From time to time, I come across a warning sign that is simply labeled as "CHURCH." Although I find it as a rather strange warning for motorists, what is the actual intention?
I cannot necessarily figure it out, and I am also curious. Any thoughts?
My thinking it it to alert motorists that there might be heavy traffic/pedestrian activity ahead, particularly on Sunday
Quote from: M3019C LPS20 on May 16, 2013, 10:48:44 PM
From time to time, I come across a warning sign that is simply labeled as "CHURCH." Although I find it as a rather strange warning for motorists, what is the actual intention?
I cannot necessarily figure it out, and I am also curious. Any thoughts?
around here that is usually to warn you that there is a church with drive way and
possibly pedestrian traffic
I'm noticing these signs less and less in Kentucky, thankfully.
TxDOT used to post these. i don't know if they don't do it anymore, or just do it based on request. There are two large churches around here that have driveways on state highways (FM roads) at which cops direct traffic every Sunday, and they don't have CHURCH signs.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on May 16, 2013, 11:13:33 PM
I'm noticing these signs less and less in Kentucky, thankfully.
Why "thankfully?" Shouldn't a DOT caution motorists of possible hazards from turning traffic or pedestrians?
What's the difference between a "Church" sign and a "Truck Crossing" sign?
If there are warning signs which say "CHURCH," why not "MOSQUE" or "SYNAGOGUE"?
It's a nice, brief way of saying "There's going to be a lot of old, Sunday drivers in the area that can barely see over the steering wheel, much less have any comprehension of what road they are on, and they probably will be going 30 mph under the speed limit, even on roadways with a 25 mph limit". Since that won't fit into a road sign, they abbreviate it to 'Church'.
I saw those signs on rural roads in Florida, seemingly at random because some churches had them and some didn't. I wondered if they were intended to serve as warnings that you may encounter more parked cars on the shoulder and things like funeral processions–in other words, a sudden uptick in traffic that you otherwise might not expect on a rural road.
Or it could be that the signs are installed in places where there have been wrecks involving traffic entering or exiting the church parking lot. Much like "Deer Crossing" signs are installed where there have been instances of deer being hit by vehicles.
Qoute from 1995hoo:
QuoteI saw those signs on rural roads in Florida, seemingly at random because some churches had them and some didn't. I wondered if they were intended to serve as warnings that you may encounter more parked cars on the shoulder and things like funeral processions–in other words, a sudden uptick in traffic that you otherwise might not expect on a rural road.
This may be halfway off topic, but does Florida have a lot of churches? It seems like there are less there than in TX or TN.
Back on subject, similar in concept, how bout this CONGESTED AREA sign on a very non congested rural US highway that has been bypassed by the interstate. This sign is to warn of a popular catfish resteraunt
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=35.03955,-85.479459&spn=0.000009,0.006266&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=35.039461,-85.479405&panoid=NoIqlZmo1JpJfK7cwdJ_7w&cbp=12,332.63,,0,0 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=35.03955,-85.479459&spn=0.000009,0.006266&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=35.039461,-85.479405&panoid=NoIqlZmo1JpJfK7cwdJ_7w&cbp=12,332.63,,0,0)
Quote from: Brian556 on May 17, 2013, 10:32:01 AM
Qoute from 1995hoo:
QuoteI saw those signs on rural roads in Florida, seemingly at random because some churches had them and some didn't. I wondered if they were intended to serve as warnings that you may encounter more parked cars on the shoulder and things like funeral processionsin other words, a sudden uptick in traffic that you otherwise might not expect on a rural road.
This may be halfway off topic, but does Florida have a lot of churches? It seems like there are less there than in TX or TN.
Back on subject, similar in concept, how bout this CONGESTED AREA sign on a very non congested rural US highway that has been bypassed by the interstate. This sign is to warn of a popular catfish resteraunt
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=35.03955,-85.479459&spn=0.000009,0.006266&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=35.039461,-85.479405&panoid=NoIqlZmo1JpJfK7cwdJ_7w&cbp=12,332.63,,0,0 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=35.03955,-85.479459&spn=0.000009,0.006266&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=35.039461,-85.479405&panoid=NoIqlZmo1JpJfK7cwdJ_7w&cbp=12,332.63,,0,0)
North Florida is the Bible Belt... Lots of Churches in the Panhandle and around Jacksonville
I've seen similar CHURCH warning signs in southeastern PA (Delaware County).
One's along Wayne Ave., north of US 30, alerting motorists of Church of the Savior in Wayne. Note: there's a lot of activity that takes place at that church (which looks more like a small college campus of sorts) beyond just Sunday mornings.
The other one I saw was along Providence Road in Edgmont, Twp. just south of PA 3 (West Chester Pike) alerting motorists of St. Sharbel Maronite Church.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 17, 2013, 01:23:38 AM
If there are warning signs which say "CHURCH," why not "MOSQUE" or "SYNAGOGUE"?
The US is predominantly Christian. In a heavily Jewish area like Lakewood NJ, you might see a SYNAGOGUE sign, or a heavily Muslim area you might see MOSQUE. If the concern is a highway dept or DOT establishing religion ...that is a bit too much phobia of Christians. Its not like the sign says "CHURCH AHEAD YOU HAVE TO TURN IN DO AN ALTAR CALL AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR PERSONAL LORD AND SAVIOR AND IF YOU DON'T YOU WILL BE ARRESTED."
