The Worst of Road Signs

[Duke87]

That's what I figured. I think a lot of communities want leeway to "lie" with these signs. And there's really no harm in doing so, as opposed to the opposite practice of omitting such a sign from an actual dead end.

The fact that the sign loses meaning if you make a habit of lying with it doesn't count as harm?


On that note, what are everyone's thoughts on the difference between a dead end and a no outlet? As I see it, there are two key points:
1) a true "Dead End" is an end that cannot be turned around at without making a broken U-turn. A cul-de-sac is not a dead end, it is a cul-de-sac. Thus, the "No Outlet" should be used instead of "Dead End" for streets that end in a cul-de-sac
2) a true "Dead End" has no intersections with other streets beyond the sign. If there are one or more other streets past the sign but still no way out of the neighborhood without driving back by the sign, then you have a "No Outlet" condition regardless of the nature of the ends of the streets

This at least seems to describe how it worked in the area where I grew up.

[Alps]

I hate the black outline around the yellow "exit only". It looks stupid to reverse the color out (from the white above), and it makes the lower part look too big for the upper. It's almost a frankensign if you ask me.

Well, that would go for, oh, every single Exit Only sign in America as per the MUTCD.

[NE2]

A cul-de-sac is totally a dead end.

[vdeane]

I just found this ugly sign for Fay Street in Utica, NY.  I actually said "ew" out loud when I saw it.

It's worth noting that that sign's days are numbered.  It will be gone within two years due to the NY 5/8/12 re-alignment.

[vtk]

Some cul-de-sacs are T-shaped, not the bulbous kind. And some people park on bulbous cul-de-sacs perpendicular to the curb.  Either situation can make it difficult or impossible to turn around without using reverse gear. Therefore a cul-de-sac is a dead end.

If a street forks into two or more dead ends without forming a closed loop, I would go for "dead end", though I can see the rationale for the more-general "no outlet" in such cases.

If there's a way to turn around and come back the other way to the sign without making a u-turn (there's a closed loop behind the sign somewhere) then it shouldn't say "dead end", even if that specific street does itself dead end after one or more additional intersections.

[NE2]

If there's a way to turn around and come back the other way to the sign without making a u-turn (there's a closed loop behind the sign somewhere) then it shouldn't say "dead end", even if that specific street does itself dead end after one or more additional intersections.

Yep. That's a standard 'no outlet'. The only question is whether coming back to the intersection at a different approach is a valid 'no outlet' - technically there is an outlet, but it's to the intersection you're at.

[vtk]

If there's a way to turn around and come back the other way to the sign without making a u-turn (there's a closed loop behind the sign somewhere) then it shouldn't say "dead end", even if that specific street does itself dead end after one or more additional intersections.

Yep. That's a standard 'no outlet'. The only question is whether coming back to the intersection at a different approach is a valid 'no outlet' - technically there is an outlet, but it's to the intersection you're at.

In my view it's still an outlet.  But I agree it's an edge case, and either answer would make sense if applied consistently everywhere.  As for which is more useful, I think first we have to ask why exactly "no outlet" signs are useful in the first place. (Besides warning fleeing criminals not to go that way...)

[thenetwork]

If there's a way to turn around and come back the other way to the sign without making a u-turn (there's a closed loop behind the sign somewhere) then it shouldn't say "dead end", even if that specific street does itself dead end after one or more additional intersections.

Yep. That's a standard 'no outlet'. The only question is whether coming back to the intersection at a different approach is a valid 'no outlet' - technically there is an outlet, but it's to the intersection you're at.

In my view it's still an outlet.  But I agree it's an edge case, and either answer would make sense if applied consistently everywhere.  As for which is more useful, I think first we have to ask why exactly "no outlet" signs are useful in the first place. (Besides warning fleeing criminals not to go that way…)

My interpretations:

Dead End = A single street which ends with or without a cul-de-sac
No Outlet = A subdivision or a combination of streets which may branch off a single street, but none connect to other main thoroughfares, so the only way out is the way you came in.
Not A Through Street = Could be either a No Outlet or a Dead End (or in the case of my Grandmother's old street -- Cardwell Avenue --  on the Cleveland border w/ Garfield Hts., a LIE for over 40 years!!!)   

Streetview: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Garfield+Heights,+OH&hl=en&ll=41.434987,-81.619194&spn=0.000004,0.002401&sll=38.997934,-105.550567&sspn=6.171374,9.832764&oq=garfield+hts&hnear=Garfield+Heights,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.434964,-81.619321&panoid=Yn4RZcbzpN2aKliCzjgEpQ&cbp=12,75.78,,0,6.64.

Overhead view: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Garfield+Heights,+OH&hl=en&ll=41.434619,-81.616702&spn=0.005848,0.009602&sll=38.997934,-105.550567&sspn=6.171374,9.832764&oq=garfield+hts&hnear=Garfield+Heights,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio&t=m&z=17

I know of a few streets that are one-way outlets where you can enter the street from either end, but can only exit out of one end.  I have seen them labeled as Dead Ends or No Outlets.

[NE2]

To me, "not a through street" simply means "whoever put this up doesn't want you cutting through". Sometimes there's a good reason (it's a horrible quality road) and sometimes there's a good reason (it's a residential street).

