"No Passing Zone" pennants

[hbelkins]

Kentucky introduced the "No Passing Zone" pennant sign, installed on the opposite side of the road from the direction of travel, in the mid-1970s, about the time Kentucky started using reflective sheeting on its signs (and went to the wide-format sign for US and state routes).

Why is this sign yellow for warning and not white for regulatory? I ask mainly because the yellow pennants replaced white "Do Not Pass" signs, which were regulatory in nature.

[cl94]

Maybe because they're often supplementals? Everywhere I have seen the pennant, there is a "do not pass" sign across from it. As a kid, I always associated the pennant with Massachusetts. Here is a typical MA setup.

[JMAN_WiS&S]

I've never seen the white signs in wisconsin

[Bitmapped]

A lot of agencies use the pennant without a corresponding "Do Not Pass" sign. PennDOT is one example: https://goo.gl/maps/pQCWtduYDvB2 . WVDOH also omits the "Do Not Pass" sign: https://goo.gl/maps/2sJgcQ7CgcC2 .

The pennant signs seem to be used in conjunction with pavement markings. Perhaps the thought is the pavement markings are generally regulatory, but I don't believe that's the case in all states.

[paulthemapguy]

Basically, my understanding is:

Yellow signs-- Hazards caused by road conditions; biggest threat is injury or death
White signs-- Regulations enforced by law; biggest threat is citations/fines/jail time
(though of course, regulations ideally are mandated to promote safety)

IMO, the limited sight distance while passing someone fits more under the category of "hazard caused by road conditions," wherein you could certainly end up in a dangerous situation, rather than just an illegal one.

The long version (TLDR):

The answer, necessarily, is subject to interpretation, but I think the implication is that warning signs notify the driver of imminent danger or unsafe conditions.  I allege that a "no passing zone" sign is yellow because it warns a driver that it's dangerous or unsafe to pass the vehicle they're trailing.  With a white sign, drivers understand that there's a posted regulation that's a function of law enforcement rather than a need for safety concerns mandated by road conditions.  Yellow signs tend more to show a hazard caused by road conditions; white signs tend more to show regulations that are punishable by law rather than by physics, as you probably know.  With that said, it does kind of make sense that NPZ's are yellow--they warn of limited sight distance that can result in injury or death, and not just legal troubles, if a pass is attempted.

[dcharlie]

I've never seen the white signs in wisconsin

I remember them as a boy in the early 70's.  They posted both the yellow and the white for a few years during the transition.

[epzik8]

Simple: Passing is restricted because it's likely dangerous to do so along that stretch of road.

[rarnold]

Iowa and Kansas doesn't use the white "DO NOT PASS" or "PASS WITH CARE" signs, just the yellow pennants.

[hbelkins]

Simple: Passing is restricted because it's likely dangerous to do so along that stretch of road.

Except a yellow sign doesn't restrict you from doing it.

The pennant signs seem to be used in conjunction with pavement markings. Perhaps the thought is the pavement markings are generally regulatory, but I don't believe that's the case in all states.

In Kentucky, if signage and pavement markings conflict or if signage is absent, pavement markings control and are regulatory.

[GenExpwy]

I think a more logical color combination would be red and white.

Black-on-yellow is for hazards, but you can't get a ticket for disobeying it.

Black-on-white is for regulations like SPEED LIMIT 40 or RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT; you can get a ticket, but it isn't much of an imminent danger.

White-on-red is for regulations that prevent imminent dangers, like STOP and WRONG WAY. Violate one of those and you'll be lucky to just get a ticket, rather than be in a fatal collision in two seconds. NO PASSING ZONE seems to fit this category best.

[mhh]

White-on-red is for regulations that prevent imminent dangers, like STOP and WRONG WAY. Violate one of those and you'll be lucky to just get a ticket, rather than be in a fatal collision in two seconds. NO PASSING ZONE seems to fit this category best.

White-on-red is actually for regulations that require (like a stop sign or a wrong-way sign) or potentially require (like a yield sign) a full stop. A no-passing zone is not a stopping zone.

[GenExpwy]

[Apologies in advance for the length of this]

I think there is an important question that is relevant here: What exactly is a No Passing Zone anyways? Is it just where you can legally start a pass, or are you also required to finish the pass within the same zone?