If one wanted to be completely PC there could be a sign saying RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. But this line of thinking is like homeschoolers getting their panties in a wad over SCHOOL ZONE signs. Specifying the religion would give a clue about which day(s) to be careful. Here in the Bible Belt... you have to look out for church people not only on Sunday but on Wednesday night. Kids don't have soccer practice etc because of Wednesday night services
Quote from: jwolfer on May 17, 2013, 02:16:33 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on May 17, 2013, 01:23:38 AMIf there are warning signs which say "CHURCH," why not "MOSQUE" or "SYNAGOGUE"?
The US is predominantly Christian. In a heavily Jewish area like Lakewood NJ, you might see a SYNAGOGUE sign, or a heavily Muslim area you might see MOSQUE.
Are any such signs in fact posted?
QuoteIf the concern is a highway dept or DOT establishing religion ...that is a bit too much phobia of Christians. Its not like the sign says "CHURCH AHEAD YOU HAVE TO TURN IN DO AN ALTAR CALL AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR PERSONAL LORD AND SAVIOR AND IF YOU DON'T YOU WILL BE ARRESTED."
I recognize that the intent behind posting these signs is normally not to promote an established religion or even the act of religious worship. However, it is not self-evident from these signs how the presence (or otherwise) of a church is relevant to traffic using the road. Also, while the federal
MUTCD allows state DOTs and local agencies complete flexibility in devising word-message signs to fit a given situation, many state
MUTCDs do not, so in those states "CHURCH" is the only off-the-shelf option for religious institutions which generate significant foot and automobile traffic, such as temples, synagogues, or mosques. That disparity looks a lot like official endorsement of Christianity.
It would be much better to warn drivers directly of the potential traffic problem--through sign messages like "CONGESTED AREA," "HEAVY PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY," etc. (all of which have been used in various places)--than to step into a First Amendment minefield with "CHURCH."
QuoteIf one wanted to be completely PC there could be a sign saying RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. But this line of thinking is like homeschoolers getting their panties in a wad over SCHOOL ZONE signs. Specifying the religion would give a clue about which day(s) to be careful. Here in the Bible Belt... you have to look out for church people not only on Sunday but on Wednesday night. Kids don't have soccer practice etc because of Wednesday night services
Regarding getting one's panties in a wad, I think it should be unlawful to have Election Day polling places in churches or other religious institutions.
I see your point about the heavy foot/automobile traffic around churches (and for that matter synagogues) being concentrated on particular days of the week, but on the other hand it could be problematic to create an expectation that there will be no traffic except on the weekday(s) of regular worship. Many religions have feast days and days of obligation (to borrow a Catholic term) which fall outside the regular calendar--e.g. Christmas, Ash Wednesday, Eid, Yom Kippur, . . .
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 17, 2013, 02:57:36 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on May 17, 2013, 02:16:33 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on May 17, 2013, 01:23:38 AMIf there are warning signs which say "CHURCH," why not "MOSQUE" or "SYNAGOGUE"?
The US is predominantly Christian. In a heavily Jewish area like Lakewood NJ, you might see a SYNAGOGUE sign, or a heavily Muslim area you might see MOSQUE.
Are any such signs in fact posted?
QuoteIf the concern is a highway dept or DOT establishing religion ...that is a bit too much phobia of Christians. Its not like the sign says "CHURCH AHEAD YOU HAVE TO TURN IN DO AN ALTAR CALL AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR PERSONAL LORD AND SAVIOR AND IF YOU DON'T YOU WILL BE ARRESTED."
I recognize that the intent behind posting these signs is normally not to promote an established religion or even the act of religious worship. However, it is not self-evident from these signs how the presence (or otherwise) of a church is relevant to traffic using the road. Also, while the federal MUTCD allows state DOTs and local agencies complete flexibility in devising word-message signs to fit a given situation, many state MUTCDs do not, so in those states "CHURCH" is the only off-the-shelf option for religious institutions which generate significant foot and automobile traffic, such as temples, synagogues, or mosques. That disparity looks a lot like official endorsement of Christianity.
It would be much better to warn drivers directly of the potential traffic problem--through sign messages like "CONGESTED AREA," "HEAVY PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY," etc. (all of which have been used in various places)--than to step into a First Amendment minefield with "CHURCH."
QuoteIf one wanted to be completely PC there could be a sign saying RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. But this line of thinking is like homeschoolers getting their panties in a wad over SCHOOL ZONE signs. Specifying the religion would give a clue about which day(s) to be careful. Here in the Bible Belt... you have to look out for church people not only on Sunday but on Wednesday night. Kids don't have soccer practice etc because of Wednesday night services
Regarding getting one's panties in a wad, I think it should be unlawful to have Election Day polling places in churches or other religious institutions.
I see your point about the heavy foot/automobile traffic around churches (and for that matter synagogues) being concentrated on particular days of the week, but on the other hand it could be problematic to create an expectation that there will be no traffic except on the weekday(s) of regular worship. Many religions have feast days and days of obligation (to borrow a Catholic term) which fall outside the regular calendar--e.g. Christmas, Ash Wednesday, Eid, Yom Kippur, . . .
In Duval County they used to have polling places in the schools my polling place was at a campus of the community college auditorium but it was moved to a Methodist Church. The school board did not like the disruptions to the school day and then there was the issue of lots of strangers around the school campus. Now polling places are usually church meeting rooms, libraries or community centers. Early voting sites are the Supervisor of Elections office or Libraries
.. Churches usually have a parish hall or some other large room that can accommodate lots of people with ample parking and usually not being used on election day... I don't think that just stepping into a church( or any other religious building) owned building is going to make someone feel that they have to be a particular religion. However I think the supervisor of elections opts for a library before a church.
I just googled "polling places at synagogue" lots of stories that mention voting at synagogues and even mosques. I would not feel compelled to convert to Judaism is my polling place were at a Jewish Temple. I didn't feel compelled to become a Baptist because I happened to vote at a Baptist Church.
