Plaistow board directs committee to study sensory‑impaired/child warning signs after liability concerns

The Plaistow Select Board on July 6 asked the Highway Safety Advisory Committee and town staff to research policy language and examples from neighboring towns for sensory‑impaired, deaf, or autistic child warning signs after Public Works supervisor Dan warned the board such signs are informational, fall outside MUTCD federal guidelines, and could create legal exposure.

“There's no enforcement…sometimes it gives people a false sense of security,” Public Works supervisor Dan said during a long discussion about requests from residents for signage on neighborhood streets. He cautioned that if a non‑standard sign is in place and a crash occurs, “the first thing they're gonna do is why is the sign there? And if the sign doesn't have any direct function…and it doesn't fall under the federal guidelines for street installation and protocol, they're gonna get us.”

Dan explained that some towns have long‑standing nonstandard signs (for example, faded signs that may refer to a child who no longer lives there) and that repeated exposure can desensitize drivers: “I would not want to stand here and tell you that if I put that sign up, your kid's any safer because it really isn't.”

Select Board members and Highway Safety committee participants discussed options: drafting a town policy to govern when the signs are allowed, setting limits and responsibilities, attaching requester information so staff can review requests later, and determining who has final approval. “Find out what's acceptable, what's not acceptable, and write up some kind of policy,” Select Board member Jonathan Gifford urged.

The board agreed the committee and staff should survey neighboring towns for verbiage and practice, have Highway Safety review proposed language, then return the recommendation to the Select Board for a final decision. The group set a target for research and follow‑up work in time for the first August meeting cycle.