Rarest sign type in the USA

[Revive 755]

How about the signs in Pennsylvania --

WAIT
FOR
GREEN
LIGHT

I think there was something similar on IL 23 in the DeKalb/Sycamore area.  There are/were a few variants on this for closely spaced signals along the lines for 'Obey your signal only'.

[Beltway]

How about the signs in Pennsylvania --
WAIT
FOR
GREEN
LIGHT

I think there was something similar on IL 23 in the DeKalb/Sycamore area.  There are/were a few variants on this for closely spaced signals along the lines for 'Obey your signal only'.

That is a sound concept ... as a driver, don't obey the signal of another lane or another roadway!  Obey the signal of your lane and roadway..

[bing101]

I say business routes are rare in most parts of the country though. Its probably signed due to certain state considerations though.

[Bruce]

If they ever put up a "Salmon Crossing" sign at Skokomish, WA, then it would probably take the cake.

Spawning salmon actually cross the road, which often floods.

[crispy93]

There's a few in the MUTCD range of R2-1 through R2-4a (Metric) - the metric speed limit is circled - which I've never seen photos of, just diagrams.

I've also never seen the R9-13 "No Skaters" sign.

What the heck is R5-5 supposed to be for?
I've never seen R9-1.

If you mean "walk on left facing traffic," there's one on NY 9N in Lake George with STATE LAW on top: https://goo.gl/maps/Zm3281gDtQn

[crispy93]

I'm guessing for top 3:

1-The new BPSs (P for purple) for toll road signs
2-HC signs (either permissive or prohibitive for hazardous cargo)
3-BWSs for HOV/HOT lanes.

• I don't see many APLs in New York. There's two sets on the Taconic in Westchester at the Sprain and Saw Mill Parkways. There's another on the Throgs Neck Bridge at the Cross Island.
• I also don't see many "Uturn yield to right turn." I proposed installing this at a signal where there's often uturn conflicts and NYSDOT declined, and told me that sign is used where there is a crash history of this type.
• In the northeast, 60 MPH speed limit signs

[Pink Jazz]

• I don't see many APLs in New York. There's two sets on the Taconic in Westchester at the Sprain and Saw Mill Parkways. There's another on the Throgs Neck Bridge at the Cross Island.
• I also don't see many "Uturn yield to right turn." I proposed installing this at a signal where there's often uturn conflicts and NYSDOT declined, and told me that sign is used where there is a crash history of this type.
• In the northeast, 60 MPH speed limit signs

In Arizona, there are currently two known locations where APL signs are installed; one location I think at the I-8/I-10 interchange in Casa Grande, and the other is on at the US 60/I-10 interchange in Tempe.  ADOT didn't adopt APL's until this year; I think they were concerned about signage costs.  ADOT designed custom smaller arrows for their APL signs, which seems to mitigate the issue of sign size.

Also, there is only one known road in Arizona that currently has a 60 mph speed limit - SR 238 west of Maricopa.

[pdx-wanderer]

These truck advisory speed signs in Oregon.

https://goo.gl/maps/JxnVUzi1c5x
https://goo.gl/maps/fjZpHuuzHLk

[MCRoads]

The rarest sign type is probably the fluorescent pink incident management signs. I still have never seen one in the wild.

I've seen some of these before, this past August actually on US 64 in New Mexico. There was a bad forest fire that was still smouldering around Ute Park and it was raining the day I was driving through. Plenty of bright pink signs warning of fire activities and flash floods.

As for other rare signs, I'd say Saftey Corridor: Lights on for Saftey is pretty rare. Only seen it once on US 87 in Nwe Mexico between Clayton and Raton around Des Moines.

Amarillo has HM ok and prohibited signs at the I40-I27 interchange, prohibiting HM from going through downtown but allowing it down the interstate. Westbound I40 still says HC instead of HM.

What about signs for runaway truck ramps? I think I've seen those before.

There are signs similar to that on the Chesapeake bay bridge (MD).

[jeffandnicole]

A rare sign that's just interesting: https://goo.gl/maps/2pB9Cn5eMhv .  NJDOT does have a project in the works to widen the road and add in proper left turn channels.

I have never seen backplates in NJ. Have I not been paying attention or is this indeed an anomaly (or unique to this jurisdiction)?

