'Improving' a No Turn on Red sign

Previous | Next
 rated by 0 users
Latest post Sat, Jun 20 2009 12:56 AM by Taxagent. 6 replies.
  • Thu, Jun 18 2009 2:09 AM

    • diecuts
      Consumer
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Sun, Oct 29 2006
    • MI
    • Posts 59

    'Improving' a No Turn on Red sign

    Hi,

    Last week the state (MI) put up a 'no turn on red' sign at the end of my street about a block away.  It was placed behind a tree, on the right side.  The street ends at a large divided highway, 4 lanes each direction, with a large grass-filled  median.

    I believe they put this sign up to make money, to help solve Michigan's money problems via tickets.  I don't plan on getting one, but no one can see the sign.  Also, since traffic is approaching from the left, there is less incentive to keep looking to the right where the sign is placed.

    The neighbor on the corner was told that her 40 year old tree would have to be taken down as it blocks the sign.  They are upset.

    I have offered to put up an approved sign (at my expense) visble to the left.  There is plenty of room.  The State official said, according to his manual on page xxx, that it must go on the right corner, no exceptions, with appropriate measurements to clear curbs and right of ways.  &nbsp...   Has common sense left the room?

    What laws would I be breaking to put up a traffic sign?  A govt approved sign costs about $24.  A ticket costs $160.  A 40 yr old tree is priceless, almost.  &nb... wife says the State needs the money.

     Please advise.

    Regards,  Lee

     

     

     

     

  • Thu, Jun 18 2009 2:49 AM In reply to

    Re: 'Improving' a No Turn on Red sign

    MI state law only allows the state highway commission to put up signs on the state highways. So you cannot place the sign yourself. Moreover, the stop sign must conform to state law. For stops signs, the state statute says that "Every stop, yield, or merge sign shall be reflectorized or illuminated at night. Every stop, yield, or merge sign shall be located as near as practicable at the nearest line of the crosswalk thereat, or, if none, at the nearest line of the roadway." MCL 257.671(2). My guess is that the MI Transportation Department has rules for exactly how the stop signs must be placed. You can try finding the exact rule and see if you can propose a spot that would meet the rule without cutting down the tree. If you can't, then absent a change in the rule, the tree likely has to go.

  • Fri, Jun 19 2009 10:53 AM In reply to

    • DPH
      Consumer
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Mon, Oct 8 2001
    • TX
    • Posts 7,645

    Re: 'Improving' a No Turn on Red sign

    Before anybody starts taking down trees, is the tree on neighbors property or in the right of way?  If it's on private property, the state mightget away with trimming, but I doubt they could take the whole tree.

    So, where's the tree?

    "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."  -  Mark Twain

     

  • Fri, Jun 19 2009 5:16 PM In reply to

    Re: 'Improving' a No Turn on Red sign

    I am not a lawyer, just a person with some common sense.

    Why bother with an "approved" sign? If the lady who owns the tree doesn't want her tree cut down, what would be wrong with making a sign with cardboard and magic marker that says:

    "Hey, Motorist, have a look at that no turn on red sign behind the big tree!!!"

    She could post that on her own property in a place where people who might be turning right could see it.

    At least that will alert some of them to the "official" sign.

  • Sat, Jun 20 2009 12:37 AM In reply to

    • diecuts
      Consumer
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Sun, Oct 29 2006
    • MI
    • Posts 59

    Re: 'Improving' a No Turn on Red sign

    Update...

    The tree is on the neighbor's property so some trimming may occur.

    As mentioned, regulations call for an 'approved' sign.

    My beef is that no one looks to the right where the sign is, instead checking to the left looking for traffic.  These drivers  are just using common sense.  Why look the wrong way, where all the traffic is going?   Of course a casual glance for pedestrians is given to the right when approaching the intersection, but the sign hides directlybehind a trunk of a tree.

    My solution was to just break the law and install some 'stick on' 5" letters saying NO TURN ON RED on the 12" dia traffic light support post which is directly to the left and easy to see.  Looks decent, better than cardboard,  and the police have not removed them as yet. 

    Of course,  it may be easier just to remove  the sign.  Life was good 30 years in a row before it was installed, why have one there now?

    Wife says Michigan still needs the money.

    Thanks for the input.

    Diecuts

     

     

     

     

  • Sat, Jun 20 2009 12:54 AM In reply to

    Re: 'Improving' a No Turn on Red sign

    DPH:
    If it's on private property, the state mightget away with trimming, but I doubt they could take the whole tree.

    The state could take the tree. It might have to pay compensation for the tree as a taking under the Constitution, but the law of eminent domain wold let the state take it.

  • Sat, Jun 20 2009 12:56 AM In reply to

    Re: 'Improving' a No Turn on Red sign

    CuriousInCa:
    She could post that on her own property in a place where people who might be turning right could see it.

    Having a sign like that which detracts motorist's attention from the road may not be a good thing.

Page 1 of 1 (7 items) | RSS

My Community

Community Membership New Users: Search Community