The Worst of Road Signs

[roadfro]

Virginia appears to not be heeding statements in the most recent MUTCD disallowing the "dancing arrows"... For the exit only sign, there is no reason why a type B up arrow couldn't have been used.

[cpzilliacus]

On Martin Road off of Pa. 394 just east of U.S. 15 near Gettysburg is this assembly. 

Some part is either not true, or redundant:

[corco]

wait what's wrong with that? No trucks unless they're local deliveries down that road. The prohibition is probably in place because there's no outlet.

[NE2]

wait what's wrong with that? No trucks unless they're local deliveries down that road.

It's redundant, if 'no outlet' is correct, since only trucks going to points along the road will be on a no outlet street (in most cases - see below).

The prohibition is probably in place because there's no outlet.

If there's no outlet, you don't need such a prohibition.

But, unless there's a barricade somewhere along the road, it actually goes through. So they lied.


However there might be a case where this sign combination is actually correct:

A has this combination and B only has 'no outlet'. I'm not sure if this is strictly a correct use of 'no outlet', but it makes sense and I've seen it used.


PS: this is supposed to be the worst of road signs. Not mildly problematic signs.

[Big John]

I could think that trucks could by parking there and they don't want that.

[agentsteel53]

in the diagram, what is different about A and B that they require different signage?  sure, A ends at B, but that is an intersection issue and has nothing to do with whether or not there is an outlet, and/or whether or not trucks should be prohibited.

[NE2]

I could think that trucks could by parking there and they don't want that.

I suppose, but 'no parking' signs would take care of that.

in the diagram, what is different about A and B that they require different signage?  sure, A ends at B, but that is an intersection issue and has nothing to do with whether or not there is an outlet, and/or whether or not trucks should be prohibited.

What's different is that the residents on A have more political influence and get trucks bound for the cul-de-sac to go via B.

[jeffandnicole]

It would've helped if you just provided a link to the intersection.  Here it is: http://goo.gl/maps/hzLdz .

It looks like, from what I can tell, the road is a thru street that does connect with another street.  But the street seems to narrow at one point, and it's hard to determine if there's any sort of blockcade.  There does seem to be a large turnaround area about halfway down the road. 

And all of this is next to Highway US 15, so maybe truckers were getting confused or something.

All in all, the 'No Outlet' sign may be there to discourage thru traffic.  I wouldn't have thought twice about the sign assembly though.

[vtk]

A has this combination and B only has 'no outlet'. I'm not sure if this is strictly a correct use of 'no outlet',

I don't believe that is a correct use of 'no outlet'.  If you can loop around to the same point and face the same 'no outlet' sign again without first backtracking through that point in the opposite direction, then there is indeed an outlet.  In this diagram, A is an outlet for B and vice versa. 

Unless A is one-way towards the north/east.  In which case, A could have a 'no outlet' sign, and both could have a 'no through trucks' sign, though doing that would introduce ambiguity about which is the proper entry for trucks to use to reach the cul-de-sac in the back.  Probably better to put 'no through trucks' on either A or B, but not both.

[agentsteel53]

In this diagram, A is an outlet for B and vice versa. 

this is really stretching the definition of "outlet".  imagine this intersection being very slightly reconfigured.



here we have made a "bridge" and divided the intersection in two, but topologically speaking, this is the same as before.  certainly in this situation, one would not call A and B mutual outlets for each other, because we end up at the same point: the foot of the bridge.

now, as the limit of the bridge length approaches 0, there should not be an outlet brought into existence. 

that said, if the bridge were rotated 90 degrees, splitting the intersection in two the other way, then A and B would be outlets for each other.  barely, as the length of that bridge approached zero.



so, we can say that the "has outlet" function is discontinuous around zero. 

that said: ordinary drivers don't give a shit about limits and infinitesimal calculus - if I came out at functionally the same point as I went in, I would consider the road to have no outlet indeed.