They're rare, and very sporadic.. There's even a few that have the new yellow reflective backplate, such as here:
https://goo.gl/maps/sxBMfiVpaC82

[MikeTheActuary]

How about signs EM-4, EM-7c, or EM-7d?

[Eth]

there is an issue with drivers proceeding on a red signal. In this situation, for example, the sign provides valuable information because it may not be clear that continuing from 403 South to 9 South is considered a through movement instead of a right-turn movement that would allow RTOR.

NO RIGHT TURN ON RED
That is how to sign for RTOR prohibited.

The reason the movement is illegal on a red light is that it's considered a through movement, not a right turn movement. NO TURN ON RED is not meaningful because there is no possible right turn movement from that approach. The existing sign is more consistent with the legal situation at this intersection.

That does appear true that it is not an actual right turn.  That sign is still not needed or appropriate, IMHO, because the two signal heads make it perfectly clear when the red lenses are illuminated, that the driver must stop and remain stopped during that indication. 

If he doesn't get that and needs more signs, then you could put up strobe lights and audio broadcasts saying "wait for green light!" over and over again, and none of that is likely to help him.  An accident going someplace to happen.

Perhaps using arrows instead of balls might still illustrate the point better. In the case of the linked intersection, while the green signals are arrows, the red ones are balls, and a driver I saw here the other day must have interpreted this as a right turn, as he proceeded through the intersection on red after stopping. (The "STOP HERE ON RED" isn't sufficient, I don't think, as the sign doesn't say anything about remaining stopped.)

[jeffandnicole]

there is an issue with drivers proceeding on a red signal. In this situation, for example, the sign provides valuable information because it may not be clear that continuing from 403 South to 9 South is considered a through movement instead of a right-turn movement that would allow RTOR.

NO RIGHT TURN ON RED
That is how to sign for RTOR prohibited.

The reason the movement is illegal on a red light is that it's considered a through movement, not a right turn movement. NO TURN ON RED is not meaningful because there is no possible right turn movement from that approach. The existing sign is more consistent with the legal situation at this intersection.

That does appear true that it is not an actual right turn.  That sign is still not needed or appropriate, IMHO, because the two signal heads make it perfectly clear when the red lenses are illuminated, that the driver must stop and remain stopped during that indication. 

If he doesn't get that and needs more signs, then you could put up strobe lights and audio broadcasts saying "wait for green light!" over and over again, and none of that is likely to help him.  An accident going someplace to happen.

Perhaps using arrows instead of balls might still illustrate the point better. In the case of the linked intersection, while the green signals are arrows, the red ones are balls, and a driver I saw here the other day must have interpreted this as a right turn, as he proceeded through the intersection on red after stopping. (The "STOP HERE ON RED" isn't sufficient, I don't think, as the sign doesn't say anything about remaining stopped.)

That's usually used to point out the stop line, especially when further back than normal.

[kphoger]

How about signs EM-4, EM-7c, or EM-7d?

Those are probably good candidates for the running.

[US 89]

there is an issue with drivers proceeding on a red signal. In this situation, for example, the sign provides valuable information because it may not be clear that continuing from 403 South to 9 South is considered a through movement instead of a right-turn movement that would allow RTOR.

NO RIGHT TURN ON RED
That is how to sign for RTOR prohibited.

The reason the movement is illegal on a red light is that it's considered a through movement, not a right turn movement. NO TURN ON RED is not meaningful because there is no possible right turn movement from that approach. The existing sign is more consistent with the legal situation at this intersection.

That does appear true that it is not an actual right turn.  That sign is still not needed or appropriate, IMHO, because the two signal heads make it perfectly clear when the red lenses are illuminated, that the driver must stop and remain stopped during that indication. 

If he doesn't get that and needs more signs, then you could put up strobe lights and audio broadcasts saying "wait for green light!" over and over again, and none of that is likely to help him.  An accident going someplace to happen.

Perhaps using arrows instead of balls might still illustrate the point better. In the case of the linked intersection, while the green signals are arrows, the red ones are balls, and a driver I saw here the other day must have interpreted this as a right turn, as he proceeded through the intersection on red after stopping. (The "STOP HERE ON RED" isn't sufficient, I don't think, as the sign doesn't say anything about remaining stopped.)

