SLOW Children at Play signs with the picture of the boy running are in every town in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The most common has a boy wearing shorts with 3 holes for a belt, running very fast and has long socks on. The SLOW is in large print above the running child and the Children or Children at Play is a slightly smaller font and is underneath the boy's sneakers. I believe that the signs are effective and if used property, cause drivers to watch for kids. Even if MUTCD does not support them, these signs are still being purchased by local towns as I have seen some brand new ones recently. The other style that is common is a stick figure of a kid running. Hate that sign.

Bridget:The only sign that will have any effect on most speeders is the one that says "Police" on the side of a police car. Call, write or email your local police and ask them to enforce strictly the speed limit on your street. If you can advise them of a certain time pattern to the violations, or provide them with the license plate numbers of violatiors, that should help. If you think the speed limit is too high, ask them or the traffic department that has jurisdiction to do a speed study and find what speed at or below shich 85% of the traffic is moving. The speed limit is supposed to be set at that speed. Artifically low speed limits are impossible to enforce and make everyone become violators. A large southern city has speed violation cameras in 25-mph zones and they've made hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties from speeders most of whom are going up to 55 mph. Children at Play signs have very little actual affect on drivers' speeds and are usually just a sop by politicians to placate complaining residents.

I have been looking for material on the topic of "Children at Play" type signs. Boy, did I find it. I have a question to pose...what suggestion can be made for an alternative to the signs? I live in a small village in upstate NY. My street happens to be a state highway running through a residential neighborhood. I understand the argument against the signs, however I am still concerned about the speed of traffic going past my home. I am open to alternatives. And, no, I do not let my children play in the street!

I'm afraid that you face the classic "traffic calming" problem. Much as people hate to believe it, decades of studies have proven without a doubt that the 85 percent of motorists will travel at or below the speed that they perceive to be safe and comfortable for the given roadway conditions, regardless of "artifical" controls including speed limits, particularly if unreasonably low. this is likely the case on your street, particularly if it is straight and level.

I like the Slow Children signs for traffic calming. It keeps the parents calm when they have the signs. That way they dont bug town hall for signs because they will already have them.

The purpose of Slow Children signs are to raise awareness and protect children. If you need one let me know where you are located and I can recommend a good sign company in your area.

HI I AM A FIFTH GRADER AND I AM DOING AN ACTIVIST PROJECT FOR MY SCHOOL. I
WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IT IF YOU PUT A WATCH CHILDREN SIGN AT MY SCHOOL SO
THAT KIDS DON'T GET HRT. SINCE IT IS A BIG AND LONG STREET, CARS HAVE BEEN
KNOWN TO HIDE LITTLE KIDS BY THEIR BIG CARS. WE HAVE JUST RECENTLY HAD A
PROBLEM WHERE A KID GOT HIT AT THE HIGH SCHOOL AND I DON'T WANT THE PROBLEMS TO
COMTINUE AT OUR SCHOOL. SO IF YOU CAN PLEASE HELP MY SCHOOL. e.t.rICHARDON. GET
A WATCH CHILDREN SIGN AT MY SCHOOL. sO KIDS CAN BE SAFE. AND MORE AWARE OF
THERE SURROUNDING. THANK YOU AND HAVE A GREAT DAY.

Hi, Anna, It's really great that you are getting concerned with traffic safety
at such an early age. I too was active when I was in the fifth grade. Iwas a
school crossing guard and wore the "Buster Brown"-style white diagonal strap
belt and held a STOP sign in my hand but I couldn't actually stop the cars. I'm
a big grownup now but I've been in traffic safety ever since I studied it in
college and was graduated in 1961. I have to tell you that putting such a sign
near the road at your school will not make the kids safe or keep them from
being hurt because many drivers just do not see or pay attention to those signs
and, unfortunately, to many other signs. To put such a sign there might also
give the kids what we call a false sense of security, that is they might think
that because there is a sign, all the drivers will drive more slowly and
actually look out for kids. But you see, if they do not slow down and/or drive
more carefully when they see real kids, they surely won't pay attention to a
sign. The signs also cost a lot of money for somebody and if one of them gets
put in there, everybody will want one and pretty soon the buyers will run out
of money and because there is a sign on every corner, or at every school, then
even more drivers will not pay them any attention. So that's why it's a bad
idea to put one of them there. Now, to help you with your spelling, you left
the u out of "hurt", you misspelled "continue", and in the next to last
sentence your used "there" instead of the word that sounds like it, "their".
Now when you get to high school, take the college prep courses, with physics,
math and electronics if available, then go to a civil engineering college and
study traffic engineering and you will go places in your career because by
then, if we are still driving cars, there will be a lot more of them. As for
your activist project, maybe you could get the local police department to show
all the kids how a radar works to see how fast the traffic is going compared to
the legal speed limit, or you might get the local traffic department, if your
town has one, do a show and tell about real traffic signs and what they mean.
Good luck and you go, girl.

Now,

Anna,

I agree with what Bobby said about a sign not being a very good idea. That
said, I admire your willingness to get involved and try to improve safety. You
are very observant to notice that big, parked cars can sometimes hide kids.
That really can be a danger. Perhaps though there is a better solution than to
simply install a sign that really won't change much. Maybe a better idea would
be to try to teach kids and parents about the dangers of crossing from between
those big parked cars. A better place to cross would be at an intersection or
a crosswalk where kids can be seen better. Really, the best solutions to
pedestrian safety problems tend to focus on the pedestrians more so than the
drivers. I would encourage you to talk to your teacher or your principal and
ask them if they can figure out some way to do some teaching of good crossing
habits. If you can teach kids how to cross safely it will go a lot further
towards preventing an accident than a sign will.

Good luck to you. I hope you stick with it and find a way to improve safety
around your school.

Anna,

You sound like a traffic professional in the making.

I would follow the advice that Bobby, and Joe gave you.

In addition to getting the local police involved, it may also be possible to
get a professional traffic engineer to contribute to your project also. Maybe
your principal, or teacher could help you get into contact with one.

I live on a dirt access road at the beach in old lyme, ct. we need a Slow
Children sign. please advise me where i can get one.

First off, unless you own the road, you are not allowed to put up a sign that
looks like an official traffic control device. As your town, village or
homeowner's association to put one up.

If it is a private road, a quick internet search should find plenty.

We have a dozen or so in our traffic shop dump container down here in NC. We
remove and dispose of them any time we see them in our 5,500-mile of street
rights-of-way, along with other useless privately-placed signs. I filled the
trunk and back seat of my agency's car today with such signs, those these were
all political today. I can only repeat the explanation of the kids at play
signs seen elsewhere in this forum about 4 years ago: If drivers will not
change their actions when actually seeing children, why would they change their
actions when seeing a kids at play sign? Such signs are useless and most
wasteful of money (whether tax or out-of-pocket). They give wrong info most of
the time (when no kids are present), they give kids and misguided parents a
false sense of security ("we have the sign-we can play basketball and
skateboard and ride bikes in the street safely now without obeying vehicle
laws"), they are ignored by most drivers, and if an agency installs or allows
one they are hard pressed to deny requests from any other residents who want
them, leading to a costly proliferation of unnecessary signage that detracts
from the meaning of the truly valid warning signs and from the aesthetics of
the streetscape.Oh, sorry, I re-checked the dumper and it has been emptied.

Aside from the fact that the Federal Highway Administration position is that
usch signs have no effectiveness, why do you perceive that you have a
"speeding" problem on what you characterize as a "dirt access road?"

I read almost all the messages posted on that board about SLOW CHILDREN or CHILDREN AT PLAY. I stopped when I read the more appropriate message posted on 09/15/04 by Nelson Glassman titled: "Installing children warning signs". I aggree with him. Instead of diamond shape signs which with over profileration become just another decoration and lead to disrespect of signs in general, install a R2-1 speed limit sign with a supplemental plaque "Children" on FYG background. The speed limit will be enforceable and the plaque indicates there is the risk that children may run in the street. As for "children" sign, here in Canada, we use the pictorgam of a child running after a ball (WC-3). It is used primarly for playground areas and not as a general warning sign of children playing on or near the street. I am a traffic sign consultant mostly working for private organisations and I would not recommand to install it "just because parents want one". Instead, I would recommend a lower speed limit. Some towns and cities (mostly in Quebec) install signs like "Attention a nos enfants" (watch for our children) or a bit more dramatic "Attention a nos enfants, il peut s'agir du votre (watch for our children, this one could be yours); with the wording is the image of a child lying on the ground... Needless to say these signs are not approved by the Quebec MUTCD.

What I think this argument comes down to is the fact that at least in the USA (I have not lived in any other countries) that driving is seen as a right. And for some bizarre reason, we also look at traffic violations as nusiances rather than breaking the law. How many times have we heard our collegues, friends, and family complain how they received a speeding ticket, even though they were *only* going 10 mph over the limit? The fact remains that they (sometimes ourselves) were breaking the law. As such, we deserved the ticket. Are parents justified when they say that people are speeding down their streets? Yes. Are traffic engineers justified when they decline to install a traffic sign whose effect is minimal at best? Yes. Should kids be allowed to cross the street to get to their friends' house? Of course. As a society we need to start looking at every traffic violation (especially speeding and red light running) like we do drunk driving. Motor vehicles are killing machines if used improperly. We should look at this more as a societal problem rather than a traffic engineering problem. Unfortunately for us traffic engineers, no traffic sign is going to change that.

All laws/regulations should have a reason for their existence. When an
unreasonable law/regulation is established, such as an arbitrarily low speed
limit, it is fair game to be violated.

We don't exist to serve the government. The government exist to serve us.

Everything I have seen says that driving is a privilege not a right. That is
how is always stated in my state of Illinois.

Last time I read in the Declaration of Independence is stated that governments
get their just power from the consent of the governed. When, according to at
least one study, 9 in 10 speed zones are posted below the 50th percentile speed
that is a sign of a problem.

I also understand that it is the people who own the roads, and not the
government.

While the DOI is an important historical document, we are not governed by it
but seperated from England by it. The preamble of the constitution gives the
federal government power and authority from "We the people of the United
States..." (also not God as many would like to believe)

The government owns the roads, but we own the government.

Government does not own the roads, the government just maintains them. The
roads belong to the people. Municipal traffic engineers, work as public
servants fror the people to maintain the roads. To say that the government owns
the roads, and can make any regulations it wants without any responsibility,
and regard for the people is tyranny.

My state constitution affirms the idea that the roads belong to the people, and
not the government.

If you really think the government owns the road, then try to sell your share.
I never said that the government has no responsibility. I said that they are
controlled (owned) by the people.

Who ever said gov't has no responsibility to the people? Driving is not an
inborn right. It IS a priviledge, and to use the word 'tyranny' borders on the
ridiculous. ........ Let's get back on point - the "Children At Play" sign does
nothing except cost money and let parents off the hook. Kids don't belong in
the street any more than drivers belong cruising through a playground.

To say that walking, biking, or traveling by car is a mere privilege granted by
the state, is to say that one can only use the roads if one has permission, and
this can be revoked at any time by the state at any time, and for any reason.
How is this freedom?

How is it freedom if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or the State of
Delaware, or the State of New Jersey, can at any time can revoke ones ability
to travel upon the roads in the course of pursuing one's happiness in life for
any reason, even if no harm is done to anyone else? How can I can I exercise my
Rights of Life, Liberty, and my Pursuit of Happiness if at any time for any
little reason, or no reason at all other than just new legislation revoking
this so-called privilege? This is my means of getting my education in my
Pursuit of Happiness. My very survival of life is dependent on the use of
public roads by walking, biking, and my traveling. To say that the state can
prohibit me from walking, or biking, or any type of traveling on public roads
is to endanger my very survival.

How is this freedom?

This is tyranny.

My apologies for my mistake of the repetition of words in sentences. I wish
this forum had a edit feature, or something like it. Oh well, you know what the
old engineering saying is, if it isn't broke, then there are not enough feature
yet.

To say that walking, biking, or traveling by car is a mere privilege granted by
the state, is to say that one can only use the roads if one has permission, and
this can be revoked at any time by the for any reason.
How is this freedom?

How is it freedom if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or the State of
Delaware, or the State of New Jersey, can at any time revoke ones ability
to travel upon the roads in the course of pursuing one's happiness in life for
any reason, even if no harm is done to anyone else? How can I exercise my
Rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, if at any time for any
little reason, or no reason at all other than just new legislation, the state
can revoke
this so-called traveling privilege? This is my means of getting my education in
my
Pursuit of Happiness. My very survival of my life is dependent on the use of
public roads by walking, biking, and my traveling. To say that the state can
prohibit me at any time, for any reason from walking, or biking, or any type of
traveling on public roads is to endanger my very survival.

How is this freedom?

Your right to personal happiness stops at the next person's nose. And you are
getting completely OFF TOPIC. Let's stay on point, shall we?

I agree with you in regards to rights ending at the other persons nose. Of
course, with this view a lot of state, and federal traffic, and non-traffic
laws on the books would be called into question. But that is besides the point.
We were talking about 'public' roads here. In regards to this being
'off-topic', I was simply challenging a forum user's position that arbitrary
traffic laws must be strictly enforced. In doing this, I challenged the notion
that arbitrary speed limits, and other arbitrary non-scientific traffic
regulations are 'okay', and must be strictly obeyed, simply because the usage
of public roads are a so-called 'privilege' given to us by the state. I didn't
know the state 'gave' us anything. Is the state now going to claim that it
'gave' us life?

I have been doing law research on this very topic of the usage of public roads,
and find it very interesting.

As for traffic engineering, I think it should be based on sound science. When
the profession starts putting signs up just to make people 'feel good', and
justify arbitrary speed limits simply because 'its the supposed law', even if
the speed limit (or other regulation) has near zero compliance, something is
being done wrong.

My state constitution also reiterates the idea from the Declaration of
Independence, that the government gets its just powers from the consent of the
governed.

The 10th amendment to the US Constitution protects all rights that belong to
the people.

To say that driving is a privilege that can be revoked by the government at any
time, is tyranny, not freedom. I enjoy using the roads for pleasure, and also
use the roads to transport my personal property. This is something that the
government could never take away from me without a fight. My life depends on
the roads---that is from my education, to my pleasure. If, the government does
claim ownership, and prohibit driving by the people, than the people will have
to bear arms, and overthrow it.

Excuse my spelling---I meant then.

All interesting and relevant, but perhaps a bit off point. "Governments" do
not set unrealistically low speed limits on a whim. They are responding to
complaints from the "people," even if only one vocal one. If enough sane,
rational citizens got together to protest these unreasonable speed limits and
demonstrated that they represent a solid voting majority, "government" would be
only too happy to comply (they are, after all, solely in the business of
getting (re)elected).

I do my bit to protest the 20 and 25 mph zones where the 85th*ile is 35-40. I
drive at the speed limit through them. Ticks everybody off.

Nothing like a little civil obedience to cause a little disruption.

New York State uses the diamond shaped warning sign that says "Children at Play." Another common sign is the 18x24 "Children at Play" text with a picture of a boy and a girl riding tricycles. The official sign, however, is the diamond one with no picture.

Out of all the children safety signs available I have to admit I favor the "Watch for Children" sign as well. It has the clearest message. "Slow Children" has been misinterpreted (according to some on this thread) and "Children at Play" may give the impression that the street can be a playground (again according to some posts on this thread). The sign I favor only points out the potential danger without implying that children should play in the streets.

A knee-jerk reaction by many town officials is to give in whenever a citizen calls in demanding a Children at Play sign be installed in their neighborhood. My advise, having been a Highway Superintendant for many years is: To have town official defer these requests to the highway department to assess the situation. In may be that a speed limit sign is warranted. Overuse of Children at Play signs deters from their primary purpose. There are some situations when this warning sign is proper, however the requests that come in tend to be emotionally based. Sound engineering judgement is needed when posting any signs, and Children at Play signs are included in this. Just my 2 cents.

These signs annoy me. I become highly irritated when I see these signs up. Children should be NOT SEEN AND NOT HEARD on roads. Put them in playgrounds, back yards or boarding schools, but not on my streets!

You must not have children! Maybe you should not live in neighborhoods that
have children....

I recall that when I was a young lad, my mother called the county and asked for
one of these children at play signs. The county installed the sign and it has
been there ever since. This sign was installed back in the 1980's and I am now
nearly 40 years old living 2 states away. The road was a rural 50 mph road. I
think my family was the only one on the road. No one, I would hazard a guess,
was suddenly looking for kids after they saw this sign. It was simply a way to
get my mom to quit calling.

I also note that in my state, it is illegal for anyone to place their own sign
with the words "slow" or anything that would appear to be an official traffic
control device, whether it is on private property or not.

Finally, there is a difference in why you sometimes see the deer crossing signs
and why you may not see children at play signs. If there is an accident history
that would indicate a high presence of deer collisions, then it is probably
justifiable to install a sign warning people of the hazard. I won't take this
analogy any further, but you get the point.

There is a difference between deer and children ... CHILDREN who are playing
outside are supposed to be supervised by adults, or are supposed to have been
taught the rules of the road [IE STAY OUT OF THE STREET]... whereas DEER are
wild animals who do not know the rules of the road and are expected to yield
right of way to traffic.

What a ridiculous statement. Maybe you should ID yourself and explain why you
think children belong IN THE ROAD instead of in playgrounds or their own front
yards.

And what of the poor inner-city children without yards?

I know: do a Hans Monderman and take out ALL the signs, all the markings, even
the curbs! If it works in Drachten it'll work in Detroit!

(heh heh, that should rile up the ants' nest!)

I take, investigate, and make recommendations on requests from residents of my
agency's mostly rural/suburban 4500-mile road net for lowering the speed limits
on their roads. I/we also get a lot of requests for CatP signs, which I/we
routinely deny, based on advice from the state attorney general's office. When
we see any CatP signs posted in our road rights-of-way we remove them and put
them in the trash bin. One subdivision reinstalls them about once a year.
Recently, my investigations have found a large number of portable basketball
goals installed in the r/w at the edge of and sometimes in the subdivision
road. One time the college-age and older "children" playing bkb in the road
refused to make way for vehicular traffic until they finished their layups. We
did not install any CatP signs or lower the speed limit there. Anything NEW for
this thread? It went a year with no posts. Amen.

