The Worst of Road Signs

[empirestate]

All I have to say on the subject is that boxed street names can be added to my list of things I've always heard are problematic, but I myself have never actually encountered the problem, despite having been repeatedly exposed to the problem source. There are lots of boxed street names near me in Westchester County, as well as upstate, and I've never noticed any difficulty reading them, even at night when my eyes do tend to feel a greater strain from driving overall.

So it's not that I disagree with the arguments against boxed street names; I simply can't corroborate their existence, having never experienced them.

(Other things on said list are the traffic woes at Thruway Exit 24, whatever congestion led to the DDI on I-590 Exit 1, and whatever is objectionable about sequential exit numbering. Weirdly, I spend much of my average day feeling beset by petty irritants, but not by any of these. Perhaps I'm just much more immune to the transgressions of inanimate objects than to the vagaries of human behavior.)

[Zeffy]

Bundle of fail by DCDOT: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.874547,-76.973162,3a,15y,118.05h,89.52t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6CgN5V1cE0xaiqOr1p8JAg!2e0

I'm not sure, but the outline of DC looks to be slightly wrong on that shield.

[Scott5114]

I think the MUTCD's intent here was not that the cities should be omitted, but rather moved to a separate panel. So the exit would be signed "West Main St" and there would be a supplementary "Randolph, Gowanda, Next Right" panel somewhere in the run-up to the exit.

Worst in a different way: this is what blind MUTCD compliance produces. It would be much more sensical to have one sign that says 170th Ave / Cunningham, but no, "A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided."

Upstream of that, there's another sign with two more destinations on it. So, what, you want a sign with "Cunningham / Turon / St Leo / 170th Avenue" on it? Because that's the logical outcome of this line of thought. As currently designed, I see nothing wrong with the approach KDOT went with. The exit has the main name "170th Avenue", and then there's 3 destinations you can use that road to reach. The message is broken up into easily-processable chunks so someone doesn't run over a duck while they're busy reading. Sucks for KDOT that they have to spend more on poles, but them's the breaks.

KDOT's typical practice is to use a sign like this anyway to refer to a range of exits. "Kansas City, next 12 exits", and Kansas City gets no further mention on any of them.

Also, I can't normally look at Google Street View because it's shite on phones, so if you really need it to support your point, take a bloody screenshot.

[NE2]

Cunningham is right there. St. Leo and Turon are not. If 170th Avenue was K-170, it would be K-170 / Cunningham, and the St. Leo / Turon sign would still be separate.

[JoePCool14]

Looking around GMSV and I came across these, same post too! 2 for 1 special!

[Pete from Boston]

Points for trying, but this seems to be a half-size, quick and dirty replacement of the Massachusetts "book" town sign.  The picture is not great, but there's a post to the right that probably held the genuine article.



This is at the west end of the Mass. 2A bridge across the Nashua River.  I suspect Shirley put up this replacement because the "Entering Harvard" sign is just yards east of the river (in the middle of which one enters Shirley), and folks going west would otherwise think they were still in Harvard.

[PurdueBill]

The shape of that reminds me of older DPW memorial type signage (e.g., General Israel Putnam Highway, Lt. William Condon Interchange, the like) which was double-sided and mounted atop a pole in a paddle-like manner.  Fewer and fewer of the old specimens remain, with modern ones being plain signs (although most are still black on white).  Every example I can think of offhand to find in street view is gone or replaced with a modern rectangular sign.....pity.

[Billy F 1988]

Looking around GMSV and I came across these, same post too! 2 for 1 special!

I'd put this as a candidate for unique or odd, not the worse for this one way sign. The font facing is actually quite nice looking. It reminds me a long time ago, I used to have a set of road sign thumb pins and the ONE WAY sign was in a font weight similar to what is shown in this photo.

[Molandfreak]

Looking around GMSV and I came across these, same post too! 2 for 1 special!

In what way, shape, or form are those bad? (besides the 15 being slightly off center maybe)

[SignGeek101]

Looking around GMSV and I came across these, same post too! 2 for 1 special!

In what way, shape, or form are those bad? (besides the 15 being slightly off center maybe)

One word: Arialveticverstesk. The use of non-standard fonts, specifically Helvetica and Arial in most cases.

[Molandfreak]

Looking around GMSV and I came across these, same post too! 2 for 1 special!

In what way, shape, or form are those bad? (besides the 15 being slightly off center maybe)

One word: Arialveticverstesk. The use of non-standard fonts, specifically Helvetica and Arial in most cases.

