Is this sign confusing to you?

[cjk374]

Here is the sign in question: https://www.google.com/maps/@32.53438,-92.678113,3a,37.5y,210.59h,78.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1soaBFW42UOwgW4PDZlXlXCA!2e0

And the next one about 1/3 of a mile later: https://www.google.com/maps/@32.531008,-92.678045,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s4i-O7pClnNSXMG8x8OhOVA!2e0

The reason for the signs: https://www.google.com/maps/@32.529376,-92.675877,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDlp6XFx48uGM0CTS-QjZLA!2e0

Okay, now why do I ask this?  Because: http://www.knoe.com/home/headlines/Ruston-crossing-closed-Train-and-18-wheeler-accident-297776421.html      

This occurred this morning just a few miles east of where I live.  Thankfully, no one was injured in this accident. And don't let this story fool you...the 49 cars the train was pulling were all double stacked containers.  This train was a mile and a half long. 

I have a prediction (not based on fact) that he probably may try to blame his GPS for giving him this route.  It was also very early in the morning when this took place, before daylight.

My question to you, especially to the current and retired truck drivers on the forum:  Would you understand the meaning of these signs if you encountered them on the road?

As an aside...had he been driving in the other direction, this story would be even better.  These signs do not exist on the other side of the crossing. 

[Big John]

I took it is a sharp decline ahead.  Should use W10-5 sign instead.

[cjk374]

I took it is a sharp decline ahead.  Should use W10-5 sign instead.

I agree...it should be used near the crossing, but apparently LaDOTD didn't put it up anywhere.

[nexus73]

I was not confused.  It helps to know something about what truck drivers encounter I guess.

Rick

[kphoger]

I had to think about "high grade crossing" for a few seconds before I figured out what it meant. I could easily see someone not figuring it out. It most reasonably sounds like a poorly worded "steep grade" warning, which a truck driver might figure his rig was capable of handling.

"Trucks use alternate route", however, is very clearly worded. Unfortunately, it's not on a white regulatory sign, so it's more of a suggestion than a requirement.

[NE2]

"High grade crossing" implies it's a well-built crossing. Maybe one too delicate for trucks to use.

[kphoger]

Top shelf crossing.

[Pete from Boston]

93 octane crossing.

[Duke87]

I looked at the first sign and instantly thought "oh, there is going to be a railroad crossing that is at a higher elevation than normal". I then looked at the next couple images and discovered I was correct.

But, I know stuff about trains. "Grade crossing" is an instantly recognizable term to me. It probably isn't to much of the general population.

An MUTCD standard sign like the one posted above would get the point across to more people more clearly. Also, instead of warning black on yellow "trucks use alt route", there should be a regulatory truck prohibition if that crossing is nasty enough that any truck would likely get stuck.

[SteveG1988]

How i would fix this sign, as a driver.

No Truck sign, With Truck Route and an arrow directing the vehicles around it.

on the same post, the standard infographic sign.

And finally, if you want to stop trucks going back there, put a pole over the road, at 12 foot 4 or less.

[Scott5114]

The confusing part to me is whether LA 818 is meant to be the alternate route or if we are currently on LA 818 and that's just a badly placed reassurance marker.

[vtk]

And don't let this story fool you...the 49 cars the train was pulling were all double stacked containers.  This train was a mile and a half long.

Train cars that carry intermodal containers often are three to five 53' containers long, articulated in as many sections. They count as one car for inventory purposes, but look like multiple cars if you're not paying attention. A layman watching that train go by probably would have counted over 150 cars. That's about 300 truck loads if most are double stacked.

[roadfro]

"Grade crossing" is somewhat ambiguous on the sign. No reason not use the term "railroad crossing" instead.

A standard warning sign with distance plaque would be better here, coupled with a regulatory sign stating "no trucks past (last point of safety). Trucks use (detour road/route)."

[Sykotyk]

Should've used the diamond sign. There's a similar situation off PA-940 in White Haven (just off I-80) that warns trucks thoroughly that there's a high point in the road and minimal ground clearance trucks to avoid (it's easy, just drop to I-80 and go east or west and then back north to PA-940). But, it's very well signed.

This road should have a simple 'No Trucks' sign except for local delivery (they'll be on the road before hitting the crossing) and a marked appropriate detour. Any state route with a truck impediment should have a signed detour around it to avoid these kinds of things.

[J N Winkler]

My reaction:  pox on both their houses.

*  Why is LaDOTD using nonstandard signs instead of the correct signs as laid out in the MUTCD as well as a detour which all trucks above a certain minimum configuration are required to use?

*  What was the 18-wheeler doing on a blatantly substandard road with no edge line?

[Dr Frankenstein]

As a non-native English speaker, I would not have understood it, although I would have understood "HIGH RR CROSSING".

In any case, the W10-5 sign plus a posted truck route would have been much better, as J N Winkler suggests.

[Henry]

"Grade crossing" is somewhat ambiguous on the sign. No reason not use the term "railroad crossing" instead.

A standard warning sign with distance plaque would be better here, coupled with a regulatory sign stating "no trucks past (last point of safety). Trucks use (detour road/route)."

Agreed, and besides, a railroad crossing sign gives a better idea of what's ahead.

[cjk374]

My reaction:  pox on both their houses.

*  Why is LaDOTD using nonstandard signs instead of the correct signs as laid out in the MUTCD as well as a detour which all trucks above a certain minimum configuration are required to use?

If Louisiana can only use state routes for detours and for truck routes, then there are only 2 routes available...and neither of them are really truck-friendly:

1) LA 150 west to LA 149 south through Grambling State Univ. campus to US 80 (where the intersection is in a blind curve at a convenience store) to LA 818 north on the other side of the crossing.

2) LA 150 east to US167/US 80/LA 146 in historic downtown Ruston to US 80 west to LA 818 north.

Trucks could use the parish road that forks off to the right just behind the 2nd warning sign and take the next left onto another parish road that comes out on the other side of the crossing.

*  What was the 18-wheeler doing on a blatantly substandard road with no edge line?

Many of Louisiana's state roads have no edge line.  And many trucks use these roads, especially log trucks and oilfield servicing trucks. 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The confusing part to me is whether LA 818 is meant to be the alternate route or if we are currently on LA 818 and that's just a badly placed reassurance marker.

This IS LA 818.  I'm sure the truck's destination was the old broomstick factory.  I don't know what they do there now, but whatever it is they use particleboad.  https://www.google.com/maps/@32.529074,-92.67537,3a,75y,150.99h,89.26t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1soun9XP0p5ujlxsejFZkXoA!2e0

[Stratuscaster]

I understand the signs.

Posting a signed truck route would be better.