That time an LA artist fixed a confusing downtown freeway sign

[Avalanchez71]

The install could have caused problems if it was not done correctly.  Just imagine the liability one could incur if the sign fell off and severed someone.

What would a 36x36 sheet aluminum shield be severing?  It would be hard envision someone even being impaled in a car given the shield would likely have to get through glass or a metal roof.  From what I recall he actually even used the correct number of rivets.

I am not arguing his work. Someone else coping his work may not be so precise.

[Max Rockatansky]

The install could have caused problems if it was not done correctly.  Just imagine the liability one could incur if the sign fell off and severed someone.

What would a 36x36 sheet aluminum shield be severing?  It would be hard envision someone even being impaled in a car given the shield would likely have to get through glass or a metal roof.  From what I recall he actually even used the correct number of rivets.

I am not arguing his work. Someone else coping his work may not be so precise.

I caught, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the physics of a 5 pound sign with couple pointy bits impacting a vehicle at speeds up to 70 MPH.  I would imagine that if a truck tire can't severe limbs at that speed it would be reasonable to assume a highway shield couldn't either. 

[US 89]

The install could have caused problems if it was not done correctly.  Just imagine the liability one could incur if the sign fell off and severed someone.

What would a 36x36 sheet aluminum shield be severing?  It would be hard envision someone even being impaled in a car given the shield would likely have to get through glass or a metal roof.  From what I recall he actually even used the correct number of rivets.

I am not arguing his work. Someone else coping his work may not be so precise.

I caught, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the physics of a 5 pound sign with couple pointy bits impacting a vehicle at speeds up to 70 MPH.  I would imagine that if a truck tire can't severe limbs at that speed it would be reasonable to assume a highway shield couldn't either.

A sheet of aluminum is a hell of a lot sharper than a tire...

[Max Rockatansky]

The install could have caused problems if it was not done correctly.  Just imagine the liability one could incur if the sign fell off and severed someone.

What would a 36x36 sheet aluminum shield be severing?  It would be hard envision someone even being impaled in a car given the shield would likely have to get through glass or a metal roof.  From what I recall he actually even used the correct number of rivets.

I am not arguing his work. Someone else coping his work may not be so precise.

I caught, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the physics of a 5 pound sign with couple pointy bits impacting a vehicle at speeds up to 70 MPH.  I would imagine that if a truck tire can't severe limbs at that speed it would be reasonable to assume a highway shield couldn't either.

A sheet of aluminum is a hell of a lot sharper than a tire...

Yes, but is it enough to slice a limb off falling from 15-20 feet with an impacting vehicle traveling 40-70 MPH?  I would imagine the gauge of the aluminum (which typically thinner on a BGS shield) would also play a factor as well.  I'm sure someone on this forum can give us a starting point by way of calculating the potential force applied.

[kphoger]

Yes, but is it enough to slice a limb off falling from 15-20 feet with an impacting vehicle traveling 40-70 MPH?  I would imagine the gauge of the aluminum (which typically thinner on a BGS shield) would also play a factor as well.  I'm sure someone on this forum can give us a starting point by way of calculating the potential force applied. kalvado will work out a rough estimate on the back of an envelope in two minutes.

FTFY

[SectorZ]

The install could have caused problems if it was not done correctly.  Just imagine the liability one could incur if the sign fell off and severed someone.

What would a 36x36 sheet aluminum shield be severing?  It would be hard envision someone even being impaled in a car given the shield would likely have to get through glass or a metal roof.  From what I recall he actually even used the correct number of rivets.

I am not arguing his work. Someone else coping his work may not be so precise.

I caught, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the physics of a 5 pound sign with couple pointy bits impacting a vehicle at speeds up to 70 MPH.  I would imagine that if a truck tire can't severe limbs at that speed it would be reasonable to assume a highway shield couldn't either.

A sheet of aluminum is a hell of a lot sharper than a tire...