It doesn't matter where kids live. No kid belongs in the street! I didn't
have a yard either - but I went inside or went to a park. NO KID BELONGS IN
THE STREET. And these signs do NOTHING.

Molly, I'm a professional in the field and I had some questions for you. 1) Suppose a "Children at Play" sign is installed next to a busy roadway. What rough percentage of drivers you think would reduce their speed at the sign? And what percentage of drivers would reduce their speed after passing the sign for the 50th time? 2) After the same driver passes this sign for the 50th time, and seeing children only a few times in the area, do you feel this driver would be extra wary of children because of the sign? 3) If this sign was posted in a neighborhood, with children living in most houses, does this mean that drivers driving on streets that the sign is not posted need to use less care? 4)Should parents feel more secure knowing that their children at safer from vehicles because of the added proection of the sign. I look forward to hearing your response.

Steve, I will respond to your question with a question. Instead of Children at Play, pretend the sign has a picture of a deer galloping across the street. How then, would you answer the same question? Also, are deer more important than children? If not, why do they get their own official sign and Children get non-standard signs?

I would imagine the FHWA thinks human parents are smart enough to teach their children no to play in the street, and they know that deer parents are not that smart.

I forgot to mention, if you want to purchase one of these signs, eBay has some of them. The best kind are the one with the child running fast. Also, many sign companies sell these signs. I recommend streetsignsplus.com - which has the traditional sign. If your town will not put this sign up for you, simply buy the sign from one of these online stores and bolt it to the nearest telephone pole using 2 inch lag screws. Most towns wont bother removing it, and hey, you got your street a classic sign that will be the envy of every neighborhood!

Gilman: Why do you believe they are effecive? And why would an unenforceable sign be more effective at getting people to slow down that an enforceable one, like speed limit signs? I also would not advocate installing your own signs. Most states (if not all) prohibit the display of any sign even resembling an official traffic control device. And my agency does remove them.

Rick: The main purpose of the Slow Children signs, in my opinion, is to warn drivers that there are children in the area. Speed is secondary. Most side streets do not post speed limit signs anyway. As far as citizens posting their own signs on their own property a town really cannot do anything about it. It is on their own property, and it is not an "official" sign so legally nothing can be done about it.

Gilman - You are correct in saying that nothing can be done if someone posts one of these signs on their own property - since it is private property and they purchased the sign themselves, then a town cannot do anything about it. The Children at play sign is not MUTCD listed and therefore there is no legal recourse a town can take against a citizen posting such a sign on their own lawn (since the sign is not considered official). However, if a citizen posts the sign to a telephone pole, the town has every right to remove it. The telephone pole, even if on a citizens property is considered emminent domain and the town can remove the sign.

Gilman is right about these signs being all over Massachusetts. I was in the Boston area for the marathon this spring and I noticed the exact signs he was describing in every town. Maybe each state or each town decides issues like children at play signs at the local level? In my state - Iowa I never see these signs anywhere. I like them and wish we could get some of these posted.

Mr. Gilman suggests posting sign on utility poles. In my area the utility poles are on the public right of way. If the intent of the signs is to slow traffic on the public street, they could be removed from private property (at least in my state). When drivers leave arterial streets there is,generally, also the possibility of children being present. Where couldn't this sign be posted?? I am opposed to the use of any "SLOW CHILDREN" or "CHILDREN AT PLAY" signing.

Bob Wagar, You are right about the utility poles. A town could remove signs on these poles if they wanted to. Removing from private property could be a tricky situation and probably not worth it in the end. Randy P, regarding Massachusetts, I checked into this and this state is one of a few that has a state supplement to the MUTCD. I have not seen their book, but my guess is that in the MA supplement they have approved the Slow Children signs for that state. That would explain it's wide-spread usage you and Gilman observed.

My question as to why anyone thinks these signs are effective remains unanswered. It's just wishful thinking. Besides, the purpose of a warning sign is to warn of unexpected conditions. A driver that doesn't expect to be watching for kids on a residential street doesn't have enough brain power to drive a motor vehicle. Furthermore, if every street has such a sign, do you think anyone would notice it anymore? I can cite several examples of people that have requested signs for any variety of conditions and had to be shown that the sign was already in place and had been for several years. Test yourself - read every sign on your commute route and see how many of them you hadn't noticed before. The fact of the matter is that there has never been any study that supports the notion that these signs provide any value whatsoever. Their function is merely to placate concerned residents, and their continued existence only encourages others to request more of them. They're a virus. Finally, some agencies have sign codes that restrict signs mounted on private property, and Washington State law would allow any road authority to remove unauthorized traffic control devices from private property if they are directed at a public road, so check your own laws before you place any of these wastes of aluminum and sign sheeting.

I read several of these postings. It seems that the modern version of the "Slow Children" sign is a plain text, diamond shaped yellow sign that simply says "Watch for Children." There is no graphic on this sign. I agree that residential areas do not need such signs as children are expected at these locations. The Watch for Children sign should be used on country type roads that are winding and have no sidewalks, and locations when you would not expect to see a child. Roads without sidewalks tend to have joggers and bicyclists and skateboarders, etc. The sign is warranted because there is no place for these people to go besides the shoulder of the road.

The Massachusetts MUTCD supplement does not address slow children signs. Although MassHighway has statutory authority to set and enforce traffic control device standards, they take a hands-off approach and rarely even suggest that a city might be doing something wrong.

My town just ordered 2 "Watch for Children" signs. We are placing them on a road that has no sidewalks and has a lot of twists and turns. I believe the sign is warranted in this situation as children and others have a narrow shoulder to walk on and on each side of the road is deeply wooded. It is a warning sign to watch for kids and I cannot think of any reason why someone would want to ban this sign. Perhaps it is overused in other jurisdictions, but in my town it is not, and will only be installed in situtations like the one I described. By the way, this sign is diamond shaped so it meets the warning sign criteria. And it has a stick figure child running after a bouncing ball. Very effective sign.

Clearly the MUTCD needs to be revised to allow for some type of child warning sign. Some of the posts below have valid reasons for posting these signs. I think what needs to happen is that strict criteria should be developed on the situation that this sign is posted, and the old signs in residential areas should be removed by a certain date (unless they meet the criteria). Paul Steven's reasons sound legitimate. Perhaps maybe next year the MUTCD can reflect this change. IT is obvious that enough people feel strongly enough that sign should be standardized. At one time these children signs were everywhere and the pendulum swung the other way so that they were basically banned. Now that we have had a few decades without these signs, its time to bring them back but sparingly. I like "Watch for Children" - it does not suggest that children play in the street like the "Children at Play" signs seem to suggest.

Hi everyone. I am pleased to announce that my town is posting the "Watch for Children" sign. I know some of you will be highly upset over this, but our town selectmen deemed it wise to post them. Our version has the stick figure chasing a ball and is diamond shaped. I actually like the old figure of the running child because it looks more real than the stick figure, but the sun will go on rising and setting!

On my street, in the country in NY state, there is no posted speed limit. People seem to think they can go as fast as they want, but are only supposed to go 55 mph max. I called my town to see if they could lower the speed limit to 45 mph & post it. I was told to make a petition and have residents sign for it. I also asked if they could post slow children signs, and much to my surprise they told me that there are 4 "CHILDREN AT PLAY" signs posted on my road!!! I could not believe it & checked, and sure enough they were right! I never even noticed them and I think most people don't notice them either! I don't think anyone ever slows down for any type of "SLOW" child sign!

Hey Graham - looks like you have bad signs. They are supposed to say "Watch for Children" not "Children at Play" -- call your town right away and tell them to replace those signs.

Everyone: There are many types of Slow Children signs. What is your favorite. Mine is the vintage rectangle sign with the kid running. Hes wearing nickers and has 3 holes for a belt. I hate the wording on the sign but the picture is the most realistic. There is another that is weird...has the same kid except he has a pointed snow hat on. How weird is that? Also there is one with 2 kids on tricycles...very rare. What is your favorite?

Gilman. Are they required to replace them? I want the ones that have the child running after the ball! I find them more memorable, and more effective...I must say. Also, I don't think these sign sould be yellow & black! People ignore them. I think they should be reflective white & red!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gilman. Are they required to replace them? I want the ones that have the child running after the ball! I find them more memorable, and more effective...I must say. Also, I don't think these sign sould be yellow & black! People ignore them. I think they should be reflective white & red!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My favorite is the classic from the 50's. I call the boy "Albert". He is running and has a hat on. If my memory serves me correct...my brother stole this sign when he was about 15yrs. old, traced the picture & then put the sign back!!! (Or maybe that was just a dream? I forget.)

Graham - You said you wanted your signs to be red and white and reflective. I dont think any agency would allow that because the standard is yellow and black for a warning sign. They might allow such a sign for a bicentennial celebration or something patriotic like 4th of July. but the hassle of putting that sign up for just a day might not be worth it. Ask you town clerk what she thinks.

Mr. Stevens states that there should be a sign to warn about children (and presumably other pedestrians) on the road, especially in places where there's no sidewalk, poor sight distance, etc. Guess what, there is! It's designated as a W11-2. The statement from the latest version of MUTCD says: "Nonvehicular signs (see Figure 2C-10) may be used to alert road users in advance of locations where unexpected entries into the roadway or shared use of the roadway by pedestrians, animals, and other crossing activities might occur." It never ceases to amaze me how many people feel a need to invent their own signs when there already exists a standard sign.

Graham: Thank you for proving 2 of my points. Now about your speed limit reduction request, I would suggest that even if you got the speed limit lowered, it would not change driver behavior except if police were visibly and consistently enforcing it. The underlying principle is the same for any traffic control device. If drivers perceive the device to be unnecessary, it will be ignored. Furthermore, it cheapens the credibility of every other device. That is why we should not squander the road authority's credibility with the use devices that have been consistently proven to not alter driver behavior, or the misuse of otherwise effective devices.

The official "Watch for Children" signs are W41-4a (just text) and W41-4c (text with stick figure child chasing bouncing ball). Both signs are yellow and diamond shaped and meet the MUTCD standards. "Children at Play" and "Slow Children" signs are no longer allowed. Hope this helps clarify all the confusion I am seeing on this board.

On 7/16/04 Nathan B. wrote that the W11-2 already exits for posting. I agree, this sign can be used with an advisory distance placard to let drivers know there is likely to be pedestrian activity in a given area. It's interesting the debate by those that want to use Children At Play or Slow Children, that they seem to reference the old style PLAYGROUND sign with the figure chasing a ball. FHHA changed this sign to display a teeter-tooter, instead of the child chasing a ball. I don't think they make teeter-tooter any longer, and doubt if they meet safety standards to be used at playgrounds.

In doing some research I found that According to the Traffic Control Devices Handbook, "CAUTION-CHILDREN AT PLAY or SLOW CHILDREN signs should not be used since they may encourage children to play in the street and may encourage parents to be less vigilant. Such signs also provide no guidance to motorists in terms of a safe speed, and the sign has no legal basis for determining what a motorist should do. Furthermore, motorists should expect children to be at play in all residential areas, and the lack of signing on some streets may indicate otherwise. The signs are unenforceable and act as another roadside obstacle to pedestrians and errant motorists. Use of these non-standard signs may also imply that the involved jurisdiction approves
of streets as playgrounds, which may result in the jurisdiction being vulnerable to tort liability The MUTCD allows for the development of other specialty warning signs based on engineering judgment for unique conditions. These signs can be designed to alert unfamiliar motorists or pedestrians of unexpected
conditions and should follow the general criteria for the design of warning signs." The best type of children sign is the W41-4a or W41-4c.

Just to recap my last message: "Children at Play" "Caution Children at Play" and "Slow Children" signs are NOT allowed. However the "Watch for Children" sign IS allowed. The W41-4a and W41-4c fall under the following: "The MUTCD allows for the development of other specialty warning signs based on engineering judgment for unique conditions. These signs can be designed to alert unfamiliar motorists or pedestrians of unexpected conditions and should follow the general criteria* for the design of warning signs." *Warning signs are diamond shaped, yellow background, black lettering. To see an example of the "Watch for Children" signs do a google search and type in: w41-4a sign

I need a picture of this sign.

I have read these MUTCD WEB FORUM postings. I don't know who (at this page) is with the DOT and is giving the correct answers. One guy said..... "Children at Play", "Caution Children at Play", and "Slow Children" signs are NOT allowed. However the "Watch for Children" sign IS allowed. We sell several "Children at Play" signs. See them listed at our web site at... signsdirect.com/allotyelwars.html . We need to know if we should remove some or all of the "Children Playing" warning signs. Also, does the "Children Playing" sign rule apply to ALL of the USA or can certain states still use any of the "Children Playing" signs? Please Advise.

There is no W41 series in the MUTCD. "Watch for Children" is not an official sign recognized in the MUTCD. Paul, you quoted from the Traffic Control Devices Handbook: "CAUTION-CHILDREN AT PLAY or SLOW CHILDREN signs should not be used since they may encourage children to play in the street and may encourage parents to be less vigilant . . . etc. I would ask how "Watch for Children" signs would be any different? The MUTCD has signs for specific situations involving children i.e. Ped Crossing signs (W11-2), School signs (S1-1) and Playground signs (w15-1). These can all be used in specific situations where they are needed to notify drivers of a specific hazard that would otherwise be unexpected. "Watch for Children" on the other hand states the obvious. As the TCDH noted "motorists should expect children to be at play in all residential areas, and the lack of signing on some streets may indicate otherwise." Again, I don't really see how you can differentiate "Watch for Children" from any of these other generic signs that have proven time and again to be ineffective. Heck, I guess if we're going to use "Watch for Children" signs we also better put up "Watch for other cars", "Watch the road", "Watch for Dogs and Cats" and other "Watch for Danger" signs. Obviously, this is ridiculous. As you noted, the MUTCD says warning signs should be used for unexpected conditions. I'd hardly classify children as being unexpected in a residential area. And, in other locations i.e. near schools, playgrounds etc. there are specific signs already available for use in these situations. Joe O.

"Watch for Children" signs are not listed in the MUTCD as a specific sign, however they can be used under the section of specialty warning signs as you can read in my previous posting. Any company selling warning signs of children in the area should have a disclaimer that buyers should check with their local authorities for approval before posting signs. These signs are not illegal, but not considered a standard uniform sign. They can be thought of in a similar category to community awareness signs such as neighborhood crime watch, drug free zones, etc. Local municipalities do post such signs. In the state of Massachusetts for example, the Slow Children series of signs is common, but they are now being replaced with Watch for Children signs because "Slow Children" was deemed to be politically incorrect. Apparently there were complaints that the signs are interpreted that the children are retarded. See my postings below for more detail.

Please note that towns can post signs that are not listed in the MUTCD. There is no need to worry about it. Just because a specific sign is not in the MUTCD does not mean that it is illegal to post the sign. Popular signs (like Paul mentions below)like community crime watch, watch for children, etc are up to the local municipalities discretion. I do recommend that companies that make such signs put in a disclaimer that the sign is not an official MUTCD sign. Perhaps they should list these signs in a different category such as "specialty signs" or "community awareness signs."

Paul, by your logic, it seems that "Children at Play" and "Slow Children" signs would be allowed provided they were put on a yellow diamond. And yet, you specifically say that they are NOT allowed. How do you reconcile those not being o.k. but "Watch for Children" signs are o.k.? Don't the reasons cited in the Traffic Control Devices Handbook that the other signs aren't allowed apply to "Watch for Children" as well"? You noted: "They can be thought of in a similar category to community awareness signs such as neighborhood crime watch, drug free zones, etc." No they can't. They are purporting to be an official traffic control device -- these other signs are not. If you want them to be thought of like these signs they should be designed in such a way that they don't try to pass as an official device. Otherwise, they are simply breeding contempt for all traffic control devices and contributing to the general lack of respect for traffic signs that we continue to see increasing.

What is the correct saying: Watch for children or Watch Children? Also can I
put that on a sign with the child icon on it?

Holmdeltownship: You must not have read the entire thread(s) on this (and I
don't blame you). Read the 2004 response right below your posting. As for the
child icon question, No. An icon of a watch would probably work as well or
better but icons are considered nonstandard, like the signs themselves. You
could save ink and therefore dollars by using only the word CHILDREN or even
more with KIDS, with equal effect.

To Joe O. - "Watch for Children" signs are technically ok because they can be considered a "specialty warning sign" as long as they meet criteria. "Watch for Children" is different from "Slow Children" or "Children at Play" for the following reasons: "Children at Play" may give the impression that children are allowed to play in the roadway. They are not. "Slow children" could be interpreted that the children are retarded. "Watch for Children" does neither of these things. It can be used as a warning in non-residential areas where there are no sidewalks and children cross the roadways. The sign would be used rarely. You are correct that the W41-4a and c are not in the MUTCD, however, they do meet the criteria for a warning sign. Regarding Tom's posting: I checked your company website and looked at the signs. The children warning signs you have were deleted from the MUTCD years ago. My advise would be to discontinue those signs and use a plain text diamond shaped sign that says "Watch for Children"

I have been reading these postings, and wow! I have never seen such controversy over some simple warning signs to watch out for kids! Whats the big deal? Parents like these signs and they do no harm. I'd rather be safe then sorry. If the signs save one life than they are worth it. Why are deer crossing and duck crossing signs allowed then? Are deer and ducks more important than kids? Hello? I agree with those that want to keep the kid signs. I always slow down and watch for kids when i see these signs.

