Ninjasigning

[_Simon]

Wanted to get opinions on the prospect of posting accurate-but-rogue fully-MUTCD-compliant guide (not regulatory or warning) signs on public ROW (both where necessary and where unnecessary).  I was thinking about why it's ok for people to post

• Yard Sale, Garage Sale, etc signs
• Business opportunities (We buy gold, make money fast)
• Political Signage (elect so and so)
• Organization (neighborhood watch/xxx club)

on public ROW, in many cases right on the official square/u-channel posts; yet no one is going around putting up much-needed missing route shields, destination signs, and other such tidbits that would require 10 seconds and 2 bolts.  Would jurisdictions even really notice if a county route shield or a destination sign was there one day when it wasn't there before?  Obviously if it looks DIY, its a dead giveaway; but I'm talking to-spec signage.

[NE2]

in before Richard Ankrom

Many roadgeeks probably consider it for a few minutes before realizing the cost.

[_Simon]

Yeah ... but ... what if you could afford it?  Give me reasons why I shouldn't start fabricating fully spec shields for secret routes and mounting them to posts.

[corco]

I've long thought it would be hilarious to, say, steal a Nebraska (or other state with the state name on the shield) state highway shield and post it in Idaho but I don't do it because when it comes down to it I have something resembling a life and that just isn't a priority.

One time I was drunk in high school I almost convinced some of my friends to help me reroute the state highway onto the bypass (which for legal reasons can not be signed as the state highway or even marked as a bypass despite being state maintained) in our town, but I think girls showed up or something and we obviously didn't do it.

[kj3400]

I don't have any reasons against it. Would be good for a laugh, I know that much. Hell, the state DOT might even keep them.

[NE2]

Yeah ... but ... what if you could afford it?  Give me reasons why I shouldn't start fabricating fully spec shields for secret routes and mounting them to posts.

Because you should start with missing signs for non-secret routes? But that would require braving the ghettos of Newark and Trenton.

[Big John]

Site admitting doing it in California: http://ankrom.org/freeway_signs.html

[_Simon]

Wow, I wasn't even thinking about BGS's.   Then again, everytime I pass this sign, I feel the need to get an adhesive "TO NJ-18" shield and a long stick: 
https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.547331,-74.495888&spn=0.048263,0.117159&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=40.547199,-74.496082&panoid=VanIAagAOjmzlua9XPI2Nw&cbp=12,69.26,,0,3.77

[Takumi]

Next time I visit VA 28, I'm posting my I-366 shield.

[_Simon]

I'm hoping the people here who actually work in transportation could explain what they would do if they encountered such rogue signage.  Can we get a list of pros and cons going?  I'm still not convinced that I shouldn't use portions of my disposable income on fabricating cool shit that Wasn't There The Day Before™.

[J N Winkler]

Caltrans was quite a good sport about Ankrom's guerrilla revision of a large panel sign, but state DOTs in general would hate DIY signing (or "signing vigilantism," to coin another term for it) if it occurred on a large scale, because that creates all kinds of maintenance, public-relations, and liability headaches for them.

*  Because the state DOT did not place the guerrilla sign, it will have no record of its location, placement, size, substrate type, sheeting type, erection date, etc.  What happens when the sign wears out and needs to be replaced?  How will the state DOT even know that has happened?

*  The sign was not placed by state DOT maintenance forces or under the supervision of a state DOT resident engineer, so the state DOT has no guarantee that its standards were followed in erecting the sign.  These standards are important, especially in respect of frangible posts, because the state DOT can be sued if anyone runs into a guerrilla sign and sustains injury that would have been avoided if breakaway posts had been used.  The erector of the guerrilla sign could be named as a co-defendant in the suit only if his or her identity were known, and even if it were, the state DOT would still be sued because (a) it is the DOT's responsibility to maintain control of the roads within its inventory, and (b) DOTs (and government agencies in general) have much deeper pockets than any individual member of the general public.