Some of the larger churches will have a Police Officer directing traffic at the entrance to the church. "CHURCH" also would imply there may be an office directing traffic more than "CONGESTED AREA" I worked at an office near a large Mosque and on Fridays they had a Jacksonville Sheriffs Officer directing traffic, I don't that to mean that the JSO favors Muslims over any other religion.
It seems to me "CHURCH" signs are used sort of like "HIDDEN OR BLIND DRIVEWAY" signs. In the county I live in I have seen them on rural roads with 55-60 MPH speed limits. Or where the church is not visible or not near a traffic light. By no means is there a sign near every church
I now seem to have a clearer understanding of its actual intention, since I sometimes see temporary congestion near and at churches on certain days of the week. These churches that I am aware of are located alongside 45-50 M.P.H. roads. Makes sense.
With regards to other names for houses of worship, I never came across warning signs that read such as "MOSQUE" or "SYNAGOGUE." Only "CHURCH."
Has anyone seen any newly erected CHURCH warning signs? My suspicion is that the real answer to the question is that the vast majority of them were put up before the world went all PC crazy. Similarly, they signs are also typically found in rural areas, where other religions have not spread as quickly as in urban areas. (Maybe this is just my experience, but I've never seen a CHURCH sign in a large city.)
There's a fair number of "CHURCH" signs around eastern Mass, including in urban areas. I can't think of any newly installed ones though.
I kind of agree with J N Winkler though. If a busy church has lots of traffic turning in and out, or lots of pedestrians crossing the street, then put up a pedestrians sign and a "WATCH FOR TURNING TRAFFIC" sign, both of which are standard, at least here in MA. No need to specify that it's a church, since there is no hazard specific to a church, like there is to a school/playground, fire station, or area with deer.
As a side note, I think these "CHURCH" signs are from a bygone era with a different set of standard signs. All the ones here seem to be a similar vintage to "CHILDREN" and old text signs that have since been replaced with symbols, like intersection or stop ahead or "THICKLY SETTLED"
I don't think I have ever seen a "CHURCH" sign in Maryland or Virginia or D.C. (or, for that matter, a "SYNAGOGUE" or "MOSQUE" or "TEMPLE" or "KINGDOM HALL" sign).
The "SYNAGOGUE" sign would seem to me to be especially important and even warranted (in the context of an MUTCD warrant) near those congregations where all or most of the members walk to services on the Sabbath and on other Jewish holidays.
Sometimes the traffic in and out of the LDS temple not so far from where I grew up in Kensington, Maryland can seem pretty heavy (and the entrance to it is on a relatively minor street with on a somewhat steeply sloping hill (GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=kensington+md&hl=en&ll=39.017183,-77.063684&spn=0.009319,0.01929&safe=off&hnear=Kensington,+Montgomery,+Maryland&gl=us&t=h&z=16))), so perhaps there should be a "TEMPLE" sign there?
I can see the point of a "CHURCH" sign, it in no was establishes a religion, any more than a "MALL" sign establishes a retail establishment or a "GOLF COURSE" sign establishes a sport. After all the church was there before the sign.
FWIW, Pennsylvania has a liscense plate for "CHURCH BUS", which I suppose are taxed differently. I have seen them on buses belonging to groups that do not call their places of worship a "church". The sun came up the next day anyway.
Somebody mentioned voting. In my state, we have way too many precincts, because they want people to not have to travel very far. School is always out for elections and the county prefers to use schools (which, of course, they already own, so they don't have to pay rent), but we have had a (tremendious idea, IMHO) exteme round of school consolidations and they have thus been using churches, along with firehouses, community buildings, and even motels. Part of the contract is that they have to cover up any political statements that the church might post.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2013, 07:08:47 AM
I can see the point of a "CHURCH" sign, it in no was establishes a religion, any more than a "MALL" sign establishes a retail establishment or a "GOLF COURSE" sign establishes a sport. After all the church was there before the sign.
But those aren't standard signs. Church is/was.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 18, 2013, 10:05:32 AM
But those aren't standard signs. Church is/was.
MUTCD W11-11
MUTCD W15-1
I'm surprised the "Freedom from Religion" group hasn't done an all-out assualt on the various "Church Streets". How many "Synagoge Street" or "Mosque Street" are there?
(And I'm an athiest, but this P.C. crap is going bonkers.)
When I grew up in McMinnville, Oregon the city did a pretty good job of signing churches on the main streets (Oregon 99W, Adams and Baker Streets) with blue signs. However a recent tour on Streetview looks like many of those signs have been taken down (it looks like ODOT has gone through and replaced all of the city signs with state signs, too...)
But church warning signs? Can't say I've seen them around here...
The only place I can recall seeing CHURCH signs was in Ohio -- the same state I also last saw THEATRE ENTRANCE for a now-defunct Drive-In Theater in Akron.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2013, 10:31:01 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 18, 2013, 10:05:32 AM
But those aren't standard signs. Church is/was.
MUTCD W11-11
MUTCD W15-1
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trafficsign.us%2F650%2Fwarn%2Fw11-11.gif&hash=d9bfa4f847de16373472a7d3e77720ff6a7a4d60)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trafficsign.us%2F650%2Fwarn%2Fw15-1.gif&hash=033ef5a663c681f34629557786e4996dde07a8fc)
Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 18, 2013, 11:00:58 AM
(And I'm an athiest, but this P.C. crap is going bonkers.)
+1. Thank you.
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2013, 02:44:14 PM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 18, 2013, 11:00:58 AM
(And I'm an athiest, but this P.C. crap is going bonkers.)