The MUTCD says:

Standard:
The center line markings on two-lane, two-way roadways shall be one of the following as shown in Figure 3B-1:
A. Two-direction passing zone markings consisting of a normal broken yellow line where crossing the center line markings for passing with care is permitted for traffic traveling in either direction;
B. One-direction no-passing zone markings consisting of a double yellow line, one of which is a normal broken yellow line and the other is a normal solid yellow line, where crossing the center line markings for passing with care is permitted for the traffic traveling adjacent to the broken line, but is prohibited for traffic traveling adjacent to the solid line; or
C. Two-direction no-passing zone markings consisting of two normal solid yellow lines where crossing the center line markings for passing is prohibited for traffic traveling in either direction.

It also says:

Support:
Section 11-307 of the "Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC)"  contains further information regarding required road user behavior in no-passing zones.

So let's go to the Uniform Vehicle Code:

(b) Where signs or markings are in place to define a no-passing zone as set forth in paragraph (a) no driver shall at any time drive on the left side of the roadway within such no-passing zone or on the left side of any pavement striping designed to mark such no-passing zone.

The MUTCD seems to say (with some ambiguity) that as long as you start the pass on the dashed line, you're OK. The UVC is pretty clear that you must also finish the pass before the dashed line turns solid.

The UVC language is the only one that makes sense (otherwise you could keep passing forever), but it raises a practical difficulty: to legally pass, you must first look way down the road, see where the dashed line turns solid, and judge whether you can complete the pass before that spot. This would be difficult-to-impossible at night, during rainy weather, when the lines are obscured, etc.

I think this is the reason why the pennant exists. You look for the pennant and judge whether you can complete the pass before that spot. This means the pennant should be "used"  in a way different from all other signs – you don't come to it, read it, and then heed its message; but rather spot it from a long distance and use its position as a reference. This should be considered in its design.

Color: It needs to be something that will stand out at a long distance. I have seen the yellow blend in with fall foliage. I don't know whether white or fluorescent yellow would stand out better. I wish that fluorescent pink was available for this.

Legend: I think the purpose of NO PASSING ZONE is to help reinforce the meaning of the sign, even though you can't read it at such a long distance. I would change it to END PASSING ZONE – it might better convey the idea that that's where you have to end the pass, and also prevent the dangerous practice (that I have seen in New York) of posting the pennant in the middle of a no passing zone.

[Scott5114]

Oklahoma doesn't use any signs at all to denote passing zones. Just the pavement markings.

[Brandon]

Oklahoma doesn't use any signs at all to denote passing zones. Just the pavement markings.

How can you tell where the begin and end in the snow?

As a counter example, Michigan uses the pennant along with DO NOT PASS and PASS WITH CARE signage.  It's therefore easy to tell where the zone begins and ends should the roads be covered in snow.

[hbelkins]

Oklahoma doesn't use any signs at all to denote passing zones. Just the pavement markings.

How can you tell where the begin and end in the snow?

As a counter example, Michigan uses the pennant along with DO NOT PASS and PASS WITH CARE signage.  It's therefore easy to tell where the zone begins and ends should the roads be covered in snow.

You probably shouldn't be passing on a snow-covered road.

[kphoger]

It's a common occurrence that a highway be clear of snow within the driving lanes but still have the center line obscured by a line of snow between them. Safe to travel at full speed, safe to pass, unable to see the solid line.

[Brandon]

Oklahoma doesn't use any signs at all to denote passing zones. Just the pavement markings.

How can you tell where the begin and end in the snow?

As a counter example, Michigan uses the pennant along with DO NOT PASS and PASS WITH CARE signage.  It's therefore easy to tell where the zone begins and ends should the roads be covered in snow.

You probably shouldn't be passing on a snow-covered road.

Why not?  We do that all the time up here, and that includes the Upper Peninsula where MDOT does not plow all the way down to pavement.

[paulthemapguy]

You probably shouldn't be passing on a snow-covered road.

Why not?  We do that all the time up here, and that includes the Upper Peninsula where MDOT does not plow all the way down to pavement.

On snow covered roads, you have two different types of people.  You have veterans of snow driving who know to go about 30-35mph and be extra conscious of steering, and you have people who completely panic and move at a snail's pace.  In a snowstorm we had this past December, some erratic terrified driver was going 20 and slamming on the brakes every 30 seconds, basically begging to get rear-ended.  So I frustratedly blared the horn and went around them...not proud of this but that's what happened lol.  They were awful!  So anyways, sometimes, for the sake of your own safety, you need to pass a driver who is foreign to the snow and handling the situation very poorly.  In addition, it's more often that we have a long, open passing zone in the plains states, as we have a lot of long, flat (boring) straightaways.

[kphoger]

Last February, I drove I-24 through Kentucky during a sleet and ice storm.  You should have seen the people with Georgia license plates going 25 mph and the people with Illniois license plates going 60 mph!

