AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: NE2 on January 03, 2014, 05:32:51 AM

Title: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: NE2 on January 03, 2014, 05:32:51 AM
Basically I'm looking at which states have or had a 69, 420, 666, or any other numbers that were changed due to sign theft. A simple no implies that sequential numbers just never got that far.
Interstate: 69 yes, 420 never built, 666 no
US: 69 yes, 420 renumbered for unrelated reasons, 666 renumbered 491 in 2003
Alabama: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Alaska: no
Arizona: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Arkansas: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
California: 69 renumbered 245 in 1972, 420 no, 666 no
Colorado: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Connecticut: 69 yes, 420 secret (not due to number), 666 secret (ditto)
Delaware: no
Florida: 69 yes, 420 became a county road in the 1980s; signs mostly disappeared by attrition (since Orange County doesn't care much about county road signage) but FDOT continued to replace stolen signs at the eastern SR 50 junction until some time in the mid-2000s, 666 yes
Georgia: 69 became part of 17 in 1957-1959, probably for unrelated reasons, 420 secret or never assigned (but it should have been?), 666 no
Hawaii: no
Idaho: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Illinois: 69 became part of US 52 for unrelated reasons, 420 no, 666 no
Indiana: 69 yes, 420 became part of I-80/94 for unrelated reasons, 666 no
Iowa: 69 renumbered 138 due to US 69, 420 renumbered 968 for unrelated reasons, 666 no
Kansas: 69 renumbered 65 due to US 69, 420 no, 666 no
Kentucky: 69 yes, 420 yes, 666 yes
Louisiana: 69 yes, 420 yes (the Goog shows the first eastbound reassurance was stolen; it's also part of bike route MRT, foo), 666 eliminated for unrelated reasons (? - apparently 5th Street, Berwick)
Maine: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Maryland: 69 disappeared after 1955 for unrelated reasons, 420 same after 1973, 666 same after 1957
Massachusetts: 69 renumbered 71 to match NY, 420 no, 666 no
Michigan: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Minnesota: 69 renumbered 94 due to US 69, 420 no, 666 no
Mississippi: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Missouri: 69 no (briefly assigned but then skipped due to US 69), 420 no, 666 no
Montana: 69 yes, 420 yes, 666 no
Nebraska: 69 yes (replaced 76 in the 1970s), 420 renumbered L45B for unrelated reasons, 666 no
Nevada: 69 renumbered 377 for unrelated reasons, 420 no, 666 no
New Hampshire: 69 no (not sure if there ever was one), 420 no, 666 no
New Jersey: 69 renumbered 31 in the mid-1960s, 420 no, 666 no
New Mexico: 69 disappeared in the 1980s (?) for unrelated reasons, 420 yes (assigned in 1988), 666 no
New York: 69 yes, 420 yes, 666 no
North Carolina: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
North Dakota: 69 renumbered 4 in the 1990s, 420 no, 666 no
Ohio: 69 became part of 235 in 1967-1969, 420 yes, 666 yes, 714 renumbered 814 in 1982-1983 (apparently due to Quaaludes, the baby ducksheep drug)
Oklahoma: 69 renumbered 54A, 54B, 183A in 1987-1988 (may have been due to theft or other reasons), 420 no, 666 no
Oregon: 69 renumbered 569 in 2007 before signs were posted, 420 secret (one of only a few highway numbers to not get a (sometimes) signed route designation in the 2000s), was coincidentally the old main road from Klamath Falls to Weed, 666 no
Pennsylvania: 69 yes, 420 yes, 666 yes
Rhode Island: no
South Carolina: 69 renumbered 65 in early 1980s, 420 yes, 666 probably eliminated for unrelated reasons
South Dakota: no (but 420 may have existed, depending on how the 4xx routes are numbered)
Tennessee: 69 yes, 420 yes, 666 no
Texas: 69 renumbered 112 in 1992 "due to numerous thefts of the popular SH 69 signs" (Park Road 69 and Spur 69 still exist, but neither seems to be signed), 420 yes (FM; Loop renumbered US 83 Business for unrelated reasons), 666 yes (FM)
Utah: 69 renumbered 38 in 1993 since "the SR-69 route signs have become a collectors' item for a large number of individuals", 420 no, 666 no
Vermont: 69 no (was there ever one?), 420 no, 666 no
Virginia: 69 yes, 420 secret (not necessarily due to the number), 666 yes (a bunch of secondaries)
Washington: no
West Virginia: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Wisconsin: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Wyoming: 69 no, 420 renumbered for unrelated reasons, 666 no

In total:
69: 8 probably renumbered due to theft, 24 signed
420: 3 possibly purposely unsigned, 10 signed
666: 1 renumbered (as well as at least one county in NJ), 6 signed
714: 1 renumbered due to theft
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Mr. Matté on January 03, 2014, 07:21:59 AM
Certainly many Route 666s changed due to theft. It's likely a partial reason for the transition from US 666 to US 491 and another example includes Maryland Route 666 Morris County [NJ] Route 666 --> CR 665.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: NE2 on January 03, 2014, 07:22:46 AM
Duh. I totally forgot about 666. It doesn't look like any state route 666es were changed, but there aren't that many in the first place.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: usends on January 03, 2014, 09:32:11 AM
On a related note, I wonder if any of the DOTs have decided to stop replacing their mile markers that correspond to those numbers. 
I had a college roommate who drove a long distance for the sole purpose of stealing milepost 69, so I'm assuming those are chronic targets.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: NE2 on January 03, 2014, 09:41:49 AM
On a related note, I wonder if any of the DOTs have decided to stop replacing their mile markers that correspond to those numbers. 
I think I read here than one state places mile 69.1 instead of 69.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: 1 on January 03, 2014, 10:34:34 AM
On US 1 in Massachusetts, there is no mile 66.6 (the location is in Topsfield).
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Zeffy on January 03, 2014, 11:04:49 AM
Atlantic County, NJ: AFAIK, not renumbered, but definitely a target for sign theft:

(http://alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_666/nnew.jpg)

(Also, does the middle '6' in that look like it's a different width, or am I seeing things?)
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: corco on January 03, 2014, 11:10:41 AM
Semi-related- Hooker County, Nebraska doesnt post signs with the county name anywhere
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: 1 on January 03, 2014, 11:25:02 AM

(Also, does the middle '6' in that look like it's a different width, or am I seeing things?)