Paul, I appreciate your position on this issue but I still disagree. You wrote: "Children at Play" may give the impression that children are allowed to play in the roadway." Wouldn't "Watch for Children" do the same thing? I mean, if they aren't playing in the roadway, why do motorists need to watch for them?!? "Watch for Children" are no different than the other child signs. You wrote: "It can be used as a warning in non-residential areas where there are no sidewalks and children cross the roadways." No, if we start talking about kids CROSSING the roadway that is where the Ped Crossing Sign (W11-2) or the School Crossing sign (S1-1) might be appropriate. A generic warning to watch for children is to vague and will not be effective -- especially if there are few times when there truly are children in the roadway. In a case like this, the signs tend to "cry wolf" and drivers quickly learn to ignore them. Henry, that's the problem with your idea that "they can't hurt but they might help." In fact, they can hurt. These signs could give a false sense of security to parents or kids when in fact they've not made the roadway any safer. In addition, the overuse of these types of signs tends to breed disrespect for all warning signs -- a problem that continues to worsen around the country. The MUTCD cautions against this type of overuse. But, like many other things in the MUTCD it continues to be ignored. This has the cumulative effect of making our roads less safe. Good luck to you all whatever you decide to do. I can live with agreeing to disagree on this. Joe O.

It is my opinion, that since towns are still posting warning signs about Children, that the MUTCD should standardize on a sign. I know the position that MUTCD takes on these signs, but it would make sense for a standardized sign be made since towns are still going to install children signs regardless of what the MUTCD recommends. At least if they came up with a standard sign, then there would not be so much variety on these signs. Several people here mentioned the diamond sign that says "Children" or "Watch for Children". At least the diamond sign is a standard warning as opposed to the rectangle Children signs you see everywhere. The children signs are so popular with the public and politicians still authorize their usage based on the pressure they get from taxpayers.

Here is an interesting article i found on "Slow Children" signs. It was in US News and World Report on January 31, 1994. **INSENSITIVE TRAFFIC SIGNS In response to complaints that "SLOW CHILDREN" traffic signs are insensitive to retarded youngsters, the state of Massachusetts wants towns to change to "WATCH CHILDREN" signs.

Here is the link to the article for proof: www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?itemID=232342&extID=10032&oliID=213

These types of signs are useless at getting drivers attention. You can pick these up at any Drug Store in the US. Wether you have a real reflective Chilren At Play sign or just a 99cent one they are not an effective tool for getting drivers attention. You are better off with a Pedestrian Crossing sign or a School Crossing Sign.

I agree with Joe 100%. Watch For Children, if used as substitute for "SLOW Children" or Children At Play, would appear to be about 99% used within residential areas. How many "Watch For Children" are posted on non-residential streets? When a jurisdiction receives requests for these signs they are generally within residential areas. There are a great number of people who feel it is OK to use this sign (What can it hurt). In addition to Joe's comments, I would again mention the Standard of Care issue. If a jurisdiction choses to use this sign at one location, it may create liability issue at other similar locations, if the sign is not used. The standard pedestrian warning or school warning signs can be used where crossing activity is present.

My point is that the Child warning signs will continue to go up. MUTCD should standardize on the sign so at least it is uniform. Many people do not agree with the MUTCD position on the use of child warning signs. I have a feeling their position will change as they realise the need to standardize on these signs. Better to have one standard "Watch for Children" sign, then 12 different types everywhere. There is strong support for this and the MUTCD needs to recognize this fact.

I agree that standardizing these signs will create a free-for-all of 'Children At Play' signs. Every street has at least a couple small children on it. And every parent in every neighboorhood in the nation will want one on their street. I think before anything becomes standardized their should be some serious study into the behavior of drivers and their reactions to this type of signage. I for one do not "up" my alertness when I spot a Children At Play sign. I dont feel that these types of signs are effective whatsoever. What are your children doing in the street anyway?!

People are going to continue killing each other. Should we standardize on a way for them to kill each other, even if it's wrong?

Like someone mentioned below, We have warning signs protecting ducks, deer, horses and all kids of animals, but when it comes to protecting young children that is out of the question! Children are way more precious than ducks and deer! Get a clue! The signs will continue to go up!!!!

OK. We need to end this thread as this is becoming more of an attack board rather than informational. The bottom line here is that the authors of the MUTCD are bitterly divided on the issue of Children warning signs. The DOT is sharply divided on this as well. Local jurisdictions have the final say on the types of signs they post and the Children warning signs are not going to go away. They are popular with the public and if only a few lives are saved then they are worth it. Lets end this discussion now as we must agree to disagree about the value of these signs.

If you'd do your homework, there is no approved sign for duck crossings. Those IMPROPER signs are put up by the same types of well-intentioned but misguided people who put up SLOW KIDS signs. As for the deer signs, they are largely ineffective, because collisions with deer continue to result in numerous fatalities and countless millions of dollars in property damage each year. They are intended for locations with especially high and unexpected deer crossing activity, but unfortunately for the motorists (it's good for the hunters, though), the burgeoning deer populations across the country mean the signs would be "warranted" almost everywhere (picture the signs entering Pennsylvania - "WELCOME TO PENNSYLVANIA" followed by an oversized Deer Crossing sign with the plaque "ALL ROADS IN THIS STATE" or "NEXT 200 MILES"). The horse sign is actually an Equestrian crossing sign, intended for areas where horseback riders (technically pedestrians) cross the roadway regularly and unexpectedly, much like Pedestrian and School Crossing signs are intended for other pedestrian crossing locations. So, equating SLOW KIDS signs to the crossing signs approved for Equestrians is a bad example. Referring to the fact that there are other bad examples of improper signs out there is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. In general, I have to agree with you though on the deer sign - it is much like the SLOW KIDS signs - any residential area is a potential child play area, just like any woodland, wetland, farmland or suburban residential area is a potential deer crossing area, in fact deer (as well as elk and moose) even cross in urban business districts in the West. If the hazard exists everywhere, the intended benefit of using signs warning motorists to that potential is lost, and is a waste of wood, aluminum and retroreflective sheeting. Are bad signs going to continue to go up? Absolutely! Because there will always be people who think that anything we put up in an effort to make the world safer for our kids is a good thing, when in reality the expense of the signs weighed against the benefits of the signs are just eating away at the tax dollars that those kids will eventually be paying out of their own pockets.

There has been mention on this site about the cost of Slow Children and Watch for children signs and them being a waste of tax dollars. I know that where I live, our neighborhood paid for the signs by taking up a collection with the petition we signed to get the sign. Our public works department said they would not pay for the signs because they were not in the federal manual or something like that. So residents asked if we paid for the signs ourselves would that be ok? And they said they would install them if we paid for the signs. So the cost of the signs does not have to be funded by tax dollars and can be remedied by the neighborhood paying for the signs. By the way, we ordered 2 signs and the cost was under $100 total. The town donated the posts. The sign we agreed on was rectangular with the boy running. I hope this helps others who may have concerns about posting the signs and the cost associated with it.

The "studies" show that slow children signs do not cause drivers to be more alert. Where are these so-called studies? The idea of eliminating the signs was the brainchild of some masters student who had to think up a thesis. If you ever read any of these talking points about how these signs are ineffective, they are never backed up with any evidence that the signs are not effective. No data, no examples - nothing. What are we stupid for wanting to protect our children? Thank God towns ignore this left-wing university thinking and continue to post these quality signs.

That too-low-mounted sign edge cuts both ways. If you ever read any of these talking points about how these signs are EFFECTIVE, they are never backed up with any evidence that the signs are EFFECTIVE. No data - no examples - nothing. It is not stupid to want to protect children. It is stupid to let them even think it is all right to play in the street, any time anywhere. If a drivers will not change their actions when actually seeing children, why would they change actions when seeing a CatP sign? It is not left-wing university thinking here. I've workorderd more than 10,000 traffic signs over 30 years in two cities, none of which were C at P signs. In those other towns that allow them, I suspect God had little to do with it. It was more likely politicians wanting votes in the next election. My "studies" of driver behavior have convinced me that such signs are useless and most wasteful of money (whether tax or out-of-pocket). They give wrong info most of the time (when no kids are present), they give kids and misguided parents a false sense of security ("we have the sign-we can play basketball and skateboard in the street safely now"), they are ignored by most drivers, and if you put any in, you would be hard pressed to deny requests from any other residents who wanted them, leading to a costly proliferation of unnecessary signage that detracts from the meaning of the truly valid warning signs. Anecdotally, a distraught mother called me recently wanting my traffic agency to install such signs (and lower speed limits) after her 8-year-old was hit by a car in front of their subdivision house. The child was playing basketball under a goal set up on the edge of the road and was hit by his next-door neighbor. Would a CatP sign have prevented this? My agency does not allow CatP signs on its 75,000-mile road network. For those folks who do install them, if they are less than 7 feet above ground, to the bottom of the sign, they would be in violation of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices on that point and can injure pedestrians who can walk or ride bikes into their sharp edges.

Within the last 3 weeks we changed a two way street into a one way street. There are no left turn, no right turn, do not enter and one way signs as well as directional arrows painted on the street. My point is people continue one after another to enter and travel the wrong way on this street. So if they cannot see bright red and white do not enter signs or arrows on the street what makes you think they will see or pay any attention to the children at play signs. many drivers these days are far too busy drinking coffee, talking to passengers or on the cell phone to watch the signs on the side of the street,

Even though there is no official standard children at play signs, by default there are really only a couple that towns tend to use. The old standard SLOW Children is the most common one I see and therefore is really the default standard. It seems to be the one towns choose time and time again since the 1950s. I am guessing but I think it sends the clearest message by the pictograph of the child running. People widely recognize this sign. And as someone else said, they are basically a part of New England. I mean, what would New England be without its beautiful stone walls, white steeple churches in the town greenery and the slow children signs? Its a part of our tradition here.

Hi. I am actually a friend of Molly's. We have had this discussion recently and wanted to share my thoughts as well. It is my understanding that back around 10 years ago or so in the town of Foxborough, MA, someone threatened the town over the SLOW CHILDREN sign because they were offended by it. The person had a mentally retarded child and felt hurt by the sign, much like people are sensitive to the DEAD END signs. Anyway, the town of Foxborough decided to keep the signs, but put tape over the word "Slow" and then painted it the same yellow color as the sign. So the sign is missing the word "slow" now. Since then the town has continued to post these signs but changed the word "slow" to "caution" on new signs going up. And yes, they have kept the child running on the new signs. To everyone that is strongly against these signs, please be sensitive to us new englanders. As Molly says, they are a part of our tradition and we simply cannot let them go! :-) Best wishes to you all. **Keep your kids safe! - Rosemary

The best sign is this one: users2.ev1.net/~msirois/trips/summer2002/07020066.jpg I do not recommed the speed limit being above the sign however.

To Bob from Bob H: When we used to do that, we sometimes put a type 2 or Type 3 barricade temporarily across the downstream half of the roadway in fromt of traffic that used to be able to enter that block on that side of the roadway, with an R1-1 (DO NOT ENTER) sign on it, along with advance "DETOUR AHEAD signage. We also used orange flags in a "V" configuration on the top of several of the new DNE and ONE WAY sign posts. "NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN AHEAD" signs also helped. How big is your town? Where is it?

Hi, Molly (again) and Rosemary, I do have a sensitivity to New Englanders, having been born and spent 30 years there, 10 of which were on my hometown traffic safety advisory committee. I could only bite my tongue and cringe when one of the selectmen would say, as he often did, "What in Hxxx do the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have to do with the Town of"......? They still have some black on yellow YIELD signs on the street, obsolete since 1961. And they put "PLEASE" plates under all the speed limit signs. And steady red over steady yellow traffic signal displays to give pedestrians the right-of-way?? Except when the drivers are from out of state and run thru them, thinking they are malfunctioning. Ah, yes, New England tradition, tradition. And isn't that pretty tacky to tape over a word on a road sign, and then paint the tape yellow? That type of unprofessionalism tends to demean the value of valid traffic regulatory and warning signs-and looks, well, tacky. I remember when my home town painted 6-foot high running child figures on the road near schools. (I was a crossing guard at the time, in the fifth grade.) They stopped when someone pointed out that if drivers are so used to driving over that painted symbol of a child, might they inadvertently do the same thing if it were a real child? Just remember, standard traffic warning signs are required by the MUTCD to be diamond-shaped and fully reflectorized, with no embossing. Good luck and watch out for those seesaws in the road. Bob Hammond

These signs are not an issue in Iowa. We dont have any Children at play signs anywhere that I am aware of. People probably do not request them because they never heard of them or saw them. Unless, of course they are coming from another state. Occassionally you will see the playground sign, but only at parks.

Some people are looking for advise on how to get signs installed on their street warning that children could dart out at any time. Towns generally do not install these signs unless residents ask for them. I live on a Cauldesac road where the kids play hockey at the end of the street. We did not have a warning sign. I know that kids are not supposed to play in the street, but it was the end of a dead end and it seemed harmless. So I called and got a sign installed. I read on this thread some concerns expressed that if one street gets a sign then everyone will want them. Not true. Look around your towns. A few streets have them but most do not. They only erect these signs when residents ask for them.

I install traffic signs for my township in PA. When new housing developments go up we only install the street signs and stop signs, rarely anything else. If a homeowner requests a sign like "Slow Children at Play" they have to request in writing and it is reviewed by our traffic safety board (I am a member). I was not aware that the MUTCD discouraged these signs. What I did when we received this request was asked the company that we buy our safety supplies, equipment and signs, to fax me pages of children warning signs. The board then selected the sign we liked best. I guess we just assumed it was approved by the MUTCD. I can see the points made in discouraging these signs, but I think they are a bit over-blown. It is rare to get a request for such a sign.

The Henry County Department of Transportation received requests from County citizens to install “Children at Play” signs at various neighborhood locations. The industry authority on transportation signage, AASHTO, has determined that the signs do not serve as an effective deterrent against speeding motorists. Henry County DOT has in previous years installed these signs, however, in recent years they have refrained from these installations based upon AASHTO’s determination. The Henry County Board of Commissioners has authorized the Henry County Department of Transportation to install “Children at Play” signs at the following locations: Virginia Meadows, The vineyards, Owen Drive. Commissioner Holman made a motion to approve the requests; Commissioner Harper seconded. Commissioner Holder asked where does that put us in the position of liability. Mr. Michael Harris, Public Works Division Manager, questioned whether having a caution for play signs would give the impression we are authorizing children to play in the streets and use it as a playground. He said that might be a ‘stretch,’ but it is an issue of concern. He said the information provided from the MUTCD (Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices) Book cautioned “Children at Play” signs are not listed in the manual and could cause liability problems with all signs due to noncompliance with MUTCD. Commissioner Holder stated it is good “PR” in the neighborhoods, but that “PR” could come back and hit hard if a child is hurt or killed. Commissioner Freedman said the people who speed in subdivisions pay as much attention to the “Children at Play” signs as they do the speed limit signs. He said they obviously do not pay any attention to the speed limit signs or the neighborhoods would not be requesting the “Children at Play” signs. He said the public is warning people there are kids on bikes, etc. Commissioner Freedman said he thought the signs were totally ineffective; no one pays any attention to them, but it makes the citizens feel better. Commissioner Holman said he agreed with Commissioner Freedman that the citizens do not follow the signs. He said, “I do not see us holding ourselves out to be more liable for litigation because the signs says, ‘Children at Play.’ I do not interpret that as an endorsement for a playground on a road.” Commissioner Adams said if a child gets hurt or worse in an accident, and a parent has asked us to put “Children at Play” signs there and we have not, we can look at it from that viewpoint also. Commissioner Adams ‘called the question.’ Commissioner Holman seconded. Commissioner Holder asked the County Attorney his viewpoint regarding the liability issue. Commissioner Adams withdrew his ‘called the question.’ Commissioner Holman withdrew his second. Mr. Jaugstetter said he did not know if there was any more or less liability in posting these signs. If the sign was the cause of someone’s injury, then there is potential liability. The fact that it does or does not comply with the AASHTO manual does not lead to any greater liability one way or the other. Commissioner Adams ‘called the question;’ Commissioner Holman seconded. The motion carried 5-0-0 with Commissioners Adams, Holman, Holder, Freedman, and Harper voting in favor. The motion to approve the resolution to install the signs carried 5-0-0 with Commissioners Adams, Holman, Holder, Freedman, and Harper voting in favor.

Mr. Murray: Requests for these signs may be rare for you now, but the more you install, the more people will see them. The more people see them, the more they'll believe that they are effective, otherwise (they will rationalize), why would anybody install them? Therefore, the number of requests will increase with time. These signs are a virus. Do your township a favor and kill the virus now.

Installing SLOW CHILDREN signs tends to give comfort to parents and residents and it does alert motorists that children are in the area. My DPW does install these signs in residential areas. We post lower speed limits in the residential areas and under the speed limit sign is a seperate sign that says "CHILDREN". It conveys the message that the town does care about child safety. The lower speed limits combinded with the warning signs are effective in my observations. And our DPW has standardized on the signage so that all postings have the same message. Older "SLOW CHILDREN" signs have been replaced (or were removed and not replaced) with the "CHILDREN" sign. We bought our new signs at a bulk rate and we use the new green-yellow sheeting. The coloring causes the signs to be noticed and has effected driver behavior (along with the lower speed limits). I recommend that if your district decides to install these signs that the entire district standardize on the sign. A diamond shaped sign with a simple message like "CHILDREN" or "WATCH FOR CHILDREN" would be most effective. The fewer the words the better. A pictograph could be used but is not necessary.

