Michigan removing turn ahead signs

[xsledder]

I disagree with the logic that removing the sign will slow people down. And using boondocking as an example of how someone can rationalize it as logical and common sense is in itself nonsensical. Boondocking is a separate and unrelated type of riding like driving on a highway and off-roading. Can't and shouldn't relate the two.

When I ride on a marked groomed trail (at whatever speed I'm riding at) there is a expectation of signage just as if I'm riding on a highway. If the trail isn't groomed or marked, I don't have the expectation. I have that expectation because by grooming and marking you have created a condition similar to driving on a highway. And when I was taught how to drive, I was taught that there would be certain signs on the roadway to help me safely navigate around roadway hazards such as curves. When I took my snowmobile safety course, I was taught the same signs as I was taught in driver's ed. Therefore, I have an expectation to see the signs I was taught in both driver's ed and snowmobile safety.

 

[xsledder]

Pete, good to hear from you. Sorry I haven't been on JD for a long time, as I've been working on a lot of Mi-TRALE and Snowmobile Issues. Plus, sorry to say, but I only go to the computer to do work, and seldom go on any websites. I had a good friend that called me today to tell me about this thread, as she knew I was appointed to this Special DNR Committee a couple years ago.
I don't know of anybody else that was on that committee that is on this website, as right now I sure wish another committee member would step in.
The signing issue was debated in length, but what was so surprising to me was that it was pushed by those specifically representing Snowmobiling. I was appointed more as an ORV Rep, however I stated at all the meetings that while I feel our State has to have a bigger focus on ORV's, I snowmobile more then I ride my ORV. I only ride my ORV to work on trails.
However the Snowmobile Reps made a lot of good points.
1) How many signs do we need on the trail? Do we put up a sign for every corner, every hill? Realistically this is impossible. So what happens if we don't have a sign on one curve that maybe should have one, and have a sign on another where it is obvious that it is a curve.
2) If signs is the determining factor on safety, then tell me why we have so many fatalities on our highways...even with Seat Belt Laws.
3) Is it not safe to always wear a helmet when driving your Motorcycle? Then why does Wisconsin not require Helmets?
4) Why doesn't Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, use all the signing that Michigan has, especially when the terrain that the trails in those states have a lot more curves, hills, etc?
5) If signing is the determining factor on a snowmobile trail, then why is that the Snowmobile Trail Signs in Wisconsin are so much smaller then those in Michigan. Would it not be easier to see an 18" sign, then a 8" sign?

When it comes right down to it, signs don't prevent accidents, SAFE Drivers prevent accidents.
If Safety is the reason for having signs for every corner, every hill, etc, would a Speed Limit not also make the trails safer? I don't feel we need a Speed Limit, I simply feel we need to promote the scenery, the places, the people you ride with, as the reason's to ride. Not how fast you can go from Point A to Point B.
Sorry Pete to disagree with you, however I want to thank you for being such a good friend and a POSITIVE influence on our sport.

These are questions a Professional Engineer should be answering and not a committee.

 

[xsledder]

Viewpoint A (with sign):

"It's a clear day with good visibility on this section of trail, so I'm gonna go 80mph on this stretch, because I know from riding snowmobile trails that there'll be a sign telling me to slow down if there's a curve. Then, when I do see a "curve ahead" sign I'll grab the brake for just a twitch to see how much of a curve it is and make a last second decision from there: Do I slow down more or rip through the corner at speed? I hope there's no ice or the corners not already blown out. How sharp of a curve is it? I know the sign won't tell me this, but it did tell me to slow down. After the corner, I grab the throttle and again get up to speed, maybe 70, maybe 80, maybe more, maybe less. I can do it because just like always, there will be a sign telling me when there's a curve ahead. Keep that speed up. Up until the last possible moment, then I grab the brake for just a twitch to see how much of a curve it is and make a last second decision from there..."