It's a different width and a slightly different color.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: SD Mapman on January 03, 2014, 11:25:46 AM
South Dakota: no (but 420 may have existed, depending on how the 4xx routes are numbered)
I think you can just change that to an overall no... the 3-digit numbering system doesn't go up that high. It only goes up to the mid-300s
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: hubcity on January 03, 2014, 12:07:48 PM
On a related note, I wonder if any of the DOTs have decided to stop replacing their mile markers that correspond to those numbers. 
I had a college roommate who drove a long distance for the sole purpose of stealing milepost 69, so I'm assuming those are chronic targets.

I'd think the 420s would be chronic targets.

/thank you. tip your bartender. try the veal.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: hbelkins on January 03, 2014, 12:24:06 PM
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Yes, Kentucky has KY 69 (and now I-69), KY 420 and KY 666, but no, none of them have been renumbered because of sign theft.

KY 420 is, for the most part, an old routing of US 127. I'm not sure that KY 666 is signed, and it's a route in the western part of the state along an Ohio River bottom that frequently floods. I'm not quite sure if it's paved; an old-style Kentucky county map of whatever county it's in (Union, Henderson or thereabouts) from about 20 years ago showed it as being unpaved. I'm not sure what will happen to KY 69 now that I-69 is signed in the state.

Lots of myths abound about the US 666 renumbering. It wasn't done because of sign theft or because of undue pressure from religious fundamentalists, despite some of the things that got posted on MTR at the time it happened.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: TheStranger on January 03, 2014, 12:41:09 PM
I know that what was once Route 69 in California suddenly became Route 245 in the early 1970s, but not sure if this was at all related to sign theft issues.  But that number has never been used again...
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Brandon on January 03, 2014, 12:49:21 PM
On a related note, I wonder if any of the DOTs have decided to stop replacing their mile markers that correspond to those numbers. 
I had a college roommate who drove a long distance for the sole purpose of stealing milepost 69, so I'm assuming those are chronic targets.

I'd think the 420s would be chronic targets.

/thank you. tip your bartender. try the veal.

That was blunt.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Alps on January 03, 2014, 06:40:19 PM
Atlantic County, NJ: AFAIK, not renumbered, but definitely a target for sign theft:

(http://alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_666/nnew.jpg)

(Also, does the middle '6' in that look like it's a different width, or am I seeing things?)
Clearly using recycled shields from other routes to cut costs. Atlantic's 666s do get stolen, but another popular pastime is putting up crosses on the,.

NE2 - I get why you've bolded certain ones in your post, but NJ 69-31 definitely was renumbered due to theft. Hell, the one in my room here is made of wood, the only NJDOT wooden sign I know of ever.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Eth on January 03, 2014, 08:08:10 PM
Georgia: 69 became part of 17 in 1957-1959, probably for unrelated reasons, 420 secret or never assigned (but it should have been?), 666 no

All the even 400-series numbers up through 410 have been used. I seem to recall 412 and 414 being assigned to freeways that were ultimately not built (and I believe one of these was I-420, funnily enough). To the best of my knowledge, the only even number above that to be assigned is 422, on the Athens beltway. It's entirely possible that 420 may have been deliberately skipped, though of course if it were assigned to an Interstate it would be secret anyway.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: NE2 on January 04, 2014, 02:30:32 AM
NE2 - I get why you've bolded certain ones in your post, but NJ 69-31 definitely was renumbered due to theft.
I bolded ones that were probably or definitely due to theft.

All the even 400-series numbers up through 410 have been used. I seem to recall 412 and 414 being assigned to freeways that were ultimately not built (and I believe one of these was I-420, funnily enough). To the best of my knowledge, the only even number above that to be assigned is 422, on the Athens beltway. It's entirely possible that 420 may have been deliberately skipped, though of course if it were assigned to an Interstate it would be secret anyway.
400 I-485 and continuation north-south
401 I-75
402 I-20
403 I-85
404 I-16
405 I-95
406 I-59
407 I-285
408 I-475
409 I-24
410 I-485 and continuation east
411 I-185
412 I-175
413 I-675
414 I-420
415 I-520
416 ?
417 I-575
418 ?
419 I-985
420 ?
421 I-516
422 Athens Perimeter

It's possible that they deliberately assigned 417-419-421 to north-south routes, then thought 422 was the next available number.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: NE2 on January 04, 2014, 09:40:36 AM
Lots of myths abound about the US 666 renumbering. It wasn't done because of sign theft or because of undue pressure from religious fundamentalists, despite some of the things that got posted on MTR at the time it happened.
The only reason people care about 666 is religious fundamentalists. Owned.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Alps on January 04, 2014, 01:29:06 PM
NE2 - I get why you've bolded certain ones in your post, but NJ 69-31 definitely was renumbered due to theft.
I bolded ones that were probably or definitely due to theft.
mber.
I thought it wasn't bolded when I read it. I have no idea why.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 04, 2014, 01:35:02 PM
On US 1 in Massachusetts, there is no mile 66.6 (the location is in Topsfield).

there is exit 665 and 668 on I-5; I do not know if 665 is fudged.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 04, 2014, 01:39:58 PM
There appears to be a Burlington County, NJ Rt. 666 in North Hanover Twp.  It may not be signed though.  (Note for those unaware: NJ can have multiple 6xx routes of the same number, as long as they don't overlap within the county).