Very interesting thread here. When I was younger, my mother was concerned about the fast cars in front of our house. She called the county and had Children at Play signs installed. The signs were placed when I was about 10 and I am now 36. It is interesting to note that the road in front of my parent's house is a rural road with a speed limit of 50 mph. I will conceed that these signs may be helpful in places with inattentive drivers, but it sure didn't do any good where I grew up! Maybe we should add a sign that says "Get off your cell phone... Children at Play" :-)

Finally after 4 years, San Francisco's Board of Sups will hear and vote on an ordinance that I wrote for the PTA to reduce the chance of injury/fatality by cars exiting parking lots located adjacent (within 500 Feet) of a School. These are for the frequent instances where motorists do not watch out for children walking to and from the school site in the morning and afternoon--are in a rush and are prone to inattention when exiting parking lots or garages for retail stores, Wallgreens, Safeyway, Commercial Parking lots, Banks, fast foods and other types of businesses. This will require these owners and operators to post these signs at the exits of all lots of 20 or more vehicle capacity when within 500 feet of a school. Out of 167 schools in San Francisco this probably applies to about 25-35 schools. Some corporations like McDonald's do take the responsibile steps to post this type of sign in various iterations manufactured by private vendors. I would like to see a more uniform standard - School Children Crossing - Pictographic sign in FYG for this application. I have always felt that ther should be a stop sign or a YEILD PED sign at all parking lot exits, besides visual and audable ADA devices utilized. Note: The San Francisco Airport utilizes the FYG Pedestrian Warning signs with arrows pointing down at the uncontroled crosswalks in the pick-up and departure areas of SFO. RMB

Roger: I applaud your efforts to keep the kids of SanFran safe! This is an excellent idea and I cannot imagine your board turning down this notion. Flourescent yellow green coloring will make these new signs stand out. What will you use for the pictograph? Will it be the standard school crossing sign with a plate below it? Make sure it is retroreflective for night crossings as well. Please post here to let us know if this was successful. There are many here that want children warning signs to be added back into the MUTCD, but we aren't holding our breath.....we have to take control of these signs at the local level first. Take care, Molly

I personally would like to see "Caution Children" signs posted on all residential streets. I believe they should be placed under a speed limit sign (20 m.p.h. would be good) and should have the graphic of the traditional new england boy running, sandwiched between the "Caution" and the "Children" text. Some towns in may area have done an excellent job of this, but many do not post a speed limit sign, much to my dismay. It is a great feeling driving down these roads with such signage. Keep your kids safe! -Rosemary

Rosemary, I would point out that the signs you want to install on the residential streets can be FYG (bright yellow-green) because it is a pedestrian related activity. Think *Pedestrian*!

I would like to give my opinion on these signs. First of all posting a "Slow Children" / "Caution Children" / "Watch for Children" sign - whatever the text - is actually a good thing to do in a residential area. Obviously children are not allowed to play in the streets and these signs are not telling children to do so - that notion is crazy. These signs are similar to the pedestrian sign with the exception that it is children we are talking about here - and they will be crossing in a non-crosswalk. In residential neighborhoods, children are constantly crossing the streets to visit neighbors, they ride their bikes and may rollerblade - this is just a fact of life. The posting of these signs only points this out and the intent is to remind drivers to be on alert that a child could dart out at any time. There is nothing wrong with these signs and I believe they are a good thing. Ask any parent this and you will likely have a majority siding with posting these signs. The MUTCD does not have a standard sign for this - so what? Sign companies make these signs and many of them are of high quality. I requested one for my street and I got one without any problem. And so what if they go up on all kinds of streets? If towns want to pay for them, then what is the problem? When I enter a residential street and see a SLOW CHILDREN sign - I actually am careful to watch out for children - and that is the intention of this sign. Also does any intelligent person really think that "SLOW" means the kids are retarded? NO, that is a poor excuse to not post a sign. If "SLOW" is not appropriate then use "CAUTION" or "WATCH". The signs work, they are effective and caring communities will post them.

The 1997 Virginia General Assembly enacted an amendment to the 1950 Code of Virginia, adding Section 33.1-210.2 regarding the installation and maintenance of “Watch for Children” signs. The intent of these signs is to alert motorists that children may be at play nearby. In accordance with this law, which became effective July 1, 1997, counties may request that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) install and maintain these signs. VDOT’s process for handling such sign installation requests includes a required resolution from the local governing body identifying the source of funding for the cost of sign installation. Subsequently, Roanoke County has developed the following policies and procedures to comply with the VDOT guidelines, to minimize administrative burdens, and to assure uniform and consistent policies for the installation of these signs (see below). It must be noted that “Watch for Children” or “Slow, Children at Play” signs are not recognized by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as applicable warning signs and are not included in the recent Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 2000). The signs can send an ambiguous message or give parents and children a false sense of security. Realistically, a case could be made to install the signs on every residential street in the County, but motorists would begin to ignore and disrespect the proliferation of signs. Therefore, VDOT staff will have the final say on the design and placement of these signs in Roanoke County. Motorists’ behavior and speed reduction can not be expected to improve via sign installation. Rather, the roadway characteristics and environment determine motorists’ behavior and vehicle speeds. Care must be taken by all involved to ensure the proper installation of this type of sign. Page 2
WATCH FOR WATCH FOR CHILDREN CHILDREN What streets qualify for “Watch for Children” signs?• Street must be classified as a minor collector or local road. No signs of said type will be installed on a major collector or arterial highway. (check with VDOT or County staff to determine the functional classification of your road) Typically, these signs will be installed at transitions from major collectors to minor collectors and from minor collectors to local streets;• Must have a minimum traffic count of 200 vehicles per day or serve twenty lots. The minimum distance between signs is 1,000 feet. Therefore, relatively short streets (i.e., dead ends) will not be considered. In general, a residential street with through traffic would be a high priority and a sign would be installed at the major points of ingress and egress; • Other streets to be considered regardless of traffic counts would be streets adjacent to a public park, parallel streets in the vicinity of schools, and any other public facility where children frequent;• Generally, these signs shall be installed only on secondary routes within residential areas. Any requests to install such signs on primary routes shall be forwarded to the State Traffic Engineer for review.What steps do I follow?•To initiate the sign installation process, submit a petition that is signed by at least 75% of the property owners along the street (must include signature of owner of property that is adjacent to proposed sign location). For long streets, signatures shall be required within 1,000 feet of the location of request;•The property owners must agree to pay 100% of the costs at the time of installation. The cost estimate to purchase and install the sign is approximately $150 total. This figure may be adjusted periodically due to increased costs and inflation; •County staff will present the submitted requests and resolution to the Board of Supervisors semi-annually, in December and July. The Community Development Department must receive all submittals at least thirty days in advance of these scheduled Board of Supervisors’ meetings; •Upon receipt of the County’s resolution, VDOT’s Resident Engineer and/or the District Traffic Engineer will make the final determination if a “Watch for Children” sign is to be installed at the requested location. A written response shall be provided to the governing body of the County, usually within thirty days, granting or denying the request; Page 3
•All signs installed by VDOT under this policy shall be designed in accordance with their standards (Standards and specifications can be seen upon request at either Roanoke County or VDOT offices. An example of the sign in question can be seen at the top of this page.).This information is intended to summarize, in the broadest possible terms, the eligibility factors and considerations made regarding the installation of signs to alert motorists that children may be at play nearby. There may be other issues not addressed in this brochure that may also apply

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Hampshire have no laws for or against these signs. Local jurisdictions handle the ordering and placement of these signs. Common signs noted are "Caution Children", "SLOW Children", "Watch for Children", and "CHILDREN" The most common sign in this series is the Slow Children styles with majority having pictograph of running child. Majority of signs are 18 x 24. Most are in residential neighborhoods. The "Watch for Children" and "Children" signs are 24 x 24 or 36 x 36. All signs are yellow, and small number are FYG. I am studying the effect of these signs on motorist and compiling data. Will present findings at a later date.

B. Lugoosi: You were wondering about the new Virginia law on "Watch for Children" signs. The signs will be diamond shaped and yellow. No pictograph. Nothing was mentioned about having them FYG. Some of these signs in Massachusetts are FYG - its really up to the town to decide, however in VA they have a formal policy on these signs.

FARGO, ND: "Slow--Children at Play” signs may be purchased by homeowner or neighborhood groups and will be installed by the City’s Sign Shop.

M. Dowe: Yes, (in) Virginia, there is a Watch for Children sign policy. I found it thru the (cob)webs (in my cave) and found that they put the onus onto each governing board of each county for each and every sign, rather than leaving it up to the sole discretion of the sign experts. That is democracy in action. God Bless America. As for Fargo, I enjoyed the movie but I wonder if they ever found the money when the snow that it was buried under melted.

Yes, it is a good American thing that we still live in a democracy and that our local elected officials and local departments of public works can make decisions about "Slow Children" signs rather than bow to a bunch of "sign experts" that say that these signs do not effect driver behavior. For any municipality that is not posting these signs for the sole reason that the MUTCD does not have a standardized sign please take note: YOU DO HAVE AUTONOMOUS AUTHORITY TO POST THESE SIGNS. Read the threads and see how many states and towns have policies supporting these signs. If you have any questions about them let me know and I will be happy to recommend appropriate signage for your situations.

Been away from the MUTCD discussion board for a while. Looks like it's been lively. I just finished writing a really long response to a number of the issues brought up in this thread, but of course when I went to send it, the computer crashed (@#$%&* kernel panics!) So, here's the condensed version. Someone brought up the subject of "democracy" in a posting below. Democracy, when practiced by knowledgeable citizens, can be an excellent form of government - but if practiced unwisely can lead to disaster and ruin. Recognizing this, the Founders of the United States set the governmental structure up as a republic, where representatives are elected by and are accountable to the citizens to make the day-to-day decisions necessary for public safety and efficiency. These elected officials then hire technical specialists whose duty it is to be knowledgeable in best practices and objective research to make _informed_ decisions and recommendations, and who are held accountable through the elected representatives and by other means such as tort litigation when something is alleged to have gone wrong. Note that it is very much part of the job of public decisionmakers to disagree with the requests of the citizenry if the requested action won't really solve the problem, may give a false sense of security or confidence, or may actually cause harm to the public. This isn't "elitism" - its actually ethical behavior by professionals who can and will be held accountable for their actions. One of the first things I try to teach people on my staff is: "Know what you don't know." What this means is recognize the subjects where one may not have much experience or knowledge, and then either refrain from forming opinions on these subjects or gain the knowledge or experience necessary to make informed opinions. There's far too many people out there who "don't know what they don't know", and freely express opinions on subjects upon which they don't have much realistic or relevant knowledge. For an amusing and interesting study of this phenomenon, see: www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html So what does all that have to do with "Children At Play" signs? There seems to be an unspoken assumption by some people here that the installation of a sign or other traffic control device _will_ result in obedience to that device, or in the expected or desired changes to road user behavior. If only that were true. There is quite a bit of difference between commonly held perceptions and cold hard reality when it comes to the effectiveness of signs and other traffic control devices. For just a few examples, see the informational pages on the Arizona DOT website at: www.azdot.gov/ROADS/traffic/trafficinfo.htm Then how should a person form opinions on traffic engineering issues? A good start is firsthand experience and observation, but a wise observer should bear in mind that what they see might not always be the entire picture. For example, a driver stuck in traffic due to a red light might logically think that it would be best to increase the green time to their movement and reduce the delay. But that extra green time has to come from somewhere, and could cause even greater congestion or collisions on another approach. Another example would be a driver who witnesses a crash at a particular location and conclude that that roadway location must be very dangerous, whereas there might be three times as many crashes happening at an adjacent location that doesn't "look" as dangerous. This is why professionals rely on objective statistical studies of crashes, conflicts, speeds, volumes, turning movements, etc. that use measurable, observable facts and data (nothing "left-wing" about this, contrary to an assertion below) to gain a comprehensive view of what's actually happening, and to objectively measure the effectiveness of a given sign or other device. As has been noted by many in this discussion (including me in post #5 waaaay down there), authoritative peer-reviewed reports by the National Reserch Council (an arm of the National Academy of Sciences) and by other agencies and organizations have noted that signs such as "Children at Play" and similar signs such as animal warning signs have little significant effect on road user behavior. Therefore, it's quite reasonable and appropriate for a public agency official to oppose their installation. Getting back to that "left-wing" comment quoted from below: An agency's refusal to place an ineffective or potentially dangerous sign or device is actually good old-fashioned conservatism. The agency is properly recognizing the limitations of its power, and is not expending public resources on a device that won't deliver on its promises. In closing, I'll be blunt. There are very serious negative side effects when "faith-based traffic engineering" is practiced. As much as some people wholeheartedly believe, wish, desire, hope, or demand that a sign or other device be effective, all the hope in the world won't change the cold hard facts as reflected in measurable data such as crashes and injuries that a device just doesn't work as well as people believe it does. I return you to your regularly scheduled discussion. rcm

Note to FHWA webfolks: I had nicely formatted the posting I just sent, but it seems to have coagulated into a big mass of hard-to-read text. I even followed the "press return after each line" instruction above the message box, but to no avail. Is there any way to preserve proper formatting on this discussion board? (nothing fancy, just a line break here or there...) rcm

Richard, Great post! Even without paragraphs, you very eloquently said what so many of us have been thinking while reading some of the earlier posts on this thread. Thanks for taking the time to write it. Joe O. p.s. I'll second your request to FHWA to consider improvements to the message board. I've had the same frustration with formatting.

Richard great post. I agree whole heartedly. Perhaps you should take it on the road and speak to people who throw tantrems when they don't get the signs they want because they are unwarranted.

**'"Children at Play" and similar signs such as animal warning signs have little significant effect on road user behavior'** IS THIS A PROVEN STATEMENT? No studies to date prove this statement. It is a very subjective observation. It may or may not be true that drivers might not lower their speed when encountering a Watch for Children sign, but it may very well be true that they are on alert that a child could dart out at anytime. I am conducting my own study on this and will provide my findings once concluded. In the meantime, what is true, is that the signs continue to go up.

Yet another jurisdiction approves the WATCH FOR CHILDREN sign!!!!!! Watch for Children POLICY: Watch for Children signs will be installed upon citizen request. Signs will be limited to local residential streets with generally 500 vehicles per day or less. Only one sign per direction, per block will be installed. For uniformity, only the legend “Watch For Children” will be considered. “Children at Play” or “Slow Children” signs will not be allowed. PROCEDURE: The party requesting Watch For Children signs should contact the Public Works Director. The Director will review the request and determine if the street is eligible and if so, suggest a location for the sign. That location will generally be near the beginning of the block. The requesting party may be contacted to discuss options. The requester will then be required to get the written approval of the property owner(s) abutting the location of the sign.

Another jursidiction approves WATCH FOR CHILDREN: One "Speed Limit 25" - Pictorial "Watch Children" sign combination shall be installed at each entrance to a suburban development. Other signs shall be installed in accordance with requirements of the Department.

Another jurisdiction cares about children!!!! "Slow Down in our Neighborhood" yard signs can also be obtained from the Traffic Department for residents to place in their yard as a reminder to drivers. Yard signs are free of charge and can be picked up at the Streets Facility at 625 Ninth Street on Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.

The people who complain about speeders in their neighborhood are probably
speeders themselves in other neighborhoods. Of course in their own
neighborhoods they drive slow because they're pulling into their driveways.

Yet another jurisdiction cares about kids!!! "SLOW - Children at Play" signs will only be considered for installation on major sub-division steets.

Boone County is accepting bids on WATCH CHILDREN signs. 30 X 30 W9-13

"Keep Kids Alive Drive 25" safety campaign was adopted by Huntersville town meeting on May 3, 2004.

Molly: Just because there are agencies that have surrendered to "squeaky wheels" such as yourself does not mean that you're right, and it certainly doesn't mean that agencies that say "no" don't care about childrens' safety. All it means is that a majority of elected officials in that agency chose to buy some votes with public resources and shut you up with the appearance of "doing something", while acutally doing nothing to actually improve safety. Actually, we care enough about kids to not allow public resources to be wasted on selling snake oil to those for whom hope triumphs over reason. Richard: I love that "faith-based traffic engineering" line! Can I use it?

Molly, I admire your passion. Even if I believe it's misdirected. You ask for proof about the ineffectiveness of these types of signs. Richard noted a peer reviewed study: Transportation Research Board. Supplemental Advance Warning Devices, A Synthesis of Highway Practice. NCHRP Synthesis 186, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 38-41. Beyond that, I think it is pretty much the consensus of traffic engineers all over the country who, through experience have found these types of signs to be ineffective. If you're doing a study, good for you. Why don't you wait until it has been reviewed and published before you continue your crusade for these types of signs. At this point, you are simply hurting your credibility as an unbiased researcher by touting the "benefits" of these types of signs without any data to support your claim and despite overwhelming disagreement from the community of traffic professionals. As far as your most recent list of places who are "child friendly", here's some quotes from some of their websites: Fort Collins, CO
"The NTSP Team follows a set of guidelines called The Manual of Uniformed Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to determine the appropriate use of traffic devices. This manual gives certain criteria that should be met before the team can use a particular device. These guidelines ensure that motorists have consistency among different communities throughout the country and is mandated by Federal Highway Administration." "Will a "Children At Play" sign help protect our children? "Studies show no evidence that these signs prevent injury or decrease the speed of vehicles. They can give parents a false sense of security and since nearly every residential block has children living on it, there would have to be signs on each one. Blocks with no signs might imply that no children live there, so the driver doesn't have to watch out. Children could misinter-pret the sign to mean that it's okay to play in the street." By the way, the yard signs they give out in Fort Collins do not purport to be traffic control devices (they're purple cardboard signs with cartoon characters on them) and are simply to raise awareness about residents concerns about speeding. Fridley, MN
"Watch for Children signs are not recommended. No factual evidence has been presented to document the success of signs warning of children in reducing pedestrian accidents, operating speeds, or legal liability. Studies have shown that many types of signs attempting to warn of normal conditions in residential areas have failed to achieve the desired safety benefits. If signs encourage parents and children to believe they have an added degree of protection, which the signs do not and cannot provide, a disservice may result." Boone County (Missouri?)
"The Missouri Department of Transportation does not recognize the use of the SLOW – CHILDREN AT PLAY or similar messages sign. Parental concern for the safety of children in the street near home and a misplaced but wide-spread public faith in traffic signs to provide protection often prompt the request for these types of signs. No factual evidence has been presented to document the sign’s success in reducing pedestrian accidents, vehicle operating speeds, or legal liability. Studies have shown that many types of signs attempting to warn of normal conditions in residential areas have failed to achieve the desired safety benefits. If signs encourage parents and children to believe they have an added degree of protection, which the signs do not and cannot provide, a great disservice results. Children should not be encouraged to play within the street travel ways. This sign has long been rejected since it is a direct and open suggestion that this behavior is acceptable. Therefore, the County will not promote or provide the SLOW-CHILDREN AT PLAY sign. To address pedestrian safety, specific warning signs for school zones, pedestrian crossings, playgrounds and other recreational areas are used where clearly justified." Again, I think it is clear that very few if any traffic professionals support the use of these types of signs. It seems that the only places that are using them are those who have done so for political reasons -- not because they actually do anything to make it safer for kids. Joe O.

