The Worst of Road Signs

[roadman]

That's the seal of the City of Memphis:

What - no silloute of Elvis?

[Brandon]

That's the seal of the City of Memphis:

What - no silhouette of Elvis?

Why?  There's much better stuff to come out of Memphis than Elvis.  Things like Memphis-style BBQ and Stax Records.

[roadman]

That's the seal of the City of Memphis:

What - no silhouette of Elvis?

Why?  There's much better stuff to come out of Memphis than Elvis.  Things like Memphis-style BBQ and Stax Records.

Better check your sarcasm detector - it may need a new battery.

[jakeroot]

Slight tangent here (one that I hope we can move past quickly), but would I be thoroughly ridiculed if I, as a city employee (which I'm not, this is a theoretical situation) installed this type of yield sign at a roundabout?



So far as I know, this is not in the MUTCD, but I see it around British Columbia a lot and I fail to see the issue with the sign. Seems like a good idea to emphasize the existence of a roundabout; people still don't seem to be completely in-tune with them (or maybe they are?)

As far as I know, roundabouts are required to be signed with yield signs at the entry points. I think an issue might arise when, upon installation, the city decided that these weren't "officially" yield signs, and would therefore replace them with the standard "blank" yield sign.

Would you lot consider this sign a worst of?

[hotdogPi]

Slight tangent here (one that I hope we can move past quickly), but would I be thoroughly ridiculed if I, as a city employee (which I'm not, this is a theoretical situation) installed this type of yield sign at a roundabout?



So far as I know, this is not in the MUTCD, but I see it around British Columbia a lot and I fail to see the issue with the sign. Seems like a good idea to emphasize the existence of a roundabout; people still don't seem to be completely in-tune with them (or maybe they are?)

Would you lot consider this sign a worst of?

Definitely not worst of. Signs without letters or numbers are almost never worst of. There is nothing wrong with not being in the MUTCD.

[jakeroot]

There is nothing wrong with not being in the MUTCD.

Tell that to WashDOT. Seriously, I really want to put signs on this thread (just to be active, right?) but I can never find sign errors around the Seattle area. They are completely mental about things being "correct". I know, there are some errors, but much less then most places.

[kkt]

Slight tangent here (one that I hope we can move past quickly), but would I be thoroughly ridiculed if I, as a city employee (which I'm not, this is a theoretical situation) installed this type of yield sign at a roundabout?



So far as I know, this is not in the MUTCD, but I see it around British Columbia a lot and I fail to see the issue with the sign. Seems like a good idea to emphasize the existence of a roundabout; people still don't seem to be completely in-tune with them (or maybe they are?)

As far as I know, roundabouts are required to be signed with yield signs at the entry points. I think an issue might arise when, upon installation, the city decided that these weren't "officially" yield signs, and would therefore replace them with the standard "blank" yield sign.

Would you lot consider this sign a worst of?

It means mandatory recycling, right?

[jakeroot]

There is nothing wrong with not being in the MUTCD.

Tell that to WashDOT. Seriously, I really want to put signs on this thread (just to be active, right?) but I can never find sign errors around the Seattle area. They are completely mental about things being "correct". I know, there are some errors, but much less then most places.

You may be looking for the good, bad, and the ugly.

What I meant to say was, more or less, "the worst" of Seattle road signs. The problem is 99.99999% of the signs are MUTCD-compliant, and I have not been able to locate the .00001 (those that are really, really bad).

[roadman]

Slight tangent here (one that I hope we can move past quickly), but would I be thoroughly ridiculed if I, as a city employee (which I'm not, this is a theoretical situation) installed this type of yield sign at a roundabout?



So far as I know, this is not in the MUTCD, but I see it around British Columbia a lot and I fail to see the issue with the sign. Seems like a good idea to emphasize the existence of a roundabout; people still don't seem to be completely in-tune with them (or maybe they are?)

Would you lot consider this sign a worst of?

Definitely not worst of. Signs without letters or numbers are almost never worst of. There is nothing wrong with not being in the MUTCD.

Until there's a crash and the agency has to deal with a sharp defense attorney.  Then it'll become a BIG issue.

[agentsteel53]

just a few oddballs from Seattle.  these aren't anywhere near the worst of road signs, though.

is 6 an MUTCD-compliant speed?


definitely not compliant:


I don't think this is quite what the MUTCD was intending:

[jakeroot]

Slight tangent here (one that I hope we can move past quickly), but would I be thoroughly ridiculed if I, as a city employee (which I'm not, this is a theoretical situation) installed this type of yield sign at a roundabout?