Yes, but is it enough to slice a limb off falling from 15-20 feet with an impacting vehicle traveling 40-70 MPH?  I would imagine the gauge of the aluminum (which typically thinner on a BGS shield) would also play a factor as well.  I'm sure someone on this forum can give us a starting point by way of calculating the potential force applied.

Why are worried about limbs being sliced off and not the much more likely chance of someone dying either hitting the object and wiping out or dying trying to avoid it?

[HighwayStar]

I'm now a huge fan of this guy who made Caltrans wake up and realize its most critical error. Why they didn't hire him is certainly a mystery to me, because his work showed lots of attention to detail. Not to mention his clever disguise, from the hard hat to his businessman haircut, right down to the convincingly-decorated work truck that he was driving...

For some reason, companies (and government agencies) do tend to avoid hiring people who come up with illegal solutions to minor problems and go to great lengths to avoid getting caught.  Can't imagine why that is...

Mostly inept bureaucracy. What he did was Malum prohibitum, not Malum in se. It was not a "minor problem" for a freeway carrying that kind of traffic. Going to great lengths to not get caught is not particularly concerning since again it was only  Malum prohibitum.

Are you saying DOTs would be perfectly happy to hire him?

No, because they are inept bureaucracies. I, as a taxpayer, would feel no worse, and possibly better, paying for this guy to be hired than many of the lazy, shiftless, worthless, shovel standers that we currently employ.

OK.  So, other than the word "minor", nothing you said actually contradicted what I said.

Read again, my point is that your label of "illegal" is meaningless.

[Max Rockatansky]

The install could have caused problems if it was not done correctly.  Just imagine the liability one could incur if the sign fell off and severed someone.

What would a 36x36 sheet aluminum shield be severing?  It would be hard envision someone even being impaled in a car given the shield would likely have to get through glass or a metal roof.  From what I recall he actually even used the correct number of rivets.

I am not arguing his work. Someone else coping his work may not be so precise.

I caught, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the physics of a 5 pound sign with couple pointy bits impacting a vehicle at speeds up to 70 MPH.  I would imagine that if a truck tire can't severe limbs at that speed it would be reasonable to assume a highway shield couldn't either.

A sheet of aluminum is a hell of a lot sharper than a tire...

Yes, but is it enough to slice a limb off falling from 15-20 feet with an impacting vehicle traveling 40-70 MPH?  I would imagine the gauge of the aluminum (which typically thinner on a BGS shield) would also play a factor as well.  I'm sure someone on this forum can give us a starting point by way of calculating the potential force applied.

Why are worried about limbs being sliced off and not the much more likely chance of someone dying either hitting the object and wiping out or dying trying to avoid it?

That's not as exciting as the hypothetical equation that has limbs flying off Mortal Kombat/Doom style.

[kphoger]

I'm now a huge fan of this guy who made Caltrans wake up and realize its most critical error. Why they didn't hire him is certainly a mystery to me, because his work showed lots of attention to detail. Not to mention his clever disguise, from the hard hat to his businessman haircut, right down to the convincingly-decorated work truck that he was driving...

For some reason, companies (and government agencies) do tend to avoid hiring people who come up with illegal solutions to minor problems and go to great lengths to avoid getting caught.  Can't imagine why that is...

Mostly inept bureaucracy. What he did was Malum prohibitum, not Malum in se. It was not a "minor problem" for a freeway carrying that kind of traffic. Going to great lengths to not get caught is not particularly concerning since again it was only  Malum prohibitum.

Are you saying DOTs would be perfectly happy to hire him?

No, because they are inept bureaucracies. I, as a taxpayer, would feel no worse, and possibly better, paying for this guy to be hired than many of the lazy, shiftless, worthless, shovel standers that we currently employ.

OK.  So, other than the word "minor", nothing you said actually contradicted what I said.

Read again, my point is that your label of "illegal" is meaningless.