*  In a hidden-route-being-signed scenario (call the route in question X), suppose a member of the general public contacts the state DOT's public-affairs office, saying, "Why don't you sign Route Y?  You already sign Route X."  Public-affairs officer goes to Traffic Engineering and asks, "Do we in fact sign Route X?"  Traffic Engineering replies, "No, we don't, our sign inventory shows no entries for M-series marker signs on Route X.  In fact, our policy manual says neither route should be signed."  So public-affairs officer goes back to Joe Public and says, "Our records show we don't sign Route X.  In fact we are not supposed to sign either route."  Joe Public thinks, "This runaround is what my tax dollars buy?"  See where this is going?

In retrospect it is clear that Caltrans was a good sport about Ankrom's guerrilla signing project precisely because most of the considerations quoted above did not apply.  Ankrom added his sign as a message revision, using Caltrans' own standards, to a substrate and sign structure which Caltrans had already furnished.  He went public with what he had done, so his guerrilla sign was not a landmine waiting to blow up in some unlucky civil servant's face later on.  But even so Caltrans still had to send out a maintenance person--with all the expense that implies in terms of employee time and traffic management on probably the most congested part of the Los Angeles freeway network--to verify that its standards had, in fact, been followed.

[_Simon]

Are you asserting that we are incapable of mimicking the standards of the DOT in question; or are incapable of understanding the difference between posting an additional shield on an already-installed frangible post, and, erecting an immobile post where none was before?  I'm talking about modifications that take seconds to minutes; not digging a post hole and pouring cement and installing new posts in some unsafe way.  As for point #3, that's generally the entire point is to cause confusion and a general state of "why exactly isn't this signed?  should it be so unsigned that we should remove the signs? and maybe the public is filling a much-needed gap that we should look into."  If the signs didn't make people think; there wouldn't be a point.   Likewise, it's obvious the DOT doesn't have a record of such signs -- that's the reason the (much-needed) signs don't exist in the first place.  I've sent letters to agencies asking them to fix signage and in very few cases does anything occur.  In more than once case I've asserted "If you won't install the sign, I'll do it myself".  The problem is that if I'm going to start signing things myself, I have a backlog of much-more interesting signs I'd like to errect rather than fix the DOT's lazywork.  It's understandable that vigilante signing causes headaches because we've all sign when contractors, shopping malls, and the public sign things incorrectly -- this is a chance to do it the right way.  If someone other than the DOT is going to sign something and do it all fucked up, then I can't think of a better group of people besides us to go in and show them the correct way.  Maybe I'm just trying to find some cause to fight for or something, but I have not yet heard a convincing argument as to why i should not fabricate DOT-spec signage, put it up, and then notify the DOT that the public has done their job for them in some location where they did not.

Edit:  Another thing I haven't even mentioned is simply getting a contractor that normally does DOT work to install the signs;  this ensures that not only are they installed by a qualified resource, but that they are fabricated to the exact specs as they would if the DOT ordered them.   

[corco]

*  Because the state DOT did not place the guerrilla sign, it will have no record of its location, placement, size, substrate type, sheeting type, erection date, etc.  What happens when the sign wears out and needs to be replaced?  How will the state DOT even know that has happened?

I think you're really overestimating the inventory control of some state DOTs- I have it on good record Montana doesn't have more than a rudimentary sign inventory that's not even necessarily correct. Sign maintenance in Montana involves a district supervisor driving around in his truck, keeping an eye out for worn out signs/missing signs.

[InterstateNG]

You should get started on signing Georgia 401.

And if you have that much money, perhaps you should put it towards a cause that actually has a point.

[J N Winkler]

I think you're really overestimating the inventory control of some state DOTs- I have it on good record Montana doesn't have more than a rudimentary sign inventory that's not even necessarily correct. Sign maintenance in Montana involves a district supervisor driving around in his truck, keeping an eye out for worn out signs/missing signs.

I know there is considerable variety in how state DOTs carry out periodic audit of the performance of their highway signs:  some DOTs maintain sign inventories, others rely on periodic replacement of everything to keep sign sheeting fresh, others use photologging, still others use retroreflectivity testers, etc.  My point is that when a DOT goes down the inventory route, having unlisted guerrilla signs can interfere with maintenance programming.