But, apparently you can buy a Burlington County Rt. 666 on a baseball cap.

http://www.zazzle.com/burlington_county_route_666_new_jersey_hat-148043521529318501

Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Zeffy on January 04, 2014, 01:49:30 PM
There appears to be a Burlington County, NJ Rt. 666 in North Hanover Twp.  It may not be signed though.  (Note for those unaware: NJ can have multiple 6xx routes of the same number, as long as they don't overlap within the county).

But, apparently you can buy a Burlington County Rt. 666 on a baseball cap.

http://www.zazzle.com/burlington_county_route_666_new_jersey_hat-148043521529318501

You can buy a lot of the county routes from that place... there's even an I-295 shirt made by the same person.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Mr. Matté on January 04, 2014, 06:28:40 PM
There appears to be a Burlington County, NJ Rt. 666 in North Hanover Twp.  It may not be signed though.  (Note for those unaware: NJ can have multiple 6xx routes of the same number, as long as they don't overlap within the county).

But, apparently you can buy a Burlington County Rt. 666 on a baseball cap.

http://www.zazzle.com/burlington_county_route_666_new_jersey_hat-148043521529318501

You can buy a lot of the county routes from that place... there's even an I-295 shirt made by the same person bot taking all images from Wikipedia and putting them on shitty merchandise that's put on a website that will eat your credit card number.

FTFY.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: bugo on January 05, 2014, 09:53:40 AM
Lots of myths abound about the US 666 renumbering. It wasn't done because of sign theft or because of undue pressure from religious fundamentalists, despite some of the things that got posted on MTR at the time it happened.

Yes, it was.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: hbelkins on January 05, 2014, 02:28:32 PM
I have no desire to search the archives of MTR dating back to the renumbering of US 666, but there were countless links to news stories and official press releases posted there that disprove your above assertion, which you also made repeatedly back on MTR when it happened.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: kinupanda on January 06, 2014, 12:01:18 AM
On a related note, I wonder if any of the DOTs have decided to stop replacing their mile markers that correspond to those numbers.

I-10 East at mile marker 666 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=29.696702,-97.040133&spn=0.026841,0.055962&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=29.696727,-97.040436&panoid=SB9u-E8i1v9mbjADOpE_Qw&cbp=12,105.67,,0,12.84) (Google Street View). An ordinary object marker is used. The same is done westbound.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Molandfreak on January 06, 2014, 12:28:35 AM
St. Louis County stil has a CR 666. I doubt anyone cares enough about stealing signs to drive to Hoyt Lakes (the locals don't care/have them already :) ). http://goo.gl/maps/mzLIz
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: roadman on January 06, 2014, 08:18:23 PM
Lots of myths abound about the US 666 renumbering. It wasn't done because of sign theft or because of undue pressure from religious fundamentalists, despite some of the things that got posted on MTR at the time it happened.
The only reason people care about 666 is religious fundamentalists. Owned.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/us666.cfm
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: StogieGuy7 on January 06, 2014, 08:30:25 PM
Lots of myths abound about the US 666 renumbering. It wasn't done because of sign theft or because of undue pressure from religious fundamentalists, despite some of the things that got posted on MTR at the time it happened.
The only reason people care about 666 is religious fundamentalists. Owned.

Not exactly. US 666 was changed to US 491 due to the well-known Satanic connotation (you don't have to be a Bible beater to know that, just a fan of horror films), combined with the very high mortality rate connected with the highway.  As many of you may know, Indian reservations (yes, that's what they're still called) often have high rates of alcoholism and DUI and US 666 serves several such reservations, the largest of which is the Navajo Nation. 

The continued bloodbath on that particular road led to the inevitable cultural connection between that and the "666" moniker which, in turn, led to political pressure from local politicians in the areas through which the highway travels for a change in number.  I even recall a Dateline NBC report referring to it as the "Devil's Highway" or some such nonsense.

In the end, it was nothing more than superstition dressed up as public relations.   And, I don't doubt that highway departments in UT, CO, and NM lost tons of signs from souvenir hunters as well.  But I can assure you that it actually had very little to do with religious fundamentalists. 
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Occidental Tourist on January 06, 2014, 08:47:48 PM
I'd like somebody to explain the reason that routes numbered 69 are included on this list.  Be specific and detailed.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: hbelkins on January 06, 2014, 09:21:33 PM
Quote
We must coordinate the business interests of Native Americans and the state. After years of neglect in Santa Fe, I am proud to announce my wholehearted support for the renovation of Highway 666 (a name we are working to change) from Gallup to Shiprock, on the Navajo Nation, and I have directed the secretary of transportation to cooperate fully with the Navajo Nation in this effort.

The renumbering was done in conjunction with and part of an improvement project in New Mexico. And Gov. Bill Richardson is hardly a Bible-thumping fundamentalist.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: bugo on January 06, 2014, 09:26:31 PM
News stories and press releases prove me wrong?  Like nobody has ever lied in a news story?  Nobody has ever made shit and put it in a press release?  C'mon man.  The government couldn't come out and say the real reason they renumbered the highway because the ACLU would be all over it.  Use your common sense and quit blindly believing news stories.  There is no question that the number was changed because of a bunch of whiny Fundamentalist Christians wouldn't shut up about it.  No question.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: bugo on January 06, 2014, 09:27:35 PM
Lots of myths abound about the US 666 renumbering. It wasn't done because of sign theft or because of undue pressure from religious fundamentalists, despite some of the things that got posted on MTR at the time it happened.
The only reason people care about 666 is religious fundamentalists. Owned.

