sign priority

[ACtrafficengr]

This forum's been quiet for a while. Perhaps this will liven it up...

Some authorities say that regulatory signs should get the highest priority for placement and maintenance. Others say warning signs. What do you think?

 

[KRSServices]

Regulatory, definitely. Law enforcement cannot write tickets for violations of a warning sign and there are too many court cases where faded or otherwise confusing regulatory signs have resulted in huge awards specific to liability. Warning signs are to advise, but when push comes to shove, in the absence of knowledge of the road, the burden is always vested with the driver to operate with due consideration of speed and reaction times. KRS Services

http://www.krs-services.com

 

[ACtrafficengr]

Interesting...why do you place so much emphasis on enforcement? There have also been many liabilty claims due to faded or improper warning signs.

 

[skdte]

I feel regulatory signs should have the highest priority for placement and maintenance. Which would you rather have missing on a road you are not familiar with a stop sign or a curve sign?

 

[trafficPro]

I think you hit the nail right on the head. It doesnt matter the strict classification of the sign. The real test is the safety of the travelling public. A regulatory parking sign is of lesser importance than a Warning sign of a sharp curve. A stop sign is very high importance. Weigh the possible impact of the sign being missing. Institute a regular sign maintenance inspection protocol and have police notify maintenance immediately when signs are destroyed in accidents. Dont wait for the accident report to filter down to maintenance. Provide a forum or procedure for all staff to be able to easily notify maintenance when signs are substandard. Use all eyes you can get.

 

[ACtrafficengr]

I'm working with a sign management software package that has a six tier priority scheme:

1> "Immediate" signs: Intersection control (Stop, yield, crossbuck, etc), curve signs, and one way/Do not enter signs
2> School signs
3> Other regulatory signs
4> Other warning signs
5> Street name signs
6> Other guide signs

The signs in the Immediate category are top priority signs that address three of the most severe accident types: intersection, run-off-road and head on collisions. I agree with that part, but I'm not sure I agree that "other regulatory signs" should be more important than "other warning signs."

 

[KRSServices]

See...the forum is not so quiet now! I mentioned enforcement due to the fact that this task is an inevitable function of highway and urban street management. As a former Director of Transporation, I had to cross this bridge several times. I prefer not to prioritize the importance of signs, but if asked, regulatory have to be first. Warning signs are there to advise motorists of upcoming changes to their immediate driving pattern and allow them sufficient time to change their pattern (curves, hills, enbankments, etc). If there is imminent danger to the motoring public, then warning signs must always be accompanied by regulatory signs (construction zones, speed reduction at sharp curves, etc). Many highway designs accomodate speed when considering the radius of curves, etc., but they do not build in factors such as freezing rain, limited sight (fog) or night driving. This subject has entire textbooks devoted to the subject and I can probably ramble on and on.

In terms of sign management and inventory, I believe emphasis on priority must always be peppered with common sense and a little crystal balling. The questions that should be asked when dealing with a sign is what would be the likely outcome if an injury or accident occurs as a result of sign absence, mis-interpretation, hidden placement or vandalism. KRS Services

http://www.krs-services.com

 

[ACtrafficengr]

After more reflection, I'd say that the primary goal of traffic engineering should be keeping people from getting hurt. A second goal is minimizing delay. Enforcement is a tool to accomplish both. Perhaps one of the most important ones, but a tool nonetheless.

Prioritizing signs by class is also a tool. Like all tools, it must be understood to use properly. Even within a specific sign type, some will be more important than others. A "no parking" sign that keeps parked vehicles from blocking sight distance to a crosswalk would be more important than most of its kin elsewhere.

 

[KRSServices]

True, but if a vehicle is parked too close to the intersection or crosswalk, the bylaw/ordinances specify the distances and the traffic people will ticket the violators, regardless of the presence of the sign. A missing stop sign on the other hand has much more tragic implications. While I agree that some non-regulatory (parking signs) carry important messages, they should never, ever, be prioritized under the same category as a regulatory sign.

Is the basis of the priority system for inventory and maintenance purposes? I am a little unclear as to why the priority is premised on the accident types? First and foremost a non-regulatory sign has really no bearing on accidents. Even regulatory signage, really has no bearing on accidents because you cannot legislate against stupid drivers or inattention.

I am not understanding the benefit of a sign priority system (esp. non-regulatory) in relation to accident types. I've used inventory and maintenance software, but never in relation to accidents. I'm not sure whether I've just helped or confused the issue more. KRS Services

http://www.krs-services.com