[jeffandnicole]

Oklahoma doesn't use any signs at all to denote passing zones. Just the pavement markings.

How can you tell where the begin and end in the snow?

As a counter example, Michigan uses the pennant along with DO NOT PASS and PASS WITH CARE signage.  It's therefore easy to tell where the zone begins and ends should the roads be covered in snow.

You probably shouldn't be passing on a snow-covered road.

If a car is getting passed, the scared shitless slowpoke probably shouldn't be driving on a snow covered road.

[JREwing78]

Oklahoma doesn't use any signs at all to denote passing zones. Just the pavement markings.

How can you tell where the begin and end in the snow?

As a counter example, Michigan uses the pennant along with DO NOT PASS and PASS WITH CARE signage.  It's therefore easy to tell where the zone begins and ends should the roads be covered in snow.

You probably shouldn't be passing on a snow-covered road.

There's a lot of variance in driving conditions in the snow belt. If it's cold enough, hard-pack or light snow is not especially slippery, particularly if it's been sanded. Locals will drive on it close to the speed limit.

The snowy conditions you usually encounter are those close to the freezing point, where snow quickly turns to ice, and road conditions become treacherous quickly. Yeah, there's no passing in that situation.

One of those things where common sense comes into play.

[Thunderbyrd316]

I think a more logical color combination would be red and white.

Black-on-yellow is for hazards, but you can't get a ticket for disobeying it.

Black-on-white is for regulations like SPEED LIMIT 40 or RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT; you can get a ticket, but it isn't much of an imminent danger.

White-on-red is for regulations that prevent imminent dangers, like STOP and WRONG WAY. Violate one of those and you'll be lucky to just get a ticket, rather than be in a fatal collision in two seconds. NO PASSING ZONE seems to fit this category best.

I like this idea. I have also thought that "No Turn on Red" signs should be white on red to increase their visibility and make them stand out.

[GenExpwy]

I think a more logical color combination would be red and white.

Black-on-yellow is for hazards, but you can't get a ticket for disobeying it.

Black-on-white is for regulations like SPEED LIMIT 40 or RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT; you can get a ticket, but it isn't much of an imminent danger.

White-on-red is for regulations that prevent imminent dangers, like STOP and WRONG WAY. Violate one of those and you'll be lucky to just get a ticket, rather than be in a fatal collision in two seconds. NO PASSING ZONE seems to fit this category best.

I like this idea. I have also thought that "No Turn on Red" signs should be white on red to increase their visibility and make them stand out.

I don't see enough of an immediate danger associated with NTOR to make it red & white. Putting the sign close to the signal head ought to give it good enough visibility.

The only black & white signs that I would change to red & white are:

• The railroad crossing crossbuck (red-on-white, and give it a red border) (bonus: many other nations use red and white)
• Other railroad crossing signs: DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS and LOOK ↔ (white-on-red)
• ROAD CLOSED, because there is often a serious danger just ahead.

[freebrickproductions]

• The railroad crossing crossbuck (red-on-white, and give it a red border) (bonus: many other nations use red and white)

Red on White crossbucks actually do exist here in the US, and were rather common once upon a time in Ohio, due to the "Buck-eye" Crossbuck installs there, but they aren't exactly what you are describing. They just simply were a standard crossbuck with red letters. Here's a few examples:
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Alabama/Albertville/Sand_Mountain2/
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Ohio/Rossford/J/

[roadman]

• The railroad crossing crossbuck (red-on-white, and give it a red border) (bonus: many other nations use red and white)

Red on White crossbucks actually do exist here in the US, and were rather common once upon a time in Ohio, due to the "Buck-eye" Crossbuck installs there, but they aren't exactly what you are describing. They just simply were a standard crossbuck with red letters. Here's a few examples:
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Alabama/Albertville/Sand_Mountain2/
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Ohio/Rossford/J/

The Buckeye Crossbuck, which was intended for use at passive grade crossings (no lights or gates), was more than just a red on white crossbuck.  It also contained a supplemental red on white panel - both the crossbuck and supplemental panel used Type VII microprismatic sheeting - with chevrons and the word 'Yield" - the chevrons were angled so that they would pick up the headlight from an approaching train and reflect down the roadway.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/23533795@N03/2580685669

Initial studies indicated that the Buckeye Crossbuck was superior to the standard crossbuck in reducing crashes at passive crossings http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32300/32364/14612-FR.pdf  However, the recommendation to include the Buckeye Crossbuck as a permitted option in the MUTCD was never adopted.  Rather, the 2009 MUTCD indicates that standard Stop or Yield signs be used, in conjunction with retroreflective strips on signposts, with crossbucks at passive crossings.