Not exactly. US 666 was changed to US 491 due to the well-known Satanic connotation (you don't have to be a Bible beater to know that, just a fan of horror films), combined with the very high mortality rate connected with the highway.  As many of you may know, Indian reservations (yes, that's what they're still called) often have high rates of alcoholism and DUI and US 666 serves several such reservations, the largest of which is the Navajo Nation. 

The continued bloodbath on that particular road led to the inevitable cultural connection between that and the "666" moniker which, in turn, led to political pressure from local politicians in the areas through which the highway travels for a change in number.  I even recall a Dateline NBC report referring to it as the "Devil's Highway" or some such nonsense.

In the end, it was nothing more than superstition dressed up as public relations.   And, I don't doubt that highway departments in UT, CO, and NM lost tons of signs from souvenir hunters as well.  But I can assure you that it actually had very little to do with religious fundamentalists.

Changing the number caused the number of wrecks to go down?
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Molandfreak on January 06, 2014, 10:38:46 PM
I'd like somebody to explain the reason that routes numbered 69 are included on this list.  Be specific and detailed.
If you have to ask, you're too young to know the reason why.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: SD Mapman on January 06, 2014, 11:28:16 PM
Personally, I was sad when 666 disappeared from the Rand McNally atlases (I don't get down there much). Ever since then, I've harbored a suspicion that it had to do with "the Devil's number", but whatever.

News stories and press releases prove me wrong?  Like nobody has ever lied in a news story?  Nobody has ever made shit and put it in a press release?  C'mon man.  The government couldn't come out and say the real reason they renumbered the highway because the ACLU would be all over it.  Use your common sense and quit blindly believing news stories.  There is no question that the number was changed because of a bunch of whiny Fundamentalist Christians wouldn't shut up about it.  No question.

Now don't get too firey here... you're probably insulting about 70% of the Midwest in that comment...
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Molandfreak on January 07, 2014, 12:09:22 AM
News stories and press releases prove me wrong?  Like nobody has ever lied in a news story?  Nobody has ever made shit and put it in a press release?  C'mon man.  The government couldn't come out and say the real reason they renumbered the highway because the ACLU would be all over it.  Use your common sense and quit blindly believing news stories.  There is no question that the number was changed because of a bunch of whiny Fundamentalist Christians wouldn't shut up about it.  No question.

Now don't get too firey here... you're probably insulting about 70% of the Midwest in that comment...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: NE2 on January 07, 2014, 12:14:23 AM
The only reason people care about 666 is religious fundamentalists. Owned.

Not exactly. US 666 was changed to US 491 due to the well-known Satanic connotation (you don't have to be a Bible beater to know that, just a fan of horror films),
Er no. This "Satanic connotation" only exists because of fundamentalists' love for taking the drunken ramblings of Revelations literally.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Takumi on January 07, 2014, 12:40:06 AM
Am I too late for popcorn?
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Molandfreak on January 07, 2014, 03:06:46 AM
On a related note, I wonder if any of the DOTs have decided to stop replacing their mile markers that correspond to those numbers. 
Colorado posts mile marker 419.99 in lieu of 420 on I-70.

(http://i.imgur.com/Zlz7lbC.jpg)

Nebraska shows no mercy--they didn't even renumber exit #420! http://goo.gl/maps/rLlC7
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on January 07, 2014, 04:30:11 AM
I'd like somebody to explain the reason that routes numbered 69 are included on this list.  Be specific and detailed.

I wonder the same with 420. OTOH, I know why 69 :sombrero:.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2014, 06:22:58 AM
I'd like somebody to explain the reason that routes numbered 69 are included on this list.  Be specific and detailed.

And pictures.  Don't forget the pictures. 
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: english si on January 07, 2014, 08:46:59 AM
Er no. This "Satanic connotation" only exists because of fundamentalists' love for taking the drunken ramblings of Revelations literally.
The genre of Apocalypse is something that we're so unfamiliar with, and culturally alien to, makes us think that drugs must have been used, but it's merely that the past is a different country and they do stuff differently there. However it's a genre whose writings always packed full of Temple imagery and Tanakh/Old Testament allusions. That the fundies don't spot this shows that they neither know the Bible well enough, nor take it seriously enough.

The most obvious way in which fundies don't take Revelation literally, nor the Bible seriously is when they say that "locusts" refers to helicopters, rather than the Old Testament meaning of destruction bringers (which is also much more literal as that is what locusts do). On top of the silly interpretation, this means that they view the text as being meaningless until about 1950, rather than something that the clearly stated original audience of turn-of-the-second-century Asian Christians would instantly get - if it read like drunken ramblings to the 7 churches, then they'd have ignored it, rather than copied it.

There's three main ways to read (any) text -> author-centred, text-centred and reader-centred (and, of course, you can have a mix of that). While fundies read the Bible text-centred, and conservative Christians (there's a difference) are typically author-centred (might also bring in text-centred readings), all fundies and many conservatives get to Revelation and read it reader-centred, despite despising any whiff of that approach elsewhere. 666 seems to be an odd exception, where they do take it explicitly literally but I think that's due to a transfer of it from Medieval superstition (along with Triskaidekaphobia).

In other words, the fundies interpretation is as if they were drunkenly rambling when reading Revelation, not John when writing!