+1. Thank you.
Totally agreed. Everyone should use Macs.
An observation: most European countries have standard warning signs for playgrounds, but not for churches (or, for that matter, mosques, synagogues, or other types of religious institution).
I agree that "CHURCH" signs (and, for that matter, "HOSPITAL" warning signs) are largely a holdover from the days of third restrooms, ecclesiastical school districts, and text-message warning signs for everything but curves and intersections.
Quite a few of these signs appear on the aptly named Church Road in Toms River: http://goo.gl/maps/BFpJf
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 18, 2013, 03:38:10 PM
Quite a few of these signs appear on the aptly named Church Road in Toms River: http://goo.gl/maps/BFpJf
Funny you posted that, since that is the exact one that I drive by on almost a daily basis.
My uncle-in-law worked for AAA some years ago, and at time from time, he'd get questions about why every church wasn't listed on a map. His response was "because then they'd have to include every liquor store as well". (Mind you, he's a devout Catholic, all that, et cetera.)
I've seen a lot of these signs in rural areas, particularly in The South. Can't say I've seen them much in urban areas at all, which stands to have a far greater concentration of non-church houses of worship, no?
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 17, 2013, 02:57:36 PM
QuoteIf the concern is a highway dept or DOT establishing religion ...that is a bit too much phobia of Christians. Its not like the sign says "CHURCH AHEAD YOU HAVE TO TURN IN DO AN ALTAR CALL AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR PERSONAL LORD AND SAVIOR AND IF YOU DON'T YOU WILL BE ARRESTED."
I recognize that the intent behind posting these signs is normally not to promote an established religion or even the act of religious worship. However, it is not self-evident from these signs how the presence (or otherwise) of a church is relevant to traffic using the road. Also, while the federal MUTCD allows state DOTs and local agencies complete flexibility in devising word-message signs to fit a given situation, many state MUTCDs do not, so in those states "CHURCH" is the only off-the-shelf option for religious institutions which generate significant foot and automobile traffic, such as temples, synagogues, or mosques. That disparity looks a lot like official endorsement of Christianity.
To me, that seems more like a fault of the state MUTCDs for not allowing flexibility than anything else. I really don't think a CHURCH warning sign is any less obvious in its intent than a SCHOOL sign; after all, it's not any more self-evident from SCHOOL sigsn how their presence is relevant to traffic using the road, yet any reasonable person makes the connection easily. Frankly, there should be enough flexibility in the erection of warning signs to allow things like MOSQUE signs.
And, for any who might think that erecting a CHURCH warning sign officially endorses the Christian religion...that's like saying that erecting a SCHOOL warning sign outside a private school is officially endorses the views taught by its teachers. Nonsense.
I do find that the signs are more useful in rural areas (where, as I've mentioned, places of worship in this country are more likely to be Christian). Toodling along at 60 mph, coming over a hill, and then finding a bunch of cars pulling out of a funeral service–that can be quite a surprise.
There used to be quite a few "THEATER ENTRANCE" signs in Kentucky when drive-ins were more prevalent.
What states don't allow flexibility in signing? That just seems so weird.....
In other news, President Oniama announced that the next version of the MUTCD will include an ABORTIONPLEX sign.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2013, 10:31:01 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 18, 2013, 10:05:32 AM
But those aren't standard signs. Church is/was.
MUTCD W11-11
MUTCD W15-1
Those are signs warning of a specific hazard crossing the road (golf carts, and children playing). The playground one is similar to church, but still refers to a specific hazard (playing children) rather than a generic one (people crossing, and vehicles turning/entering).
Essentially, for a church it would also suffice to post a pedestrians and/or "WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES" sign, or even "CONGESTED AREA AHEAD", while for a golf course this would not suffice, since at a golf course you must also watch for golf carts crossing the road, and at a playground you have to be especially watchful for playing children darting out into the road, rather than just generic pedestrians crossing.
Quote from: NE2 on May 18, 2013, 07:14:12 PM
In other news, President Oniama announced that the next version of the MUTCD will include an ABORTIONPLEX sign.
That's
so bad awesome insensitive good evil freaking hilarious!*
* or possibly bad
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 18, 2013, 02:58:18 PM
I agree that "CHURCH" signs (and, for that matter, "HOSPITAL" warning signs) are largely a holdover from the days of third restrooms, ecclesiastical school districts, and text-message warning signs for everything but curves and intersections.
When were the hospital diamond warning signs used? The only one that I know about is hanging on my wall.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5064/5618462264_ca8a46da74_z.jpg)
^^^
I remember those in Kentucky as well.
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2013, 06:29:19 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 17, 2013, 02:57:36 PMI recognize that the intent behind posting these signs is normally not to promote an established religion or even the act of religious worship. However, it is not self-evident from these signs how the presence (or otherwise) of a church is relevant to traffic using the road. Also, while the federal MUTCD allows state DOTs and local agencies complete flexibility in devising word-message signs to fit a given situation, many state MUTCDs do not, so in those states "CHURCH" is the only off-the-shelf option for religious institutions which generate significant foot and automobile traffic, such as temples, synagogues, or mosques. That disparity looks a lot like official endorsement of Christianity.
To me, that seems more like a fault of the state MUTCDs for not allowing flexibility than anything else. I really don't think a CHURCH warning sign is any less obvious in its intent than a SCHOOL sign; after all, it's not any more self-evident from SCHOOL signs how their presence is relevant to traffic using the road, yet any reasonable person makes the connection easily.