Viewpoint B(without sign):

"It's a clear day with good visibility on this section of trail, so I'm gonna go 80mph on this stretch, which I do until I can't really read the trail ahead, so I back off the throttle to about 60, then 40, then read the trail and grab the brake when I see the arrow at the corner, pulling through the corner at about 40. Then coming out of the corner I grab the throttle to get up to speed again. Maybe 70mph, maybe 80, maybe more, maybe less. I'm watching the terrain to understand what's ahead. After a bit I can't see far enough ahead to understand trail, so I back off the throttle again, but even more this time, I don't know what's coming. Whoa, another corner, left this time. Grab the brake and pull through corner..."

Viewpoint C (WITH sign):

"It's a clear day with good visibility on this section of trail, so I'm gonna go 80mph on this stretch, because I know from riding snowmobile trails that there'll be a sign telling me to slow down if there's a curve. Then, when I do see a "curve ahead" sign I'll grab the brake for just a twitch to see how much of a curve it is and make a last second decision from there: OH $H!T!! SHARP CURVE! Goodbye corner, hello tree."


Respectfully, do not compare road or highway signage to trail signage. There is no comparison. Roads have speed limits, trails don't. Roads have thousands of cars per hour. Trails don't. Roads are subject to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration or local Department of Transportation guidelines. Trail aren't.

As I mentioned before, the ONLY thing that needs attention is a campaign to warn people about this change.

Yes you can compare the two. You are taught the same signage in your snowmobile safety course with the same meaning.

 

[xsledder]

Wow, I haven't been on JD for months, now I'm on it for the second night in a row.

From the first meeting the Signing Committee had to the last one, and then to the Conference Call after all the meetings, I stressed that we need Curve Signs for 90 Degree Turns. As hard as this may be to believe, I had a battle with a lot of people on this, but in the end, the Committee agreed that on a 90 Degree Turn, we would keep the "Sharp Curve" Sign.

I do not want anyone to blame the MSA Reps that were on this committee. They were also volunteers, and the reason's they supported taking down a lot of the signs have already been discussed. Like I said in my first post on this thread, the DNR DID ASK those on the committee to get the feelings and opinions from Snowmobile Clubs in the area they represent. I represented the Western UP, and TRIED to get the Clubs to tell me how they felt. I cannot speak for the other Representatives. What I want to stress again, is that this WAS NOT A DNR decision WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT. The few clubs that attended the meeting that I called agreed that the 90 Degree Turn Sign has to remain erected...and this is what I pushed for. Those clubs stated that we don't need all the Chevrons, 'curvey trail,' 'hill.

You know what was the most talked about sign at the meetings I held...and the committee in the end really didn't know what to do with it...was the Yield Signs at Driveways. Some clubs wanted them, some did not...it turned out where this would be a Club Decision.

I want to thank those that had mature responses, even if we disagree.

Take care everyone, drive safely, enjoy our sport, and have a SAFE 2012.

Skip

Ouch!!!! Never consulted a Professional Engineer? Big mistake!!!!!!

 

[mjkaliszak]

I wouldn't have thought this thread would grow into this size & number of posts. There is good & bad points made, I kind of am at the point ( and have heard few if any mention ) the fee's are going UP , and eliminating sinage is contradicting the added expense. I just shelled out 180 , and don't mind doing it but.... It's kind of like buying a Dannon yogurt. They are almost a buck and at one time were 8oz. , now they are 6. I used to scoop the top yogurt off a little to get to the blueberry's. Now I eat the whole thing. IS LESS REALLY MORE ?

Well enough said, I'm for signs, for safety. Instant adrenaline to the heart ,,,, I may add.
I spend the most time getting my sleds to corner, stress to my kids & newbie riders that YOU MUST BE ON YOUR SIDE.....
Safety is the most important rule, as soon as someone gets hurt.... the trip turns into a dilemna. ( OR Worse )

Looks like more weekday riding will be warranted next year,

PEACE.... MJK OUT

 

[Admin]

(John, are you rethinking your stance now?)

Yes, I have.