---
If fundies had got their way, then 666 roads wouldn't exist. But if it's sign theft, it's due to people seeking to piss them off.

Which of course, brings us to 13 -> I doubt there are any examples of sign theft, but how many were just never created in the first place?
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: NE2 on January 07, 2014, 09:17:37 AM
Which of course, brings us to 13 -> I doubt there are any examples of sign theft, but how many were just never created in the first place?
California renumbered 13 to 17 in the 1930s for no apparent reason other than the number.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Brandon on January 07, 2014, 10:28:32 AM
Personally, I was sad when 666 disappeared from the Rand McNally atlases (I don't get down there much). Ever since then, I've harbored a suspicion that it had to do with "the Devil's number", but whatever.

News stories and press releases prove me wrong?  Like nobody has ever lied in a news story?  Nobody has ever made shit and put it in a press release?  C'mon man.  The government couldn't come out and say the real reason they renumbered the highway because the ACLU would be all over it.  Use your common sense and quit blindly believing news stories.  There is no question that the number was changed because of a bunch of whiny Fundamentalist Christians wouldn't shut up about it.  No question.

Now don't get too firey here... you're probably insulting about 70% of the Midwest in that comment...

The Midwest?  Most of those I run into are from the South (as is Oklahoma).  The majority of them are in the "East South Central" (TN, KY, MS, AL) (65% of respondents) and the 'West South Central" (TX, AR, OK) (50% of respondents).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Zeffy on January 07, 2014, 10:54:49 AM
Which of course, brings us to 13 -> I doubt there are any examples of sign theft, but how many were just never created in the first place?

New Jersey has a 13... but it's completely unsigned save for this sign:

(http://alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_13/e13.jpg)
Courtesy of Alpsroads.net
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: NE2 on January 07, 2014, 11:00:16 AM
New Jersey has a 13... but it's completely unsigned save for this sign:
13 was skipped in the 1920s - but so were 14-20.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: mgk920 on January 07, 2014, 11:06:49 AM
Wisconsin has a WI 13, it's a major highway that runs most of the length of the state from north to south, and originally the entire length of the state.  There is also a WI 69, but has remarkably few reassurance signs.

More locally, although not a numbered highway, the City of Appleton's city council changed a street name several years ago due to rampeant sign theft - a minor residential side street (a cul-de-sac with about six houses) was platted with the name 'Morningwood Ct'.  After a few years of having to frequently replace the sign at its lone intersection, it was changed to 'Morningview Ct'.

 :meh:

Mike
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Zeffy on January 07, 2014, 11:11:49 AM
13 was skipped in the 1920s - but so were 14-20.

Wait what? This page says it ran from Trenton to New Brunswick:
http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/route13.htm

Now I'm confused.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: NE2 on January 07, 2014, 11:16:31 AM
13 was skipped in the 1920s - but so were 14-20.

Wait what? This page says it ran from Trenton to New Brunswick:
http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/route13.htm

Now I'm confused.
There was a complete renumbering in 1927: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10423.msg254037#msg254037
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Zeffy on January 07, 2014, 11:20:50 AM
There was a complete renumbering in 1927: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10423.msg254037#msg254037

Ah, I get it, the old system existed in the twenties until the new one was legislated in 1927. And then they would partially renumber them again in the '50s...

Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: bugo on January 07, 2014, 12:15:39 PM
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/us666.cfm

Quote
WHEREAS, people living near the road already live under the cloud of opprobrium created by having a road that many believe is cursed running near their homes and through their homeland; and
WHEREAS, the number "666" carries the stigma of being the mark of the beast, the mark of the devil, which was described in the book of revelations in the Bible; and
WHEREAS, there are people who refuse to travel the road, not because of the issue of safety, but because of the fear that the devil controls events along United States route 666; and
WHEREAS, the economy in the area is greatly depressed when compared with many parts of the United States, and the infamy brought by the inopportune naming of the road will only make development in the area more difficult.

Quote
As S. U. Mahesh of the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department told the Albuquerque Journal, which number ended up on the highway was not important. "As long as it's not 666 and it's nothing satanic, that's OK."

As usual I was right.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: bugo on January 07, 2014, 12:22:04 PM
Personally, I was sad when 666 disappeared from the Rand McNally atlases (I don't get down there much). Ever since then, I've harbored a suspicion that it had to do with "the Devil's number", but whatever.

News stories and press releases prove me wrong?  Like nobody has ever lied in a news story?  Nobody has ever made shit and put it in a press release?  C'mon man.  The government couldn't come out and say the real reason they renumbered the highway because the ACLU would be all over it.  Use your common sense and quit blindly believing news stories.  There is no question that the number was changed because of a bunch of whiny Fundamentalist Christians wouldn't shut up about it.  No question.

Now don't get too firey here... you're probably insulting about 70% of the Midwest in that comment...

The Midwest?  Most of those I run into are from the South (as is Oklahoma).  The majority of them are in the "East South Central" (TN, KY, MS, AL) (65% of respondents) and the 'West South Central" (TX, AR, OK) (50% of respondents).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

Oklahoma part of the South?  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  You've obviously never been here.  Tulsa has WAY more in common with Kansas City than Atlanta, Little Rock, or Memphis.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Brandon on January 07, 2014, 01:01:02 PM
Oklahoma part of the South?  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  You've obviously never been here.  Tulsa has WAY more in common with Kansas City than Atlanta, Little Rock, or Memphis.