Read again.  I didn't say I personally had anything against his actions.  Merely that government agencies don't often hire people who have committed actions of malum prohibitum in the very sphere the agency operates in.

[HighwayStar]

I'm now a huge fan of this guy who made Caltrans wake up and realize its most critical error. Why they didn't hire him is certainly a mystery to me, because his work showed lots of attention to detail. Not to mention his clever disguise, from the hard hat to his businessman haircut, right down to the convincingly-decorated work truck that he was driving...

For some reason, companies (and government agencies) do tend to avoid hiring people who come up with illegal solutions to minor problems and go to great lengths to avoid getting caught.  Can't imagine why that is...

Mostly inept bureaucracy. What he did was Malum prohibitum, not Malum in se. It was not a "minor problem" for a freeway carrying that kind of traffic. Going to great lengths to not get caught is not particularly concerning since again it was only  Malum prohibitum.

Are you saying DOTs would be perfectly happy to hire him?

No, because they are inept bureaucracies. I, as a taxpayer, would feel no worse, and possibly better, paying for this guy to be hired than many of the lazy, shiftless, worthless, shovel standers that we currently employ.

OK.  So, other than the word "minor", nothing you said actually contradicted what I said.

Read again, my point is that your label of "illegal" is meaningless.

Read again.  I didn't say I personally had anything against his actions.  Merely that government agencies don't often hire people who have committed actions of malum prohibitum in the very sphere the agency operates in.

Yes, and that tendency reflects their lack of creativity due to being inept bureaucracies.

[SEWIGuy]

Why are we making the assumption he wanted to work for them anyway?

[ClassicHasClass]

I actually bought Richard Ankrom's DVD as a thank you. It's on YouTube now, but for awhile it was the only way you could get the footage, and it was fantastic (even though officially I despise vandalism as a rule).

Applying a route shield to an existing highway sign might meet the legal definition of "vandalism", but in my mind, it very much falls outside the pragmatic definition of it. What Ankrom did added to what's already there with the same purpose in mind, whereas a tagger spraying weird spiky font gibberish is detracting from it.

That's my point, though. Don't get me wrong: he did an outstanding job, one that nearly everyone (including me) says was necessary, and probably a better one than Caltrans or their contractors would have. But I don't see how you distinguish this under the law -- indeed, neither did he, or he wouldn't have gone to all the trouble he did to remain undetected.

[Scott5114]

Why are we making the assumption he wanted to work for them anyway?

Especially since he's an artist (which is probably the main reason he was able to get it so exactly to spec) and probably has no experience relevant to Caltrans other than manufacturing one interstate shield and one directional banner.

He also did that as a way to get state-named interstate shields up in states that only installed neutered ones. In one case, he made a state-named I-84 shield and attached it to an I-15 trailblazer in Riverside UT.

That's awesome. I didn't know he had one that stayed up long enough to appear on GSV. To me there's nothing unusual enough about that shield that I'd even suspect it as being a counterfeit (other than the odd placement, but I've seen weirder stuff on legit DOT installs, so my first thought wouldn't be a fake shield).

[ilpt4u]

I've always fantasized about greening out all the control states in Chicagoland and replacing them with the cities that most traffic would be destined for: Milwaukee instead of Wisconsin, Des Moines instead of Iowa, Toledo/Detroit instead of Indiana, etc.

On the contrary, we might see "Missouri"  as a control on SB I-55 in the Chicago area sometime in the future 

Don't forget: "Arkansas" for I-57!

I might seriously consider "Indianapolis" for I-294 SB in lieu of "Indiana". The Tri-State is a much more N-S roadway than E-W, so Milwaukee/NB and Indianapolis/SB would be more appropriate, IMHO

[Occidental Tourist]

Why they didn't hire him is certainly a mystery to me, because his work showed lots of attention to detail.

You answered your own question.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm really disappointed we didn't get an answer to the force applied to a person when a highway shield falls on them.

