Signage pet peeves

[NE2]

While I can't speak for other members, I'd handle that with some combination of signs and a on the other side of the intersection.
I can't think of any situation that should require to be used.

A little hard to see but there's one here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.378648,-81.504307&spn=0.00791,0.020599&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.378621,-81.504445&panoid=2JR_LIwgIWogYiRjTKZ3PQ&cbp=12,198.29,,0,-3.3
I guess it's a level above left turn only to make it extra-clear that you shouldn't go straight if you take the wrong exit and need to get back on. (The ramp from SR 535 south to I-4 east has a green at the same time as the left turn from I-4 west to SR 535 south, which would not be possible if going straight were permitted.)

[RJ145]

I have to say I really don't like the fact that some places are starting to use lime green for warning signs. And here's my reasoning.


A lot of companies are starting to switch over to lime green vests/jackets/etc for various road workers, law enforcement officers, etc...  Now yes lime green is a lot more visible, but part of the reason is that drivers have simply become so accustomed to orange being on the roads, orange signs, orange cones, orange barrels etc....

So now if lime green really takes off we'll be seeing more lime green signs, lime green cones (which are starting to make their way out there) and possibly other lime green road furniture. And soon enough it won't stick out as much as it should.

In my opinion lime should be reserved for people only, so that when drivers see it, they'll know its a person. And that ends my little rant lol.

Karma +5: Bold and insightful, reasonable, and most importantly, correct.

[Quillz]

I agree with that, too. I already associate bold orange or green with construction work, so it makes sense to keep orange for equipment and green for people.

[Michael]

I agree as well.  As a matter of fact, I was thinking about people being "desensitized" to the fluorescent green signs not too long ago.

Brand new "word-only" signs being posted for warnings or regulations (i.e., "Stop Ahead"), when graphic equivalents for them have existed in the MUTCD for decades.

I like the "word-only" signs.  I HATE the new "speed zone ahead" signs.  I think they're too hard to read.  What was wrong with "Speed Zone Ahead", or (my favorite) "Reduced Speed Ahead"?

Those new BGS arrows (one arrow per-lane)

I like diagrammatics.  They take less space than "one arrow per lane".  Even at 60 MPH, I can still see the strippling in the arrows.

The new "school bus stop ahead" sign.

It's downright ugly!  I haven't seen it in person, thankfully.

[Scott5114]

I HATE the new "speed zone ahead" signs.  I think they're too hard to read.  What was wrong with "Speed Zone Ahead", or (my favorite) "Reduced Speed Ahead"?

They don't tell you what the speed is getting reduced to, for one. In Oklahoma, I can normally count on the speed limit dropping from 65 to 55, then 45, then 35 as I enter a town, but for the other states that allow a direct drop from 65 to 35 at the town limits, it'd be nice to know exactly how reduced the reduced speed is so I can act accordingly. The new sign (not really new–it was introduced in the 2003 MUTCD) allows that.

[Eth]

I've seen, on a few occasions, a variant of the old "reduced speed ahead" signs that read like this (all text):

REDUCED
SPEED
45
AHEAD

with the number larger than the rest of the text.  What's wrong with this version?

[J N Winkler]

I've seen, on a few occasions, a variant of the old "reduced speed ahead" signs that read like this (all text):

REDUCED
SPEED
45
AHEAD

with the number larger than the rest of the text.  What's wrong with this version?

The main objection, and the reason we now have warning diamonds for speed reductions, is that the sign only warns of an upcoming reduction in speed limit, and does not itself impose the new speed limit.

[corco]

I've seen, on a few occasions, a variant of the old "reduced speed ahead" signs that read like this (all text):

REDUCED
SPEED
45
AHEAD

with the number larger than the rest of the text.  What's wrong with this version?

Wyoming uses a sign that looks exactly like a speed limit sign but says "REDUCED SPEED 45" instead of "SPEED LIMIT 45." This is awesome because out of towners often think the speed limit is 45 when you get to that sign. Sometimes there's a banner underneath it that specifies how many feet, but usually not.