So far as I know, this is not in the MUTCD, but I see it around British Columbia a lot and I fail to see the issue with the sign. Seems like a good idea to emphasize the existence of a roundabout; people still don't seem to be completely in-tune with them (or maybe they are?)

Would you lot consider this sign a worst of?

Definitely not worst of. Signs without letters or numbers are almost never worst of. There is nothing wrong with not being in the MUTCD.

Until there's a crash and the agency has to deal with a sharp defense attorney.  Then it'll become a BIG issue.

That's my biggest fear. Only reason I ever fear going off the MUTCD path. God damn attorneys.

[KEK Inc.]

There is nothing wrong with not being in the MUTCD.

Tell that to WashDOT. Seriously, I really want to put signs on this thread (just to be active, right?) but I can never find sign errors around the Seattle area. They are completely mental about things being "correct". I know, there are some errors, but much less then most places.

Eh, I can list a few poopy signs in Seattle.  Granted, all of these are SDOT, but WSDOT has a lot of bad signs too (especially the new signs in Tacoma).











https://www.google.com/maps/@47.661952,-122.347789,3a,51y,69.86h,92.5t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfVmFAp2bLIGb0AbDSy4HUw!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.652667,-122.376176,3a,27.5y,2.37h,91.72t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdNQ7cl70ndatjdbsrSHUrQ!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.571094,-122.349105,3a,25.5y,275.49h,94.07t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szlm4beNXaCwmHM_3DBagTA!2e0

But there's some gems too apart from the famous old US-99 signs on the viaduct:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.654973,-122.318622,3a,48.2y,39.94h,93.02t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1jk1zkm-MTsmxv9xfZUBPQ!2e0

[jakeroot]

(especially the new signs in Tacoma).

Is it the use of FHWA Series C? I emailed WSDOT about when they plan to go Clearview, and heres the response I got:

Hello Mr Root,

Thank you for your email regarding the use of Clearview font on highway signs.

We were hoping the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was going to eliminate the interim approval for Clearview font and add the font to the 2009 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Standard Highway Signs and Marking Book.  Unfortunately, FHWA chose not to eliminate the interim approval status.  The bigger concern we have at this time with Clearview font it is a proprietary font and the cost.  The last time I checked into purchasing the font was about $800 per user, and to purchase the font for every user in the department would be over $50,000.   We are waiting to see if the price will come down before moving ahead.

Actually the new signs for the Washington State Fair are using the standard FHWA Highway Gothic font - C-Series.

Sincerely,

Rick Mowlds
Signing Engineer
WSDOT - HQ's Traffic Operations

Regarding the bold text, I thought the signs were in Clearview. I was not a trained font spotter back then.

[agentsteel53]

that West Seattle Parkway seems to not have gotten much in the way of signage upgrades since 1984.  it is a classic.

[jakeroot]

that West Seattle Parkway seems to not have gotten much in the way of signage upgrades since 1984.  it is a classic.

Only now that the east end of it is being upgraded are some of the signs changing. Perhaps Kek could elaborate on exact changes. I have only drove it about three times ever.

[KEK Inc.]

I couldn't find pictures of the new viaduct.  I've driven on it a couple of times since they finished construction (with new LED luminaries), and I remember the new signs still being sub-par, but I don't remember why.  There's a new one for SR-99 and 4 Ave S, but the Georgia style port exits still remain.

[KEK Inc.]

(especially the new signs in Tacoma).

Is it the use of FHWA Series C? I emailed WSDOT about when they plan to go Clearview, and heres the response I got:

Hello Mr Root,

Thank you for your email regarding the use of Clearview font on highway signs.

We were hoping the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was going to eliminate the interim approval for Clearview font and add the font to the 2009 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Standard Highway Signs and Marking Book.  Unfortunately, FHWA chose not to eliminate the interim approval status.  The bigger concern we have at this time with Clearview font it is a proprietary font and the cost.  The last time I checked into purchasing the font was about $800 per user, and to purchase the font for every user in the department would be over $50,000.   We are waiting to see if the price will come down before moving ahead.

Actually the new signs for the Washington State Fair are using the standard FHWA Highway Gothic font - C-Series.

Sincerely,

Rick Mowlds
Signing Engineer
WSDOT - HQ's Traffic Operations

Regarding the bold text, I thought the signs were in Clearview. I was not a trained font spotter back then.

