Graffiti on road signs, especially overhead signs

[stevashe]

Do people actually fall for this?

You mean drive 80 mph in a 20 zone?  No, of course not.

But the real question is, if you did a good enough job, would it fool a self-driving car.  Real-world experimentation has determined that answer to be "yes".

Do people actually fall for this?

No proof.  No video.  A single sign with a supposed modification, taken at such a close, zoomed in angle where there's nothing around to indicate where the sign was located.  No idea what kind of road this was on - most roads with 35 mph would be ultra-dangerous to be driven at 85 mph for any length of time, including the time it would take to accelerate to and decelerate from 85 mph.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Clearly you didn't bother to scroll down to the video conveniently placed within the article

[webny99]

I was 99.9% sure this overhead sign had graffitti on it. And I should know, considering how often I drive under it. I dug through all the previous Street Views in search of it, to no avail. Frustrating! Until the obvious hit... The graffiti is on the back of the sign- and quite visible from the adjacent local park. So, there's something that hasn't been posted yet, but I'm sure there's tons of other examples on the back of signs.

As far as speed limit signs, I can't say I haven't been tempted to take some spray paint and adjust some of the more egregious ones. I would never actually do it, of course, but man, it really looks pretty easy to change some of those 3's to 4's.

[kphoger]

As far as speed limit signs, I can't say I haven't been tempted to take some spray paint and adjust some of the more egregious ones. I would never actually do it, of course, but man, it really looks pretty easy to change some of those 3's to 4's.

Actually, what I've been tempted to do is make a bunch of stickers to keep in the car.  They would say "WRONG SIGN / SHOULD BE" and then a blank spot for me to write in the appropriate MUTCD sign reference with a Sharpie.

[webny99]

As far as speed limit signs, I can't say I haven't been tempted to take some spray paint and adjust some of the more egregious ones. I would never actually do it, of course, but man, it really looks pretty easy to change some of those 3's to 4's.

Actually, what I've been tempted to do is make a bunch of stickers to keep in the car.  They would say "WRONG SIGN / SHOULD BE" and then a blank spot for me to write in the appropriate MUTCD sign reference with a Sharpie.

Ha! Don't give me any ideas. I think there's a few roads where I could do that for every sign in a single night if I planned it right. 

[STLmapboy]

Thread revival.

This overpass in Memphis has a small amount of graffiti. I was honestly expecting more, due to the part of town and the fact that the signs are literally within arms' reach. It's not like LA where you have special shield on overpasses and barbed wire.

[kphoger]

Thread revival.

This overpass in Memphis has a small amount of graffiti. I was honestly expecting more, due to the part of town and the fact that the signs are literally within arms' reach. It's not like LA where you have special shield on overpasses and barbed wire.

Gone by December.

[roadfro]

Thread revival.

This overpass in Memphis has a small amount of graffiti. I was honestly expecting more, due to the part of town and the fact that the signs are literally within arms' reach. It's not like LA where you have special shield on overpasses and barbed wire.

Gone by December.

More intriguing to me that you've got a sidewalk on that bridge, and the only edge protection appears to be a metal rail that seems to be no more than 3 feet high.

The vast majority of bridges I can think of in even semi-urban Nevada settings will have a concrete edge wall and then protective fencing curving over the sidewalk. Example in Las Vegas

[stevashe]

More intriguing to me that you've got a sidewalk on that bridge, and the only edge protection appears to be a metal rail that seems to be no more than 3 feet high.

The vast majority of bridges I can think of in even semi-urban Nevada settings will have a concrete edge wall and then protective fencing curving over the sidewalk. Example in Las Vegas

I'd say the shorter railing is more typical in my experience, actually. Here's a random example in the Seattle area.

Those high fences, especially when curving over the sidewalk like that, are usually a suicide prevention measure (as opposed to a safety measure aimed at preventing accidental falls), does Nevada have issues with that statewide? I wouldn't be terribly surprised if so.

[kphoger]

More intriguing to me that you've got a sidewalk on that bridge, and the only edge protection appears to be a metal rail that seems to be no more than 3 feet high.

The vast majority of bridges I can think of in even semi-urban Nevada settings will have a concrete edge wall and then protective fencing curving over the sidewalk. Example in Las Vegas

I'd say the shorter railing is more typical in my experience, actually. Here's a random example in the Seattle area.

