3 ms·

Federal Killjoys Tell States to Stop Putting Jokes in Highway Signage

41 points by Stratoscope 3y ago

genter 3y ago
I also wish private businesses would stop using the orange roadside signs to tell me how much money I can save by buying a trailer from them. They're distracting. It's normally important to read them because they normally contain important information on the road in front of you.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
One time when I was about 10 years old (that would be the early-mid-80s), my mother was driving the car with me and my sister, and we were very close to home as we passed a roadside construction site. My mother exclaimed and remarked on the modified sign they had erected there. It was your standard, orange warning color construction sign that typically read "MEN WORKING". However, the "M" and "N" had been cut out, and the "M" was turned upside down and replaced to the left of the "E", such that the sign now read "WE WORKING" and sure enough, there was a female construction worker with a blonde ponytail right there in the 3-person crew. My mother, who is a die-hard second-wave feminist, thought this was the best thing since sliced bread, especially appreciating the rebellious streak that would lead someone to mutilate a standard road sign and make it "gender-neutral" in those days.
- nusl 3y ago
  This is pretty cool. I’m glad humans care about other humans sometimes
- dudeinjapan 3y ago
  I would have gone with “GNOME WINK” or “KING ME NOW”.
lesuorac 3y ago
I'm fine with this. Almost all of the time they had no rhyme, alteration, or meter. If they were actually crafty half the time it'd be a different story. Also if your message requires the sign to scroll it's too long ...
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
  Some of the ones TXDoT uses are pretty cute. Funny in a ha ha sort of way, nothing groundbreaking in terms of humor but I think it’s more important that people look at these signs and realize that there are humans behind the faceless bureaucratic organizations like the DoT than getting whatever marginal benefit having a clearer, non witty message offers. So my subjective opinion is that this is a negative change Now if the feds came back with real data that says “people die/get in accidents more when you use these witty but unclear signs”, I’d be a little more on their side. I couldn’t find any actual data referenced in the article though. Just a lot of feelings. One article does reference this: > The National Academy of Sciences, however, measure the response of 120 people to look at a variety of road signs. The Academy concluded that straightforward road signs were the most effective. Where is the citation for this, Jalopnik? I actually want to read this study, especially what they are calling “more effective” Edit: I was able to find what I believe the study was and while it’s not perfect this is a surprisingly well researched problem: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26656/chapter/4 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26656/chapter/4
bdcravens 3y ago
I assume the biggest concern is people trying to take photos, which is a fairly dangerous operation if it's the driver.
- QuarterReptile 3y ago
  Taking the statement at face value (and in my experience), the normal driving case is problem enough. Signs should do everything they can to provide a tidbit of information and then fade, or else they're taking you away from the focus you should have on driving. That's why signs always look the same, use a standard font, and are extremely large. I assume the article is talking about interstate highways, and banning this dangerous childishness there seems like a great use of federal attention. Especially if this action detracts from building more highways.
nunez 3y ago
Wow; the deaths are rolling in and 2024 hasn't even started yet :( RIP "Use yah blinkah"
dudeinjapan 3y ago
When I become president I will mandate via executive order that all highway signage display a Taylor Swift reference.
Blackstrat 3y ago
[flagged]
- freedrock87 3y ago
  Except that every state highway takes federal money.
  - Blackstrat 3y ago
    Accepting federal money should not mean the government gets to dictate specifics. The money comes from the citizens of the states. The government produces nothing. Return to federalism.
zeroCalories 3y ago
Jokes are always confusing and could potentially lead to death. So how many people are we okay with dying so that we can tell jokes? Couple million seems reasonable.
- xyzzy123 3y ago
  Don't worry, in-your-face billboards are still fine. (I think it requires a fair bit of mental gymnastics to come up with valid reasons to ban jokes on signs but permit advertising to drivers).
  - viraptor 3y ago
    It's simply a legal thing isn't it? This is about gov-controlled signs. Billboards are private, so gov control over the contents of those would largely be illegal.
    - xyzzy123 3y ago
      Yeah, you're probably right. On the other hand, billboards are regulated - there are limits on how big and distracting they're allowed to be at various levels. There's also precedent for federal regulation of highway advertising e.g: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Beautification_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Beautification_Act (I do recognise this is different from state controlled signage). I still think it's a bit inconsistent to have zero tolerance for additional cognitive load from official signage while giving billboards a lot of latitude. Probably the most reasonable argument is that official signage should be held to the highest possible safety standard because in theory drivers have to pay attention to those messages. But I don't think the government's actions are evidence-based. It's possible that non-serious, sports or holiday messages have a positive effect on driver safety, i.e, the negative effects of distraction are offset by increased driver vigilance when important safety messages are displayed. I don't think it's been properly studied.
    - ssdspoimdsjvv 3y ago
      Certainly a law that bans advertising billboards on highways would just do the trick? Or is this somehow seen as an infringement on free speech?
SoftTalker 3y ago
I wish they'd get rid of the signs altogether. They are distracting, ugly, and rarely helpful. American roads have way too many signs.
- i67vw3 3y ago
  Signs, billboards, horizontal road curves, flashing lights are deliberately put on highways to lower monotony so that driver does not get sleepy. He is forcefully distracted every few kilometres.
figassis 3y ago
For foreign travelers I can see how missing a reference can lead to a fine.
ajhurliman 3y ago
That’s a pretty good sign that we have too many bureaucrats if they have the time to care about this (pun intended)
nolroz 3y ago
If they try to stop states from naming snow plows I'll be pissed.
cafard 3y ago
Shoot, "Fine + Points" could be taken to mean "Not only is it fine, we give you style points for it."