[SkyPesos]

I've always fantasized about greening out all the control states in Chicagoland and replacing them with the cities that most traffic would be destined for: Milwaukee instead of Wisconsin, Des Moines instead of Iowa, Toledo/Detroit instead of Indiana, etc.

On the contrary, we might see "Missouri"  as a control on SB I-55 in the Chicago area sometime in the future 

Don't forget: "Arkansas" for I-57!

I might seriously consider "Indianapolis" for I-294 SB in lieu of "Indiana". The Tri-State is a much more N-S roadway than E-W, so Milwaukee/NB and Indianapolis/SB would be more appropriate, IMHO

Those are my control city choices for my fictional "I-265"  Tri-state tollway. It could work even with 294 as the number, considering neighboring MoDOT signs Chicago instead of Indianapolis on I-270 EB for some reason.

[Scott5114]

I'm really disappointed we didn't get an answer to the force applied to a person when a highway shield falls on them.

f = ma
m = 1.47 kg (mass of a 24×24" independent mount ODOT I-35 shield)
a = 9.81 m/s² (acceleration due to gravity)
f = 14.42 N

Or something like that. I think there's supposed to be some sort of increase in the force because of the distance fallen (probably by increasing a or by using an additional formula) but I couldn't figure out the right thing to put in Google to stop it from just giving me Newton's third law, which isn't what I was after, and I ran out of time that I'm willing to spend on a snarky forum reply. Ankrom's shield probably weighed quite a bit more than 1.47 kg anyway since I think it's larger than 24 inches square, and also it's button copy.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm really disappointed we didn't get an answer to the force applied to a person when a highway shield falls on them.

f = ma
m = 1.47 kg (mass of a 24×24" independent mount ODOT I-35 shield)
a = 9.81 m/s² (acceleration due to gravity)
f = 14.42 N

Or something like that. I think there's supposed to be some sort of increase in the force because of the distance fallen (probably by increasing a or by using an additional formula) but I couldn't figure out the right thing to put in Google to stop it from just giving me Newton's third law, which isn't what I was after, and I ran out of time that I'm willing to spend on a snarky forum reply. Ankrom's shield probably weighed quite a bit more than 1.47 kg anyway since I think it's larger than 24 inches square, and also it's button copy.

So the follow question would be?  Does anyone know how much force is required to severe a limb?  I seem to recall it was something like 200-250 kN but I don't recall where I got that figure from.

[Avalanchez71]

I'm really disappointed we didn't get an answer to the force applied to a person when a highway shield falls on them.

f = ma
m = 1.47 kg (mass of a 24×24" independent mount ODOT I-35 shield)
a = 9.81 m/s² (acceleration due to gravity)
f = 14.42 N

Or something like that. I think there's supposed to be some sort of increase in the force because of the distance fallen (probably by increasing a or by using an additional formula) but I couldn't figure out the right thing to put in Google to stop it from just giving me Newton's third law, which isn't what I was after, and I ran out of time that I'm willing to spend on a snarky forum reply. Ankrom's shield probably weighed quite a bit more than 1.47 kg anyway since I think it's larger than 24 inches square, and also it's button copy.

So the follow question would be?  Does anyone know how much force is required to severe a limb?  I seem to recall it was something like 200-250 kN but I don't recall where I got that figure from.

I think the force is enough to bludgeon one.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm really disappointed we didn't get an answer to the force applied to a person when a highway shield falls on them.

f = ma
m = 1.47 kg (mass of a 24×24" independent mount ODOT I-35 shield)
a = 9.81 m/s² (acceleration due to gravity)
f = 14.42 N

Or something like that. I think there's supposed to be some sort of increase in the force because of the distance fallen (probably by increasing a or by using an additional formula) but I couldn't figure out the right thing to put in Google to stop it from just giving me Newton's third law, which isn't what I was after, and I ran out of time that I'm willing to spend on a snarky forum reply. Ankrom's shield probably weighed quite a bit more than 1.47 kg anyway since I think it's larger than 24 inches square, and also it's button copy.