Nah, the only clearview I've ever seen in the state was in Interbay, Seattle.  Honestly, I'm glad they're not pursuing Clearview due to cost, but that's laughable at best considering how they decide to pursue the more expensive options in replacing the SR-520 Bridge and Alaskan Wy Viaduct (along with many underlying problems with both projects that are causing it to cost even more, but that's another cup of tea mate).

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.652667,-122.376176,3a,27.5y,2.37h,91.72t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdNQ7cl70ndatjdbsrSHUrQ!2e0


I was referring to the monstrosity at SR-16 and I-5 SB.

[jakeroot]

(especially the new signs in Tacoma).

Is it the use of FHWA Series C? I emailed WSDOT about when they plan to go Clearview, and heres the response I got:

Hello Mr Root,

Thank you for your email regarding the use of Clearview font on highway signs.

We were hoping the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was going to eliminate the interim approval for Clearview font and add the font to the 2009 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Standard Highway Signs and Marking Book.  Unfortunately, FHWA chose not to eliminate the interim approval status.  The bigger concern we have at this time with Clearview font it is a proprietary font and the cost.  The last time I checked into purchasing the font was about $800 per user, and to purchase the font for every user in the department would be over $50,000.   We are waiting to see if the price will come down before moving ahead.

Actually the new signs for the Washington State Fair are using the standard FHWA Highway Gothic font - C-Series.

Sincerely,

Rick Mowlds
Signing Engineer
WSDOT - HQ's Traffic Operations

Regarding the bold text, I thought the signs were in Clearview. I was not a trained font spotter back then.

Nah, the only clearview I've ever seen in the state was in Interbay, Seattle.  Honestly, I'm glad they're not pursuing Clearview due to cost, but that's laughable at best considering how they decide to pursue the more expensive options in replacing the SR-520 Bridge and Alaskan Wy Viaduct (along with many underlying problems with both projects that are causing it to cost even more, but that's another cup of tea mate).

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.652667,-122.376176,3a,27.5y,2.37h,91.72t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdNQ7cl70ndatjdbsrSHUrQ!2e0


I was referring to the monstrosity at SR-16 and I-5 SB.

Okay, well you'll love this then. There's a sign just after the Collector/Distributer lane split on I-5 North just after SR 16 joins that indicates to I-5 North drivers that the right lane ends. The text does not appear to be in FHWA gothic. Just so we're clear, I had to risk my life and run out to the center of the freeway to get this shot:



And for the sign on the right, why are there exit only signs on an off-ramp? Seems a bit too...glitch-in-the-matrix to me.

[KEK Inc.]

They should have used an arrow indicating which lane it was referring to.  But yeah, that's Clearview alright. 

Maybe I'll drive through West Seattle and take pictures next time I get.  I have a coworker that lives in West Seattle and could offer him a ride (he buses normally; for the sole purpose of taking pictures.  lol) 

[Zeffy]

Just so we're clear, I had to risk my life and run out to the center of the freeway to get this shot:

Now THAT'S dedication right there.

[KEK Inc.]

He could have done it in rush hour.  Would have been much safer when all of the cars are stopped. 

[Zeffy]

Placed here not for the actual content of the sign, but because of the fact that the sign is almost entirely covered by the shrubs:



But this, this is just ugly.

[Alps]

Placed here not for the actual content of the sign, but because of the fact that the sign is almost entirely covered by the shrubs:

What's ugly here is the fact that NJDOT has no shrub-trimming budget.

[Zeffy]

What's ugly here is the fact that NJDOT has no shrub-trimming budget.

Would it be NJDOT or the City of Newark's responsibility to trim the foliage? BTW, for anyone wondering, this sign is on I-280 West on the Exit 13 off-ramp. The part of the sign that is completely unreadable is "N 6th Ave" (or it should be).

[mass_citizen]

What's ugly here is the fact that NJDOT has no shrub-trimming budget.

Would it be NJDOT or the City of Newark's responsibility to trim the foliage? BTW, for anyone wondering, this sign is on I-280 West on the Exit 13 off-ramp. The part of the sign that is completely unreadable is "N 6th Ave" (or it should be).

whoever owns the road is responsible for maintaining sign visibility. If it is a NJDOT maintained route, it would be them. Note that, at least in MA, not all state numbered routes are state maintained. In fact, most are maintained by the individual town.