Kansas City is a border area between part of the Plains (eastern CO, KS, NE), the Midwest (IA, IL), and differing areas of the South (OK/TX vs. AR/LA/MS).  Missouri is an interesting state being as it has a foot in both the Midwest (IA, N 2/3rds IL, IN, OH, WI, MN, MI) and the mid-South (AR, KY, TN).
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Takumi on January 07, 2014, 01:10:42 PM
Virginia has US 13, an unrelated VA 13 (leftover from the original 1918 routes), and briefly had a second VA 13, which became part of US 13 in the 1940s.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Henry on January 07, 2014, 01:39:38 PM
I'm suspecting the reason that they went with I-11 instead of I-13 for the future Phoenix-Las Vegas Interstate is somewhat related to superstition, as most people believe the number 13 is a sign of bad luck. Which is why you don't see a 13th floor in many skyscrapers or other tall buildings, and I'm led to believe that many schools and office buildings leave out Room 13 as well.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Alps on January 07, 2014, 06:51:55 PM
On a related note, I wonder if any of the DOTs have decided to stop replacing their mile markers that correspond to those numbers. 
Colorado posts mile marker 419.99 in lieu of 420 on I-70.

(http://i.imgur.com/Zlz7lbC.jpg)

Nebraska shows no mercy--they didn't even renumber exit #420! http://goo.gl/maps/rLlC7
I'd rather have this sign, even just for the 420 reference - too scared to post it!
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: cwf1701 on January 07, 2014, 06:57:46 PM
I'd like somebody to explain the reason that routes numbered 69 are included on this list.  Be specific and detailed.

one hint, Google I-75 Exit 69 in Michigan.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 07, 2014, 07:05:22 PM
I'd like somebody to explain the reason that routes numbered 69 are included on this list.  Be specific and detailed.
If you have to ask, you're too young to know the reason why.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: sammi on January 07, 2014, 07:13:06 PM
Tsk. Tourists. :pan:
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: sandwalk on January 07, 2014, 07:19:20 PM
Near Toledo:

(http://www.aaroads.com/midwest/ohio077/i-080_wb_exit_071_03.jpg)
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: StogieGuy7 on January 07, 2014, 07:43:48 PM
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/us666.cfm

Quote
WHEREAS, people living near the road already live under the cloud of opprobrium created by having a road that many believe is cursed running near their homes and through their homeland; and
WHEREAS, the number "666" carries the stigma of being the mark of the beast, the mark of the devil, which was described in the book of revelations in the Bible; and
WHEREAS, there are people who refuse to travel the road, not because of the issue of safety, but because of the fear that the devil controls events along United States route 666; and
WHEREAS, the economy in the area is greatly depressed when compared with many parts of the United States, and the infamy brought by the inopportune naming of the road will only make development in the area more difficult.

Quote
As S. U. Mahesh of the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department told the Albuquerque Journal, which number ended up on the highway was not important. "As long as it's not 666 and it's nothing satanic, that's OK."

As usual I was right.

Not quite.  Your reasoning is rather one-dimensional targeting "fundamentalist Christians" et. al.  And, what I am attempting to point out was that the issue was more complex than that. 

If you want the reason for the change in one word, that word is superstition.  But as much from people who watched "The Exorcist" one too many times as from supposedly black-clad "fundamentalists", of which there are relatively few in that particular region.   

Fundamentalists may be superstitious, but not all superstitious people are fundamentalists.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: keithvh on January 07, 2014, 10:33:26 PM
Semi-related- Hooker County, Nebraska doesnt post signs with the county name anywhere

I have a "Entering Keith County" (Nebraska) sign I got as a "present" 15+ years ago from a cousin who lived in North Platte. 


Never asked how he procured it, but I can guess.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: bugo on January 08, 2014, 06:21:42 PM
Oklahoma part of the South?  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  You've obviously never been here.  Tulsa has WAY more in common with Kansas City than Atlanta, Little Rock, or Memphis.

Kansas City is a border area between part of the Plains (eastern CO, KS, NE), the Midwest (IA, IL), and differing areas of the South (OK/TX vs. AR/LA/MS).  Missouri is an interesting state being as it has a foot in both the Midwest (IA, N 2/3rds IL, IN, OH, WI, MN, MI) and the mid-South (AR, KY, TN).

Kansas City is solidly midwestern.  The great plains don't begin until well west of the KC metro.  Again, Oklahoma is not southern.  Texas is its own region.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Occidental Tourist on January 08, 2014, 07:45:52 PM
I'd like somebody to explain the reason that routes numbered 69 are included on this list.  Be specific and detailed.
If you have to ask, you're too young to know the reason why.

Awwww. You're no fun.

Any other takers?  Remember, be detailed.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: 1 on January 08, 2014, 09:28:03 PM
I'd like somebody to explain the reason that routes numbered 69 are included on this list.  Be specific and detailed.
If you have to ask, you're too young to know the reason why.

Awwww. You're no fun.

Any other takers?  Remember, be detailed.

69 is included because it is one of the most common stolen numbers on signs.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: hbelkins on January 08, 2014, 09:43:52 PM
I'd like somebody to explain the reason that routes numbered 69 are included on this list.  Be specific and detailed.
If you have to ask, you're too young to know the reason why.

Awwww. You're no fun.

Any other takers?  Remember, be detailed.

69 is included because it is one of the most common stolen numbers on signs.

We know that. The question is why the signs are often stolen.

As someone said...
Quote
If you have to ask, you're too young to know the reason why.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: ctsignguy on January 08, 2014, 10:07:32 PM
Let me try to steer this chat back toward the original topic.  I lived near Dayton,. so i recall when the Ohio 69s were yoinked down and recommissioned as Ohio 235.  Years later i was chatting with an ODOT supervisor and he told me he was part of the committee that pushed the number change....seems he and another supervisor type were driving north the entire length of Ohio 69 from Dayton to just south of Toledo (69 was also burdened with passing through and nearby to several college towns in its length).  Not counting BGS signage, they found only three unmolested signs the entire route....everywhere else....empty signposts aside from direction signs and arrows....and that pretty much clinched Ohio 69's doom.  At this point, i would imagine several thousand such signs lurk in all sorts forgotten basements and garages....

