Normative Signs: The Poetry of "Ought"

No…uh, no what? Wait! Who would…? I mean, surely … surely no one wants to… um, under surveillance.

(Sign posted on a cul-de-sac in a subdivision outside of Ottawa, Canada.)

This rather unique warning sign is posted in Yellowknife, NTW (Canada), asking parents not to let their kids climb on roofs.

I like the “Please remind your children” part (as if not climbing on buildings is a rule that’s been discussed already, and the kids just need a reminder).

Nice also that they put child safety first, and left the potential for structural damage til the end.

Here’s one of the old buildings in question:

Thanks to Charles Tam for submitting the photos.

I like meta-normative signs, signs that tell you to obey other signs (like this sign telling pedestrians to obey traffic signals). The photo above is of a sign that is kind of like that. See the coaster on the table? The presence of a coaster is an implicit plea for you to use said coaster, and its function is obvious: to protect the table. Except in this case, someone a) figured you wouldn’t know to use the coaster, and b) wouldn’t know its function. So they told you. Politely.

This normative sign also illustrates one of my (perversely) favourite uses of normative signs: to intrude into your brain when the objects they’re protecting should just be designed so as not to require instructions for proper care.

Thanks to Wayne Norman for the photo.

This sign says “Do not step on the flowers!!!”, and was spotted in Kyoto.

It wouldn’t be noteworthy were it not for the fact that it is posted above flowers that are relatively difficult to step on in the first place, given that they’re in a raised flower bed (see photo below for context). As always, this one makes me wonder just what the story is. What pattern of balance-beam flower-stomping made this sign necessary? And is someone who is hell-bent on climbing up onto a planter really likely to read and obey such a sign?

Interesting also that the triple exclamation marks suggest a certain degree of urgency.

Thanks to Johan Portström for submitting the photos.

What’s not to love about the sign in this photo from just outside Bristol, England? The sign is apparently posted adjacent to an area of felled trees and marshy land.

I love the idea of warning of an “unquantifiable” hazard. Of course, many many hazards are unquantifiable, or at least unquantified — after all what’s the probability, precisely, associated with drinking irrigation water or allowing children to pump gas?

It’s also worth noting that most people — or is that just most people here in North America — would have very little idea what the word “unquantifiable” means. It seems rather a subtle point to put on a sign, really.

Thanks to Ursula Wills-Jones for the picture.

Fans of normative signs will likely enjoy this:
25 Signs Made Funnier By People (With thanks to NW.)

I spotted this sign on a gas pump in Pennsylvania.

I can pretty readily imagine the pattern of events that must have led to it being necessary to post such a sign. After all, if a 12 year old is pumping gas, he may not be mature enough to remember not to smoke while doing so.

I like the verb mood being employed. Is that the optative mood? I’m not sure, but the sentence structure is surely one seldom seen in everyday conversation but pretty common in legal documents. Adding to the legalistic tone is the fact that they’ve decided to go with “dispense gasoline” rather than the more colloquial (and clear) “pump gas.”

I also like the slightly madcap printing of “DANGER DANGER DANGER!”

People who appreciate the Normative Signs Blog will likely also appreciate this:

33 First-World Anarchists Who Don’t Care About Your Rules

This “DO NOT DRINK” sign is adjacent to Ocean Blvd in Santa Monica, CA.

At a distance, it looks like an injunction not to consume alcohol in the park (or maybe at all). Closer-up, it turns out to forbid drinking water — irrigation water — that presumably few people want to drink anyway.

There’s actually a lot going on in this sign, normatively. It signals the City’s feel-good focus on conservation. There’s also the vagueness of the reference to “recycled” water. (Um, greywater? Sewage? Runoff?) Then there’s the vagueness regarding whether the do-not-drink rule is a health thing (if, e.g., the “recycled” water is sewage) or a water-conservation thing.

Overall, a slightly weird sign.

This sign is posted on the gate of a school in Claremont, CA. It apparently forbids all smoking anywhere in this universe or any other.

See also “The Law of the Excluded Middle.”