We too care about the safety of children in our city, but we would rather educate the children and parents that a street is not a playground. We feel that every driver on every street should drive knowing that there are posibly children on every street they drive. Bottom line these signs are warning signs not regulatory signs, and if the speed limit is lowered many people will drive over the posted speed anyway if there is not someone there to enforce it 24-7.

This thread gets more and more interesting! Thank you Molly for all your research! It is my belief that the New England states are using the children warning signs more than the rest of the country because our town governments here are by and large run by a board of selectman. In many of the New England towns the Highway Dept. or DPW reports to this board. The selectman are given wide authority. For instance in many towns if someone wants a "Watch for Children" sign, they have to write a letter to the selectman for approval (or simply call them). The selectman then order the Highway Dept to put up the sign. So it is a political thing here in the Northeast and that will never change. Plus the "Slow Children" series of signs are widely used and a town official would be hard pressed to deny a request for such a sign when citizens can point out dozens of such signage in use. For example, I called my Selectman (who is also a personal friend) and told him that the "Caution Children" sign on one of the side street needed to be replaced due to it being rusty...it was quite old. He called the Highway Dept and the sign was replaced within 2 weeks. I have to admit that I like the signs and I am confident that they will continue to be posted as they have been for decades here. To those on this thread that are on a crusade to ban such signage, you might as well surrender - at least in New England. Things will never change here. Politics always win out when it comes to Slow Children signs here. Best wishes to all and keep the kids safe! - Rosemary

Hi Joe O: Looks like you pulled your data off of google,which is where I got mine as well. The locations that you quoted do in fact quote the MUTCD and the reasons the signs are not effective. However, each of those jurisdictions does allow these signs (usually "Watch for Children") and they have developed a procedure and process to follow to have the signs put up. I agree with you that the reasons these signs are allowed are because of politcal pressure, not because of the MUTCD. However, many people disagree with the MUTCD on this point. You are right that I do have a bias in favor of these signs as my own observations and experiences reveal that the signs are effective if used properly. Thanks for the feedback.

I must mention that the Slow Children types of signs tend to get spray painted and vandalized or stolen. I have seen some. So if you are planning on putting these up they should be about 7 feet high from the bottom of the sign. Also someone mentioned here that someone could run into the sign by riding a bicycle and could get cut or injured. Another reason why the sign should be up high. Less likely to be vandalized or stolen and injuries will not happen. Sometimes they are installed on telephone poles up high too. The old steel signs used to get covered with rust but the new aluminum ones handle weathering better I must say.

"If you are requesting an advisory sign (such as "slow - children at play"), the request only has to be investigated and approved by the Traffic Bureau".

Molly, I'll add two more cents in response to your query to Steve. The difference is that warning signs are valid when UNEXPECTED hazards may be encountered. Infrequesnt deer meet that criterion. Children in a residential area do not. Sincerely, The other Bob.

Children at Play / Slow Children signs are considered non standard. I think this is a sad situation. The New England states post these signs widely. Yet the Federal Government refuses to standardize on the signs. Because of this, the signs will continue to go up but will have a variety of texts and images on them throughout the country. In New England the signs tend to be stanardized because the sign companies that we buy these signs from have standardized on them. Even though they are not listed in the MUTCD. Keep the children safe! - Rosemary

What Rosemarie states in her post is true. Both of us being from New England know that here the signs basically are standardized, although not officially. But they are by defacto standards via the sign companies that we purchase the signs from. There are basically two signs with slight variations: SLOW (caution) CHILDREN, and (Watch for) CHILDREN. In Massachusetts the MASS HIGHWAY department allows towns to do whatever they want in regards to these signs, and every single town in MA uses these signs without exception.

I have followed these postings with great interest since I am VP of a company that makes traffic signs as well as supplies for road construction, etc. I will not disclose my company name. "Slow Children" and other community and safety awareness signs are made by my company for the simple reason of demand. The signs are not endorsed by the MUTCD and we are well aware of that. But Highway departments order these signs every week and they are quite popular. There is no rational reason why my company would discontinue a product that is selling and making a profit for us. The onus is on the highway department purchasing the signs to ensure they are compliant. There is no liability on the part of sign manufacturers unless the sign company is advertising that the signs are MUTCD compliant (that would be false advertising). Regarding "Standardization" mentioned in these postings - we use a style that has been around for around 50 years and is widely used in the US. The symbol has been modified once in that time period.

great...more NE Liberals trying to ramrod something onto the rest of the Coutnry. CAP signs are non-standard, illegal and should stay that way. Parents should step up and keep the children out of the street in the first place. GO PLAY IN A PARK IF YOUR BACK YARD IS NOT BIG ENOUGH!!! There is absolutely no guarrantee of "safety" anywhere. If you want your children "safe" lock them in a padded room, otherwise let them be kids and learn what they are supposed to do and not do by being taught by their parents. Oh...I forgot, in Mass. they want government to do everything for them.

This is a response to the unnamed person. MA is not trying to force Children at Play signs on the rest of the country. We have had them here for over 50 years. We do not encourage children to play in the streets. Children do cross streets in residential areas, they ride bikes, and skateboard. The signs are for community awareness. Our traffic engineers and politicians here are highly educated and are in agreement that the signs serve significant purpose. The signs appear in every town in the Commonwealth and will continue to go up. The signs are perfectly legal.

I take issue with the last statement re Mass. folks wanting government to do "everything" for them. Maybe on some things, but definitely not on traffic control devices. Used to be all municipalities had to submit a scale drawing to the Mass. DPW before installing even a stop sign. Then it had to be approved by the DPW. I drew up several of them. That may be one reason why relatively few intersections in Mass. have STOP or YIELD signs. Then the Mass. DPW (now MassHighway) discovered the federal "Uniform Manual" and its so-called "requirements" and drew up their own version to somehow legitemize some of their own "nonstandard" traffic control devices, like red over yellow signal displays giving pedestrians the right of way (unless the drivers were from outside of New England). Then they gave up their centralized control over TCD's and gave that responsibility (AND LIABILITY) to the towns and cities. As for the CatP signs ever being ok'd in the US "Manual", Volume VII of "Official Rulings on Requests for Interpretations, Changes, and Experimentations" to the 1971 edition of the "Manual", dated September 1976 says, in part, "...signs like this may give a false sense of security and may raise the question of tort liability. Thus signs of this type and those with similar legends should be discouraged from use." "The following interpretation of Section 2C-40 was rendered." "Section 2C-40 does permit the use of diamond shaped, black on yellow signs with a legend CHILDREN AT PLAY when needed for a particular condition. Signs such as this and other warning signs are not intended to regulate the speed of vehicles, but to warn vehicles of a potentially hazardous condition that may call for a reduction in conjunction with proper law enforcement." This was removed from later editions of the "Manual". Bob H

Watch for Children signs ARE LEGAL in Massachusetts. I Checked with MASS HIGHWAY. I hope this puts and end to the mis-information out there. Keep the children safe! -Rosemarie P.

To the VP of the Sign Company - The rational reason for you discontinuing a product, or not offering it for sale in a certain area, is that not doing so may constitute breaking the law. In New York State, except in NYC, it is illegal for a company to offer for sale or use any traffic control device that does not conform to the current State MUTCD. I suspect that most states have similar laws.

Molly: I did not see any misinformation stating that CatP signs are illegal in Mass. To reiterate and clarify what I said - MassHighway gave up some or all of the centralized responsibility for local traffic control devices and gave that to the municipalities to do as they wish. Some of them employ competent traffic engineers and/or other staff who strive to follow accepted guidelines and requirements in order to minimize the potential for tort liability losses by the towns and others resulting from use of improper devices or actions. Others do not. As I understand the policy, state laws can supersede the MUTCD standards. An example is that in San Francisco, yellow markings are used for school crosswalks, contrary to the US MUTCD. So if Mass. has a law allowing such signs, they are "legal", though not in compliance with the US MUTCD. It would be useful to us all interested in this matter if a citation or quotation of the pertinent Mass. law could be posted here. Bob H.

Molly D., Sorry, I meant my last missive for Rosemary, about the legality issue of Mass. CatP signs. And Barbara A., can you post the citation for that NYS law making it illegal to offer or sell illegal signs? Is it available on line? It would be useful by other states wanting to stem the traffic (pun) in illegal/nonstandard signs, especially those for disability-accessible parking spaces.

Bob H. - the section of law to which I referred is Section 1680(d) of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law. FYI, all New York State laws are available online at: public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS This site does not include state regulations (e.g., The NYS MUTCD).

Barbara, It is not illegal for sign companies to sell "community awareness" signs that are not listed in the MUTCD. It may be illegal to represent the signs as being MUCTD compliant. Perhaps that is what you are referring to. Community awareness sign examples are: "Heart safe community" "Neighborhood Watch" "Lions Club" "Caution Children at Play" etc. By the way, New York state does use the diamond shaped "Children at Play" sign and it is widely used. Available in 24x24 and larger.

Please note that it is not always a traffic engineers judgement in deciding to install or not install children signs. Politics plays largely in these decisions. Board of Selectman get voted in by citizens (most of whom are parents) who support Children signs.

Hello. I was doing a google search on children playing signs. I live in Michigan. I had asked my town highway department to install a Slow Children sign on my street, but he said that they stopped installing these signs a long time ago and that they would not install one. He said that sometimes parents buy their own signs and put them in their driveway or post in their yard, and that it would be ok for my husband and I to do that. Any idea which signs are the most effective? Please post here and I will check back again at a later date. I just want drivers to be aware that children are playing here. They only play in the yard but occassionaly the soccer ball rolls into the street. Also, I dont think it is very fair that Massachusetts cities will install these signs but I have to buy my own! You East coast people have it made.

I dont hear too many of you discussing the vandalism that can occur on Children at Play signs. You should always post these at least 7 feet from the ground to bottom of the sign. The higher the sign, less likely some punk will spray paint it. Also, why isnt anyone talking about having these signs FYG? All this talk about getting rid of the signs because you think people don't pay attention to them. Well if they are FYG they will be noticed, believe me...I saw some and I paid attention. To the newcomers, FYG means Flourecent Yellow Green.

I congradulate your town for refusing to give in to the "feel good" impulse to place the children playing signs. If not, they would be forced to place them on every block. However, I am shocked that they would recommend a private citizen placing such signs. Of course, the sign would have to be totally on your property, likely at least 10 feet behind the curb. Thus, you will have motorists driving down your street looking 10 feet to their right instead of keeping their eyes on the road! As far as East Coast residents having it made, remember that until recently Massachusetts was called "Taxachusetts," having recently been surpassed by my own state, New Jersey. We probably pay more in quarterly property taxes than you pay in a year. I'd gladly swap tax rates for giving up the "privilege" of having useless signs installed at the public's whim.

Marrissa, You may have misinterpted what your Highway Deparment meant about placing signs on your property. I doubt that he meant you could actually post a real sign on your property since that defeats the purpose of your towns policy against these signs. You could get the plastic "A" frame signs on your driveway which can be bought online. These collapsable signs are the best alternative to the street sign and they can be taken down when the children are not at play. eBay sells them. You might want to ask if you could buy a sign and bolt it to a telephone pole. Towns have been known to "look the other way" when residents in "non children at play" towns post these. Although they may not "officially" approve of these signs, many just wink and look the other way once posted. But ask first.

In New York State, it is most certainly illegal to sell any traffic control device that is not in the NYS MUTCD. It doesn't matter whether you represent the device as MUTCD-compliant or not. There are certain community signs that are explicitly allowed on highways due to provisions in the law. Then, there are others that shouldn't be up, but it's not worth the fight. A sign reading "Caution Children at Play" is not a community awareness sign; it is a traffic control device. As such, it is subject to the provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law that I previously cited. The NYS MUTCD has a standard "Children at Play" sign; this is the only one which may legally be used in the state. Our state manual guidance notes that the sign "is not intended for general use in residential areas, or on other highways where obvious residential development alerts motorists to the possibility of children at play." We seem to do a better job sticking to the guidance on our state highways than our local roads. People should NOT be putting up their own traffic control devices on their driveway, or anywhere else on their property if motorists can see them. This is not only illegal, but also raises important safety concerns. The sign supports used by highway agencies are crash-tested, and installed by professionals.

Barbara, I was hoping you would reply. My company does sell the "Children at Play" sign to NY State Highway Departments that order it. My company has a few other related signs such as "Slow Children" and "Watch for Children". It is the highway departments responsibility to order signs compliant with their state laws and guidelines. It is not the job of my telesales folks to make sure customers located in NY state order the "Children at Play" official sign versus a "Slow Children" sign. Every state has different guidelines on these signs. For instance, the state of Virginia uses "Watch for Children" only. The New England states order whatever they want. Because of the language in the Federal MUTCD, our company does have a disclaimer. I will read the language of the NY Law concerning selling signs and have my attorney review it. We may need to add further language protecting our company against highway departments attempting to sue us for selling them signs that do not comply with NY State law. I would think a highway department would know better. Thanks for the warning.

But it is your responsibility: the NYS Vehicle & Traffic law states:

' (d) No person, firm, association or corporation shall sell, lease, or
offer for sale or hire for use in this state any traffic control device
that does not conform to the current manual and specifications as
amended..."

Barbara, why in the world would New York state mandate the sign to say "Children at Play"? It would make much more practical sense that if you have a state law about the wording of such signage, that the sign say "Watch for Children." The whole reason people argue about the wording of the signs is that they dont want to appear to encourage children to play in the streets. Think about it Barbara, which sign seems to suggest children can play in the street and which sign seems to warn drivers that a child could dart out. I would like New York state to ammend this law and change it to a diamond shaped "Watch for Children sign" available in FYG and with pictograph of child chasing ball. Barbara, please work on this issue and report back to me your results. I am highly interested. Keep the kids safe! - Rosemarie P.

Hello Bob. This is Rosemarie. I see you responded to Molly but meant it for me ;-) To answer your concern, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has no state law banning the use of Children warning signs. There is been a lot of misinformation about this. I believe it may have stemmed from an issue in 1994 when one of our towns here was questioned about using "Slow Children" on its signs. Apparently a mother of a mentally challenged child felt that the sign was targeting her son. MASS HIGHWAY ended up getting involved and gave an advisory recommending changing the wording to "Watch for Children" but this was not binding on the towns. The town actually went with "Caution Children" and that is pretty common sign now. The issue faded and towns use "Slow Children" "Caution Children" "Watch for Children" or simply, "Children". I think it does make sense that the state of one standard sign. Because the MUTCD refuses to acknowledge the widespread popularity of these signs and their common uses, this is why we have this situation. If we did standardize the legend should read "Watch for Children". I would recommend that the existing signs remain and only new signs and replacement signs go by the new wording. To be honest, I doubt this will ever happen.

M. Hogan - One of the things you have to be careful of is the fact that New York still has its own MUTCD. Variations on signs are permissible in states that follow the National MUTCD (assuming the correct guidelines are followed). In New York, you may only use signs that are in the NYS MUTCD, or authorized by the NYSDOT. We also allow the use of signs that are explicitly contained in the National MUTCD, and have no equivalent in the NYS MUTCD. The law regarding the sale of noncompliant traffic control devices probably arose to protect municipalities that can't afford to have a professional engineer on staff. I think it's similar to car emission requirements; a car company selling its product in different states must be aware of the different requirements. Rosemarie - Sorry, but we don't plan on changing the sign. If anything, I'd rather see the sign removed from the Manual completely. Others have already commented eloquently on the ineffectiveness of this sign; it simply doesn't lead to any measurable safety gains. What it does do is increase sign clutter, and provide yet another distraction for motorists who should be paying attention to the road. When engineers put up warning signs, we are pointing out hazards that might not otherwise be obvious. These signs merely point out the hazard, they don't suggest actions, with the exception of signs supplemented with advisory speed limits. We don't design warning signs containing words like "Look," or "Caution." This is implicit in the use of a sign that's black & yellow. The standard warning sign colors immediately let the driver know that there's a possible hazard ahead. There's no need to alert drivers to the possibility of children in the street in a residential area. Drivers know that residential areas contain children, dogs, cats, small children on bikes, etc. Engineers who turn down requests for "Children at Play" signs are not being anti-children; they're demonstrating an understanding of the larger issue. If a residential area is having trouble with high speeds, then the area should consider traffic calming measures or increased law enforcement. Lowering the speed limit or putting up "Children at Play" signs isn't going to change driver behavior. One of the easiest things you can do is get the residents to park their cars on the street so that the effective width of the street is reduced; this will tend to lower speeds. Ironically, the speeders in a lot of residential areas are the residents, themselves. As such, some community discussions can often be helpful.

Thank you Molly for the advice. After reading your post I went ahead and called the highway department for clarification. You were right, they do not allow residents to post traffic signs but they do allow collapsable driveway signs. So I found a couple on ebay that I am considering. I wonder why New York state has this warning sign but not Michigan. This whole thing is so confusing. I find it odd that people have such strong opinions on this topic. I feel like saying to you all, "Get a life!" but I won't say it. All I want is a simple sign. Thanks again for the advice.

Molly, I'm not suprised you did not answer my questions. That, of course, is the difference between a layperson that that can stand on the sidelines and make demands and that of a professional that is required to answer these difficult questions. This forum seems to be a waste of our time.