That's what is typically done in Utah when it's desired that RTOR still be permitted. Take this example in Cottonwood Heights. The green and yellow indications are arrows, but you cannot turn right on a red arrow (at least in Utah). As a result, the red signal is a ball to permit right turn on red.

[mrsman]

It is clear that a 90 degree turn is a right turn (permitted on red after stop) and going 180 degrees is no turn (no advancing on red light).  However, for many of the examples where the angle of turn is between 90 and 180, it is not as clear.  To the extent that a "right turn" is prohibited, where the angle is between 90 and 180, red arrows would make the situation clear. 

At teh intersection of Sunset/Beverly Glen in Los Angeles, the straight movement is denoted with right arrows.  I wouldn't think of making the "right" turn on red here as I consider the right turn to be a straight movement, but who knows?

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0823801,-118.4347911,3a,75y,37.79h,78.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgyFI0hS153VrSQyvg2vwvg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[jakeroot]

I think a "straight only" (R3-5a) sign would re-enforce the movement being straight, and not a turn.

I can't remember what the MUTCD states exactly, but I've been told that red up arrows are not permitted.

At the intersection of Sunset/Beverly Glen in Los Angeles, the straight movement is denoted with right arrows.

That's a very Japanese way to do a protected "left". Red all the time, unless over-ridden by green arrows.

[kphoger]

I can't remember what the MUTCD states exactly, but I've been told that red up arrows are not permitted.

I don't know if there's any state like this, but it's possible that the statute pertaining to turning on a red arrow might not specify what direction the arrow is pointing.  So, in theory, such a state–if it allowed turning on a red arrow after coming to a complete stop–would actually end up allowing a driver to proceed straight through a red up arrow after stopping.

[US 89]

I can't remember what the MUTCD states exactly, but I've been told that red up arrows are not permitted.

Utah hasn't heard of that rule:

[jakeroot]

I can't remember what the MUTCD states exactly, but I've been told that red up arrows are not permitted.

I don't know if there's any state like this, but it's possible that the statute pertaining to turning on a red arrow might not specify what direction the arrow is pointing.  So, in theory, such a state–if it allowed turning on a red arrow after coming to a complete stop–would actually end up allowing a driver to proceed straight through a red up arrow after stopping.

In WA, the RCW (Revised Code of WA -- 46.61.055) specifies that movements on a red arrow are only permitted if the movement is a:

"right turn from a one-way or two-way street into a two-way street or into a one-way street"; or a
"left turn from a one-way street or two-way street into a one-way street".

I can't remember what the MUTCD states exactly, but I've been told that red up arrows are not permitted.

Utah hasn't heard of that rule:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/916/28200278677_653ee9b7d3_z.jpg

Lol neither have a lot of states, including WA. Several around here have been installed for over a decade. I suspect they are common in states that were early adopters of red arrows.

Like I said, I cannot remember where the MUTCD states the rule. It's very possible it's just an urban legend.

[roadman]

Like I said, I cannot remember where the MUTCD states the rule. It's very possible it's just an urban legend.

From Section 4D.05 of the 2009 MUTCD:

A straight-through RED ARROW signal indication or a straight-through YELLOW ARROW
signal indication shall not be displayed on any signal face, either alone or in combination with any other
signal indication.

Note that this language first appeared as a revision to the 1978 MUTCD.  So it's not exactly a new requirement.

[Eth]

I don't think I've seen a red straight arrow in Georgia, but we do have yellows.

[Big John]

I don't think I've seen a red straight arrow in Georgia, but we do have yellows.

Unless they changed it in the last 5 years, They were on one intersection of Peachtree St. near Five Points.

[jakeroot]

Like I said, I cannot remember where the MUTCD states the rule. It's very possible it's just an urban legend.

From Section 4D.05 of the 2009 MUTCD:
...
Note that this language first appeared as a revision to the 1978 MUTCD.  So it's not exactly a new requirement.

Thanks for posting. I read that section but somehow missed it.

Interesting how long that requirement has been in place, without having been modified. The MUTCD was never pro-arrow until the early 2000s (I think there was even talk of a ban on red arrows at one point), but given that it's now the standard for turn lights, I think they need to reconsider their stance.

[MNHighwayMan]

What advantage would a red up arrow have over a standard red orb? I'm assuming that I'm just not clever enough to come up with one.