The Worst of Road Signs

[Sanctimoniously]

There is quite a lot of it in Norfolk. I also saw a VA 168 shield that was not only in Series Derp, but also with the US Route shield shape.

[Takumi]

I saw this one back in 2010. Not only are all three shields awful, but VA 407 has never officially existed this far west.

[Ian]

Another font that had no business of being included on a highway sign.  There were several signs like this in Southwestern Ontario, but I am not sure if any remain:

Highway 417 to the east of Ottawa has several signs with that font. This photo doesn't really do any justice, but the RR 41 shield on this BGS has that font...

[AsphaltPlanet]

The 417, (and 416, for that matter), have a lot of odd signage.  It is only along those highways where the county road shield would be placed below the roads proper name, as it is in your photo.  Further, there are numerous ground mounted advanced signs that lack the distance to the exit.  Such as this:

[Takumi]

It's hard to tell because of the light, but is "Roger Stevens" greenout? If it's not, even worse.

[AsphaltPlanet]

I don't think so Roger Stevens is greenout, I think the sign was manufactured this way.

What makes you dislike the Rogers Stevens text so much?

[cu2010]

Probably because it's so much larger than the rest of the text on the sign...

[Takumi]

^^^ Yep.

[mcdonaat]

^^^ Seconded. Those three control cities, or points of interest, do not belong on the green sign. Maybe a secondary sign, but they don't belong on the exit sign itself.

[AsphaltPlanet]

Really?  These are things I never would have taken issue with.  I like the text size for Roger Stevens, it makes it stand out, and in my opinion more legible.

[Ian]

Doesn't matter anymore if you like the sign or not. It's been replaced...

[Kacie Jane]

Doesn't matter anymore if you like the sign or not. It's been replaced...

...yet still with larger text for "Roger Stevens".

[Central Avenue]

While I find the larger "Roger Stevens" ugly, I think I kinda understand why they did. When you have to put a generic before and after the street name, it makes sense to try to offset the name itself in some way.

[MASTERNC]

This sign only makes my "worst" list because someone who doesn't think it through could think the ban applies to everyone, not just drivers.  Also, the white on black text should probably be white on red.

Maryland and Delaware both use this sign.



In contrast, West Virginia now uses a sign that clearly states to whom it applies.  There are no photos out there, but here is what it says:

"DRIVERS: Hands-Free Communication Devices Only"

[thenetwork]

The shield is horrible too. That same combination appears elsewhere in Norfolk; I know it exists at the US 58-VA 165 intersection.

Virginia's Bubble-Shield!!

[myosh_tino]

This sign only makes my "worst" list because someone who doesn't think it through could think the ban applies to everyone, not just drivers.  Also, the white on black text should probably be white on red.

Maryland and Delaware both use this sign.

All that is needed is "WHEN DRIVING" added to the bottom of the sign.  I wish Caltrans would post this type of sign on all major highways entering California.

[Alps]

This sign only makes my "worst" list because someone who doesn't think it through could think the ban applies to everyone, not just drivers.  Also, the white on black text should probably be white on red.

Maryland and Delaware both use this sign.



In contrast, West Virginia now uses a sign that clearly states to whom it applies.  There are no photos out there, but here is what it says:

"DRIVERS: Hands-Free Communication Devices Only"

White on red is wrong - that's for urgent directions only (No Parking being the most notable exception, which is probably what you're thinking of). This is correct as a regulatory sign.

[amroad17]

The shield is horrible too. That same combination appears elsewhere in Norfolk; I know it exists at the US 58-VA 165 intersection.

Virginia's Bubble-Shield!!

My eyes, my eyes!!!

[AsphaltPlanet]

While I find the larger "Roger Stevens" ugly, I think I kinda understand why they did. When you have to put a generic before and after the street name, it makes sense to try to offset the name itself in some way.

I agree, for specifically that reason.

[Duke87]

You see this prefix and suffix business everywhere in the vicinity of Ottawa and on all Federal bridges/structures/etc.

The idea, of course, is to be bilingual. And that's all well and good in general. But I am not fond of the practice when it comes to street names since it is generally acceptable and often expected that you not translate proper nouns. That street is called "Roger Stevens Drive" (in Ontario, so English). It serves no purpose to also sign it as "Promenade Roger Stevens".

This becomes especially silly when you start dealing with suffixes that exist the same in both languages. Just north of Pont Champlain in Montreal you will see signs for "Av. Atwater Ave.". Derp.
Really, just sign it as "Av Atwater" and be done with it. Anglophones understand perfectly fine!

[roadfro]

This sign only makes my "worst" list because someone who doesn't think it through could think the ban applies to everyone, not just drivers.  Also, the white on black text should probably be white on red.

Maryland and Delaware both use this sign.



In contrast, West Virginia now uses a sign that clearly states to whom it applies.  There are no photos out there, but here is what it says:

"DRIVERS: Hands-Free Communication Devices Only"

Is it just me, or does this appear to be white on blue/blue on white instead of black?

The background square is not necessary on the sign, you could use black on white for the whole text and be fine. I agree that stating "Drivers:" on the top or "when driving" on the bottom would be better.

[Central Avenue]

It looks blue to me too, but I assume that's just the white balance of the photo being slightly off...

[cpzilliacus]

Is it just me, or does this appear to be white on blue/blue on white instead of black?

The background square is not necessary on the sign, you could use black on white for the whole text and be fine. I agree that stating "Drivers:" on the top or "when driving" on the bottom would be better.

They are supposed to be black. 

Maryland has installed them at or near many of its state boundary crossings.

[Special K]

This sign only makes my "worst" list because someone who doesn't think it through could think the ban applies to everyone, not just drivers.  Also, the white on black text should probably be white on red.

Maryland and Delaware both use this sign.



In contrast, West Virginia now uses a sign that clearly states to whom it applies.  There are no photos out there, but here is what it says:

"DRIVERS: Hands-Free Communication Devices Only"

White on red is wrong - that's for urgent directions only (No Parking being the most notable exception, which is probably what you're thinking of). This is correct as a regulatory sign.

I don't see anything in the MUTCD that precludes white legend on red background for a prohibition sign.  Where is this indicated?

[1995hoo]

It looks blue to me too, but I assume that's just the white balance of the photo being slightly off...

They're definitely black. I see those signs every time I go to Maryland. I rather like the way they catch your eye when you enter the state.