I found the following signs posted in a Daily Mail article about so-called "viral emails":

I'm skeptical about the first one, which strikes me as a deliberate parody of inane legal antics, and not a sign anyone would actually post.

But the second one strikes me as downright possible.

That's because an ever-growing number of activist bureaucrats believe that the remedy for traffic congestion is to actually encourage congestion, as a disincentive to drive at all:

...increased traffic capacity causes people to drive more--a lot more--such that half of any driving-time savings generated by new roadways are lost in the short run.

Traffic calming advocates intend only to use these measures in a manner destructive to automobiles. This is because of the "Living Streets" philosophy which believes that automobiles violate the streets, owned exclusively by pedestrians. A similar philosophy is based on the book "Livable Streets" written by Donald Appleyard (1928-1982), a professor of urban planning at the University of California-Berkeley. Appleyard's plan called for recruiting activists named stakeholders to sell traffic calming to unsuspecting neighbors on "streets where residents requested help to reduce speeding and accidents" (2). After the neighborhood streets are calmed, the techniques are applied to busy corridor streets, leading to traffic congestion madness and eventually the ultimate goal of calmers: create cities completely free of automobiles, leaving walking, cycling, and government-controlled mass transit as the only means of transportation.

With any luck, no one will suspect that a slogan like "traffic calming" is actually as much of an oxymoron as "Consumer Advocate."

(I'm sure the latter can be depended on to advocate relentlessly on behalf of the former. If you don't like it, pray.)