[Michael]

I just found this ugly sign for Fay Street in Utica, NY.  I actually said "ew" out loud when I saw it.

It's worth noting that that sign's days are numbered.  It will be gone within two years due to the NY 5/8/12 re-alignment.

That's actually why I was looking around the area.



As for the Dead End/No Outlet/Not A Thru Street question, here's my interpretation:

- Dead End: a single street that ends, with or without a cul-de-sac
- No Outlet: A network of streets (like a subdivision) that has no other access to a major street/road
- Not A Thru Street: I'll quote NE2 and say "whoever put this up doesn't want you cutting through"

I took a look at the MUTCD, and my interpretations are mostly what the MUTCD says:

The DEAD END (W14-1) sign (see Figure 2C-5) may be used at the entrance of a single road or street that terminates in a dead end or cul-de-sac. The NO OUTLET (W14-2) sign (see Figure 2C-5) may be used at the entrance to a road or road network from which there is no other exit.

The only difference is the phrase "road or road network" referring to the No Outlet sign.  I see that as implying that a No Outlet sign can be used for a single road.

As for which intersection a Dead End or No Outlet sign should be used at, here's what Paragraph 5 of the same section says:

When the W14-1 or W14-2 sign is used, the sign shall be posted as near as practical to the entry point or at a sufficient advance distance to permit the road user to avoid the dead end or no outlet condition by turning at the nearest intersecting street.

IMO, I think the Dead End/No Outlet/Not A Thru Street question has enough discussion to warrant a new topic.

[KEK Inc.]

http://goo.gl/maps/Y4WbM

[formulanone]

You're free to post signs in any way you like in Liberty County, Florida.



That's a Forest Highway 13...but it's the sloppy layout and hasty assistance from Home Depot's mailbox aisle that takes the cake.

[jeffandnicole]

You're free to post signs in any way you like in Liberty County, Florida.



That's a Forest Highway 13...but it's the sloppy layout and hasty assistance from Home Depot's mailbox aisle that takes the cake.

On Rt. 55 near Mantua, NJ, someone had put a 4 inch 'A' sticker on an incorrect 'Exit 53' sign.  The sign & sticker remained for many, many years until it was replaced with the proper 'Exit 53A' sign.

[kphoger]

http://goo.gl/maps/Y4WbM

I like that one.

[cpzilliacus]

http://goo.gl/maps/Y4WbM

I like that one.

That's I-270 south of Montrose Road in South Rockville, Md.

Not Md. 200 (though I have several issues with the signs on Md. 200).

[KEK Inc.]

http://goo.gl/maps/Y4WbM

I like that one.

That's I-270 south of Montrose Road in South Rockville, Md.

Not Md. 200 (though I have several issues with the signs on Md. 200).

I was looking at MD 200 from another thread here, and happened to go Google cruising.  Sorry, I forgot to remove the tags, but I figure people can figure it out on their own.

[1995hoo]

http://goo.gl/maps/Y4WbM

Other than the rather strange sizing of the word "or" on the left-hand sign for the HOV lane, what's wrong with those signs? I've always found them to be quite effective in communicating the intended message, and I've driven that road many times.

[PurdueBill]

http://goo.gl/maps/Y4WbM

I am not an expert but I think I have some nit-picks:

• The "I-495" in text on the HOV sign could be a shield.
• The "I-270 divides 1/2 mile" part has issues--why not a shield, or why is the white part there in the first place? They could put the 1/2 mile distance in the green part and lose the white part.  (Yes, I know that the two legs each have their own other exit on the way to the Beltway, but those aren't reflected on these signs anyway.)
• The diagrammatic includes the HOV lane among the three that split to the left, but that lane isn't really part of the ones addressed by the diagrammatic.  It then turns out that the leftmost of the ones that go right at the wye is actually an option lane for splitting left too, which isn't depicted in the diagrammatic.

Gosh, I hate even thinking this, but would one of the dread arrow-per-lane signs address this better?  The option lane (not accurately shown in the sign) turns what would otherwise be straightforward with traditional downward arrows into a tricky case.

[sbeaver44]

Found this one today near the beginning of PA 641 at US 11/15 in Camp Hill.  I guess they really don't want you making a left into the access road for the Shopping Center and instead you'll just have to wait for the light at 34th Street.


Double No Left 641 by WestPA31, on Flickr

[PHLBOS]

Found this one today near the beginning of PA 641 at US 11/15 in Camp Hill.  I guess they really don't want you making a left into the access road for the Shopping Center and instead you'll just have to wait for the light at 34th Street.


Double No Left 641 by WestPA31, on Flickr

I wouldn't place those twin NO LEFT TURN signs in the Worst category.  Overkill, maybe; but not worst. 

BTW that WEST 641 sign would fall under one of the Best category.

[empirestate]

I wouldn't place those twin NO LEFT TURN signs in the Worst category.  Overkill, maybe; but not worst. 

Agreed; 91 pages worth of the "worst"? Imagine if there really was a thread dedicated to the only slightly objectionable–it would be many thousands of pages long, no doubt!

[Takumi]

That's what Signs With Design Errors is supposed to be, but it's only 11 pages or so.

[hbelkins]

[PHLBOS]

Definite candidate for this:

[kj3400]

Oh, so it wasn't just me. Put that thing out of its misery!