Signs With Design Errors

[NE2]

I thought it was obvious that the design error was a warning on a rectangular sign, rather than diamond-shaped. Maybe it wasn't so obvious.

Isn't that just an old standard?

(holy crap I saw a yellow yield sign)

[vtk]

I thought it was obvious that the design error was a warning on a rectangular sign, rather than diamond-shaped. Maybe it wasn't so obvious.

I thought the error was the lack of the word "for".

[theline]

I thought it was obvious that the design error was a warning on a rectangular sign, rather than diamond-shaped. Maybe it wasn't so obvious.

Isn't that just an old standard?

(holy crap I saw a yellow yield sign)

I don't recall rectangular warning signs being a standard, and I've been paying attention to signs for nearly 60 years. I certainly do recall the yellow yield signs and even, barely, yellow stop signs.

This sign is quite old. If someone knows whether rectangular warning signs were once standard, please speak up. Citations welcome.

[J N Winkler]

I don't recall rectangular warning signs being a standard, and I've been paying attention to signs for nearly 60 years. I certainly do recall the yellow yield signs and even, barely, yellow stop signs.

This sign is quite old. If someone knows whether rectangular warning signs were once standard, please speak up. Citations welcome.

In California, rectangular format has been a longstanding option for Moskowitz signs (extra-large signs, generally consisting of a curve graphic plus an advisory speed or a "SIGNAL AHEAD" message, designed to be deployed at difficult curves which have been found to have contributed to at least one fatal accident).  Considering that a Moskowitz sign typically measures 8' x 8' in either diamond or rectangular format, and the diamond format requires a box-section stiffener framing the whole sign just inside the back edge, it is not unreasonable that a rectangular option--which allows the use of the same type of wood post and laminated panel that is used for ground-mounted freeway guide signs--is available.

The MUTCD also classifies runaway truck ramp signs as warning signs and they are rectangular in format.

[agentsteel53]

the 1927 MUTCD has yellow square for SCHOOL ZONE, HOSPITAL ZONE, CROSS ROAD, SIDE ROAD, CHURCH, MEN WORKING... it seems like the preference between square and diamond is "what allows for larger text", except DRAW BRIDGE, ROAD CLOSED, and other two-word warnings are on the diamond, so there might be another consideration which I am missing.

the 1935 MUTCD switches ROAD CLOSED to the square, as well as some pictorial ones appear on squares - the SIDE ROAD is now a T on its side, on the square.  it seems to be a fairly arbitrary decision as to what earns a square, and what a diamond.

the 1948 MUTCD appears to have all diamonds, except for the large arrow (W11, W12) which are rectangles placed on the far side of the road to indicate an immediate need to turn.

now, as for the rectangular signs with a running child in the middle - I have seen them in so many states that I could've sworn they were a federal standard, but my browsing of several MUTCDs does not indicate any!  they appear in various form factors, saying WATCH/CHILDREN, SCHOOL/ZONE, SCHOOL/SLOW, CHILDREN/SLOW, etc etc... in fact I have an embossed, block-font SCHOOL SLOW variant right here next to me as we speak.  I think 1930s is when these signs first started coming about - at least, judging on material composition, but, again, it appears not to be a standard at all, which is a bit of astounding news to me.

[Big John]

Actually those "Slow - Children at Play" signs are not MUTCD compliant, even in a diamond shape.  Ruling is that then give a false sense of security for children to carelessly play around and are often ignored by motorists as too many of those signs can bombard them.

[J N Winkler]

now, as for the rectangular signs with a running child in the middle - I have seen them in so many states that I could've sworn they were a federal standard, but my browsing of several MUTCDs does not indicate any!  they appear in various form factors, saying WATCH/CHILDREN, SCHOOL/ZONE, SCHOOL/SLOW, CHILDREN/SLOW, etc etc... in fact I have an embossed, block-font SCHOOL SLOW variant right here next to me as we speak.  I think 1930s is when these signs first started coming about - at least, judging on material composition, but, again, it appears not to be a standard at all, which is a bit of astounding news to me.

They aren't a standard because the traffic engineering community (rightly) fights their becoming one--they are essentially safety-blanket signs.  Also, the running-child graphic does not match the design idiom of other MUTCD signs that depict human beings, such as the school signs, the playground warning sign, the pedestrian warning sign, or the carpool sign.

[theline]

Thanks for the replies. I figured if I asked this group, I'd get an education. I wasn't disappointed!

[Central Avenue]

I'm not sure if that's redundancy or self-contradiction.  Maybe it comes from Alanland.

Yeah, I was conflicted on whether to construe it as a double-negative or as redundant.

Taken at its literal meaning (i.e, putting aside what we know about usual traffic sign language) it would mean that "authorized vehicles" are the only exception. So I wouldn't quite call it a contradiction, but it's definitely in the category of "more words than necessary", much like that "cross traffic does not stop at this intersection sign I posted a few months back.

