The Worst of Road Signs

[NE2]

That started on the third fucking post. How is [http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.025418,-81.527846&spn=0.011542,0.024784&layer=c&cbll=41.02546,-81.527949&panoid=KSmptfRvS8BY69Ut0ux9gg&cbp=12,260.06,,0,3.55&t=h&z=16 this] worst?

[Molandfreak]

That started on the third fucking post. How is this worst?

Fixed link

[Molandfreak]

I need to stop visiting this thread, as it seems to have devolved into "Signs with any design flaw, no matter how minor, whose flaws require may require detailed explanation".

I agree wholeheartedly. Take it to the clearview thread if it's clearview, take it to arialwhateveritistesk thread if it's anything else. Same thing has happened to the entire Road-Related Illustrations board. I'm someone who would like to post some actual improvements for accurate signage, but they would be low-quality because I lack the knowledge and resources to make "good" drawings (or the patience to go through the entire MUTCD). The general make-everything-100%-perfect vibe there really puts me off from doing so.

[Zeffy]

I agree wholeheartedly. Take it to the clearview thread if it's clearview, take it to arialwhateveritistesk thread if it's anything else. Same thing has happened to the entire Road-Related Illustrations board. I'm someone who would like to post some actual improvements for accurate signage, but they would be low-quality because I lack the knowledge and resources to make "good" drawings (or the patience to go through the entire MUTCD). The general make-everything-100%-perfect attitude there really puts me off from doing so.

We only offer constructive criticism in the Road Related Illustrations board. There is no rule that prohibits people from posting what the general community may deem ugly. We all start somewhere.

[NE2]

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14712
I request constructive criticism on this illustration

[jakeroot]

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14712
I request constructive criticism on this illustration

[NE2]

Worst in a different way: this is what blind MUTCD compliance produces. It would be much more sensical to have one sign that says 170th Ave / Cunningham, but no, "A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided."

[PHLBOS]

Worst in a different way: this is what blind MUTCD compliance produces. It would be much more sensical to have one sign that says 170th Ave / Cunningham, but no, "A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided."

MassDOT still does such (list street name and city/town on one sign) to this day.  It's no different than a sign containing a route shield (instead of a street name) and a city/town.  IMHO, MUTCD's out to lunch in this regard.

[hbelkins]

Worst in a different way: this is what blind MUTCD compliance produces. It would be much more sensical to have one sign that says 170th Ave / Cunningham, but no, "A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided."

MassDOT still does such (list street name and city/town on one sign) to this day.  It's no different than a sign containing a route shield (instead of a street name) and a city/town.  IMHO, MUTCD's out to lunch in this regard.

Which is why I like New York's practice of putting the road/street name in a box, making it more like a route marker.

[hotdogPi]

Worst in a different way: this is what blind MUTCD compliance produces. It would be much more sensical to have one sign that says 170th Ave / Cunningham, but no, "A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided."

MassDOT still does such (list street name and city/town on one sign) to this day.  It's no different than a sign containing a route shield (instead of a street name) and a city/town.  IMHO, MUTCD's out to lunch in this regard.

Which is why I like New York's practice of putting the road/street name in a box, making it more like a route marker.

I only think it should be used if the street is a freeway (sometimes you can't tell by the name).

[Eth]

Worst in a different way: this is what blind MUTCD compliance produces. It would be much more sensical to have one sign that says 170th Ave / Cunningham, but no, "A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided."

This is presumably also the reason for this sign on GA 400. The main guide signs, visible in the background, simply read "Dunwoody" and "Sandy Springs", respectively.

[yakra]

Heh. Made me think of think of this thread when I drove under these signs last night.

[myosh_tino]

Heh. Made me think of think of this thread when I drove under these signs last night.

May I ask what's so "bad" about those signs?  They look pretty good to me.

[Kacie Jane]

I'm guessing Yakra didn't mean that they were actually "worst of", but that they fit the tangent of combining street names with cities.

[yakra]

^ Correct.

[myosh_tino]

I'm guessing Yakra didn't mean that they were actually "worst of", but that they fit the tangent of combining street names with cities.

OK, I get it now.  The combination of street names and cities on guide signs is still quite common in California although I believe Caltrans is slowly moving away from the practice.

[PHLBOS]

Just noticed this one while answering another thread.

[Android]

It's prophecy... they'd knew that would be captured by Google and they wanted to match the typeface on the sign with the font of the Google Maps graphic overlay on the road... 

[busman_49]

Originally a right arrow that had an additional head badly patched on?
P1160660 by Ryan busman_49, on Flickr

The photo is 5 months old and sometime recently the sign was mowed down.  Hopefully it was in bad enough shape that it had to be replaced.

[machias]

Worst in a different way: this is what blind MUTCD compliance produces. It would be much more sensical to have one sign that says 170th Ave / Cunningham, but no, "A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided."

MassDOT still does such (list street name and city/town on one sign) to this day.  It's no different than a sign containing a route shield (instead of a street name) and a city/town.  IMHO, MUTCD's out to lunch in this regard.