Molly, I'm not suprised you did not answer my questions. That, of course, is the difference between a layperson that that can stand on the sidelines and make demands and that of a professional that is required to answer these difficult questions. This forum seems to be a waste of our time.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS I WILL RESPOND IN ALL CAPITALS SO YOU CAN TELL WHAT IS FROM ME AND WHAT IS FROM YOU 1) Suppose a "Children at Play" sign is installed next to a busy roadway. What rough percentage of drivers you think would reduce their speed at the sign? And what percentage of drivers would reduce their speed after passing the sign for the 50th time? I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PERCENTAGE. THE POINT ISNT THE SPEED SO MUCH AS IT IS THE AWARENESS THAT A CHILD MAY DART OUT AND FOR THE DRIVER TO BE ALERT 2) After the same driver passes this sign for the 50th time, and seeing children only a few times in the area, do you feel this driver would be extra wary of children because of the sign? NO I DO NOT. 3) If this sign was posted in a neighborhood, with children living in most houses, does this mean that drivers driving on streets that the sign is not posted need to use less care? NO IT DOES NOT 4)Should parents feel more secure knowing that their children at safer from vehicles because of the added proection of the sign. I look forward to hearing your response. NO PARENTS SHOULD TEACH CHILDREN TO BE CAREFUL. HOWEVER, BALLS DO BOUNCE INTO THE ROADS, KIDS DO CROSS STREETS TO VISIT THEIR FRIENDS, ETC. PLEASE NOTE THAT IN MASSACHUSETTS EVERY SINGLE TOWN HAS THESE SIGNS POSTED WIDELY.

Steve. In additon I would like to add that the Professionals in the state of MA have come to a different conclusion than you and perhaps professionals in your home state. Our politicians also widely agree with the posting of children signs. We have a strong tradition here and it is not likely to be changed by the opinions of those who disagree with us. As noted in posts by Barbara below, New York state has an official sign. The state of VA as noted by others has it's own sign, and there are many jurisdictions that have these signs as well. I do not believe you will find any parents that would vote to discontinue these signs in my state.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS I WILL RESPOND IN ALL CAPITALS SO YOU CAN TELL WHAT IS FROM ME AND WHAT IS FROM YOU 1) Suppose a "Children at Play" sign is installed next to a busy roadway. What rough percentage of drivers you think would reduce their speed at the sign? And what percentage of drivers would reduce their speed after passing the sign for the 50th time? I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PERCENTAGE. THE POINT ISNT THE SPEED SO MUCH AS IT IS THE AWARENESS THAT A CHILD MAY DART OUT AND FOR THE DRIVER TO BE ALERT 2) After the same driver passes this sign for the 50th time, and seeing children only a few times in the area, do you feel this driver would be extra wary of children because of the sign? NO I DO NOT. 3) If this sign was posted in a neighborhood, with children living in most houses, does this mean that drivers driving on streets that the sign is not posted need to use less care? NO IT DOES NOT 4)Should parents feel more secure knowing that their children at safer from vehicles because of the added proection of the sign. I look forward to hearing your response. NO PARENTS SHOULD TEACH CHILDREN TO BE CAREFUL. HOWEVER, BALLS DO BOUNCE INTO THE ROADS, KIDS DO CROSS STREETS TO VISIT THEIR FRIENDS, ETC. PLEASE NOTE THAT IN MASSACHUSETTS EVERY SINGLE TOWN HAS THESE SIGNS POSTED WIDELY.

Molly,
Given your two answers below (in bold) I'm a bit confused. Maybe you could help clarify. We have established that after drivers pass this sign many times they will not be more alert for children and that parents should not feel more secure as the sign does not offer any additional protection to children. Could you tell me again what this sign does offer, other than a perceived safety benefit? "2)After the same driver passes this sign for the 50th time, and seeing children only a few times in the area, do you feel this driver would be extra wary of children because of the sign? NO I DO NOT. 3) If this sign was posted in a neighborhood, with children living in most houses, does this mean that drivers driving on streets that the sign is not posted need to use less care? NO IT DOES NOT 4)Should parents feel more secure knowing that their children at safer from vehicles because of the added proection of the sign. I look forward to hearing your response. NO PARENTS SHOULD TEACH CHILDREN TO BE CAREFUL."

Regardless of what exact message that is used on signs, there still is the question of "Standard of Care". MUTCD states that similar locations require same treatment. If a jurisdiction chooses to use any of the "Children" signs, it will need to use them at all locations that have similar conditions. Assuming a jurisdiction has 500 miles of residential roads and that signs for children would be posted every three blocks (some would state they should be more frequent) that would amount to 4000 Children at Play signs. (500 x 4 x 2, four per mile, one in each direction) Now, assuming that a jurisdiction did post signs every three blocks, how effective would they be??? Children being present in residential areas is standard condition and does not warrant special signing.

Can anyone give me the criteria that New York State uses for their state MUTCD "Children at Play" sign. Also the Virgina "Watch for Children" sign? Both states have these and have specific criteria for them. I am wondering what the criteria is. Also are there other states that have a state sponsored children sign?

Can anyone give me the criteria that New York State uses for their state MUTCD "Children at Play" sign. Also the Virgina "Watch for Children" sign? Both states have these and have specific criteria for them. I am wondering what the criteria is. Also are there other states that have a state sponsored children sign?

Bob Wagner, you make an excellent point. These are issues that the average layperson typically does not consider. I would be interested in hearing how the proponents of these signs address your point.

Our sign company does not make frivolous signs. We base our signs on the MUTCD and the state supplements as well as individual state laws. We do not get involved in the issue of where the signs get placed or should they even be allowed. Its all about demand. Although we have several Children warning signs in our inventory, based on our new knowledge of NY State law, our company will now only sell NY State agencies the "Children at Play" sign when they request Children warning signs. Based on what I have read here, I tend to agree that "Watch for Children" makes the most sense out of the various texts, but I don't make the laws. I would also like to point out the NY State Highway Departments should have a copy of their MUTCD and check it before ordering signs from any sign company. One would assume a Highway Department would be aware of their own state laws and not rely on sign companies who sell traffic signs to multiple states to alert them if a particular sign is allowed in their specific state.

Bob and Steve I have been hesitant to join this discussion. Of all the subjects on this website, this one has by far the most responses. Steve, your reply brings up a very good point. Assuming your estimate of 4000 signs at perhaps $200 per sign (it costs money to install them, even with municipal forces), that is $800,000! Of course, once the signs are installed every 3 blocks, those on the other 2 will demand them. Sadly, all of these rationalizations are falling on deaf ears. Those people who want the signs WANT them, WANT them now, and WANT them in front of THEIR house! (And, by the way, how dare you stupid engineers try and tell US what is proper traffic engineering practice!) Perhaps the answer is, if a community is going to fall into the trap of posting them, at least charge the requestor for the sign.

I dont think everyone is going to demand that a GO SLOW CHILDREN sign be erected on their streets just because a new one is on another street. Sure, people will request these signs but I doubt that they will be everywhere. Some people are just alarmists.

Here is a solution for the numerous demands for the "Watch for children" sign. In the "Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 1994" issued by the Dept of Transport UK which is the UK equivalent of the MUTCD, www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm
there is a sign which illustrate a house with a car in the top part and an adult and 2 children in the bottom part. The link below will bring you to the sign www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/02311396.gif I think the NCUTCD should consider adding the sign (the background color should be changed from blue to green, since blue is for specific services signs as per Chap 2F of the MUTCD while green is for guide signs as per chap 2D) in a future revision of the MUTCD. Such sign may be installed at both end of a residential street along with a proper R2-1 speed limit sign (which is enforceable) after a proper safety audit of the street in question has been performed. It will not eliminate the problem of motorists who think they are on a speedway or the distracted one nor it will protect the children from the dangers of being on the street (a street is not a playground) but might hopefully raise the motorist awarness that children may be on the street. The other solution is banning motor vehicles on the street althogether, but the same parents who asked for the signs in the first place will be the first ones to climb to the barricades stating the rights to be able to drive in their street has been infringed. Assuming that a jurisdiction yields to parents' pressure and install "Watch for Children" signs every 3 blocks (dixit Bob Wagar's message Jan 07/05) too many of these signs will bring disrespect of signs in general and the same jurisdiction will have to cut elsewhere in its budget in order to afford the cost of buying, installing and maintening those signs. If a parent still want a sign, I agree with Ken (Jan 07/05) that the requestor should pay for it.

Well, it's different, but I don't see how it addresses the central issue: why put up a sign that warns of an obvious condition?

Hi, they installed a SLOW CHILDREN sign on my street this past fall. I am wondering about the picture of the child running. I got real close to the sign to examine it and the child's legs are disconnected from his body (from the knee down) whilst he is running. It looks like he is wearing knickers! Maybe in future releases of this sign they should have him wearing more stylish clothing. It makes it seem like the sign is from the 1950s or earlier but it is brand new. Other than that I like the sign.

Paula, I completely agree with you, those clothes are so yesterday!!! How dare they try to dictate such poor fashion to our vulnerable children. I !Demand!! that the signs be updated to reflect the latest trends. We must form a committee!! Options should include the baggy pants teen; the bell-bottom wearing girl, the gang banger… and all options should include tops from such trendsetters as J Crew, CK and other fashion icons. Signs should reflect the diversity and values of our communities. I demand it!! This thread has gravitated towards absurdity.

Paula, you are very observant! I am wondering, do you live in New England? If so, that sign you are talking about with the boy wearing the knickers is a NE Tradition. Please note that there is an updated version of the sign available. It looks similar to the pedestrian crossing except that the pedestrian is smaller and running (stick figure like). The "Watch for Children" diamond version has the same stick figure chasing a bouncing ball. The knickers version is the most popular in Massachusetts and has been used for over 50 years. It is important to note that the Federal MUTCD does not recognize these signs and therefore we have to leave the styles to "tradition" since there is no official "standard" unless a state has a law concerning the text of the sign (NY, VA, PA to name a few - see posts below). Keep the children safe! - Rosemarie P.

Is it not legal for individuals to place any form of traffic control device in a public street? In particular, the children at play type cones some parents use. (I'm not suggesting a good use or bad, strictly a legal question)

Someone had questioned if it is ILLEGAL for residents to put the "Children at Play" cones in the street to warn drivers. The answer is, the cones should be placed on the resident's driveway or yard, but should not be placed in the roadway due to liability issues. I know that some parents that live in towns that refuse to post "Slow Children" signs have had to resort to the cones. But I do not advise on putting the cones in the roadway. Keep them on your own property and avoid confrontation and potential accidents. If you live in the New England states, NY, PA or VA you can request a "CHILDREN" warning sign and will likely get one without fuss since these states support the usage of such signage.

This message is for Paul Stevens. Paul, I had not been on this message board for a while and saw your posting. NY State has a state law regarding "Children at Play" sign. The sign is diamond shaped. The criteria is that the sign is to be posted in an area where one would not expect children to be. For instance, a residential area is a place one would expect children and therefore a sign should not be posted in that place (according to state law). I found out that NY State also has a law that sign companies can be fined for selling any signs that are not part of the state MUTCD. Therefore all children warning signs such as "SLOW CHILDREN" are not allowed. This brings up a good point. A town in NY State decided to remove their current "CHILDREN AT PLAY" signs because some children apparently interpreted the sign to mean that they could use the street as a playground. Even though the sign is state sponsored and in the state MUTCD, the town will not use the sign. Sign companies have an identical sign, it is diamond shaped with the legend "CHILDREN" and there is no other text or pictograph. This sign would seem to make more sense since it cannot be interpreted that children should be playing in the street. The ironic part is that if that town decided to post the "CHILDREN" sign instead of "CHILDREN AT PLAY" they would be going against NY State's MUTCD and the sign company would be in trouble.

Please respond with which legend you think is the most appropriate. Even if you are against children warning signs, if you had to vote for one that was the best legend and most clear, which one would you pick. I have been studying these signs and their effect on drivers as well as how they are interpreted by motorists. (Assume each sign is a yellow diamond shape with black lettering) 1. CHILDREN
2. WATCH CHILDREN
3. WATCH FOR CHILDREN
4. SLOW CHILDREN
4.A. SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY
5. CAUTION CHILDREN
5.A. CAUTION CHILDREN AT PLAY
6. CHILDREN AT PLAY

There's also a law in NY (and hopefully other states, too) making it illegal for individuals to post anything that purports to be or could be mistaken for an official traffic control device, whether or not it is on their own property.

Molly, I am one of those people that does not think that the children warning signs are necessary or needed. I am well aware, though that states and local municipalities have decided to use the signs. Therefore if there HAS to be a legal sign, I vote for "CHILDREN". It is the simplest message. There are, indeed, problems with the other signs. SLOW CHILDREN - how slow is slow??? WATCH FOR CHILDREN - are not diamond shaped signs by their very nature a warning sign? Therefore the word WATCH is not needed. Same thing with CAUTION. CHILDREN AT PLAY - has been noted that it conveys a message that kids are allowed to use the street as a playground. So that is my vote. Also if a town insists on these signs I believe a pictograph should DEFINITELY NOT BE USED! Only the word "CHILDREN" should be used. In addition, I agree with the other postings concerning Standard of care. If these signs are used there needs to be very strict criteria, such as population density of children being very high. That would limit the number of signs being erected. Some states such as Virginia do have a law that takes population into account.

Molly I vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE. Asking which poor sign should be chosen does not give ability to state that "NONE SHOULD BE USED". Which BAD sign is best? NONE Jim M. Washington State also has law (see 7/13/04 posting) that signs cannot be posted on private property that attempt to control traffic on the public street.

Molly, How could I ever part with my "boy wearing knickers running sign?!" I am biased on these signs since I grew up on the slow children series of signs. But the sign probably should be diamond shaped if they are to be official. So "Watch for Children" is likely the winner. The people in my town would fight tooth and nail to keep our knickers signs up, believe you me! Keep the kids safe! - Rosemarie P.

I also vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE. It is also illegal in NC to post a sign on private property that purports to be a traffic control sign.

You people are getting ridiculous. Who cares what the kids are wearing. Why don't you start you own fashion board somewhere else? Let those of us who truly care about proper and legal signs post here, after all that is what this board is for.

As we all know, the federal MUTCD does not offer Children warning signs - other than the Playground and School Crossings signs. Jurisdictions using Children warning signs officially, as under a state law, use a diamond shaped sign 24x24 or 36x36. The 18x24 rectangular signs seen pretty much everywhere really do not look official. A warning sign should be diamond shaped. To answer Molly's question, I think that the "CHILDREN" sign is the most appropriate one (24x24) if the MUTCD were to standardize on these signs.

What an interesting and lively bunch! I read every single posting on the "Children at Play" thread. So let me see if I understand what is going on here. First of all the Federal MUTCD discourages Slow Children signs and they have no standard sign. Some state supplemental MUTCD versions do have signs like "Watch Children" and "Children at Play" and some states have laws allowing the signs - outside of the supplemental MUTCD. There is a clear division of opinion expressed on this message board. One group (probably composed of traffic engineers I assume) considers the MUTCD the BIBLE and adamantly opposes these signs. The second group seems to love the signs and advocates and persuades others to join them in the pursuit of getting MORE OF THESE SIGNS (aka Molly Dowe, Rosemarie P. and others). Some of these postings are just hilarious. I am not sure that there is any way to resolve this issue. Clearly there are highway departments putting up the signs whenever requested, still others refuse to put up anything that is not in the MUTCD. I did a google search on "SLOW CHILDREN SIGNS" because my wife and I have twin daughters and they are at the age where we are noticing cars driving fast on our street when our daughters are playing outside. I plan to call our town administrator and ask what our town policy is on these signs. However, after reading these posts I have to say I agree with the engineers. I really doubt the signs will make a difference. Perhaps I will request a speed limit sign instead. At least that is enforceable since "Slow Children" is not.

I vote for "Naive Parents" or "Faith-Based Traffic Engineering Practiced Here". Or how about "Emotions Override Science Here"? I can think of a few less charitable ones too...

Peter S. I guess that's 5 votes against such signs and 1 or 2 in favor. I wonder if democracy will prevail.But seriously, if your municipal jurisdiction does their traffic ordinancing on a professionally competent (and therefore judicially tenable) basis, they should, after a request for a speed limit change, perform an engineering and traffic study which should include a determination of the actual speeds being operated on the road section. With radar or automatic recording equipment, they should get at least 100 samples of free-flowing first- of-a-plattoon vehicles, list or rank them in order of speed, and find the 85th percentile speed. That is the speed at or below which 85% of the vehicles are traveling and is the speed at which the limit should be set (see the speed limit sign section of the MUTCD). A lower speed than that will have a high violation rate and can constitute an unwarranted "speed trap". Studies have shown that when speed limits were raised to the 85th%ile speed, the "after" 85th percentile speed was lower than "before". I did one myself, in a 20 mph zone where the 85th was 37 mph. After raising the limit to 35, the 85th dropped to 36 mph. Another (small town) police chief asked me to extend an old downtown 20 mph zone a couple of blocks past a funeral home. He said that traffic was going 45 mph in the 35 zone. I asked him why he didn't enforce the speed limit. He said' "Oh, we give them about a 10-mph leeway."! We did not extend the 20-mph zone, we eliminated it and made it 35. Good luck but don't get your hopes up that the traffic will slow down to any arbitrarily slower speed than the 85th%ile.

I agree, this whole discussion is hilarious. Bottom line is, whether the signs are up or down, one thing is clear to the professionals in the business. Drivers don't give a damn about warning signs that don't physically require them to take action or make them feel they have a high risk of getting a ticket. Children at Play, Deer, Congestion Ahead, etc, etc, etc. are all signs designed to placate the requestor and have virtually no effect on the travelling public.

Steve you hit the nail on the head. Too many times the commissioners and city hall people give in to this crap just to keep from being bothered. If the posted speed is 30 mph drivers will travel 30 mph if there is a wasted warning sign posted or not and have every right to do so.

What is this nonsense that I am reading here? Traffic sign wording is based on the MUTCD which is based on sound engineering judgement only. Rosemarie Pratt says that the SLOW CHILDREN sign "with the boy wearing knickers" is based on a "tradition." Just who is making the decisions in New England on traffic control devices and what criteria are they using up there?