(http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u102/ctsignguy/oh69.jpg) (http://s166.photobucket.com/user/ctsignguy/media/oh69.jpg.html)
(http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u102/ctsignguy/oh69-1.jpg) (http://s166.photobucket.com/user/ctsignguy/media/oh69-1.jpg.html)

As for US 666, there wasnt any one factor that was the "IT" in the number change.....it was a variety of factors....part of it was the religious fundies getting all worked up over a number that was around since 1926....although i think the pilfered signs had a part as well.....i was corresponding with a guy from Arizona DOT and he told me as soon as the number change was announced, the rest of the US 666s were gone within two days...and the other states it ran through probably had similar results....



Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: PHLBOS on January 09, 2014, 09:50:40 AM
Truth be told, while most adults know what 69 and 666 are associated with; not all of them may necessarily get the 420 association.  I confess, I had to do a Google search on 420 in order to find the answer.

That said, I've lived near PA 420 for nearly 24-1/2 years and only recall one PA 420 shield sign being stolen in that time-frame... the end near its northern terminus at PA 320.  Note: the 420 shield was taken but all the other signs weren't. 

It's been since replaced. JCT 320-END 420 sign assembly (http://goo.gl/maps/OrqF9)
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: NE2 on January 09, 2014, 09:52:19 AM
Truth be told, while most adults know what 69 and 666 are associated with; not all of them may necessarily get the 420 association.  I confess, I had to do a Google search on 420 in order to find the answer.
It's a more recent association. But for obscurity it's hard to beat OH 714.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: bugo on January 09, 2014, 10:22:20 AM
Ludes.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Brandon on January 09, 2014, 11:18:34 AM
Oklahoma part of the South?  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  You've obviously never been here.  Tulsa has WAY more in common with Kansas City than Atlanta, Little Rock, or Memphis.

Kansas City is a border area between part of the Plains (eastern CO, KS, NE), the Midwest (IA, IL), and differing areas of the South (OK/TX vs. AR/LA/MS).  Missouri is an interesting state being as it has a foot in both the Midwest (IA, N 2/3rds IL, IN, OH, WI, MN, MI) and the mid-South (AR, KY, TN).

Kansas City is solidly midwestern.  The great plains don't begin until well west of the KC metro.  Again, Oklahoma is not southern.  Texas is its own region.

The US Census Bureau map is on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States

Southern English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_American_English

Note where Oklahoma is.

For contrast, here's the Midwest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States

Midwestern English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_English, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Central_American_English
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: hbelkins on January 09, 2014, 11:34:55 AM
As for US 666, there wasnt any one factor that was the "IT" in the number change.....it was a variety of factors....part of it was the religious fundies getting all worked up over a number that was around since 1926....although i think the pilfered signs had a part as well.....i was corresponding with a guy from Arizona DOT and he told me as soon as the number change was announced, the rest of the US 666s were gone within two days...and the other states it ran through probably had similar results....

My brother traveled out in the Four Corners area shortly after the change was made. He took some photos (old-style film pictures at that time) of "Old 666-New 491" signage. Not sure which of the three states involved the photos were from.

I remember when US 666 ran concurrently with I-40 west of Gallup into Arizona and then southward. I don't remember exactly when it was renumbered as US 191. Does anyone know the reasoning (announced or otherwise) for that decision? Was it sign theft or satanic allusions or what?
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 09, 2014, 12:36:13 PM
Oklahoma part of the South?  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  You've obviously never been here.  Tulsa has WAY more in common with Kansas City than Atlanta, Little Rock, or Memphis.

most of the midwest knows how to drive.  Tulsa does not.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on January 09, 2014, 01:34:23 PM
Lots of myths abound about the US 666 renumbering. It wasn't done because of sign theft or because of undue pressure from religious fundamentalists, despite some of the things that got posted on MTR at the time it happened.
The only reason people care about 666 is religious fundamentalists. Owned.

Not exactly. US 666 was changed to US 491 due to the well-known Satanic connotation (you don't have to be a Bible beater to know that, just a fan of horror films), combined with the very high mortality rate connected with the highway.  As many of you may know, Indian reservations (yes, that's what they're still called) often have high rates of alcoholism and DUI and US 666 serves several such reservations, the largest of which is the Navajo Nation. 

The continued bloodbath on that particular road led to the inevitable cultural connection between that and the "666" moniker which, in turn, led to political pressure from local politicians in the areas through which the highway travels for a change in number.  I even recall a Dateline NBC report referring to it as the "Devil's Highway" or some such nonsense.

In the end, it was nothing more than superstition dressed up as public relations.   And, I don't doubt that highway departments in UT, CO, and NM lost tons of signs from souvenir hunters as well.  But I can assure you that it actually had very little to do with religious fundamentalists.


That was all true of the UT, CO and NM section of the road. If I remember correctly UT and CO had the moral and superstition objection to it and asked ASHTTO for a renunbering, and NM just followed along siting continuity and a main reason because of the high expense of re signing the route due to theft of the popular number. Now AZ changed their leg from US 666 to an extension of US 191 many years before due to public pressure about religious reasoning, but officially siting the same as NM that there were too many thefts.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on January 09, 2014, 01:37:17 PM
On a related note, I wonder if any of the DOTs have decided to stop replacing their mile markers that correspond to those numbers. 
I had a college roommate who drove a long distance for the sole purpose of stealing milepost 69, so I'm assuming those are chronic targets.