Are you asserting that we are incapable of mimicking the standards of the DOT in question; or are incapable of understanding the difference between posting an additional shield on an already-installed frangible post, and, erecting an immobile post where none was before?

I make no assertions of this kind.  Rather, I assert that when any mistakes are made in following those published standards, it is the state DOT's prerogative to make them, because (1) it has the responsibility, and (2) it has the financial capacity to meet any liability concerns that may arise (in part because most state DOTs are covered by a limited form of sovereign immunity which limits the claims that can be made against state DOT officials in the performance of their duties).

I'm talking about modifications that take seconds to minutes; not digging a post hole and pouring cement and installing new posts in some unsafe way.

That still has the potential to raise lots of problems.  Let's say you use an existing signpost to add a new sign.  Can it bear the added wind load?  Can you combine your new sign with the other signs on the same post in the order required by the MUTCD and the DOT's policy guidance without rearranging the signs already on the post?  Do you have the DOT's approved mounting hardware?  Are you sure you have a complete set of relevant policy documentation from the DOT?  (In some states, such as Kansas, getting hold of this can be quite a challenge.)  When you finish adding your sign, will the post have enough length to ensure that the bottom of the lowest sign meets the minimum clearance specified in the MUTCD?

Or, alternatively, let's suppose you choose to attach the sign to an utility pole instead, using strap mounts.  Do you have a pole use agreement with the utility company?  Does the state DOT?

As for point #3, that's generally the entire point is to cause confusion and a general state of "why exactly isn't this signed?  should it be so unsigned that we should remove the signs? and maybe the public is filling a much-needed gap that we should look into."  If the signs didn't make people think; there wouldn't be a point.

But the basic point still stands--any omissions or inaccuracies in signing are the state DOT's mistakes to make.  If you approach them directly, you protect yourself from liability (which is not limited in your case by any residue of sovereign immunity), and also give them an opportunity to diagnose problems in signing policy or process which can then be attacked in a systematic way.

Likewise, it's obvious the DOT doesn't have a record of such signs -- that's the reason the (much-needed) signs don't exist in the first place.

First, it is not necessarily true that the DOT does not have an inventory.  Many states do, while some don't.  Second, it is not always as a result of simple omission that routes are not signed.  In many cases the actual responsibility for signing some types of routes in urban areas rests with the city, and in others the state DOT has made a conscious policy decision that the route will not be signed.

I've sent letters to agencies asking them to fix signage and in very few cases does anything occur.  In more than once case I've asserted "If you won't install the sign, I'll do it myself".

Years ago I appeared in person at the Riley County (Kansas) Department of Public Works to suggest that a curve advisory speed sign should be installed on a left-hand bend on a county-maintained road near the Tuttle Creek Dam reservoir.  The next time I drove down that road, the advisory speed sign had not been installed.  When I drove down it six months later, it had been installed.  Sometimes it just takes time to get things done.  In the case of the curve it might have been necessary to send out an engineer with a ball bank, while for signing routes some research may have to be done into whatever undertakings the state DOT has given in regard to that route.

I wouldn't use the phrase "I'll sign it myself" when contacting a DOT about any apparent deficiency in signing.  First, it invites a circle-the-wagons response that gets in the way of your suggestion being seriously considered.  Second, if the route is subsequently signed in a way which attracts liability, you become the prime suspect.

Edit:  Another thing I haven't even mentioned is simply getting a contractor that normally does DOT work to install the signs;  this ensures that not only are they installed by a qualified resource, but that they are fabricated to the exact specs as they would if the DOT ordered them.

If a contractor got wind that you planned actually to erect such signs in the field, rather than on your bedroom wall or barn door or whatever, they would probably turn you down flat because they have no interest in taking on the vicarious liability.  When they work for the state DOT on the public right-of-way under contract, they are protected as long as they follow the terms of the contract; as a private citizen you cannot offer them this protection.