I am from a jurisdiction that does post these "awareness" signs as I like to call them. We do things a bit differntly as we do not use the common "Slow Children" sign discussed on this thread. In thickly settled residential areas we attach a FYG plate under the speed limit sign with the text "CHILDREN" - thats it. I do believe it does effect driver behavior. We do have a standard formula used so that only dense areas get the sign, however, due to some political issues some plates have been posted in less dense areas. By the way the plates are not expensive at all and we save costs by attaching them to the existing speed limit posts. I am wondering if any other highway departments have thought of this idea.

I guess in New England people like Rosemarie Pratt decide what should and should not be used. Right or wrong plays no part in her requests and decisions.

Interesting dual use of the speed limit sign post. Since you post them in "dense" areas I am assuming that there are pedestrians as well as children in the area. That means the bottom of the second sign SHALL be at least 6 feet high. Assuming that you care as much for pedestrian safety as for the children being "protected" by the sign, that would make your sign posts roughly 15 feet high!

I am disappointed that I have been criticised by several of you on this message board. Having been a member of the Board of Selectman for two different towns in MA over a 20 year period, I do believe I am qualified to speak on the subject of Children warning signs. In New England, the Highway Superintendants install Advisory signs such as "hidden driveway" and "slow children" only if conditions warrant their installation for safety or other reasons. Often, the Board of Selectman approve the use of "Slow Children" signs and then request the Highway Spt. to install them based on citizen request. This has been a New England tradition for a long time and as I have said several times, most towns support the "knickers" style of signage. "No Parking" signs require a public hearing. All other signs are handled by the Highway Dept. or DPW. Regulatory signs such as speed limit signs and stop signs can only be installed if specific conditions are met. I hope this helps those outside of the Northeast to understand how we do things here. Keep the kids safe! - Rosemarie P.

VA has a State Law allowing this sign. Here is the criteria: What streets qualify for “Watch for Children”signs?•Street must be classified as a minor collector or local road. No signs of said type will be installed on a major collector or arterial highway. (check with VDOT or County staff to determine the functional classification of your road) Typically, these signs will be installed at transitions from major collectors to minor collectors and from minor collectors to local streets;•Must have a minimum traffic count of 200 vehicles per day or serve twenty lots. The minimum distance between signs is1,000 feet. Therefore, relatively short streets (i.e., dead ends) will not be considered. In general, a residential street with through traffic would be a high priority and a sign would be installed at the major points of ingress and egress; •Other streets to be considered regardless of traffic counts would be streets adjacent to a public park, parallel streets in the vicinity of schools, and any other public facility where children frequent;•Generally, these signs shall be installed only on secondary routes within residential areas. Any requests to install such signs on primary routes shall be forwarded to the State Traffic Engineer for review.What steps do I follow?•To initiate the sign installation process, submit a petition that is signed by at least 75% of the property owners along the street (must include signature of owner of property that is adjacent to proposed sign location). For long streets, signatures shall berequired within 1,000 feet of the location of request;•The property owners must agree to pay 100% of the costs at the time of installation. The cost estimate to purchase and install the sign is approximately $150 total. This figure may be adjusted periodically due to increased costs and inflation; •County staff will present the submitted requests and resolution to the Board of Supervisors semi-annually, in December and July. The Community Development Department must receive all submittals at least thirty days in advance of these scheduled Board of Supervisors’ meetings; •Upon receipt of the County’s resolution, VDOT’s Resident Engineer and/or the District Traffic Engineer will make the final determination if a “Watch for Children” sign is to be installed at the requested location. A written response shall be provided to the governing body of the County, usually within thirty days, granting or denying the request; Page 3
•All signs installed by VDOT under this policy shall be designed in accordance with their standards (Standards and specifications can be seen upon request at either Roanoke County or VDOT offices. An example of the sign in question can be seen at the top of this page.).This information is intended to summarize, in the broadest possible terms, the eligibility factors and considerations made regarding the installation of signs to alert motorists that children may be at play nearby. There may be other issues not addressed in this brochure that may also apply

can you please tell me if texas has a state law concerning public street signs
for autistic chrildren, my child is 3 years old and im afraid she might sneak
away from me and dart out in the street one of these times. is there any type
of sign i can have the city of corpus christi, texas put up for me. something
like deaf child playing in area please help me thank you concerned dad.

Rosemarie, I doubt anyone would argue with your byline/goal to "keep the kids safe". The issue is how to accomplish that. It is difficult for professionals in a field that relies on applied science to respect the opinions of those that ignore the overwhelming body of evidence in favor of blind faith supported by not one shred of evidence. As for being an elected official, that tells me that you've been able to persuade a majority of those that bothered to vote that you'd better represent their interests than whoever you were running against - no small feat perhaps - but that doesn't make you a traffic engineer. I can't even count the number of decisions by elected officials where the appearance of being responsive to public concerns was considered more important than actually improving public safety or even reducing the agency's tort liability. The electeds I respect are those that consider the facts on each side of an argument and make their decision those facts, not just what they'd like to believe. How much do you respect the opinion of someone who complains you raised their taxes when you just went through a painful budget process that actually lowered their taxes? You'd try to explain your position, and if you got nowhere (since your facts conflict their limited perception of the situation), you'd blow them off as uninformed and unable to grasp the reality of the situation. You'd respect their goal of reducing taxes, but not their opinion as to how to do it because they aren't open to receiving the facts of the situation. So that's why you don't get much respect from professionals that deal with this issue every day when you advocate for a sign that has never been shown to accomplish anything positive.

Rosemarie-I'm sure there is nothing personal in the responses. I commend you for your passion. (I also have one or more that get frustrated in the face of bureaucratic indifference. And I know I am right and they are wrong.) But after 40 years in the traffic profession with 5 employers (never out of work)I (and others in the field) have to take the more practical viewpoint. Having been a traffic safety advisor to a Mass. Board of Selectmen for nearly 10 years (and an elected Planning Board member), I can attest that not all 351 Mass. cities/towns install Children at Play signs. Traditions do die hard. Many, especially the smaller, towns have no competent traffic professionals or risk managers to make themselves aware of the potential liability for using improper or non-standard signs. I also believe that Mass. does not have any state law that requires all traffic control devices to comply with the Uniform Manual. How the state still qualifies for federal highway funding without such a requirement, at least for public streets, I do not know. My current state, and perhaps others, has a statute requiring all tcd's to conform to the Manual if they are on streets OR on private property open to the public. Alas, enforcement is not uniform, but I have had contact with one lawyer who said he made a living measuring the height of STOP signs after crashes. And just yesterday my apartment complex manager let me have the last remaining white on green (illegal)nonreflective wooden YIELD signs from one of their internal driveway intersections. Vandals had stolen all of the others. But I digress. Pursue your passion, Rosemarie, but we do not really need to hear that another CatP sign has been installed somewhere, anywhere. And the minute details of the pictograph are irrelevant as a speeding driver cannot discern whether the figure is wearing a thong, jodhpurs, or twisted knickers. And if you have kids or grandkids looking for a career, tell them to try traffic engineering or technology. We need folks to field all the requests for signs (all types). Bob H

Rosemarie, please don't feel that we are all ganging up on you. If I also disagree, parhaps it is because I too am a professional traffic engineer. I applaud your role as an elected official. I have been to a few public meetings and don't know how anyone subjects themselves to the indiginities of the public. However, many such officials allow themselves to be guided by their professionals. If your municipal civil engineer told you that a public request for, say, a stormwater drainage design was not appropriate, I doubt that you would allow the public to override his (or her) professional opinion. Why not try listinening to your traffic engineer, or engaging a consultant if you don't have one. Let them be the "bad guy" when you turn down unnecessary sign requests. To show how easily these can get out of control, just this weekend I saw the following sign in a neighboring town: OLDER AND MOBILITY IMPAIRED INDIVIDUAL USING THIS CROSSWALK. EXERCISE CAUTION. We as a society have been taught for at least the past 20 years that virtually everyone is a victim of something. I can't imagine the signs that could be installed.(for myself, it would be: PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEER CROSSING. TAKE AIM).

A growing problem with all of these CatP signs is that they are up too long. For instance, there was a sign that was up in a small residential section of town for years. At one time the street was filled with kids, and now they have all grown up and moved away, yet the sign became rusty and remained. A couple years ago I was on that exact street which is now basically just a bunch of senior citizens now. But guess what? The old rusty sign was replaced with a brand new one! SLOW CHILDREN. Why? Did anyone bother to do a study to see if the sign was warranted? Or did the highway department simply say, "Boy, that sign sure is rusty. Lets take it down and put up a new one." The questions is, if you install these, how long must they remain up and what is the criteria for their removal? It opens a can of worms.

Thank you everyone for your response. No offense taken. A few points: In my experiences, I have never had any opposition from a DPW or Highway Dept. regarding installing these signs. The only questions that arose had to do with which text to use. Assuming that the MA towns were forced to remove the signs to comply with the federal MUTCD, imagine how time consuming and costly it would be to remove these signs. They are virtually everywhere in MA. One thing is certain, that the signs are not uniform in MA, and there are quite a variety of Children at Play signs here. It would make sense that if the signs are to continue going up, they should be standardized so there is only one style.

Someone asked whether it was legal for a private individual to place a sign or other traffic control device in a street themselves. In Arizona, it would not be legal. ARS 28-648 states: A. A person shall not place, maintain or display on or in view of a highway an unauthorized sign, signal, marking or device that either: 1. Purports to be or is an imitation of or resembles an official traffic control device or railroad sign or signal. 2. Attempts to direct the movement of traffic. 3. Hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic control device or a railroad sign or signal. B. A person shall not place or maintain and a public authority shall not permit on a highway a traffic sign or signal bearing any commercial advertising. C. This section does not prohibit the erection on private property adjacent to highways of a sign giving useful directional information if the sign cannot be mistaken for an official sign. D. A sign, signal or marking prohibited by this section is a public nuisance, and the authority having jurisdiction over the highway may remove it or cause it to be removed without notice. So, a person can have an informational sign on their property, but only if it does not resemble an official traffic sign or other device. This is enforced, even if the sign isn't on public property. In fact, in recent years a billboard message on private property that attempted to look like an official mileage sign (directing people to a nearby casino) was ordered to be removed by the State, and was done so. So, in Arizona, even if it's on your property, if it it's in view of the roadway and can be interpreted as an official sign, it's likely to be less than legal. rcm

Washington State Law (RCW 46.61.075) is very similar to Arizona's . Display of unauthorized signs, signals, or markings. (1) No person shall place, maintain or display upon or in view of any highway any unauthorized sign, signal, or marking or device which purports to be or is an imitation of or resembles an official traffic-control device or railroad sign or signal, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic, or which hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic-control device or any railroad sign or signal. (2) No person shall place or maintain nor shall any public authority permit upon any highway any traffic sign or signal bearing thereon any commercial advertising. (3) This section shall not be deemed to prohibit the erection upon private property adjacent to highways of signs giving useful direction information and of a type that cannot be mistaken for official signs. (4) Every such prohibited sign, signal or marking is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and the authority having jurisdiction over the highway is hereby empowered to remove the same or cause it to be removed without notice.

Here is a portion of CO State Statutes: 42-4-606. Display of unauthorized signs or devices. Statute text (1) No person shall place, maintain, or display upon or in view of any highway any unauthorized sign, signal, marking, or device which purports to be or is an imitation of or resembles an official traffic control device or railroad sign or signal, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic, or which hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any official traffic control device or any railroad sign or signal, and no person shall place or maintain nor shall any public authority permit upon any highway any traffic sign or signal bearing thereon any commercial advertising. The provisions of this section shall not be deemed to prohibit the use of motorist services information of a general nature on official highway guide signs if such signs do not indicate the brand, trademark, or name of any private business or commercial enterprise offering the service, nor shall this section be deemed to prohibit the erection upon private property adjacent to highways of signs giving useful directional information and of a type that cannot be mistaken for official signs. (2) Every such prohibited sign, signal, or marking is declared to be a public nuisance, and the authority having jurisdiction over the highway is empowered to remove the same or cause it to be removed without notice. (3) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A traffic infraction. Appears that it is close to the same, if not the same, as some of the other States. I suspect if you dig through each State's Statutes, you would find they are all fairly in line with one another. Being a "Local Authority" we would hate to have to ticket someone but this Statute gives us the leverage to remove any unauthorized sign we feel is trying to control vehicle traffic on a public ROW.

The "Slow Children" sign issue in Massachusetts is only a symptom of much greater problem in that state, which is failure to comply with the MUTCD on vital issues, such as having all traffic signs be at a 7 foot height from the ground to the bottom of the sign. There is NO standardization of sign height across the state. In fact sign heights vary from sign to sign even within one town. Some streets have no stop sign. Towns make up their own signs like "Caution Recreation area ahead". Pedestrian crossing signs are used wrongly, for instance instead of using the Pedestrians in the cross walk (2 lines with figures walking between them)sign at a cross walk, I know of examples where the sign shows just the pedestrians but NO CROSSWALK - even though it is clearly a crosswalk (hope that makes sense). The MUTCD and the state supplement are not enforced in any way. It just amazes me that the state allows such mass confusion and non uniformity. It is basically a "free-for-all" in Massachusetts. It drives me nuts.

The pedestrian sign with two lines was removed from the millennium edition, but the sign has to have an arrow plaque pointing down to the crosswalk to supplement it.

If the pedestrian warning sign is posted at a marked crosswalk, it is not necessary to add the diagonal downward pointing arrow plaque.

Tom in section 2C.41 of the 2003 Edition the standard states "When used at the crossing, Nonvehicular signs shall be supplemented with a diagonal downward pointing arrow plaque [W16-7p} showing the location of the crossing."

Sorry, you're corrrect in the Federal Manual. The Texas Manual does not require the plaque at a marked crosswalk.

It would make logical sense to have an official "zone" area near in-home daycare centers and larger daycare centers where a high volume of children could be playing outside within that restricted area. Some type of sign seems warranted. Whether it be "Daycare Center Ahead" or "Children at Play", some provision should be made for this usage. Since the "Playground" sign is used for high concentrations of children playing within a playground zone, standard of care would dictate that warning signs for daycare centers are warranted and should be considered in the next revision of the MUTCD.

Most daycare centers I've seen have had fenced playgrounds, and therefore would not need a sign.

You all can go on and on about this, but the funny things here is guys, drivers don't give a damn about these signs. Upon seeing a kid near the road, most drivers will slow. Upon seeing a sign, they won't. To the proponents, I offer a little test. Park yourself near one of these signs and count the number of times drivers apply their brakes (and thus their brake lights) to slow because of these signs. Trust me, if you get a number higher than zero. you are doing well...

I dont understand why "Children at Play" is even a topic on this board. There are no Slow Children signs in the MUTCD and they are not recognized traffic control devices. People do not pay attention to them and there is no basis or rational reason to install them anywhere.

Can someone tell me how I can obtain a SLOW CHILDREN sign? I need one to be installed in front of my house. I have seen the signs in many neighborhoods so I know I can get one. But how? Who do I call? Who is normally in charge of hanging these signs? Town Hall? The police? I am confused. Please alert me to the proper procedure. I know exactly which style suits my tastes.

Bonnie, Thank you so much for visiting our little message board! I am delighted that you wish to get a Slow Children sign. I can tell just what to do. I don't know where you are located in the states, but I would first suggest calling your highway department. If approval needs clearance from a town board they will let you know who to contact. I see you mentioned that the signs are already up in your town. That is a very good indication that you will likely have your request granted. The 18x24 size with child running wearing knickers is likely the sign they will install. This is common. Best wishes. Keep the children safe! - Rosemarie P.

Regarding the daycare signs. If you do not have a fence in front of your in-home-daycare you absolutely can get a sign installed. I just got one for my daycare and I live in PA. It may read "Day Care Center 500 feet ahead" or it may say "Watch for Children" - I really think it depends on which state you live in and what the policies are regarding signage. I have seen "Slow Children" signs but I do not believe they are linked to daycare centers, just general residential neighborhoods.

I sometimes think that requests for C.A.P. signs are evidence of a broken system. Transportation planners and zoning boards don't talk to each other. The result is arterial streets with single family residences along side them. A truly comprehensive planning process would steer families towards local roads, and businesses towards collectors and arterials.

If a daycare has to have a sign to warn people about kids in the street I wouldn't take my kids there because I don't want my kids playing in the street. I for sure wouldn't pay someone to let my kids play in the street. This is just more garbage signs to clutter up the streets and detract from standard traffic signs.

In a sense a daycare is similar to a school. Depending on size. Schools do have signs with children on them, such as the school crossing sign. In addition there are signs that say "School Zone" or "Slow School". Having said that, none of these signs are appropriate for a daycare center because they do not fall under the legal definition of a school. Therefore, if your area does install children warning signs, you can get a sign. There are some daycare centers that have a diamond shape warning sign that says "Watch for Children" with a plate beneath it that reads "500 feet ahead" or similar distances. I spoke with Molly Dowe about this and she informed me that some daycares have posted their own signs but I would advise against this. First call your highway department or public works department to get the sign. You will likely get one if your town is already posting the Slow Children series of signs (which I support). Keep the kids safe! - Rosemarie P.

A daycare center can open itself up to tort liabilities if they do not post a sign warning about children - especially if the front yard is not fenced in. A liability may result in a child playing and suddenly darting into traffic. The child's parents may sue if the child is injured by a car and they notice there is no sign. So if a town will not post a sign, perhaps the daycare center can use wording underneath their daycare sign that says watch for children. It would not be an official sign but part of their daycare. That is what I had told Rosemarie and I thought it should be clarified.

This is my final posting on "Children at Play" and I will not post here again. My opinions have been very clear and have been backed up. I will not change my mind on these signs. Thank you for those who support children warning signs and I hope that you will continue to do your part to get these signs up where they are most needed.

Hi Rosemarie. Thank you for the advise. I checked and I get get a sign. But I am concerned because the sign is only 18x24. That is what they told me. I went out to a street that is 1/4 mile from my house and brought a measuring tape. I measured that sign and it was 18x24 and it seems to small. Certainly you can see the child running, but I think it should measure larger and the superinendant said he cant get the sign any bigger. What should I do?