In Texas, on Interstate 20, the mile 420 marker is either painted or adheased to a bridge coloumn to deter theft.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: hbelkins on January 09, 2014, 02:03:12 PM
That was all true of the UT, CO and NM section of the road. If I remember correctly UT and CO had the moral and superstition objection to it and asked ASHTTO for a renunbering, and NM just followed along siting continuity and a main reason because of the high expense of re signing the route due to theft of the popular number. Now AZ changed their leg from US 666 to an extension of US 191 many years before due to public pressure about religious reasoning, but officially siting the same as NM that there were too many thefts.

New Mexico's change was in conjunction with a reconstruction project. There were grand plans to four-lane the road all the way from Shiprock to Gallup. I don't know how much of the work has been completed to date.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: NE2 on January 09, 2014, 02:07:33 PM
Weird. I didn't realize it was standard practice to renumber a route as part of a reconstruction.

Oh wait, it's not.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: hbelkins on January 09, 2014, 08:05:36 PM
Weird. I didn't realize it was standard practice to renumber a route as part of a reconstruction.

Oh wait, it's not.

You haven't been paying attention.

Quote
I have no desire to search the archives of MTR dating back to the renumbering of US 666, but there were countless links to news stories and official press releases posted there...
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: bugo on January 09, 2014, 09:40:08 PM
I've been all over the South and I've visited many Southern cities: Atlanta, Savannah, Augusta, Macon, Columbus, Birmingham, Baton Rouge, Montgomery, Mobile, Jacksonville, Charleston, Memphis, Knoxville, Nashville, Chattanooga, Little Rock, Fayetteville metro, New Orleans, Shreveport, Texarkana, and Tulsa is far more like Kansas City or Omaha than it is to Memphis or Birmingham.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Scott5114 on January 10, 2014, 02:10:04 AM
Oklahoma part of the South?  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  You've obviously never been here.  Tulsa has WAY more in common with Kansas City than Atlanta, Little Rock, or Memphis.

Kansas City is a border area between part of the Plains (eastern CO, KS, NE), the Midwest (IA, IL), and differing areas of the South (OK/TX vs. AR/LA/MS).  Missouri is an interesting state being as it has a foot in both the Midwest (IA, N 2/3rds IL, IN, OH, WI, MN, MI) and the mid-South (AR, KY, TN).

Kansas City is solidly midwestern.  The great plains don't begin until well west of the KC metro.  Again, Oklahoma is not southern.  Texas is its own region.

The US Census Bureau map is on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States

Southern English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_American_English

Note where Oklahoma is.

For contrast, here's the Midwest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States

Midwestern English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_English, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Central_American_English

Geographers have no idea where to put Oklahoma. In school, our geography books lumped us and Texas in with the Southwest.

Oklahoma has a lot in common with Texas, but not with any other Southern state. Really, Oklahoma is what you would get if Kansas and Texas had a kid.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: US71 on January 10, 2014, 09:55:45 AM

I remember when US 666 ran concurrently with I-40 west of Gallup into Arizona and then southward. I don't remember exactly when it was renumbered as US 191. Does anyone know the reasoning (announced or otherwise) for that decision? Was it sign theft or satanic allusions or what?

I think it was a combination of the two factors, from what I've read.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: renegade on January 11, 2014, 10:07:20 PM
This one caught my eye ... not a renumbering, more of an adjustment:

http://kwgn.com/2014/01/10/cdot-replaced-420-mile-marker-sign-with-419-99-sign-because-of-thieves/
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: 1 on January 11, 2014, 10:13:22 PM
This one caught my eye ... not a renumbering, more of an adjustment:

http://kwgn.com/2014/01/10/cdot-replaced-420-mile-marker-sign-with-419-99-sign-because-of-thieves/

Wouldn't people steal it for being unique?

Also, it is actually placed .01 mile before mile 420 (being accurate), or is it placed at mile 420 as usual?
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on January 12, 2014, 01:16:23 AM
This one caught my eye ... not a renumbering, more of an adjustment:

http://kwgn.com/2014/01/10/cdot-replaced-420-mile-marker-sign-with-419-99-sign-because-of-thieves/

Wouldn't people steal it for being unique?

Also, it is actually placed .01 mile before mile 420 (being accurate), or is it placed at mile 420 as usual?

Answer:  http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/%E2%80%98mile-420--marker-replaced-in-colorado-after-repeated-thefts-from-pot-fans-191311273.html
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Molandfreak on January 12, 2014, 03:27:44 AM
50 feet doesn't make a whole lot of difference when you're driving 75, anyway.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on January 13, 2014, 02:55:18 PM
50 feet doesn't make a whole lot of difference when you're driving 75, anyway.

52.8 feet. 
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: NE2 on January 13, 2014, 03:25:21 PM
50 feet doesn't make a whole lot of difference when you're driving 75, anyway.

52.8 feet. 

Well that makes a whole lot of difference. Thanks for pointing it out.
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: corco on January 13, 2014, 03:33:08 PM
If you have to slam your brakes from 75, eight inches could make a difference. Dont ask me why you would need to slam your brakes for a mile marker- unless youre out to steal it and its not quite where you thought it would be
Title: Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
Post by: Brandon on January 13, 2014, 03:58:01 PM
50 feet doesn't make a whole lot of difference when you're driving 75, anyway.

52.8 feet. 

Well that makes a whole lot of difference. Thanks for pointing it out.

Well, it is approximately 0.01 mile.  :-P