Those high fences, especially when curving over the sidewalk like that, are usually a suicide prevention measure (as opposed to a safety measure aimed at preventing accidental falls), does Nevada have issues with that statewide? I wouldn't be terribly surprised if so.

Same here.  Tall fences are uncommon.

Here's an example of a short one near me.
And here's a random overpass in the KC area, the first one I looked at.

[roadfro]

More intriguing to me that you've got a sidewalk on that bridge, and the only edge protection appears to be a metal rail that seems to be no more than 3 feet high.

The vast majority of bridges I can think of in even semi-urban Nevada settings will have a concrete edge wall and then protective fencing curving over the sidewalk. Example in Las Vegas

I'd say the shorter railing is more typical in my experience, actually. Here's a random example in the Seattle area.

Those high fences, especially when curving over the sidewalk like that, are usually a suicide prevention measure (as opposed to a safety measure aimed at preventing accidental falls), does Nevada have issues with that statewide? I wouldn't be terribly surprised if so.

I'm not aware of any instances of suicide by jumping off a bridge in Nevada in the last several years (but maybe that's because we have the fences?).

It doesn't seem to be a Nevada thing though. Here's two random examples from California: San Jose and Los Angeles (the LA one is without curved fence top, but definitely seems the fence was added afterwards). Also, I've never been to Phoenix, but I found random examples there as well on my first and second tries, which makes me think it is more than a suicide prevention measure...

[Scott5114]

Could also be an attempt to keep people from throwing objects off the bridge.

[hbelkins]

Could also be an attempt to keep people from throwing objects off the bridge.

That's what's being done on new high bridge construction in Kentucky, especially on bridges that cross railroad lines.

[UCFKnights]

Could also be an attempt to keep people from throwing objects off the bridge.

That's what's being done on new high bridge construction in Kentucky, especially on bridges that cross railroad lines.

Yup. For example in Florida, this recently rebuilt bridge crosses both I-95 and a railroad, and only the railroad portion got a fence, but a full circle fence over the pedestrian area, and only some bars for the interstate:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.3861195,-80.1058865,3a,75y,241.22h,85.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXJpgekJeajhSaq8aexfPLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[GaryV]

Why are trains more worthy of protection than cars?  Even if an object (small enough for a human to toss) hits a train, it's not going to cause a derailment.  That rock hits a car however, it could cause the driver to go out of control and crash - let alone that rocks have gone through windshields and caused great harm, even death, to the occupants.

[roadfro]

Could also be an attempt to keep people from throwing objects off the bridge.

That's what's being done on new high bridge construction in Kentucky, especially on bridges that cross railroad lines.

A reasonable assumption. Many Nevada bridges (especially newer ones) have fencing regardless of whether there's a sidewalk or not. The Cheyenne Ave bridge over the US 95 freeway in Las Vegas has curved fencing over the sidewalk on the north side of the bridge but traditional chain link fence along the south side where there is no sidewalk.

But it does seem that most Nevada bridges that cross a railroad track have traditional chain link fence over the highest portions of the bridge nearest the actual railroad rails, even when there are no pedestrian facilities on the bridge. For example: I-15 in Las Vegas and US 50 Alt between Fallon & Fernley.

Why are trains more worthy of protection than cars?  Even if an object (small enough for a human to toss) hits a train, it's not going to cause a derailment.  That rock hits a car however, it could cause the driver to go out of control and crash - let alone that rocks have gone through windshields and caused great harm, even death, to the occupants.

Yes, people throwing/dropping an object from a bridge onto cars traversing a roadway can cause damage or, in rare instance, a major crash, whereas the same object dropped onto a moving train is likely to cause no issue. But if the object were thrown/dropped and just lands on the road then cars have an opportunity to avoid it–the train can't swerve, and if the object is big enough, could that cause a derailment?

There's also the potential that the fencing is required by railroad companies. Often, building a road bridge over/under a railroad requires permission and clearance from the company that owns the tracks (the railroad was usually there first, after all, so the road encroaches upon the railroad's ROW). Protective fencing, for whatever purpose it has, could be a railroad's condition for the DOT to build the bridge within the railroad's ROW.