The two situations are not strictly comparable--"CHURCH" is a single diamond warning sign which has traditionally been posted without further elaboration, while school signing consists of multiple signs in which the word "SCHOOL" is only one part of the message, is its own chapter in the
MUTCD, and receives special emphasis in formal driver instruction.
I haven't checked, but I don't think "CHURCH" has actually appeared in any edition of the national
MUTCD, with the possible exception of one or two of the very early editions. I can remember having seen it only in state MUTCDs and sign drawing books. For that matter, I think it has to have been at least four decades since a warning sign saying just "SCHOOL" appeared in any edition of the national
MUTCD.
QuoteFrankly, there should be enough flexibility in the erection of warning signs to allow things like MOSQUE signs.
In the national
MUTCD there is. Whether the erection of such signs is a good idea is a different matter altogether. I stick with my view that any special warning sign that is placed in the vicinity of a church for traffic reasons should reference those directly, rather than relying on "CHURCH" (or for that matter "MOSQUE" etc.) as a shorthand for the traffic conditions being warned against.
The traffic conditions associated with worship services are a marginal case for warning signing--rather like "BRIDGE ICES BEFORE ROAD" (some states use these signs, while others deliberately choose not to post them on the basis that it should be general knowledge among drivers that bridges ice before roads). This means that many drivers will wonder why, exactly, a church has to figure on a warning sign, and why churches (or houses of worship in general) merit this treatment, and not other establishments (say, bars, wedding venues, funeral homes, or the previously cited example of drive-in theatres) which similarly generate heavy traffic congestion or disruption in short bursts.
Warning of traffic conditions directly instead of just specifying the type of roadside facility also eliminates the need for drivers to guess exactly what hazard is being warned against--not everyone goes to church (or otherwise engages in organized religious worship), not everyone sees movies in the theatre, not everyone drinks at a roadside bar (I, for one, have never done so), etc.
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2013, 07:11:33 PMWhat states don't allow flexibility in signing? That just seems so weird.....
It is the kind of thing Pennsylvania has done in the past and may still do. The rationale is to keep a lid on municipal traffic engineers (who tend to be less qualified and to operate at a lower skill level than traffic engineers working for the state DOT) by telling them, in effect, that they can use only the signs that are actually diagrammed in the state traffic manual. (The national
MUTCD allows creation of
ad hoc word messages to meet circumstances not addressed by standard signs, but if a given state has its own MUTCD, then traffic engineers operating in that state have to follow the provisions of the state MUTCD.)
Edit: I checked the current edition of Publication 236M (ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/publications/PUB%20236M/) (PennDOT's sign drawings book). "CHURCH" is identified as W11-102 and the following language governs its use: "The Church Sign (W11-102) shall be authorized for use to indicate an access point to a church. Its use shall be limited to locations where traffic conditions such as approach speeds, visibility, and conflicts are such that special warning is desirable." "HOSPITAL" still exists as an option in Pennsylvania, BTW (sign code W11-101), as does "HEARING IMPAIRED CHILD" (sign code W11-108: sign title "Impaired Child Sign"; sign to be used only at the request of parents of an impaired child under age 16; "HEARING" may be varied to "VISION" as applicable, "CHILD" may be varied to "PERSON" "if special circumstances exist"). (Refer to Publication 12 in the same FTP directory to translate publication numbers to titles; unfortunately, the old edition of Publication 212--"Official Traffic-Control Devices," with hundreds of pattern-accurate illustrations of warning signs, including many now considered hilariously non-PC--is long gone.)
I also checked Texas, Nevada, California, Virginia, and Washington state. The current edition of TxDOT's
SHSD identifies "CHURCH" (sign code in Texas: W8-16) as a sign removed in 2012--"HOSPITAL" is still in
SHSD. Nevada DOT's
SHS supplement (2006) doesn't have "CHURCH" or "HOSPITAL," nor do I think either sign was included in the previous print-only edition (1999, I think). "CHURCH" and "HOSPITAL" are similarly absent from the current Caltrans sign specs distribution and the Virginia DOT
SHS supplement. WSDOT's
Sign Fabrication Manual includes "HOSPITAL" but not "CHURCH." This is a selection of red and blue states in which, ironically enough, it is a blue state that not only is alone in retaining "CHURCH" as a standard sign but also has the richest selection of signs that could be considered culturally insensitive, representative of obsolete traffic engineering practice, or both.
I came across one today in Georgia, but it had a left arrow on a yellow sign under it referring that there was a church on the side road. Google maps did not provide a clear view of the sign assembly.
Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 18, 2013, 11:00:58 AM
How many "Synagoge Street" or "Mosque Street" are there?
There's a Synagogue Rd. in Ellenville, NY. Doesn't appear to be a house of worship on that road anymore, if there ever was one, or for that matter much of anything. As nature has reclaimed much of the once-booming Catskill resort region.
Regarding the HOSPITAL signs, I remember reading about (but never actually saw) signs that read "QUIET, Hospital Zone" or something similar. I suspect these date back before the advent of air conditioning, and patient windows were open on hotter days. And "hot rod" starts could be not only annoying, but downright lethal for some conditions.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 18, 2013, 02:58:18 PM
I agree that "CHURCH" signs (and, for that matter, "HOSPITAL" warning signs) are largely a holdover from the days of third restrooms
Actually (and this is another topic for another thread), 3rd restrooms have been making a comeback; but for completely different reasons/demographics (ADA-equipped or
Family restrooms).
Back on topic.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 18, 2013, 07:39:21 PMEssentially, for a church it would also suffice to post a pedestrians and/or "WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES" sign, or even "CONGESTED AREA AHEAD", while for a golf course this would not suffice, since at a golf course you must also watch for golf carts crossing the road, and at a playground you have to be especially watchful for playing children darting out into the road, rather than just generic pedestrians crossing.
