The Worst of Road Signs

[Takumi]

More crookedly-numbered I-95 shields in Prince George County.





The angle of this last one hides the bad number placement somewhat.

[relaxok]

Oh. My. Good God. 

I have no words for this... anybody else?

[Dougtone]

Obviously a private job:

That sign directs travelers wanting to go east on NY 211 to turn left, yet there is a "No Left Turn" sign in the background. FAIL.

I've seen this sign before.  It's in a QuickChek convenience store parking lot just east of Middletown, NY.  If you're traveling eastbound, they want you to drive through the parking lot to the eastbound exit (not in photo).

[hbelkins]

Probably some weird California environmental law that keeps them from cutting that tree down.

[kphoger]

Oh. My. Good God. 

I have no words for this... anybody else?

I think the sign looks just fine.  Would you have preferred a Keep Right sign?

[relaxok]

Oh. My. Good God. 

I have no words for this... anybody else?

I think the sign looks just fine.  Would you have preferred a Keep Right sign?

Yeah, I should have specified, I've just never seen that occur.. the sign itself is alright I guess

[ctsignguy]

Oh. My. Good God. 

I have no words for this... anybody else?

I think the sign looks just fine.  Would you have preferred a Keep Right sign?

Actually, this would be best!

[Alps]

Probably some weird California environmental law that keeps them from cutting that tree down.

Oddly, there's a tree like that in Ojai, too. Maybe it really is California.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Probably some weird California environmental law that keeps them from cutting that tree down.

Oddly, there's a tree like that in Ojai, too. Maybe it really is California.

I like how that tree is right in front of someone's driveway.

[hbelkins]

Probably some weird California environmental law that keeps them from cutting that tree down.

Oddly, there's a tree like that in Ojai, too. Maybe it really is California.

Yeah, the fine print on the Street View image says "Stockton, California.

[Alps]

Probably some weird California environmental law that keeps them from cutting that tree down.

Oddly, there's a tree like that in Ojai, too. Maybe it really is California.

Yeah, the fine print on the Street View image says "Stockton, California.

I meant it as "maybe it really is a phenomenon particular to California"

[hbelkins]

I meant it as "maybe it really is a phenomenon particular to California"

10-4. Gotcha.

[roadfro]

Oh. My. Good God. 

I have no words for this... anybody else?

I think the sign looks just fine.  Would you have preferred a Keep Right sign?

Yeah, I should have specified, I've just never seen that occur.. the sign itself is alright I guess

The sign conforms to MUTCD standards on object markers for obstructions in the roadway.

[Scott5114]

Oh. My. Good God. 

I have no words for this... anybody else?

I think the sign looks just fine.  Would you have preferred a Keep Right sign?

Yeah, I should have specified, I've just never seen that occur.. the sign itself is alright I guess

The sign conforms to MUTCD standards on object markers for obstructions in the roadway.

MUTCD would recommend some sort of striping around it though.

[Michael]

[snip quotes]
MUTCD would recommend some sort of striping around it though.

The MUTCD uses the word "may" not "should":

To provide additional emphasis, large surfaces such as bridge piers may be painted with diagonal stripes, 12 inches or greater in width, similar in design to the Type 3 object marker.

EDIT: The MUTCD requires pavement markings around obstructions within the roadway, which are not used at the location of the photo.

Obstructions within the roadway shall be marked with a Type 1 or Type 3 object marker. In addition to markers on the face of the obstruction, warning of approach to the obstruction shall be given by appropriate pavement markings (see Section 3B.10).

[Kacie Jane]

But you have to wonder if those pavement markings would become optional, given that the street appears to lack all other pavement markings as well.

[Brian556]

Click the link. This tree situation exists in multiple locations in Double Oak, Texas. There is an uncurbed grass "island" around the trees. they are always in hte conter of the street, and never have object markers.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=33.063718,-97.116252&spn=0.000009,0.006169&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=33.063718,-97.116252&panoid=AeU0QwU-_M-8Yd6ShTjN_w&cbp=12,103.94,,0,0

[Duke87]

I know of a spot near Kennett Square, PA where a similar situation exists but the street in question is not on street view.

[myosh_tino]

122711_I70WB_DSC_0166.pic by MoDOT KC 4, on Flickr

This arrow-per-lane sign recently installed in Kansas City, MO gets my vote for the Worst of Road Signs.  The big problem with this sign is the inclusion of an advanced guide sign for I-435 south on the pull-through portion of the arrow-per-lane sign.  The way it's laid out could result in unnecessary lane changing by drivers because it implies that the right two lanes can access I-435 south and the left two lanes remain on I-70 which is not the case.  All 3 lanes are thru lanes for I-70 and the I-435 exit is a simple exit.  This is a flaw IMO in the arrow-per-lane signing requirements in the 2009 MUTCD.

The signs on this gantry should have looked like this...

[1995hoo]

....

The signs on this gantry should have looked like this...

Except I hope they'd spell "Des Moines" correctly.  

I actually like the sign assembly in the photo better than some of the sign assemblies here in Northern Virginia. The arrows in the one you posted at least line up with the lanes. I don't really feel all that strongly about the need for arrow-per-lane signs in most situations, but I do feel that if you're going to use them you should line them up properly. The arrows in the sign you posted do that. I think the bigger problem is the small arrowhead for the optional exit lane as it relates to the position of the vertical separator line above. If the vertical separator line were a tad further to the left, and the arrowheads were bigger/elongated, the optional lane's status would be clearer.

[Alex]

This arrow-per-lane sign recently installed in Kansas gets my vote for the Worst of Road Signs.  The big problem with this sign is the inclusion of an advanced guide sign for I-435 south on the pull-through portion of the arrow-per-lane sign.  The way it's laid out could result in unnecessary lane changing by drivers because it implies that the right two lanes can access I-435 south and the left two lanes remain on I-70 which is not the case.  All 3 lanes are thru lanes for I-70 and the I-435 exit is a simple exit.  This is a flaw IMO in the arrow-per-lane signing requirements in the 2009 MUTCD.

What was there before:

[myosh_tino]

This arrow-per-lane sign recently installed in Kansas gets my vote for the Worst of Road Signs.  The big problem with this sign is the inclusion of an advanced guide sign for I-435 south on the pull-through portion of the arrow-per-lane sign.  The way it's laid out could result in unnecessary lane changing by drivers because it implies that the right two lanes can access I-435 south and the left two lanes remain on I-70 which is not the case.  All 3 lanes are thru lanes for I-70 and the I-435 exit is a simple exit.  This is a flaw IMO in the arrow-per-lane signing requirements in the 2009 MUTCD.

What was there before:

OK... OK... you win! 

[hbelkins]

The old sign is definitely better. The new design is no improvement at all.

[myosh_tino]

The old sign is definitely better. The new design is no improvement at all.

I would agree with that IF the arrows were properly placed on the signs.

[hbelkins]

No complaints here about the arrow placement. Makes for a smaller (and less expensive) sign. Indiana kills me with all the wasted space on some of their guide signs. Waste of tax dollars IMO.