Like I said from the first post. Initially I thought this was the dumbest idea I had ever heard of, but upon having it explained to me and then thinking hard about the logic, I was able to see the logic. I applied the logic to how I ride in areas that are signed vs. areas that are not signed (talking ONLY about curve ahead signs, nothing else). I used the analogy of boondocking only to show how much I slow down to remain in full control because there are no signs, not because I think boondocking is like riding a maintained trail, the two are vastly different in lots of ways. I could see how I slowed down and relied ONLY on my ability to read the trail and not have some sign do it for me. This includes boondocking and trails that are groomed and have other warning signs, just not the turn ahead signs.

Reading all the posts about folks still thinking it is a dumb idea illustrates to me that folks just do not want to slow down to the point where they are fully responsible for being able to navigate what ever the trail has in store for them. Even you go on and on about how it should be just like how a roadway is marked and you even EXPECT it to be.

With that data now in hand, I do believe that there would be a lot more problems without the turn ahead signs, because there are so many not willing to ride like we did in the old days before all the signs were up.

If anything, this thread has just re-solidified why I dislike riding the trails so much, why I have such fear and angst when I come around any corner, hoping that there is no one on my side of the trail. I have had way too many close calls by folks who have made the turn without going into the sticks, but are going too fast to say on their side and that to me just takes all the fun out of riding.

When I go out riding, I want to return to my wife, daughter and pups- safe and sound and is why I ride at a speed where I can handle a curve in the trail, sign or no sign. Perhaps I could be considered to be a snowgeezer. In any case, I am NEVER going to leave my safety and my ability to return home alive and well to my family to a turn ahead sign.

It was very well put that signs are good, but common sense is better. I agree 100% with that statement and can never see myself changing my mind on that point.

I would like to close by saying I hope that I am not coming across as being better than others, or preaching to others. I just know what I know from my own experiences and observations. I only want things to be as safe as they can, while still being enjoyable. I am very glad that this discussion has occurred and gone on and on like it has. It has really been an eye opener for me and I have learned a lot.

-John

 

[xsledder]

...but upon having it explained to me and then thinking hard about the logic, I was able to see the logic.

Who exactly did this. If this wasn't done by a Professional Engineer then the explanation and logic is most likely flawed. Like I said earlier, only a Professional Engineer can set traffic control devices, even for shared-use paths. What engineering studies has this committee or other States and Canada based their signage requirements on? Was there a controlled engineering study that actually proves people slowdown more on unsigned trails (less curve ahead signs)? I have actual controlled engineering studies that prove the installation of Stop signs actually increases speeding between the stop signs. But common scenes on this website might be that installing more Stop signs would slow people down. A falsehood. The same result can occur here.

 

[Firecatguy]

When i see the curve ahead sign or "curves" on my sled or bike i like to get into the throttle a little more so maybe removing them will help....

 

[Admin]

xsledder-

I gave my 2 cents on this a long time ago and have been trying to avoid being dragged back in ever since.

It's my logic. Without any turn ahead signs, I drive slower on trails I am unfamiliar with. I guess it's just a survival instinct I have that keeps me from going too fast, overdriving my reaction time and hurting or killing myself. It's certainly possible that what applies to me, does not apply to all and thus my logic of thinking that since I wanted to stay alive and thus drove slower, everyone would- would be wrong.

My main objection to comparing roads to snowmobile trails is that on roadways, the powers that be also put up signs that tell us what a safe speed to travel is for that section or roadway (speed limit signs), so when the conditions change and thus change the safe traveling speed, they are then responsible for telling us that condition has changed (turn ahead). To the best of my knowledge, no speed limit signs exist- other than the generic ones that state the speed limits for ANY trail in that state, not that are particular to that section of trail as in roadways.