The reasoning for posting a
CHURCH sign rather than your suggested
WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES and/or
CONGESTED AREA AHEAD signs is that those 2 signs falsely gives the motorist the impression that such traffic/pedestrian conditions exist
at all times, not just when an event at a church is taking place. Please note that an event taking place at a church doesn't necessarily have to be for services only or church-related activities. Some churches allow for their facilities to be rented out for secular functions at times.
While supplemental time interval placards (similar to some selected school zone signage) can help alleviate the
at all times issue; churches have been known to modify their event times and service schedules periodically making the messages on those placards obsolete and/or a pain (& cost) to change to keep current.
I say keep the signs as they are. They still serve a functional purpose. If a synagogue or mosque want a similar warning sign made/posted for their facilities; they could always request the FHWA/USDOT to add such to the MUTCD standards.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 20, 2013, 09:44:00 AMThe reasoning for posting a CHURCH sign rather than your suggested WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES and/or CONGESTED AREA AHEAD signs is that those 2 signs falsely gives the motorist the impression that such traffic/pedestrian conditions exist at all times, not just when an event at a church is taking place. Please note that an event taking place at a church doesn't necessarily have to be for services only or church-related activities. Some churches allow for their facilities to be rented out for secular functions at times.
This argument actually supports the contrary position. If churches generate traffic outside the traditional Sunday morning hours, then why use a sign which falsely reassures drivers that they don't have to watch for traffic in or out of the church except on Sunday mornings?
QuoteI say keep the signs as they are. They still serve a functional purpose. If a synagogue or mosque want a similar warning sign made/posted for their facilities, they could always request the FHWA/USDOT to add such to the MUTCD standards.
It seems TxDOT does not agree with you since they have killed their "CHURCH" sign.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 20, 2013, 11:28:38 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 20, 2013, 09:44:00 AMThe reasoning for posting a CHURCH sign rather than your suggested WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES and/or CONGESTED AREA AHEAD signs is that those 2 signs falsely gives the motorist the impression that such traffic/pedestrian conditions exist at all times, not just when an event at a church is taking place. Please note that an event taking place at a church doesn't necessarily have to be for services only or church-related activities. Some churches allow for their facilities to be rented out for secular functions at times.
This argument actually supports the contrary position. If churches generate traffic outside the traditional Sunday morning hours, then why use a sign which falsely reassures drivers that they don't have to watch for traffic in or out of the church except on Sunday mornings?
....
I'm not sure "except on Sunday mornings" is necessarily a valid assumption, either. Many (probably most) Catholic churches have a Saturday evening Mass, usually around 5:00 or 5:30; many may also have a Sunday afternoon and/or Sunday evening one as well. I know of one in Falls Church, Virginia, that has enough of an Hispanic presence that in order to fulfill the bilingual needs they have seven weekend Masses (Saturday at 5:15 in Spanish and 7:00 in English; Sunday at 8:30, 11:00, and 5:30 in English and at 1:00 and 3:30 in Spanish). I know of one in Fairfax City that has a 10:00 PM Sunday Mass (it serves George Mason University). Just about every Catholic church has one or two Masses every weekday as well, though the attendance is far lower than it is on the weekends.
There's a Mormon church located a bit under a mile from my house whose car park was still quite full around 2:00 yesterday afternoon when we drove past. I have no idea what time they start or how long their worship goes or whether they have multiple worship services, as I don't know much about the Mormon faith.
But we don't have "CHURCH" warning signs in Virginia, so there's no issue of the sign misleading people. I suppose I've only seen "CHURCH" signs on rural highways in the Deep South (I'd count rural parts of northern Florida as the Deep South), and down there I guess the population is overwhelmingly Protestant.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 20, 2013, 11:28:38 AMIf churches generate traffic outside the traditional Sunday morning hours, then why use a sign which falsely reassures drivers that they don't have to watch for traffic in or out of the church except on Sunday mornings?
Again, and as 1995hoo mentioned, many churches aren't just open for Sunday mornings. Many do have
regularly scheduled services on Saturday (or Sunday) evenings as well as mid-weeknight prayer meetings or Bible Studies.
Simply put, if the adjacent parking lots are occupied and/or there are vehicles parked alongside a road for a function that takes place at a church (for services or otherwise); then the
CHURCH sign alerting the motorist of vehicular & pedestrian activity during said-times (note the plural) is valid. Conversely, when no event is taking place; such additional traffic alerts aren't warranted. This is especially true if such a church is located along an more open road.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 20, 2013, 11:28:38 AMIt seems TxDOT does not agree with you since they have killed their "CHURCH" sign.
That's just
one agency. Whether other states have followed (or will follow) suit or not is anybody's guess at this point and time.
Although, I'm a bit surprised that TxDOT would do such... especially since some of the so-called mega-churches (Joel
Olstein's Osteen's church & Bishop T.D. Jakes'
The Potter's House) are located in the Lone Star State. That latter's located along TX 303/Kiest Blvd. in Dallas but has a pedestrian overpass across the 6-lane highway.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 20, 2013, 12:26:25 PM
Simply put, if the adjacent parking lots are occupied and/or there are vehicles parked alongside a road for a function that takes place at a church (for services or otherwise); then the CHURCH sign alerting the motorist of vehicular & pedestrian activity during said-times (note the plural) is valid. Conversely, when no event is taking place; such additional traffic alerts aren't warranted. This is especially true if such a church is located along an more open road.