[kphoger]

I never understood the point of an "Except Local Deliveries" plaque anyway.  I mean, if you're a UPS driver, or a moving truck driver, or whatever, and you're heading to a customer's house, and you see a NO TRUCKS sign (with no plaque), are you really just going to say, Well, I tried...tough luck, I guess, and head back to dispatch?  Seriously, folks.  When I drove a delivery truck, I completely ignored all NO TRUCKS signs, because I was always on my way to make a local delivery.

[Alps]

so, we can say that the "has outlet" function is discontinuous around zero. 

Either that, or take the ratio of the derivative functions.

[cpzilliacus]

My point is that if there is a "NO TRUCKS" sign (except for local deliveries) then presumably this road has an outlet, in which case the "NO OUTLET" sign is false.

Is there something in the MUTCD that proscribes providing false information to users of the highway system?  I've never seen or heard of such a thing, but perhaps it should be added?

[cpzilliacus]

When I drove a delivery truck, I completely ignored all NO TRUCKS signs, because I was always on my way to make a local delivery.

Sometimes the NO TRUCKS signs are posted because the road in question is a parkway, which does not allow some sorts of trucks.

Or there could be a problem with a low overhead clearance, or a posted bridge (though there are other signs for those).

[Alps]

My point is that if there is a "NO TRUCKS" sign (except for local deliveries) then presumably this road has an outlet, in which case the "NO OUTLET" sign is false.

Is there something in the MUTCD that proscribes providing false information to users of the highway system?  I've never seen or heard of such a thing, but perhaps it should be added?

Signs with prescribed uses can only be used in the situations given in the MUTCD. That said, agencies can make up their own warning signs for anything they want. Dead End and No Outlet are probably both defined, but this computer doesn't play nice with PDFs.

[kphoger]

When I drove a delivery truck, I completely ignored all NO TRUCKS signs, because I was always on my way to make a local delivery.

Sometimes the NO TRUCKS signs are posted because the road in question is a parkway, which does not allow some sorts of trucks.

Or there could be a problem with a low overhead clearance, or a posted bridge (though there are other signs for those).

Right, I forgot about you easterners and your parkways and your seltzer and your gravy on french fries.....

I'm talking about local streets in residential neighborhoods and rural county roads.  A great example is the road between Sims and Johnsonville, Illinois.  You can't read it in the GMSV shot, but this white sign prohibits trucks during the winter months.  Which is great, except that there is a school about halfway up the road which gets deliveries by truck.  I made local delieveries there:  I ignored the sign.  An "Except Local Delieveries" plaque would not have changed my course of action, and I doubt it would change anyone else's.

Or, to put it another way, having an "Except Local Delieveries" plaque on a parkway with clearances too low for trucks would be a very bad idea.  The plaques pointless.  Either no trucks at all–local or otherwise–can safely use a road, or local deliveries are going to use the road no matter what.

[vtk]

In this diagram, A is an outlet for B and vice versa. 

this is really stretching the definition of "outlet".  imagine this intersection being very slightly reconfigured.



here we have made a "bridge" and divided the intersection in two, but topologically speaking, this is the same as before. 

Assuming this "bridge" segment is indeed long enough to make two distinct intersections, the A and B segments are still inappropriate for 'no outlet' signage.  But you could put one on the "bridge" segment.

[Big John]

My point is that if there is a "NO TRUCKS" sign (except for local deliveries) then presumably this road has an outlet, in which case the "NO OUTLET" sign is false.

Is there something in the MUTCD that proscribes providing false information to users of the highway system?  I've never seen or heard of such a thing, but perhaps it should be added?

Signs with prescribed uses can only be used in the situations given in the MUTCD. That said, agencies can make up their own warning signs for anything they want. Dead End and No Outlet are probably both defined, but this computer doesn't play nice with PDFs.

MUTCD language is light for those signs:

Section 5C.11 DEAD END or NO OUTLET Signs (W14-1, W14-1a, W14-2, W14-2a)

Option:
01 The DEAD END (W14-1) and NO OUTLET (W14-2) signs (see Figure 5C-2) and the DEAD END (W14-1a) and NO OUTLET (W14-2a) signs (see Figure 5C-2) may be used to warn road users of a road that has no outlet or that terminates in a dead end or cul-de-sac.