Engineering studies are just that and I don't always put a ton of faith into them. Did the engineering studies on the space shuttle say it would blow up not once, but twice? Did the engineering studies for the Tacoma Narrows bridge that collapsed into the river say it would do that when the winds blew? How about the dam in eastern Idaho that collapsed? Did the engineering studies say that the nuclear powerplant in Japan would withstand the tsunami like it did? What do you think those engineers are thinking now? How about the engineering studies that were performed on my truck. Did they say that every time I open the door I would get an avalanche of snow to fall on the seat? I could go on and on and on and on. Hope by now you might be getting my point. No offense to your profession, but engineers are by far from perfect and so are their studies. Common sense trumps all in my book.

-John

 

[Hoosier]

Who exactly did this. If this wasn't done by a Professional Engineer then the explanation and logic is most likely flawed. Like I said earlier, only a Professional Engineer can set traffic control devices, even for shared-use paths. What engineering studies has this committee or other States and Canada based their signage requirements on? Was there a controlled engineering study that actually proves people slowdown more on unsigned trails (less curve ahead signs)? I have actual controlled engineering studies that prove the installation of Stop signs actually increases speeding between the stop signs. But common scenes on this website might be that installing more Stop signs would slow people down. A falsehood. The same result can occur here.

One of the primary aspects I've always enjoyed about snowmobiling is getting out away from everything and exploring. I do like the speed/acceleration/riding the turns of trail riding, but I try to avoid the high traffic areas and railroad grades as much as possible. So maybe this whole discussion doesn't impact me as much. But when you start talking about professional engineering for trails and turn sign placement and expectations for such turns, I wonder what direction the sport is going. I don't think you can ever have the same expectations you have for a paved road in a car - you're starting with a non-paved surface in most cases, then adding an unpredictable amount and quality of snow, and then pulling a drag on it to smooth it down. My point is that comparing this to roads is apples and oranges. Just my opinion. You will never get every trail or every primary trail marked just right and even if you do, a good amount of signs will get knocked down, stolen, etc., such that you can't trust them.

And if you are going to talk about professional engineering studies for turns, I think you need to start incorporating speed limits so that you can also communicate the proper speed for such turns. Do you agree or how is that different?

I do get the issues with sleds crossing over on turns. That is one of the reasons I enjoy riding at night so much - the headlights let you know when an oncoming sled is near.

 

[snoluver1]

No offense to your profession, but engineers are by far from perfect and so are their studies. Common sense trumps all in my book.

-John

A big Amen to that!

 

[xsledder]

xsledder-

I gave my 2 cents on this a long time ago and have been trying to avoid being dragged back in ever since.

It's my logic. Without any turn ahead signs, I drive slower on trails I am unfamiliar with. I guess it's just a survival instinct I have that keeps me from going too fast, overdriving my reaction time and hurting or killing myself.

Engineering studies are just that and I don't always put a ton of faith into them. Did the engineering studies on the space shuttle say it would blow up not once, but twice? Did the engineering studies for the Tacoma Narrows bridge that collapsed into the river say it would do that when the winds blew? How about the dam in eastern Idaho that collapsed? Did the engineering studies say that the nuclear powerplant in Japan would withstand the tsunami like it did? What do you think those engineers are thinking now? How about the engineering studies that were performed on my truck. Did they say that every time I open the door I would get an avalanche of snow to fall on the seat? I could go on and on and on and on. Hope by now you might be getting my point. No offense to your profession, but engineers are by far from perfect and so are their studies. Common sense trumps all in my book.

-John

Yes, you have offended my profession. The Challenger blew not because of an engineering flaw, it blew up because someone didn't listen to the engineers. Galloping Gertie collapsed in the 1930's and was new technology, that many engineers now study how it collapsed and how to prevent another collapse. (Do you know why it collapsed, I do. Blame it on Bernoulli!). Teton Dam collapse is another failure taught in school and was a result of improper soil use and construction staging (so not completely the engineers fault.) Fukushima survided an earth quake exceeding its design. However, higher up non-engineers ignored a report prepared in 2007 stating that a tsunami if that size can distroy the plant. And as far as your truck goes, so what! I would have to say that 3 out of 4 engineers are thinking "I told you so". While you don't give much credence to engineers and engineering studies, we get it right far more often than weatherman.