41 points by Stratoscope 3y ago

I also wish private businesses would stop using the orange roadside signs to tell me how much money I can save by buying a trailer from them. They're distracting. It's normally important to read them because they normally contain important information on the road in front of you.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

One time when I was about 10 years old (that would be the early-mid-80s), my mother was driving the car with me and my sister, and we were very close to home as we passed a roadside construction site. My mother exclaimed and remarked on the modified sign they had erected there. It was your standard, orange warning color construction sign that typically read "MEN WORKING". However, the "M" and "N" had been cut out, and the "M" was turned upside down and replaced to the left of the "E", such that the sign now read "WE WORKING" and sure enough, there was a female construction worker with a blonde ponytail right there in the 3-person crew. My mother, who is a die-hard second-wave feminist, thought this was the best thing since sliced bread, especially appreciating the rebellious streak that would lead someone to mutilate a standard road sign and make it "gender-neutral" in those days.

nusl 3y ago
This is pretty cool. I’m glad humans care about other humans sometimes
dudeinjapan 3y ago
I would have gone with “GNOME WINK” or “KING ME NOW”.

lesuorac 3y ago

I'm fine with this. Almost all of the time they had no rhyme, alteration, or meter. If they were actually crafty half the time it'd be a different story. Also if your message requires the sign to scroll it's too long ...

SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
Some of the ones TXDoT uses are pretty cute. Funny in a ha ha sort of way, nothing groundbreaking in terms of humor but I think it’s more important that people look at these signs and realize that there are humans behind the faceless bureaucratic organizations like the DoT than getting whatever marginal benefit having a clearer, non witty message offers. So my subjective opinion is that this is a negative change Now if the feds came back with real data that says “people die/get in accidents more when you use these witty but unclear signs”, I’d be a little more on their side. I couldn’t find any actual data referenced in the article though. Just a lot of feelings. One article does reference this: > The National Academy of Sciences, however, measure the response of 120 people to look at a variety of road signs. The Academy concluded that straightforward road signs were the most effective. Where is the citation for this, Jalopnik? I actually want to read this study, especially what they are calling “more effective” Edit: I was able to find what I believe the study was and while it’s not perfect this is a surprisingly well researched problem: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26656/chapter/4 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26656/chapter/4

bdcravens 3y ago

I assume the biggest concern is people trying to take photos, which is a fairly dangerous operation if it's the driver.

QuarterReptile 3y ago
Taking the statement at face value (and in my experience), the normal driving case is problem enough. Signs should do everything they can to provide a tidbit of information and then fade, or else they're taking you away from the focus you should have on driving. That's why signs always look the same, use a standard font, and are extremely large. I assume the article is talking about interstate highways, and banning this dangerous childishness there seems like a great use of federal attention. Especially if this action detracts from building more highways.

nunez 3y ago

Wow; the deaths are rolling in and 2024 hasn't even started yet :( RIP "Use yah blinkah"

dudeinjapan 3y ago

When I become president I will mandate via executive order that all highway signage display a Taylor Swift reference.

Blackstrat 3y ago

[flagged]

freedrock87 3y ago
Except that every state highway takes federal money.
- Blackstrat 3y ago
  Accepting federal money should not mean the government gets to dictate specifics. The money comes from the citizens of the states. The government produces nothing. Return to federalism.

zeroCalories 3y ago

Jokes are always confusing and could potentially lead to death. So how many people are we okay with dying so that we can tell jokes? Couple million seems reasonable.

xyzzy123 3y ago
Don't worry, in-your-face billboards are still fine. (I think it requires a fair bit of mental gymnastics to come up with valid reasons to ban jokes on signs but permit advertising to drivers).
- viraptor 3y ago
  It's simply a legal thing isn't it? This is about gov-controlled signs. Billboards are private, so gov control over the contents of those would largely be illegal.
  - xyzzy123 3y ago
    Yeah, you're probably right. On the other hand, billboards are regulated - there are limits on how big and distracting they're allowed to be at various levels. There's also precedent for federal regulation of highway advertising e.g: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Beautification_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Beautification_Act (I do recognise this is different from state controlled signage). I still think it's a bit inconsistent to have zero tolerance for additional cognitive load from official signage while giving billboards a lot of latitude. Probably the most reasonable argument is that official signage should be held to the highest possible safety standard because in theory drivers have to pay attention to those messages. But I don't think the government's actions are evidence-based. It's possible that non-serious, sports or holiday messages have a positive effect on driver safety, i.e, the negative effects of distraction are offset by increased driver vigilance when important safety messages are displayed. I don't think it's been properly studied.
  - ssdspoimdsjvv 3y ago
    Certainly a law that bans advertising billboards on highways would just do the trick? Or is this somehow seen as an infringement on free speech?

SoftTalker 3y ago

I wish they'd get rid of the signs altogether. They are distracting, ugly, and rarely helpful. American roads have way too many signs.

i67vw3 3y ago
Signs, billboards, horizontal road curves, flashing lights are deliberately put on highways to lower monotony so that driver does not get sleepy. He is forcefully distracted every few kilometres.

figassis 3y ago

For foreign travelers I can see how missing a reference can lead to a fine.

ajhurliman 3y ago

That’s a pretty good sign that we have too many bureaucrats if they have the time to care about this (pun intended)

nolroz 3y ago

If they try to stop states from naming snow plows I'll be pissed.

cafard 3y ago

Shoot, "Fine + Points" could be taken to mean "Not only is it fine, we give you style points for it."