[_Simon]

Can it bear the added wind load?

Yes.  We can do math.

Can you combine your new sign with the other signs on the same post in the order required by the MUTCD and the DOT's policy guidance without rearranging the signs already on the post?

We can rearrange the signs if they need to be rearranged.  In fact mosts of these projects would probably be putting the "JCT" banner ABOVE the shield instead of below it where contractors seem to think it goes.

Do you have the DOT's approved mounting hardware?

Yes.

Are you sure you have a complete set of relevant policy documentation from the DOT?

Yes, they're published, and even if we're not 100% to spec, it's better than nothing.

When you finish adding your sign, will the post have enough length to ensure that the bottom of the lowest sign meets the minimum clearance specified in the MUTCD?

Again with the math...

Or, alternatively, let's suppose you choose to attach the sign to an utility pole instead, using strap mounts.  Do you have a pole use agreement with the utility company?  Does the state DOT?

Who says I need to?  I don't see people being fined for posting yard sale signs.  If the utility doesn't like it they'll remove it -- if they even notice.

I wouldn't use the phrase "I'll sign it myself" when contacting a DOT about any apparent deficiency in signing.  First, it invites a circle-the-wagons response that gets in the way of your suggestion being seriously considered.  Second, if the route is subsequently signed in a way which attracts liability, you become the prime suspect.

Suspect of what?  Putting up the sign that I said I would?  I'm still waiting for you to tell me why this is bad, other than that I could get sued if someone crashes into my sign or the like.

they have no interest in taking on the vicarious liability.  When they work for the state DOT on the public right-of-way under contract, they are protected as long as they follow the terms of the contract; as a private citizen you cannot offer them this protection.

Protect from what?  You still haven't shown me where putting up my own signs is illegal (the entire point of this thread).

[briantroutman]

For the first several years of I-99's existence, it was pretty poorly signed with most overheads still indicating only US 220. The I-99 shields that did exist were primarily ground-mounted. It almost seemed as if PennDOT was noncommittal about signing the new Interstate...as if hoping the whole "99" fiasco would blow over.

Anyway, I remember thinking that a well-organized strike force of roadgeeks could replace all of the I-99 shields with, say, 976, overnight. And then hopefully PennDOT would shrug its collective shoulders and say "OK...it's I-976 now."

[J N Winkler]

Protect from what?  You still haven't shown me where putting up my own signs is illegal (the entire point of this thread).

That is actually pretty trivial to show.  I haven't bothered to do it before now because I assumed you were pushing your idea in full awareness that it is illegal.

http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Government/City-Departments/Departments/Public-Works-Department/newsletters/signs.htm

I am sure most states and municipalities have similar laws.

[_Simon]

Protect from what?  You still haven't shown me where putting up my own signs is illegal (the entire point of this thread).

That is actually pretty trivial to show.  I haven't bothered to do it before now because I assumed you were pushing your idea in full awareness that it is illegal.

http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Government/City-Departments/Departments/Public-Works-Department/newsletters/signs.htm

I am sure most states and municipalities have similar laws.

That document is regarding temporary signs, not permanent guide signage for public roads.

[J N Winkler]

That document is regarding temporary signs, not permanent guide signage for public roads.

It cites chapter and verse in the actual legislation, however.  Perhaps you would like to have a go at substantiating a counterclaim of legality?

[_Simon]

words

Yeah ok great.  So no one wants to do this? 

[Billy F 1988]

words

Yeah ok great.  So no one wants to do this?

Do what? Where exactly are you going with this? What's the point of this topic?

[_Simon]

The thing briantroutman mentioned sounds like it would have been fun.   I'm in the mood to do something along the lines of an MIT hack and I just think we should start a large collaborative project to change a route number or something.  Just wondering if anyone else thinks something like that would be hilarious.

[NE2]

In Florida it's a "noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation".
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.077.html

[_Simon]

In Florida it's a "noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation".
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.077.html

Nice, sounds like my cracked windshield would cost me more than a ticket for fixing the DOT's signs.