So the follow question would be?  Does anyone know how much force is required to severe a limb?  I seem to recall it was something like 200-250 kN but I don't recall where I got that figure from.

I think the force is enough to bludgeon one.

No doubt, but it would be nonetheless interesting to find out what level of force it would take for dismemberment.  I'm sure once that level of force is a known value we can apply it to the sign to find out how much velocity it would need to achieve said mark. 

[Avalanchez71]

I'm really disappointed we didn't get an answer to the force applied to a person when a highway shield falls on them.

f = ma
m = 1.47 kg (mass of a 24×24" independent mount ODOT I-35 shield)
a = 9.81 m/s² (acceleration due to gravity)
f = 14.42 N

Or something like that. I think there's supposed to be some sort of increase in the force because of the distance fallen (probably by increasing a or by using an additional formula) but I couldn't figure out the right thing to put in Google to stop it from just giving me Newton's third law, which isn't what I was after, and I ran out of time that I'm willing to spend on a snarky forum reply. Ankrom's shield probably weighed quite a bit more than 1.47 kg anyway since I think it's larger than 24 inches square, and also it's button copy.

So the follow question would be?  Does anyone know how much force is required to severe a limb?  I seem to recall it was something like 200-250 kN but I don't recall where I got that figure from.

I think the force is enough to bludgeon one.

No doubt, but it would be nonetheless interesting to find out what level of force it would take for dismemberment.  I'm sure once that level of force is a known value we can apply it to the sign to find out how much velocity it would need to achieve said mark.

Not really related but TDOT pulled those single over urban masts to full masts as one fell over and killed a woman.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm really disappointed we didn't get an answer to the force applied to a person when a highway shield falls on them.

f = ma
m = 1.47 kg (mass of a 24×24" independent mount ODOT I-35 shield)
a = 9.81 m/s² (acceleration due to gravity)
f = 14.42 N

Or something like that. I think there's supposed to be some sort of increase in the force because of the distance fallen (probably by increasing a or by using an additional formula) but I couldn't figure out the right thing to put in Google to stop it from just giving me Newton's third law, which isn't what I was after, and I ran out of time that I'm willing to spend on a snarky forum reply. Ankrom's shield probably weighed quite a bit more than 1.47 kg anyway since I think it's larger than 24 inches square, and also it's button copy.

So the follow question would be?  Does anyone know how much force is required to severe a limb?  I seem to recall it was something like 200-250 kN but I don't recall where I got that figure from.

I think the force is enough to bludgeon one.

No doubt, but it would be nonetheless interesting to find out what level of force it would take for dismemberment.  I'm sure once that level of force is a known value we can apply it to the sign to find out how much velocity it would need to achieve said mark.

Not really related but TDOT pulled those single over urban masts to full masts as one fell over and killed a woman.

Yes, but that was the whole mast and not a single reassurance shield. 

[kphoger]

No doubt, but it would be nonetheless interesting to find out what level of force it would take for dismemberment.  I'm sure once that level of force is a known value we can apply it to the sign to find out how much velocity it would need to achieve said mark. 

And, with that, we shall finally know if the damage caused by this guerilla-mounted sign falling off would be enough of a potential liability to justify the DOT's apparent refusal to extend a job offer to Mr Ankrom, or if that's really just a flimsy excuse proceeding silently from the mouth of an inept bureaucrat.

[skluth]

Problem with figuring out the force of the sign coming down is the changing air resistance of the sign as it falls. Think of it as a falling metal leaf. The sign will fall at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s. There is minimal air resistance for the distance fallen (maybe 10 meters) as long as the standard remains vertical. But there are other variables. Local winds will change as vehicles zip through the sunken interstate canyon. Wind will hit the sign as soon as it drops below the bottom of the sign. I haven't done calculus in over 30 years, so I'm not about to figure this out now, and I'm not sure I ever knew calc enough to have figured it out then.