Take it to the arialwhateveritistesk thread then. Just because they're in a font you don't like doesn't make them terrible.

Post the worst, most ineptly put together pieces of crap in your state. Not just "oh, it's in Clearview", "wrong type of shield", or "it's a bubble shield" or anything like that. We're talking pure, unadulterated suck here. Stuff that makes you wonder what they were thinking. Stuff that should only result from a night of binge drinking at the sign shop.

[NE2]

Looking around GMSV and I came across these, same post too! 2 for 1 special!

In what way, shape, or form are those bad? (besides the 15 being slightly off center maybe)

One word: Arialveticverstesk. The use of non-standard fonts, specifically Helvetica and Arial in most cases.

Take it to the arialwhateveritistesk thread then. Just because they're in a font you don't like doesn't make them terrible.

Post the worst, most ineptly put together pieces of crap in your state. Not just "oh, it's in Clearview", "wrong type of shield", or "it's a bubble shield" or anything like that. We're talking pure, unadulterated suck here. Stuff that makes you wonder what they were thinking. Stuff that should only result from a night of binge drinking at the sign shop.

Just because these images need to be quoted again.

[PurdueBill]

Neither ONE WAY nor SPEED LIMIT 15 are designable signs.  There are standard layouts that those two belong as.  If they were an older style that has hung around (e.g., Akron or MDC One-Way signs with the flared tail on the arrow) that would be one thing.  These specimens are worse than usual for their outright wrongness.

[NE2]

Is it just me or has this thread been worse than usual?

[formulanone]

Is it just me or has this thread been worse than usual?

There's the chance we've exhausted the worst of the worst...which I doubt; there's always a chance of the phantasmagorical when a hasty replacement has to be made.

But things are travelling down the "design error" or "OMG, it's Arial/Helvetica" routes, which wasn't the point of the thread.

[jakeroot]

Neither ... or SPEED LIMIT 15 are designable signs.

Oregon pre-2002 disagrees.

[PurdueBill]

Neither ... or SPEED LIMIT 15 are designable signs.

Oregon pre-2002 disagrees.

In their manual, SPEED 55 is a standard sign.  The messy sign above is not a standard sign.  Same exception would apply to NY's STATE SPEED LIMIT and friends.  You know what I was getting at.....

[jakeroot]

Neither ... or SPEED LIMIT 15 are designable signs.

Oregon pre-2002 disagrees.

In their manual, SPEED 55 is a standard sign.  The messy sign above is not a standard sign.  Same exception would apply to NY's STATE SPEED LIMIT and friends.  You know what I was getting at.....

Maybe Helvetica is allowed in NY?

[cl94]

Neither ... or SPEED LIMIT 15 are designable signs.

Oregon pre-2002 disagrees.

In their manual, SPEED 55 is a standard sign.  The messy sign above is not a standard sign.  Same exception would apply to NY's STATE SPEED LIMIT and friends.  You know what I was getting at.....

Maybe Helvetica is allowed in NY?

I'm very happy that it isn't (for non-rapid transit purposes, that is)

[freebrickproductions]

Found this on Facebook as well, some rather poor shields in Cullman, AL:

[SignGeek101]

Found this on Facebook as well, some rather poor shields in Cullman, AL:

Franklin Gothic?

BTW: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2821.msg2043893#msg2043893

[silverback1065]

Found this on Facebook as well, some rather poor shields in Cullman, AL:

Franklin Gothic?

BTW: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2821.msg2043893#msg2043893

eww, someone run those down with a car!

[jbnv]

Well, we thought DOTD had learned their lesson about putting Clearview numerals in route shields... This went up a few weeks ago. *sigh*

[NE2]

Well, we thought DOTD had learned their lesson about putting Clearview numerals in route shields... This went up a few weeks ago. *sigh*

Post the worst, most ineptly put together pieces of crap in your state. Not just "oh, it's in Clearview",

[jbnv]

Well, we thought DOTD had learned their lesson about putting Clearview numerals in route shields... This went up a few weeks ago. *sigh*

Post the worst, most ineptly put together pieces of crap in your state. Not just "oh, it's in Clearview",

I had a feeling that someone would mention that. Louisiana's (mis)use of Clearview in route shields has been brought up in this thread previously.

A few from Baton Rouge:
(images omitted; click the link to go to the original post)

(For the record, I like Clearview and most of Louisiana's use of it.)