Which is why a general "watch for turning vehicles", "pedestrians", or "congested area ahead" sign would be ideal. Most people think of Sunday mornings when they think of church, and posting a sign that just says "CHURCH" implies that the only time any caution need be exercised is on Sunday mornings.
Whereas, since churches often have a variety of services at different times, and often play host to a variety of events (I took all my AP Exams in high school in a church, for example), you never know when they might be occurring, and always need to be cautious just in case, thus the generic signs.
Essentially, the hazard signs I suggested instead more implicitly apply to any time, rather than just times we typically associate with church, and any event, rather than just church services.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 20, 2013, 12:26:25 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on May 20, 2013, 11:28:38 AMIt seems TxDOT does not agree with you since they have killed their "CHURCH" sign.
That's just one agency. Whether other states have followed (or will follow) suit or not is anybody's guess at this point and time.
To be precise, that is one agency I found in a casual search of six for whom I know sign drawing books are readily available online. There may be (indeed, probably are) others which have abandoned "CHURCH" in the past, but not in a way that would be obvious on a casual Internet search. Some states (e.g. Missouri, Kansas) do not have their sign drawing books or traffic policy manuals online, others maintain online availability only for the latest editions of their sign drawing book, still others have put out just one online edition with all previous ones being in print, etc. TxDOT itself is fairly unusual in including change notations in
SHSD.
I do think it is telling that Pennsylvania was the only one of the six that still had a "CHURCH" warning sign.
QuoteAlthough, I'm a bit surprised that TxDOT would do such... especially since some of the so-called mega-churches (Joel Olstein's church & Bishop T.D. Jakes' The Potter's House) are located in the Lone Star State. That latter's located along TX 303/Kiest Blvd. in Dallas but has a pedestrian overpass across the 6-lane highway.
I am not surprised at all, to be frank--for me the real surprise would be the use of "CHURCH" signs at either megachurch. A quick check of Wikipedia turns up the fact that Lakewood Church, for which Joel Osteen (not Olstein) is the pastor, has been on its current premises since 2003, at which point it had a congregation of about 30,000. At that scale engineering measures are needed which are much broader than a simple warning sign; the traditional usage scenario of "CHURCH" signs, as noted above, has been rural locations where the presence of a church is not obvious and poor visibility limits the driver's advance notice of church-generated traffic.
I think the removal of "CHURCH" from
SHSD reflects a conclusion that it is better engineering practice to focus signing on the actual traffic conditions than to leave drivers to draw possibly incorrect inferences from the single word
church or to wonder if the government is giving churches special protection by providing warning signs. "CHURCH," after all, is not a traffic condition by itself, so the second question is entirely legitimate.
Quote from: bugo on May 18, 2013, 09:48:38 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 18, 2013, 02:58:18 PM
I agree that "CHURCH" signs (and, for that matter, "HOSPITAL" warning signs) are largely a holdover from the days of third restrooms, ecclesiastical school districts, and text-message warning signs for everything but curves and intersections.
When were the hospital diamond warning signs used? The only one that I know about is hanging on my wall.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5064/5618462264_ca8a46da74_z.jpg)
Three or four blocks from my house, as a matter of fact. The best part is that, by the time you encouter one of these signs, you've already turned into the hospital entrance.
http://goo.gl/maps/4klBn (http://goo.gl/maps/4klBn)
http://goo.gl/maps/DMP70 (http://goo.gl/maps/DMP70)
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 20, 2013, 02:51:32 PM
Joel Osteen
[discussingreligionexceptinofftopic]I'd be in favor of a JOEL OSTEEN warning sign... :eyebrow:
[/discussingreligionexceptinofftopic]
Speaking of Hospital text signs, I saw a "Hospital Zone" sign (http://goo.gl/maps/4bz0g) today. It's on westbound VA 312 in Newport News. The hospital looks fairly new.
That sign is so prejudiced against Christian Science... :evilgrin:
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 18, 2013, 02:58:18 PMa holdover from the days of third restrooms
third restroom?
men, women, and colored?
I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't understand that. I thought of the race issue, but that would make for four, not three.
"CHURCH," as well as "HOSPITAL," is still listed in the newest edition of PennDOT's Handbook of Approved Signs.
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2013, 07:28:48 PMI'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't understand that. I thought of the race issue, but that would make for four, not three.
You are thinking of
Plessy v. Ferguson--another Supreme Court decision four years later, in
Cumming v. Richmond County BOE, watered down the "equal" part of "separate but equal."
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 21, 2013, 10:48:47 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2013, 07:28:48 PMI'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't understand that. I thought of the race issue, but that would make for four, not three.
You are thinking of Plessy v. Ferguson--another Supreme Court decision four years later, in Cumming v. Richmond County BOE, watered down the "equal" part of "separate but equal."
Huh? Were there, in fact, genderless colored bathrooms, and if so, what does that court case have to do with it?
Huh? "Colored" didn't separate men's and women's? I'm still confused...
Trivia: The Pentagon was built with far more restrooms than needed in order to comply with segregation laws.
Quote from: NE2 on May 21, 2013, 10:59:46 PMHuh? Were there, in fact, genderless colored bathrooms, and if so, what does that court case have to do with it?
I have read that in many cases there were--the specific example I recall is gas stations built during Jim Crow days which nowadays have a "spare" restroom. After some Web searching, however, I haven't found a specific example of architectural provision of this nature--only general observations that the restrooms provided for people of color were frequently grossly inferior to those available to whites.