 

[G]

If a person is born with no common sense whatsoever that person must go to engineering school. I know several engineers that could tell you stress loads on the Golden Gate bridge but have trouble figuring out whether to use a brush or a scraper to remove ice from their windshields.

 

[Admin]

Yes, you have offended my profession. The Challenger blew not because of an engineering flaw, it blew up because someone didn't listen to the engineers. Galloping Gertie collapsed in the 1930's and was new technology, that many engineers now study how it collapsed and how to prevent another collapse. (Do you know why it collapsed, I do. Blame it on Bernoulli!). Teton Dam collapse is another failure taught in school and was a result of improper soil use and construction staging (so not completely the engineers fault.) Fukushima survided an earth quake exceeding its design. However, higher up non-engineers ignored a report prepared in 2007 stating that a tsunami if that size can distroy the plant. And as far as your truck goes, so what! I would have to say that 3 out of 4 engineers are thinking "I told you so". While you don't give much credence to engineers and engineering studies, we get it right far more often than weatherman.

I am sorry if I offended you. It really was not my intention. My intent was to show that engineering reports can be flawed. For what it's worth, my degree is basically an engineering degree. I went through all the same classes as the engineers at Purdue did the first 2 years (calc, physics, chem...) then when they went on to their core classes like thermodynamics, dynamics, statics, ect, I did the same, only in the atmospheric science dept. I also realize that the list of engineering failures pales in comparison to the successes. I have three engineering marvels keeping me alive right now: a pacemaker and 2 artificial heart valves.

I guess I was just trying to point out that engineering studies should not trump common sense.

-John

 

[xsledder]

If a person is born with no common sense whatsoever that person must go to engineering school. I know several engineers that could tell you stress loads on the Golden Gate bridge but have trouble figuring out whether to use a brush or a scraper to remove ice from their windshields.

Well, I knew this was coming. If you can't beat them with a good argument or facts, insult them! I have heard this all to many times at public hearings. Don't you have an original insult.

 

[xsledder]

I am sorry if I offended you. It really was not my intention. My intent was to show that engineering reports can be flawed. For what it's worth, my degree is basically an engineering degree. I went through all the same classes as the engineers at Purdue did the first 2 years (calc, physics, chem...) then when they went on to their core classes like thermodynamics, dynamics, statics, ect, I did the same, only in the atmospheric science dept. I also realize that the list of engineering failures pales in comparison to the successes. I have three engineering marvels keeping me alive right now: a pacemaker and 2 artificial heart valves.

I guess I was just trying to point out that engineering studies should not trump common sense.

-John

More often then not enigneering studies are the result of actual sense. Leave common sense to something like don't put your hand in the fire. When you start talking about traffic control devices and making a judgement based on so called common sense, you will be wrong. You first and initial reaction was correct. You were duped!

And for what it is worth, your physics, calc, chem only covers the first two years of engineering. I had three years in structural engineering, soil engineering, traffic engineering, construction engineering, pavement design, surveying, hydrology, hydraulics, geometrics, get the picture. I don't pretend to have anything equivalent to your degree and I don't think I ever tried to equate my degree to your degree.

My actual reaction to this is who made the decision and what expertise do they have in making the decision. That is what your real reaction should be.

 

[xsledder]

Also, for anyone else out there who wants to insult engineers, please have an original insult because I have heard them all.

 

[Admin]

Also, for anyone else out there who wants to insult engineers, please have an original insult because I have heard them all.

Why doesn't this surprise me?

 

[xsledder]

Why doesn't this surprise me?

Tell me about it, sometime I do getting the feeling I bring this on myself.

 

[snoluver1]

xsledder, with all due respect to your engineering degree, the snowmobile trail system is not a civil engineering project. It is not a highway system. The whole point of riding a snowmobile is to get away from the highways, and all the crap that goes along with them.