Hey Bonnie: "What do I do?" Be greatful you even get a sign! For God's sake, most of us can't even get our towns to put them up. so what if the sign is kind of small? At least you get a sign!!!!!!!!!

Hey Bonnie what should you do? Keep your kids out of the street and save the taxpayers some money.

I live in a large neighborhood with a lot of young children. Recently a SLOW CHILDREN sign was installed on my street as a result of a bunch of moms banning together and demading a sign. I called our town highway department and asked them to remove it because it violates the MUTCD. They refused to remove it. Can I take legal action against the town?

Mark, I agree with you in concept. However, these signs do not violate the MUTCD simply because they are not included. As long as the sign meets the mounting requirements (height and lateral placement) and was installed ostensibly for a traffic warning purpose by a legal entity, it is probably a legal sign (depends on the laws of your state). As far as suing the town...sure, why not? This is the Land of the Lawyers. Offer one some money and they will even sue themselves. Make it enough, and they will even win.

Ummm, no. Try reading and understanding the MUTCD before commenting on it. Section 1A.10: Design, application, and placement of traffic control devices other than those adopted in this Manual SHALL BE PROHIBITED unless the provisions of this Section [experimentation, etc.] are followed. I seriously doubt all these agencies have obtained permission to experiment from FHWA.

Rosemarie, I just wanted to let you know what happened regarding my sign. The highway superintendant said he could not get a Slow Children sign larger than 18x24, but in order to make sure it is more visible, he ordered it in a bright green coloring. He said it was like a "highlighter" color. I thought that was good. That will draw attention to the sign even though the sign is not very big. He told me he thought the coloring was very effective, especially with the figure of the running child. So I think that will do.

Hi Bonnie. I am thrilled to hear that your highway sup't was willing to be creative on your SLOW CHILDREN sign. Being unable to get a sign larger that 18x24 did not have to be an obstacle to getting the sign noticed as you pointed out. We have used FYG for our Slow Children signs in MA as well and to great effect! The signs get noticed. Some critics of (yellow) Slow Children signs say that noone notices the signs and that they are a waste. But using FYG causes the signs to be noticed and raises community awareness. - Rosemarie

For all you folks that think fluorescent yellow green will suddenly make "Slow Children" signs effective I'd quote from the Transportation Research Record 1538 "Field Evaluation of Fluorescent Strong Yellow-Green Pedestrian Warning Signs": "Based on the results of this research it is concluded that SYG (strong yellow green) warning signs produced marginal improvements in pedestrian safety at midblock pedestrian crossings under daylight conditions. Although most trends were desirable, the associated changes were typically of small magnitude and were statistically insignificant." No matter how you slice it the only thing these signs are good for is appeasing citizens. You're kidding yourselves if you think they will make children safer.

The signs do not violate the MUTCD. State law supercedes the Federal MUTCD. For example, PA has a state law "Watch Children" signs are installed on roads that do not have sidewalks and the have frequent children walking on them. VA has a state law on "Watch for Children" signs, but stricter criteria. Other states do not have laws but post a variety of signs. Hope this helps.

Looks like Rosemarie is at it again!

Umm, yes. I contacted the Federal Highway Administration's Resource Center (via this website). A safety/design engineer responsed almost immediately and attached a US Department of Transportation Message Points document dated February 11, 2002: "Children at Play Signs." The most significant points in that document are: "Children at Play signs are not prohibited by the MUTCD as long as they conform to the standard shape and colors and as long as no symbols are used." "The MUTCD allows State and local highway authorities to develop and install word message worning signs other than those specifically contained in the MUTCD." I will be happy to forward the document to anyone who responds with their e-mail address. Thus, while the old "Running Child" symbol apparently should not be used, the various text messages in this discussion group are considered acceptable. Unfortunately for supporters of this sign, the document also references several publications that question their effectiveness. However, no source indicated that they cause problems. If you can convince your local officials to install them, at least they are not in violation of the MUTCD. (I too used to know all the answers. Then I graduated and got a job in the real world. My initial interpretation of their legality was based on 35 years as a professional traffic engineer. Sometimes professional experience and engineering judgement is more important than simply relying on dogmatic Strict Construction of every MUTCD section)

Ken, I am very pleased to hear that the children warning signs are not prohibited by the Federal MUTCD. You said that the TEXT signs can be used. I am concerned about the running child picture. Are you implying that my little running boy wearing knickers should not appear on our "SLOW CHILDREN" signs? We love that boy and he is a New England tradition. Well, at least all 50 states can now post children warning signs. However, in MA we will continue with knickers. Keep the Children safe! -Rosemarie P.

Rosemarie, the statement disallowing the use of Symbols is from FHWA (I have no idea why). If you provide your e-mail address I will forward their information. With respect to Warning signs, I have no idea of the legal implications associated with using a non-approved sign. However, if you go to the FHWA contacts section, under Signs, you could ask for a clarification regarding symbols.

How do you know the little boy isn't a streaker wearing knee socks?

Based on the latest information the use of Children at Play signs does not violate the MUTCD as long as they are black on yellow and diamond shaped. The Federal Highway Department does not believe they are effective, but local jurisdictions are free to use the signs. Now that that is cleared up, which text should you use? Many have said that the text "Children at Play" seems to encourage children to play in the street. Therefore I would recommend the yellow diamond shaped sign with the text "Watch for Children." That sign is being used in some Massachusetts towns in lieu of the "Slow Children" sign. I am going to pass the information that Ken posted from The US Dept of Transportation talking points along to my local highway department and we will discuss it in our next Board of Selectman meeting on whether to go forward with "Watch for Children" signs, or continue the "Slow Children" with the running boy. Thanks for the information Ken! Keep the children safe - Rosemarie P.

Ken, Thank you. I was able to obtain the documents directly. Perhaps the reason they discourage a pictograph is due to uniformity issues.

I live in a Virginia suburb of Washington, DC. It is a fairly old, bucolic community with very few sidewalks but lots of kids, bicycle riders, walkers and dog walkers. We were hoping to have a few "Watch For Pedestrians" signs installed. The Fairfax County traffic folks said they can ONLY signs that are listed in the MUTCD and they no such sign exists in that manual. They indicate the only sign they can install are "Watch for Children" signs. Some of the discussion above references Virginia law as potentially allowing signs that may differ from MUTCD's. Can any of you folks help me cut through all this? Thanks!

George, • The MUTCD allows State and local highway authorities to develop and install word message warning signs other than those specifically contained in the MUTCD. Word message warning signs may be developed by local agencies as long as the size, shape, and color are consistent with the guidelines for warning signs as set forth in Part 2C of the MUTCD. They must be black on yellow and diamond in shape. No pictograph for non-MUTCD signs. There are some MUTCD signs you could use: The pedestrian sign with pictograph, the bicyle sign with pictograph, the "Share the Road" sign with pictograph of a car driving next to a bicyclist. Perhaps a non-MUTCD sign could be created with the text "Watch for pedestrians and bicyclists" which would cover all of the above.

George, take a look at my 3/11 posting. The FHWA does permit Warning signs that are not specifically contained in the MUTCD. Perhaps Virginia has established only the Watch for Children sign as a standard.

Rosemarie: Just a quick note, the "Share the Road" sign as described is not in the MUTCD. The sign is simply a rectangular plaque reading "SHARE THE ROAD" which needs to be placed under a bicycle or golf cart warning sign. The other sign was created by another jurisdiction and was not adopted in the most recent manual. Personally, I like that sign better.

Rosemary and Molly, you are letting me down here. I'm being to think your only interest here is all the attention you receive from all these guys on this site.... Let me know what you think about this little test. Park yourself near one of these signs and count the number of times drivers apply their brakes (and thus their brake lights) to slow because of these signs. Trust me, if you get a number higher than zero, you are doing well...

Steve, your test to see how many people apply their breaks when they see a Slow Children sign is not the point of the Pro-Children Sign movement. The point is to raise awareness that children are in the area and to be on alert. The signs usually appear at the beginning of a neighborhood, before the vehicle can ramp up to it's highest speed, so no brakes would likely be applied upon seeing one of our traditional New England signs. I have asked citizens during town meetings if they notice the signs and what impact it has on them. I have found that the FYG sign with the boy wearing knickers is more effective than the yellow sign with the stick figure. I believe that is due to the fact that the boy wearing knickers looks more real than the stick figure and thus causes drivers to "get it" when they see the sign. The responses I have received have all been positive by both Fathers and Mothers alike. And there is a strong majority in favor of the knickers vs. the stick figure. Also Steve, if you have read the most recent threads you will see that the Federal Highway does not declare these signs as "illegal" - they are actually allowed and approved my many jurisdictions and states, they are just not included in the MUTCD. They recommend text only for these signs (but in New England we will continue to follow tradition).

Mike, Thanks for clarifying this sign. The sign I was referring to use used widely in Rhode Island. I love that sign. -Rosemarie P.

I have read with amazement the comments in support of the slow children sign. First of all, slow is a relative term. Does it mean to go slower than the posted speed limit? I believe it is important to use standardized signs as listed in the MUTCD. Contrary to one comment, MUTCD superceeds state manuals unless the state is requiring stricter measure. Installing a sign not listed in the manual is not a stricter measure. Im not sure if the publication still exists, but the FHWA used to produce a companion to the MUTCD called the traffic control devices handbook, and in that it stated in section 2d-4 obsolete or inappropriate signs such as "Dangerous Intersection or Caution Children at Play" should be removed and proper signing installed as required for the specific condition. It goes on to say non standard or unwarranted signs are NEVER THE APPROPRIATE SOLUTION. I read this information from a publication of the Maryland T2 center which is a combination of resources such as the Univ. of Md, Md Dept. of Transp. and the FHWA. The publication was volume 10, number 3 from summer/fall 1994. It also raised question about concerns from local agency attorneys regarding the liability aspects of these signs. They are concerned that courts could hold that the agency is condoning, or even encouraging children to play in the streets. We certainly do not install these signs in our County, and if a private resident installs them we remove them. We are allowed to do this pursuant to Maryland annotated code #21-205 Display of unauthorized Signs. Section D: "Placing signs, etc., except as otherwise permitted by law. A person may not place, maintain, or display on or in view of any highway any unauthorized sign, signal, or device that, except as otherwise permitted by law contains: (1) any of the following words: Stop, Curve, Warning, SLOW, danger, listen, look, or school. or (2) any other word used in directing the movement of traffic. It goes on further in section 2-g to state "each sign prohibited from this siction is a public nuisance, and the authority that has jurisdiction over the highway may remove it without notice. I am not against children, I have one of my own, but I do believe in standardized signing, and the Slow Children sign is not one of them.

Richard, I congratulate you on being in a county that will condone and support removal of unwarranted and unjustified signs. Most jurisdictaions that I am familiar with cower before the wrath of the Soccor Mom who, by definition, is the ultimate sourse for all traffic regulations.

Richard, Congradulations to your county officials who do not bow to the pressure for installing warrantless signs which may in turn bring liabilities. How do we define SLOW? Very interesting question for which the MUTCD does not seem to have an answer. If you are doing 50 on a 70 zone, you are slow, but in your mind you may be to fast. However it depends on numerous factors. So, how do we define SLOW? and how LEO enforce a SLOW sign? Good question. This could be the subject of a new discussion forum with the Stop/slow paddle as the topic. Quebec used to have a SLOW sign in its MUTCD but back in the '70's, the sign was phased out. As for the Traffic Control Handbook (the companion to the MUTCD) if you go to the ATSSA web site, you can buy the version which complement the MUTCD 2000 (I did not check the ITE and AASHTO's web sites which might offer it too).

It seems only a fact that the last reference to the Slow Clildren Sign in the MUTCD (the Bible) was a reference in the traffic control devices hanbook that said to remove them. There should not be any question on it thereafter. States adopt the manual in order to receive federal highway dollars. If they adopt, they have to follow or make stricter measures. Not what they feel like, or what tradition is.

While I totally agree that signs such as SLOW CHILDREN are useless, the MUTCD does not prohibit them (see my posting 3/11). Further, it is not at all proper to refer to the MUTCD as the "Bible" for traffic devices. That may imply to some that every word is TRUTH and that no inferred interpretation is possible. In the other "Bible" things that are not included are excluded. In the MUTCD that is not necessarily the case. The MUTCD stresses that Engineering Judgement must be applied in establishing and designing traffic controls and devices.

Until I read it in black and white in an MUTCD, I dont see it as being approved . If in 2002 you suggest you received a letter condoning the use of this sign, then why was it not published in the 2003 MUTCD as an approved sign or listed as an option? As far as in black and white, in a munual published by FHWA, the last reference I have been able to find is to remove them, they are obsolete.

oh and i forgot to mention, that manual was the TCD handbook which was intended to act as a how to guide for the mutcd and to serve an interpretive function, so as far as interpretation, i have read the interpretation

Here are some excerpts I got from my FHWA divisional office: US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MESSAGE POINTS FEBRUARY 11, 2002 Children at Play Signs • Symbols on traffic signs must conform with the MUTCD. • Children at Play signs are not prohibited by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as long as they conform to the standard shape (diamond) and colors (black letters on yellow background) and as long as no symbols are used. • The MUTCD allows State and local highway authorities to develop and install word message warning signs other than those specifically contained in the MUTCD. • Studies of the effectiveness of Children at Play signs by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the Transportation Research Board and by FHWA to date do not demonstrate a reduction in crashes involving children nor a reduction in speeds. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 186, 1993, reports that “The device is not considered effective,…..”

Here are some excerpts I got from my FHWA divisional office: US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MESSAGE POINTS FEBRUARY 11, 2002 Children at Play Signs • Symbols on traffic signs must conform with the MUTCD. • Children at Play signs are not prohibited by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as long as they conform to the standard shape (diamond) and colors (black letters on yellow background) and as long as no symbols are used. • The MUTCD allows State and local highway authorities to develop and install word message warning signs other than those specifically contained in the MUTCD. • Studies of the effectiveness of Children at Play signs by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the Transportation Research Board and by FHWA to date do not demonstrate a reduction in crashes involving children nor a reduction in speeds. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 186, 1993, reports that “The device is not considered effective,…..”

Ill just stick to what I know, and that is Published information.

That is the safest way, and you won't be "wrong." However, if you are an engineer with a public agency responsible for traffic control devices, you may at some point need to do some research when asked about installing new or unusual controls. (Although I have always been in private practice, it has been my experience that the "public" rarely accepts a "that's what the MUTCD says" answer without additional backup) . That is why this website provides contact names at FHWA. As for why the February 2002 Message Point was not included in the 2003 MUTCD, that is anyone's guess. My own opinion is that the various releases of the MUTCD are "set" well before the publication date. Perhaps the next edition will contain the clarification regarding non-listed Warning signs.

I do work for a public agency, and do a fair amount of research when dealing with "unusual" circumatances, but allowing the installation of these signs, even with a letter such as what you have, I believe opens you up for tort liability issues. I have been to many classes taught by FHWA personell, and the topic of SCatP has always come up and alway ended with a discussion of Tort Liability. How would children at play be an unusual circumstance, there are children almost everywhere, a fact is that drivers will only reduce their speed if they perceive a need to. That perception does not come from seeing a sign, it would only come from seeing a child in or near a roadway. The MUTCD was written for a reason, and that is uniformity. The reason it is not in the manual as you say it was in the message point, was not because of time constraints, but because they do not want that sign used.

I have been reading the recent conversation on this topic, and am confused. If it stated in the traffic control devices handbook not to use the sign and to remove it, why would FHWA give someone a letter saying it was okay, unless you are suggesting they had a change of heart, and with that it seems that it would be published formally.

It is my understanding that those involved in the MUTCD were deeply divided on the Catp signs when they proposed removing the signs. There seems to be a movement that wants to allow the signs as long as they conform to mutcd standards, such as diamond in shape, and no pictograph for non-standard signs. It has been advised to use wording such as "Children" or "Watch for Children" as the text. The use of the word "Slow" on any sign is not advised because it is not defined and is unclear.

I certainly do not intent to argue in favor of these signs since I an opposed to them as needless. If as you say some FHWA personnel are giving seminars against them (for whatever reason, and there are many good ones including liability) and some are providing literature saying that they are OK, then there is a lack of communication in FHWA. Hopefully this will be clarified in the upcoming MUTCD (perhaps 2006).

Please refer to CHILDSAFETY.Com They have a 31 X 20 wide Bright yellow BE ALERT for CHILDREN A-frame sign. Made of durable weather proof corrugated plastic. It has an envelope locking flap at the base that can be weighted down when weateher conditions require. The letters are large enough to be seen from 100 feet away. The most important concept is to put it out ONLY when the children are out so the motorists take it seriously each and every time. Actually very cute because it looks like a little boy is holding the sign. He is very bright and has a lot to say. CHILDSAFETY.com

The signs on that website are "cute" but of course can only be used on private property. Most states have regulations prohibiting a private citizen from placing a sign on public property, even if temporary. You also have to remember that the website, however well-intentioned it seems to be, is in the business of selling signs. Just because they say that the signs are helpful doesn't mean that they actually are.

Deaf children, slow childen, autistic children, playing children, children with
anger issues, and children that won't eat their brocolli all have one thing in
common, drivers don't give a damn about any of these conditions. They will pass
one of these signs and not modify their behavior at all. So, put up as many
signs as you like but just remember, these signs, have no affect on children's
safety. They just make you feel better.... And keep up the posts, they make for
very entertaining reading.

Here is the direct quote from the MUTCD regarding the use of the Playground
sign: "Section 2C.42 Playground Sign (W15-1)
Option:
The Playground (W15-1) sign (see Figure 2C-10) may be used to give advance
warning of a designated
children's playground that is located adjacent to the road. The Playground sign
may have a fluorescent yellowgreen
background with a black legend and border.
Guidance:
If the access to the playground area requires a roadway crossing, the
application of crosswalk pavement
markings (see Section 3B.17) and Nonvehicular signs (see Section 2C.41) should
be considered.