[US71]

Wyoming uses a sign that looks exactly like a speed limit sign but says "REDUCED SPEED 45" instead of "SPEED LIMIT 45." This is awesome because out of towners often think the speed limit is 45 when you get to that sign. Sometimes there's a banner underneath it that specifies how many feet, but usually not.

I've seen "Reduced Speed 45" in Illinois. They also use the rectangular "Reduced Speed Ahead" with a supplementary sign underneath with the speed.

[Brandon]

Wyoming uses a sign that looks exactly like a speed limit sign but says "REDUCED SPEED 45" instead of "SPEED LIMIT 45." This is awesome because out of towners often think the speed limit is 45 when you get to that sign. Sometimes there's a banner underneath it that specifies how many feet, but usually not.

I've seen "Reduced Speed 45" in Illinois. They also use the rectangular "Reduced Speed Ahead" with a supplementary sign underneath with the speed.

Exactly.  Never saw any problem with this as here, they usually have been "REDUCED SPEED AHEAD" with "XX MPH" being the speed below the sign i.e:

REDUCED
SPEED
AHEAD
45
MPH

I also think Michigan's variant was good as well:

REDUCED
SPEED
45
AHEAD

As for Mr. Winkler's calling it a warning sign, I always took the reduced speed ahead signs as regulatory, not warning, i.e. if you don't slow you violate a law up ahead, not as an equal to a deer crossing or curve warning.  I agree with the others that they should be regulatory signs, not warning signs.

[roadfro]

As for Mr. Winkler's calling it a warning sign, I always took the reduced speed ahead signs as regulatory, not warning, i.e. if you don't slow you violate a law up ahead, not as an equal to a deer crossing or curve warning.  I agree with the others that they should be regulatory signs, not warning signs.

But the problem is that "Reduced Speed Ahead" warns of a impending change in the road condition--the way you explained it can also be interpreted as a warning as well (although not typical in the road condition sense).

There was one state which actually changed it to "Reduce Speed Ahead", which changes the message from warning to command and is thus more regulatory.


In any event, I like the new reduced speed ahead warning signs which show the speed limit signs. The prior version was "XX MPH SPEED ZONE AHEAD", which never sat right with me because the term "speed zone" wasn't really applicable in most situations.

[froggie]

I would imagine he was referring to the 12/24.  10/24 looks somewhat better.  But if you're going to do 10/24, you may as well have the wide white margins of '61 spec.

Is that the only real difference between '61-spec and '70-spec?  The only other difference I could tell was the vertical placement of the numerals.

and the non-neutered 10/24 shield is actually my personal favorite

Same here, which is why I've taken to using MnDOT's old version in my sign doodlings.

So far, they aren't very common. I've only seen 2 or 3 of them.

Likely depends on jurisdiction.  They're all over the place in West Virginia.

Regarding "Reduced Speed Ahead", etc etc, I liked MnDOT's old style of doing it, which was a regulatory:

BEGIN
SPEED
LIMIT
XX
X/X MILE (usually 1/4 or 1/5 mile)

BEGIN and X/X MILE were separate sign plaques.

However, several years ago, they changed their standard signs manual to drop this version and incorporate the graphic warning-sign version (W3-5), which alas does not include the distance.

[NE2]

As for Mr. Winkler's calling it a warning sign, I always took the reduced speed ahead signs as regulatory, not warning, i.e. if you don't slow you violate a law up ahead, not as an equal to a deer crossing or curve warning.  I agree with the others that they should be regulatory signs, not warning signs.

Look at it as akin to stop ahead or yield ahead.

[vdeane]

The only time where I have ever seen that sign is along US 202 at the Concord Mall north entrance in Wilmington, DE.

There's one in an alley in Potsdam NY at US 11.  The reason is that apparently too many people were running across the opposing sidewalk and crashing into HSBC.