The
Cumming case (1899) was sparked by the decision of the Richmond County (Georgia) BOE to close its only high school for people of color. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to close the high school for whites until facilities were made available for blacks to get a high-school education, per the separate-but-equal doctrine laid down in
Plessy. The Supreme Court viewed the matter as a choice between high school for several dozen white kids and high school for nobody at all, and ruled against the plaintiffs, on the basis that allocation of public funds is a matter of official discretion and no constitutional rights were being violated. This case opened the door to all kinds of excuses for providing separate facilities for blacks that were, in fact, inferior.
I'd never seen the church warning sign, but my guess is that the purpose is to alert drivers that there may be a higher concentration of children (for Sunday school) then a typical rural road. While service times may vary, when a church service does end, there are usually a large number of people exiting at the same time.
You would have to go after all the Mission Ave/Road signs in California.
Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2013, 02:55:15 PM
[discussingreligionexceptinofftopic]
I'd be in favor of a JOEL OSTEEN warning sign... :eyebrow:
[/discussingreligionexceptinofftopic]
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ff4%2FSingapore_Road_Signs_-_Warning_Sign_-_Accident_Area.svg%2F200px-Singapore_Road_Signs_-_Warning_Sign_-_Accident_Area.svg.png&hash=0baea4f8346b86f2e640112d0cbb721da7477a03) this one?
Though his congregation is more likely to think its this one (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F19%2FVorsicht_Rentierschlitten.jpg%2F264px-Vorsicht_Rentierschlitten.jpg&hash=0cc9e3b2f91e3c55a89be9609d47dc0041628e86)
But if you hear him on Late Night TV it's more like (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.ftcdn.net%2Fjpg%2F00%2F14%2F06%2F30%2F400_F_14063019_VWb5vujgiBtpJKiiDhmVKrEhZr9WGKUc.jpg&hash=c2b16bead93bc8a131b4c67869997d4de90d6f3a)
</offtopic>
------------------
It does make some sort of sense to have church (and Gurdwara, Mosque, Synagogue, Temple, Stone Circle, Reading Room, etc if needed) sign, but there's more generic ones for the warnings and also it is more than places of worship that would need those kinds of warnings - small stadia (though arguably that is also a place of worship).
OK, direction signs not warning ones, but why (https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.652417,-0.395443&spn=0.008054,0.021136&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.65207,-0.394665&panoid=VHpfY6zU56kkiDpIBTXHpw&cbp=12,317.01,,1,-2.65)? The Mosque is right there in front of you. The brown (tourist) sign for St Mary's Church has very small text*, though even if it was readable at speed I don't see much point (this sign is rather new), despite the fact that you can't see the church - events can put directions and there's not much parking anyway (and what little there is is restricted).
*A Hertfordshire speciality with brown signs - have an x-height about half the height of the recommended height for directional signs at that speed.
Quote from: bugo on May 18, 2013, 09:48:38 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 18, 2013, 02:58:18 PM
I agree that "CHURCH" signs (and, for that matter, "HOSPITAL" warning signs) are largely a holdover from the days of third restrooms, ecclesiastical school districts, and text-message warning signs for everything but curves and intersections.
When were the hospital diamond warning signs used? The only one that I know about is hanging on my wall.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5064/5618462264_ca8a46da74_z.jpg)
Probably before 1971 when all the graphic-style signs were introduced.
I remember seeing this, in a yellow diamond, in Irvine, Ky. when I was a kid.
QUIET
HOSPITAL
ZONE
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3049%2F2344408450_4ba016dccd_z_d.jpg&hash=b0a067e95817ab9796c6079385601afe8fcfc8fa)
Meridian, MS
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4014%2F4225972897_40d489167a_z_d.jpg%3Fzz%3D1&hash=ab23b352553daa50564c8ba574f57cfab91a1bc8)
Williamsville, IL
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2019%2F2281619703_5177908d6a_z_d.jpg%3Fzz%3D1&hash=76fe9016687605da30c08f1269d41e199113d3bb)
Blue Island, IL
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2013, 12:05:11 PMThere's a Mormon church located a bit under a mile from my house whose car park was still quite full around 2:00 yesterday afternoon when we drove past. I have no idea what time they start or how long their worship goes or whether they have multiple worship services, as I don't know much about the Mormon faith.
Our meetings generally are in three-hour blocks on Sunday. (No we don't just sit there the whole time, there are multiple meetings within that.) But in most built-up areas we have more than one congregation in a building. If there's room in the building and the parking lot, the schedules are staggered along the lines of 9-12, 11-2, 1-4, etc. (If not, they'll go 9-12, 1-4 or something like that.)
Here in South Carolina, CHURCH signs are mostly seen along rural high-speed roads (i.e. U.S. 76 between Florence and Marion, and U.S. 378 between Conway and Lake City). As someone on this discussion already stated, I think CHURCH signs are in place similar to HIDDEN DRIVE signs that I've seen in Ohio, to warn drivers of cars unexpectedly entering the road. I think CHURCH signs can serve as a universal application, regardless of personal faith.
I have one outside of my highschool, although its a bit obsolete considering the church left the premises a few years back. It didn't make much sense warning that there was a church ahead considering virtually no one crossed the rural road its situated on and there's a traffic light there...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FoYE0ol8l.jpg&hash=5d8ab35eaa4b8ea546e00a5ed194bfd59c66d2de)
They sure worship at some weird places in Ocean County...
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 17, 2013, 01:23:38 AM
If there are warning signs which say "CHURCH," why not "MOSQUE" or "SYNAGOGUE"?
https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-86.157853!3d39.87779!2m2!1f217.07!2f88.83!4f37.5!2m4!1e1!2m2!1sEjUDX5Rl2ufgmRnbeDIdng!2e0&fid=5
The sign below the "Temple" sign sheds some light on why it's used; to warn of possible left turns after the curve in the road.