Is it unlawful to install a road sign yourself?

[J Route Z]

There are several signs that are missing on certain roads, and the municipality/county/state won't install. What would be the penalty for doing such a thing? Have you ever thought about doing it? Why do private drives get special treatment?

[oscar]

Laws vary a lot.  More important may be whether the jurisdiction would (a) appreciate your help (in which case legal doubts might be resolved in your favor), or instead (b) resent your showing up their incompetence (in which case your sign might quickly disappear, or worse).  Also, how much your sign would look like an official sign, including meeting technical standards (in some cases, doing too good a job at copying an official sign could be held against you, especially in situation (b) above). 

Do a search in this forum for "ninjasigning", which thread includes one famous and well-received example of an unofficial improvement to an official sign. 

[briantroutman]

I think the more likely scenario is that you're in the midst of posting your own I-86 trailblazer and a state trooper pulls over and arrests you for attempting theft of state property. "Honest, officer–I was putting the sign up."  "Sure, you were."

But anyway, it would depend on the laws of the state or municipality in question, but for the most part, I would think that do-it-yourself signage on public roadways is technically illegal.

Many municipalities have signposting laws that forbid posting signs on public property–which rights of way are. Assumably these laws are intended to prevent Joe's Pizza from posting illegal billboards underneath stop signs, but law enforcement could use those laws against do-gooder roadgeeks at their discretion.

If your guerrilla public service is done well, perhaps no one would notice, and even if they did, it's probably unlikely they'd prosecute. The most famous such case is probably Richard Ankrom who installed an I-5 shield to an overhead guide sign on the Harbor Freeway in Los Angeles. The work was basically indistinguishable from something CalTrans would have done, and they didn't even notice it at first. Their spokespeople were careful to point out, though, that what he did was technically illegal.

[hbelkins]

There are several signs that are missing on certain roads, and the municipality/county/state won't install. What would be the penalty for doing such a thing? Have you ever thought about doing it? Why do private drives get special treatment?

Have you pointed out these missing signs to the appropriate agency, or explained the need for the sign to be installed? Were your requests ignored or responded to in a negative manner? If so, did you go over someone's head -- for instance, to the mayor if the city street supervisor said no?

If a sign really needs to be reinstalled, I don't think a governmental agency would ignore a report of a missing sign or refuse to install a replacement.

I had a friend contact me privately about a missing advance curve sign with an advisory speed plaque. I looked the location up on both Street View and KYTC's photo log and verified that it had been there a couple of years ago. I told our sign crew supervisor and he said he would have it taken care of the next day. If you can show proof of the sign having been there previously, that should help your cause.

[jeffandnicole]

Even though signs appear to be randomly placed sometimes, there should be documentation and drawings the transportation office used detailing the location of each sign. Signs also must meet various criteria, mostly explained in the MUTCD.

So, factoring all of that on, not only is what you're doing
illegal, but if an accident occurs and it's somehow traced back to the road signage, and they ultimately determine you installed it, now you start becoming liable.

[Jardine]

We weren't fined or ticketed, but we were yelled at for filling in a mud hole on a very poorly maintained county dirt road.

Also heard I was in trouble for plowing snow on a county gravel, but nobody ratted me out (they wanted the road CLEAR !!) so no problem.

I'm careful, but darn it, if the county isn't going to do anything, why piss and moan if the locals handle it ??

[1995hoo]

There used to be a homemade "No Outlet" sign on the road leading into my neighborhood (I don't know who posted it). Someone at VDOT didn't like it and it was replaced with a standard sign.....in the process removing the more important (for a residential area) speed limit sign. At least the latter was replaced promptly when some of us complained. (Speed limit is 25, but it's not unusual to see people going 45.)

[roadman65]

I do not see how this could be considering that people install crosses at sites of fatal accidents that occur.   Nothing is ever done and those makeshift memorials stay for months and maybe even years.   I would think that the road agencies in this case would be glad that someone is saving them money  The other one is like pollution as someone dying in a car crash is very common and can be more distracting if someone takes time away to think about the departed while driving in that case.  Plus the "r" word is considered politically incorrect these days and you would figure that they would want that out ASAP and punish those who install them for mixing church and state on public property.

[sdmichael]

I've had CHP stop while I was posting some signs for a photo at Tunnel Station Junction (old US 6 / US 99 junction in Los Angeles). He asked, I told him, only thing he had to say was to make sure I took them down before I left. It wasn't a big deal in my case.

[briantroutman]

I do not see how this could be considering that people install crosses at sites of fatal accidents that occur.   Nothing is ever done and those makeshift memorials stay for months and maybe even years.

Not quite. These roadside memorials are, in many states, technically illegal and have been removed in cases. Just do a Google News search for "roadside memorial removed"  , and you'll find several news stories in the past few months alone. Some states are adopting a common, non-religious memorial marker that is less distinctive and therefore less of a distraction to motorists but still offers some consolation to the grieving family.