[SignBridge]

Back to the subject of solid-white lines. An earlier poster said it's illegal to cross it in New York. That is only true in New York City. In the rest of the state you can cross it. See Page 47 of the 2010 State Drivers' Manual, given to prospective drivers preparing for their written test.

[BrynM65]

I can't think of any situation that should require to be used.

It certainly shouldn't exist in the USA as the Vienna Convention explicitly states that sign is an alternative "Do Not Enter" sign rather than a prohibited mvoement sign - the Republic of Ireland, for example, uses it instead of the red disc with white bar version.

[Quillz]

Is that the only real difference between '61-spec and '70-spec?  The only other difference I could tell was the vertical placement of the numerals.

The '61 specification shields also have thicker white borders and a slightly taller crown. The '70 specification shields made both thinner (and smaller) in order to give more space to the (now larger) numerals, similar to how the U.S. shields were made bloated the same way to give more white space to the numerals.

From a purely aesthetic viewpoint, I find both neutered and non-neutered '61 Interstate shields to be the best. I posted this pic in another thread, but here's what I personally think was the best looking Interstate shield design:



If you compare it to a modern '70 wide shield, you'll see the white borders are considerably thinner and the crown is smaller, to the point that there is barely any red space above and below "INTERSTATE."

[NE2]

I can't think of any situation that should require to be used.

It certainly shouldn't exist in the USA as the Vienna Convention explicitly states that sign is an alternative "Do Not Enter" sign rather than a prohibited mvoement sign - the Republic of Ireland, for example, uses it instead of the red disc with white bar version.

Fix your quote. I didn't say this.

[BrynM65]

Quote fixed, wasn't deliberately misattributing!

[MDOTFanFB]

Brand new "word-only" signs being posted for warnings or regulations (i.e., "Stop Ahead"), when graphic equivalents for them have existed in the MUTCD for decades.

MDOT in Michigan is known for that, they still install new text "Pavement Ends" and "Narrow Bridge" signs.

The new "school bus stop ahead" sign.

Thanfully, that MDOT has not adopted that sign.

[J N Winkler]

I also think Michigan's variant was good as well:

REDUCED
SPEED
45
AHEAD

As for Mr. Winkler's calling it a warning sign, I always took the reduced speed ahead signs as regulatory, not warning, i.e. if you don't slow you violate a law up ahead, not as an equal to a deer crossing or curve warning.  I agree with the others that they should be regulatory signs, not warning signs.

I supported this change, but it was not "my" idea.  The idea of treating the reduced-speed-ahead condition with a warning sign was originally Canadian and the MUTCD authors were impressed with the Canadian example.  And, as NE2 notes, there is already precedent for warning signs being used to advise of upcoming regulatory conditions, such as stop, yield, and traffic signals.  This practice is also loosely related to the use of yellow-background "EXIT ONLY" bottom panels even though the exit condition is compulsory for traffic in the dropped lane and in many jurisdictions is so indicated using regulatory signs along with the bottom yellow panels.

[rawmustard]

MDOT in Michigan is known for that, they still install new text "Pavement Ends" and "Narrow Bridge" signs.

Now where has MDOT needed to install a new "Pavement Ends" sign, considering it's been almost 50 years since a stretch of state trunkline has been gravel? Even all the "unsigned" trunklines are hard-surfaced? 

Now if you're talking county road commissions, OTOH...

[MDOTFanFB]

Now where has MDOT needed to install a new "Pavement Ends" sign

The text "Pavement Ends" sign is still in the MMUTCD. The 1994 MMUTCD had a symbol "Pavement Ends" sign, but it confused motorists and it was removed from the 2005 MMUTCD, which reverted back to the text version of the sign.

[deathtopumpkins]

I just gained back a little respect for VDOT.

[vdeane]

Back to the subject of solid-white lines. An earlier poster said it's illegal to cross it in New York. That is only true in New York City. In the rest of the state you can cross it. See Page 47 of the 2010 State Drivers' Manual, given to prospective drivers preparing for their written test.

They must have changed it... I'm pretty sure that just a couple years ago it was illegal to cross a white line everywhere!