are on order and will be done in about 4 weeks; and that they've forwarded my email to NJDOT regarding the mast arm sign. WTG Somerset county -- best experience I've had getting stuff corrected. I would have thought for sure they'd have rejected my request for BEGIN and END shields because it's on a section of road that's less than a mile long (though it is signed from the cross roads).
Quote from: _Simon on April 12, 2013, 09:22:25 PM
Just an update: I sent an email Wednesday about a missing blade sign, a missing BEGIN and END shield for a(n extremely short) county highway, and a missing county shield on an mast arm sign to the county and municipality and I got a reply today telling me that the blade sign will be installed Monday; the county shields are on order and will be done in about 4 weeks; and that they've forwarded my email to NJDOT regarding the mast arm sign. WTG Somerset county -- best experience I've had getting stuff corrected. I would have thought for sure they'd have rejected my request for BEGIN and END shields because it's on a section of road that's less than a mile long (though it is signed from the cross roads).
I was surprised you even bothered to mention a BEGIN and END, but I guess it never hurts to ask, does it?
Quote from: kphoger on April 13, 2013, 11:12:58 AM
Quote from: _Simon on April 12, 2013, 09:22:25 PM
Just an update: I sent an email Wednesday about a missing blade sign, a missing BEGIN and END shield for a(n extremely short) county highway, and a missing county shield on an mast arm sign to the county and municipality and I got a reply today telling me that the blade sign will be installed Monday; the county shields are on order and will be done in about 4 weeks; and that they've forwarded my email to NJDOT regarding the mast arm sign. WTG Somerset county -- best experience I've had getting stuff corrected. I would have thought for sure they'd have rejected my request for BEGIN and END shields because it's on a section of road that's less than a mile long (though it is signed from the cross roads).
I was surprised you even bothered to mention a BEGIN and END, but I guess it never hurts to ask, does it?
I had TDOT install a BEGIN and END 412 sign on US 412 at I-65. They were nice about it and it was installed in no time. I forgot to ask about a US 43 END sign. If I think about it I may ask about it.
Why would someone want to risk the liability and possible criminal charges? What kind of money would one have to invest anyway?
There's a construction detour near my house that is for EAST US-77/NORTH SH-39. The banners are switched. I idly considered switching them to be correct, but I'm lazy and it's just one sign out of many, so it's not a major error, so the chances are very small that I would actually do it.
Just saw this thread: I am sure everyone is familiar with the "deer crossing", "cattle crossing" official signs and such. There is an agricultural supply company that makes, the proper size, with the yellow reflector sheet, similar signage with any animal you specify. If I can find them, we have on site, "pig crossing", "goat crossing" and maybe even "sheep crossing" and "goose crossing", but we never put them up.
Not quite "GOOSE CROSSING," but not an uncommon sign in these parts: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.708604,-86.204899,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shuIDnMIFHLTSwwwlW8oQlA!2e0?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.708604,-86.204899,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shuIDnMIFHLTSwwwlW8oQlA!2e0?hl=en)
Something in a similar vein...a local businessman, with a long history of volunteerism, took it upon himself to patch up the paint job on a village welcome sign.
The result? The signs look great...and said businessman has received a nice cease-and-desist order (http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Adams-Man-Banned-From-Volunteering-In-Village-264035791.html) from the village, saying that he "went too far".
Quote from: corco on April 06, 2013, 03:37:02 PM
Oh come on, you guys need to pull those giant sticks out of your asses
+1
I'd like to replace all the OK 66 meat cleavers with US 66 shields.
They need to put an END sign at the eastern end of I-244 and at the southern end of OK 167.