If a memorial is allowed to stand, I would suspect it has much to do with individual employees' discretion or a desire to avoid bad PR than anything else. Just imagine: you're with District 4 of AnystateDOT and you remove a distracting roadside memorial–that is a collision hazard itself. Then the family of the deceased calls Channel 27, and Aimee McWhiteteeth is out on the scene immediately reporting about how AnystateDOT, that can't seem to fix a pothole, has plenty of time to harass the hapless families victims killed on AnystateDOT's poorly maintained roads.

Plus the "r" word is considered politically incorrect these days and you would figure that they would want that out ASAP and punish those who install them for mixing church and state on public property.

Maybe on a national level, but not locally. You have state, county, and local DOT employees who are religious, creationist, gun-owning–even government-loathing, despite the fact they draw their paycheck from the government. They're not toeing any "official theological line" , except perhaps unless there's fear of reprisal from above.

[vdeane]

Recently in Long Island a woman put up signs on her property telling people to not speed and not drink and drive with the names of people she knew that were killed in accidents.  NYSDOT Region 10 was very quick to show up with a survey team to determine where the ROW boundary was.  They weren't very quick to tell her that the signs were legally placed on her own property and that they wouldn't be removing them.  The story generated a few complaints about how NYSDOT had time for this but not to remove potholes leftover from last winter (never mind that these are different departments!).  Unfortunately I can't find a link to the news story right now.  I don't know the exact headline or what news site covered the story and Google is being very unhelpful right now.

[roadman65]

In Pine Castle, Florida along Orange Avenue at Oakridge Road someone made a sign out of wood with white spray painted lettering on it and nailed it to a utility pole at the intersection.  The said intersection does have adequate street signs including the Orange County, CA back lit overheads, yet someone for fun of it (maybe NE 2 had nothing better to do and decided to make and place his own there) made this sign and over 20 years later it still stands.  Not only is it on a state route, but also on the power company property and neither FDOT or Duke Energy seem to feel that it is has been necessary to remove it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.473113,-81.369313,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s3D1uvjZcEvl7RV3SUYfMrA!2e0

[Pete from Boston]

I was on the cape recently and there were speed limit warning signs in people's yards shortly before a speed drop on Route 6.  I found them helpful.  Any government attempt to remove them would be silly.

[oscar]

At mile 126.5 northbound on Alaska's Dalton Highway, when I traveled it in 2012, someone had put up this apparently unofficial but professionally-crafted and erected sign, at a tricky corner where speeding truckers often both literally and figuratively lose their loads:



I'm assuming it's unofficial, based on its unofficial fonts and language, though I didn't think to check the back of the sign for a decal indicating Alaska DOT&PF installed the sign.  But other landmarks on the highway, like the Beaver Slide and Ice Cut, have more official-looking signs.  There are enough state maintenance yards along the highway (one less than a dozen miles to the north), that the sign would have been quickly spotted and removed if the state objected. 

A censored version of the sign made it onto "Ice Road Truckers".

[hbelkins]

I do not see how this could be considering that people install crosses at sites of fatal accidents that occur.   Nothing is ever done and those makeshift memorials stay for months and maybe even years.   

Trust me, state DOTs agonize over these. They certainly don't want to appear disrespectful to the families of those killed, but at the same time they cannot allow an encroachment if it interferes with maintenance activities or with sight distance for drivers, or if it is an obstruction in the clear zone.

As for them being a distraction for drivers, no more so than a billboard or brightly-painted building or a nice-looking car parked in someone's driveway.

Plus the "r" word is considered politically incorrect these days and you would figure that they would want that out ASAP and punish those who install them for mixing church and state on public property.

These aren't considered mixing church and state. Not all of them are crosses. I know of one that is heart-shaped.

[SectorZ]

At mile 126.5 northbound on Alaska's Dalton Highway, when I traveled it in 2012, someone had put up this apparently unofficial but professionally-crafted and erected sign, at a tricky corner where speeding truckers often both literally and figuratively lose their loads:



I'm assuming it's unofficial, based on its unofficial fonts and language, though I didn't think to check the back of the sign for a decal indicating Alaska DOT&PF installed the sign.  But other landmarks on the highway, like the Beaver Slide and Ice Cut, have more official-looking signs.  There are enough state maintenance yards along the highway (one less than a dozen miles to the north), that the sign would have been quickly spotted and removed if the state objected. 

A censored version of the sign made it onto "Ice Road Truckers".

I always loved seeing that on IRT. I wish the show would go back to that road rather than Manitoba (nothing against central Canada).

[US71]

Officially, at least in Arkansas, the rule is nothing on existing sign posts, utility poles, or within right of way.