Which is why I like New York's practice of putting the road/street name in a box, making it more like a route marker.

Except that you can't make out what's inside the box when NYSDOT does this.  The halation from headlights obscures anything in the street sign box and some sign manufacturers make the box border the same stroke width as the lettering inside the box, which significantly reduces legibility from a distance where the rest of the sign is clearly legible. It just looks like a big blob. Then some regions in NYSDOT decided to do it when the road name was the only legend (besides an arrow) on the sign, so you have a road name in all caps in a box in a box.

If people can't figure out that
West Main St
Randolph
Gowanda

... where West Main St is the street name and Randolph is the village name, then they shouldn't be on the road. I agree with others, this is where the MUTCD totally misses the mark. There's nothing wrong with combining street names and destinations on the same sign, it provides more guidance for motorists, and that's what guide signs should be doing. If they need a box around the street name to figure out that "West Main St" doesn't mean "West Main Saint" then we have a problem.

[cl94]

Worst in a different way: this is what blind MUTCD compliance produces. It would be much more sensical to have one sign that says 170th Ave / Cunningham, but no, "A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided."

MassDOT still does such (list street name and city/town on one sign) to this day.  It's no different than a sign containing a route shield (instead of a street name) and a city/town.  IMHO, MUTCD's out to lunch in this regard.

Which is why I like New York's practice of putting the road/street name in a box, making it more like a route marker.

Except that you can't make out what's inside the box when NYSDOT does this.  The halation from headlights obscures anything in the street sign box and some sign manufacturers make the box border the same stroke width as the lettering inside the box, which significantly reduces legibility from a distance where the rest of the sign is clearly legible. It just looks like a big blob. Then some regions in NYSDOT decided to do it when the road name was the only legend (besides an arrow) on the sign, so you have a road name in all caps in a box in a box.

If people can't figure out that
West Main St
Randolph
Gowanda

... where West Main St is the street name and Randolph is the village name, then they shouldn't be on the road. I agree with others, this is where the MUTCD totally misses the mark. There's nothing wrong with combining street names and destinations on the same sign, it provides more guidance for motorists, and that's what guide signs should be doing. If they need a box around the street name to figure out that "West Main St" doesn't mean "West Main Saint" then we have a problem.

Agree completely. The extra lines add stuff to the sign and increase comprehension time. The boxes were mainly used in Regions 2 and 8. The other regions have few (if any) examples.

Also, should be avoided is not the same as must be avoided. There are times when it is impractical to not have a street name and destination on a sign, such as in a suburban area on a route without a numerical designation, where omitting a street name could cause confusion. I-87 Exit 18 in Queensbury (Region 1) falls under this category, with two destination cities and no street name (Corinth Rd) or route number (CR 28). Yet, Region 5 in particular puts a control city with a street name at just about every suburban/rural exit without a signed intersecting route.

[Scott5114]

I think the MUTCD's intent here was not that the cities should be omitted, but rather moved to a separate panel. So the exit would be signed "West Main St" and there would be a supplementary "Randolph, Gowanda, Next Right" panel somewhere in the run-up to the exit.

[NE2]

I think the MUTCD's intent here was not that the cities should be omitted, but rather moved to a separate panel. So the exit would be signed "West Main St" and there would be a supplementary "Randolph, Gowanda, Next Right" panel somewhere in the run-up to the exit.

Worst in a different way: this is what blind MUTCD compliance produces. It would be much more sensical to have one sign that says 170th Ave / Cunningham, but no, "A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided."

[lordsutch]

On the theme of terrible arrows: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Warner+Robins,+GA/@32.618368,-83.609368,3a,75y,175.92h,84.31t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCq2D9V4-LfOohUo_IVB_aw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x88f3e1a7df49eb61:0x181995ef9865bb04

Would it have killed them to actually attach the template to the sign before spray-painting it? Plus it's the wrong sign.

And just in case you thought it was a one-off accident, they did it again... https://www.google.com/maps/@32.61651,-83.609095,3a,75y,356.46h,85.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1syrQH9Esy3unMCFk8atMjOg!2e0

Macon got in on the act too, although at least they bothered with fabricating properly-made signs (so they're not bad signs, they're just the wrong signs): here and here.

[machias]

I think the MUTCD's intent here was not that the cities should be omitted, but rather moved to a separate panel. So the exit would be signed "West Main St" and there would be a supplementary "Randolph, Gowanda, Next Right" panel somewhere in the run-up to the exit.

I see what their thought process is here and I wholeheartedly agree with the approach in urban areas, but in rural areas the methodology doesn't seem to work as well. People are generally headed to a town/village's exit ("get off at the Randolph exit"), so I think destinations are more important than the road name, but if the road doesn't warrant a route number, why should it be omitted?  It's perfectly fine to write out the route number in all text in lieu of using a marker, so why does that MUTCD treat

US 62
Kennedy
Warren Pa

Any different than:

Falconer St
Kennedy
Warren Pa

Just my two cents.