Aside from this being worded somewhat confusingly and perhaps contradictorily, are any of the "AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY" signs necessary? Does anyone actually think a police officer or ambulance driver will hesitate to use a median crossing in case of an emergency, even if it was simply marked "NO U TURN"? And does anyone think that if a civilian sees a police car making a U-turn in front of a no U-turn sign, he'll run after the cop yelling "citizen's arrest" like Gomer Pyle?

Perhaps the same could be said of the "BUSSES ONLY" signs–or worse, the "TRAINS ONLY" signs I've seen on light rail tracks.

That always bothered me too, especially with this "EXCEPT EMERGENCY VEHICLES" sign out on OH 16. That is literally the entrance to a major hospital's E.R., are we supposed to expect that ambulance drivers wouldn't feel it reasonable to violate the turn restriction there?

[Jim]

I would call this a design error -- it confused me at least.  Taken in June in on Ohio 252 North in the western suburbs of Cleveland.  Apologies for the image quality.



The sign is mounted over the right lane, and I took it to mean that both directions for I-90 were to the right, but that you should keep left on the ramp to go west.  Well, no.  Westbound entry is a left turn on the other side of the overpass.  I think if it was just mounted over the center of the road rather than off to the right, I would have interpreted it correctly.

[thenetwork]

I would call this a design error -- it confused me at least.  Taken in June in on Ohio 252 North in the western suburbs of Cleveland.  Apologies for the image quality.



The sign is mounted over the right lane, and I took it to mean that both directions for I-90 were to the right, but that you should keep left on the ramp to go west.  Well, no.  Westbound entry is a left turn on the other side of the overpass.  I think if it was just mounted over the center of the road rather than off to the right, I would have interpreted it correctly.

When I used to live in NEOH, there were several examples of similar signage that would have similar left/right/diagonal arrows in advance of the actual ramp.  The problem was that there was a side street(s) between the sign and the actual ramp, so if you took the BGS directions literally, you'd be turning before you're supposed to.

[ET21]

It's definitely confusing to say the least. Could use a redo

[vtk]

I would call this a design error -- it confused me at least.  Taken in June in on Ohio 252 North in the western suburbs of Cleveland.  Apologies for the image quality.



The sign is mounted over the right lane, and I took it to mean that both directions for I-90 were to the right, but that you should keep left on the ramp to go west.  Well, no.  Westbound entry is a left turn on the other side of the overpass.  I think if it was just mounted over the center of the road rather than off to the right, I would have interpreted it correctly.

I've seen quite a few signs very similar to that one, except they only have one route marker.  Where the OH 2 is on that sign would be a vertical dividing line, which makes it more clear that each action message applies to only one direction of the highway.  The only thing I'd change about this sign is make it taller, so a vertical dividing line can be seen below the OH 2.  That, and I'd probably replace the arrow with "Keep Right" because the sign is not placed at the actual turn.

[Central Avenue]

A pet peeve of mine: CROSSING RAILROAD

[vtk]

Personally I have a bit of trouble deciding which diagonal piece to read first anyway.  Apparently so did whoever installed that crossbuck.

[Roadsguy]

Either way, it looks a bit like "RAIL- CROSSING -ROAD."

[1995hoo]

Either way, it looks a bit like "RAIL- CROSSING -ROAD."

Which, I suppose, is accurate.

[Central Avenue]

Now I can't help but wonder...is the crossbuck the only standard traffic sign that's physically shaped like the highway feature it denotes?

[Zeffy]

My question is why are there a pair of red flashers facing the tracks? Shouldn't they face... well, the road instead?

[agentsteel53]

Now I can't help but wonder...is the crossbuck the only standard traffic sign that's physically shaped like the highway feature it denotes?

Alberta:

[vtk]

My question is why are there a pair of red flashers facing the tracks? Shouldn't they face... well, the road instead?

I think that's for a side street which intersects the main road adjacent to the railroad crossing.

[Alps]

Now I can't help but wonder...is the crossbuck the only standard traffic sign that's physically shaped like the highway feature it denotes?

How about the white on blue circular arrow Europe uses at roundabouts?

[Ned Weasel]

Here are my first entries:

[amroad17]

Where is the design error in the first picture?  The "dancing" arrows?
I do like the way the EXIT 81 sign is designed.  If there was more room on the sign, I would have liked to see control cities on it.

The design error in the second picture is very obvious.

[vtk]

The 435 gantry with dancing arrows could be made more compact, even adding destination legends.  Or it could maybe go APL for compliance with current standards.  Could be a good exercise for the Redesign This thread.

The 24-59-40 has a few minor issues.  The fraction is done wrong.  The only thing that should be in Clearview is Lawrence.  And, is there a reason the US routes don't appear in order?  I'd say these are minor nitpicks, though.