However, I have seen a few rare instances where the rules have been "bent", usually on obscure city streets. 

[froggie]

Regarding the OP's original question, it is illegal in Vermont.  Same statute also prohibits roadside commercial advertising except for certain specific (and controlled) cases which are allowed under Title 10, Chapter 21 of the state statutes.

But, as a general rule, highway billboards like what you see in other states are prohibited in Vermont (thankfully).  And, again, private persons cannot put up signs that are MUTCD-compliant or look similar to such.

[oscar]

But, as a general rule, highway billboards like what you see in other states are prohibited in Vermont (thankfully).  And, again, private persons cannot put up signs that are MUTCD-compliant or look similar to such.

Just on or near public roads (which is what I'd assume), or also on private property?  In Honolulu, there's an urban myth that a county ordinance says you can't erect signs on private property that match public road signs, which is why you see some blue stop signs out there.  County officials say that private signs conflicting with public ones are prohibited (such as a private Yield sign close to a public Stop sign), but it's OK for a non-conflicting private sign to be MUTCD-compliant.

[J N Winkler]

Even though signs appear to be randomly placed sometimes, there should be documentation and drawings the transportation office used detailing the location of each sign. Signs also must meet various criteria, mostly explained in the MUTCD.

State DOTs actually vary considerably in how well they have their signage inventoried.  This is why "replace all signs on a given road" is quoted as an alternate to "replace all signs shown in the inventory as being more than X years old" for meeting the federal minimum retroreflectivity requirement.  Some state DOTs attempt to maintain sign logs (for example, Caltrans Districts 2 and 6 have sign logs), but they are often considerably out of date because allocation of resources to log updating tends to be hit and miss.  There are ongoing attempts in some state DOTs to inventory signs through an automated sign recognition process that relies on computer vision (the computer goes through photolog images, highlights what appear to be signs, assigns a MUTCD code that appears to be the closest fit for a particular sign, and then a human does quality control), but that is still pretty rudimentary.

The bottom line is that if you choose to ninjasign, and you do so in entire compliance with the standards laid down in the MUTCD or the agency traffic manual and also in accordance with good traffic engineering practice, and there are no witnesses or physical evidence, the state DOT probably won't even notice, let alone search for someone to prosecute.

[froggie]

But, as a general rule, highway billboards like what you see in other states are prohibited in Vermont (thankfully).  And, again, private persons cannot put up signs that are MUTCD-compliant or look similar to such.

Just on or near public roads (which is what I'd assume), or also on private property?

"visible to the travelling public"

Which presumably would include private property if it were within view of travelers on the road.

[Henry]

At mile 126.5 northbound on Alaska's Dalton Highway, when I traveled it in 2012, someone had put up this apparently unofficial but professionally-crafted and erected sign, at a tricky corner where speeding truckers often both literally and figuratively lose their loads:



I'm assuming it's unofficial, based on its unofficial fonts and language, though I didn't think to check the back of the sign for a decal indicating Alaska DOT&PF installed the sign.  But other landmarks on the highway, like the Beaver Slide and Ice Cut, have more official-looking signs.  There are enough state maintenance yards along the highway (one less than a dozen miles to the north), that the sign would have been quickly spotted and removed if the state objected. 

A censored version of the sign made it onto "Ice Road Truckers".

I always loved seeing that on IRT. I wish the show would go back to that road rather than Manitoba (nothing against central Canada).

I assume the censored version says "Crap" instead? Either way, it's very funny

[oscar]

I assume the censored version says "Crap" instead? Either way, it's very funny

It said "Sh*t".  Less Photoshopping needed for that.

[mobilene]

I'm in Indiana, where we have a growing number of state byways. On one such byway, which will remain nameless, it appears that signs were erected without working at all with state and local agencies. They mostly strapped signs to telephone poles and other existing objects. I haven't driven it in a couple years but there appeared to be little interest in having them removed.

On the other hand, I'm VP of the nonprofit org behind a different byway, and we are working with INDOT and various city and county street departments, departments of public works, etc., to have our signs placed "officially." It's been an interesting but challenging project, to be sure. The hardest part of it was getting INDOT to approve the sign design. Our original design didn't pass muster for readability, and it took us several go-rounds before we cleared that hurdle.

One of the INDOT districts wasn't been terribly friendly to us and ended up placing several signs in totally incorrect places, and another city's street department won't return our calls. But everywhere else, I've been amazed by the excellent cooperation we've received to get these signs placed. We provided the signs, but we asked all these agencies to provide poles and mounting hardware, and except for that one city we can't reach, they all said, "Sure."

A graphic of our sign is attached.

[hbelkins]

Instead of spending the money out-of-pocket to reinstall a missing sign, it would be easier and cheaper to call attention to it publicly, such as through writing a letter to the editor of the local newspaper about the situation. State DOTs usually notice such things and will act upon them.