Guidance:
02 If used, these signs should be placed at a location that gives drivers of large commercial or recreational vehicles an opportunity to select a different route or turn around.

[Mapmikey]

Is there something in the MUTCD that proscribes providing false information to users of the highway system?  I've never seen or heard of such a thing, but perhaps it should be added?

Fredericksburg blatantly lies with this assembly - http://goo.gl/maps/7xJOq

While that particular road off US 1 does dead end eventually, there is one turn to make and you can get to VA 3.  The point is they didn't want cut-through traffic between US 1 and VA 3 through the neighborhood.

They could've used a sign something like Alexandria does:


Mapmikey

[cpzilliacus]

Is there something in the MUTCD that proscribes providing false information to users of the highway system?  I've never seen or heard of such a thing, but perhaps it should be added?

Fredericksburg blatantly lies with this assembly - http://goo.gl/maps/7xJOq

While that particular road off US 1 does dead end eventually, there is one turn to make and you can get to VA
3.  The point is they didn't want cut-through traffic between US 1 and VA 3 through the neighborhood.

The whole "No Thru Traffic" sign business should perhaps be expressly declared unenforcable.  I don't know that it could be enforced even now.

They could've used a sign something like Alexandria does:


Mapmikey

I recall there being such signage along one or two streets leading up to Va. 7 (King Street) near the border between Arlington County  and the City of Alexandria.

[NE2]

The whole "No Thru Traffic" sign business should perhaps be expressly declared unenforcable.  I don't know that it could be enforced even now.

It's unenforceable in Florida: http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C

[Alps]

My point is that if there is a "NO TRUCKS" sign (except for local deliveries) then presumably this road has an outlet, in which case the "NO OUTLET" sign is false.

Is there something in the MUTCD that proscribes providing false information to users of the highway system?  I've never seen or heard of such a thing, but perhaps it should be added?

Signs with prescribed uses can only be used in the situations given in the MUTCD. That said, agencies can make up their own warning signs for anything they want. Dead End and No Outlet are probably both defined, but this computer doesn't play nice with PDFs.

MUTCD language is light for those signs:

Section 5C.11 DEAD END or NO OUTLET Signs (W14-1, W14-1a, W14-2, W14-2a)

Option:
01 The DEAD END (W14-1) and NO OUTLET (W14-2) signs (see Figure 5C-2) and the DEAD END (W14-1a) and NO OUTLET (W14-2a) signs (see Figure 5C-2) may be used to warn road users of a road that has no outlet or that terminates in a dead end or cul-de-sac.

Guidance:
02 If used, these signs should be placed at a location that gives drivers of large commercial or recreational vehicles an opportunity to select a different route or turn around.

That's what I figured. I think a lot of communities want leeway to "lie" with these signs. And there's really no harm in doing so, as opposed to the opposite practice of omitting such a sign from an actual dead end.

[empirestate]

Also see: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7880.0

[architect77]

Northbound on VA-241 (Telegraph Road) in the City of Alexandria, Virginia, this past Friday afternoon. Don't care for that downward-pointing diagonal arrow at all. I can't say I've seen many "Exit Only" banners with this sort of arrow in Virginia, but I have been noticing more diagonal arrows lately in general (such as for lanes ending) that appear to stem from a desire to use smaller signs. In this case I suppose its meaning is clear enough, but the diagonal-arrow fad is resulting in some rather unfortunate designs–notice the middle sign in this Street View image from just across the Potomac in Maryland.

I hate the black outline around the yellow "exit only". It looks stupid to reverse the color out (from the white above), and it makes the lower part look too big for the upper. It's almost a frankensign if you ask me.

[Michael]

I just found this ugly sign for Fay Street in Utica, NY.  I actually said "ew" out loud when I saw it.