Erroneous road signs

[74/171FAN]

Me, Steve, and Lou came across this one yesterday on I-78 eastbound in Allentown; a PA Turnpike 476 shield. There were several of them going east and one going west (approaching exit 53).

Thanks Ian, I saw those signs about a week and a half ago heading that way for work-related stuff and could not get a photo of it. I also could not find it on GSV or the VideoLog since they are so recent.  I just wonder how a "PA TURNPIKE" shield made it out in the field since the NE Extension has been I-476 since 1996.  (For the most part, PA seems to have very few sign errors in comparison to VA.  I have not even seen any US 230 or US 309 shields yet surprisingly.)

[odditude]

Me, Steve, and Lou came across this one yesterday on I-78 eastbound in Allentown; a PA Turnpike 476 shield. There were several of them going east and one going west (approaching exit 53).

Thanks Ian, I saw those signs about a week and a half ago heading that way for work-related stuff and could not get a photo of it. I also could not find it on GSV or the VideoLog since they are so recent.  I just wonder how a "PA TURNPIKE" shield made it out in the field since the NE Extension has been I-476 since 1996.  (For the most part, PA seems to have very few sign errors in comparison to VA.  I have not even seen any US 230 or US 309 shields yet surprisingly.)

the NE Extension was PA 9 prior to the redesignation as I-476, so any way you slice it it's simply wrong.

[Mapmikey]

Here is a PATpk 76 shield in Bedford: https://goo.gl/maps/c1aZK9jC5s52

Don't believe I've seen one with I-70...

Mike

[jeffandnicole]

Me, Steve, and Lou came across this one yesterday on I-78 eastbound in Allentown; a PA Turnpike 476 shield. There were several of them going east and one going west (approaching exit 53).

'New Jersey' is a pretty vague and poor control city. Maybe Bethlehem would be better? Of course, that sign is a copy of the button copy sign that was there just a months prior.

Being that US 22 goes to Bethlehem and I-78 goes around it, that wouldn't be an appropriate control city.

Replacing LVI Airport with Bethlehem would be better.  That airport appears they have fewer than 20 arrivals and departures on a daily basis, which wouldn't generate much traffic on the highways.

[Zeffy]

My choices for I-78 at this point would be either Phillipsburg, Bridgewater, or Newark, if New Jersey is too generic. Phillipsburg is used on I-78 west in New Jersey already, so the reasoning is there. Bridgewater works too since it's a large (50K+) town that connects with I-287 a bit further south. The last option is Newark since it leads to Newark Liberty International Airport, which obviously is a huge destination since its in the New York City metro.

[jbnv]

Not that it would change the MUTCD, but perhaps it would make more sense to use a red ball rather than the STOP octogon.

I disagree. Red and green balls used on signage at signals tell you what you can or can't do during that indication. A red ball telling you what to do during a green indication would be confusing.

Because a STOP sign telling you what to do during a green indication is obviously not confusing.

[paulthemapguy]

Not that it would change the MUTCD, but perhaps it would make more sense to use a red ball rather than the STOP octogon.

I disagree. Red and green balls used on signage at signals tell you what you can or can't do during that indication. A red ball telling you what to do during a green indication would be confusing.

Because a STOP sign telling you what to do during a green indication is obviously not confusing.

I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2

[jeffandnicole]

Not that it would change the MUTCD, but perhaps it would make more sense to use a red ball rather than the STOP octogon.

I disagree. Red and green balls used on signage at signals tell you what you can or can't do during that indication. A red ball telling you what to do during a green indication would be confusing.

Because a STOP sign telling you what to do during a green indication is obviously not confusing.

I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2

That confuses you?

[spooky]

Not that it would change the MUTCD, but perhaps it would make more sense to use a red ball rather than the STOP octogon.

I disagree. Red and green balls used on signage at signals tell you what you can or can't do during that indication. A red ball telling you what to do during a green indication would be confusing.

Because a STOP sign telling you what to do during a green indication is obviously not confusing.

I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2

That confuses you?

hint: it means you have to yield.

[paulthemapguy]

I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2

That confuses you?

hint: it means you have to yield.

Wow no fucking shit.
I meant it's confusing to have a signal already tell you what to do, then there's more signage giving you a second message.  Here in Illinois, you should know how to turn right already based on whether there's a red ball, green ball, or yellow ball.  The signal already speaks for itself; as far as I'm concerned, any state that does this has a strong representation in the Department of Redundancy Department.

[jbnv]

I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2

The example you show is a right-turn lane that splits away from the other lanes before the intersection. I think a YIELD sign makes complete sense here, even with the signal. The person making this turn should check oncoming traffic before making the turn, not assume right-of-way because the road he is coming from has the green.

[jeffandnicole]

I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2

That confuses you?

hint: it means you have to yield.

Wow no fucking shit.
I meant it's confusing to have a signal already tell you what to do, then there's more signage giving you a second message.  Here in Illinois, you should know how to turn right already based on whether there's a red ball, green ball, or yellow ball.  The signal already speaks for itself; as far as I'm concerned, any state that does this has a strong representation in the Department of Redundancy Department.

There's no sensor in those right lanes with yield signs, so a vehicle in that lane would never cycle the light.  And unless Illinois has a traffic light in front of such a turn lane (which they clearly don't in the majority of cases), then they are actually at fault for a MUTCD violation.  You should be facing ahead of you, not out the side window, in order to view the traffic light.

I would be surprised if not all 50 states had yield signs for right turning traffic at at least a few intersections

[Kacie Jane]

The MUTCD specifically prohibits use of the in-street/overhead pedestrian crossing signs at signalized intersections.

Seattle has been using pedestrian crossing signs at signalized intersections for quite some time. They probably didn't get the memo:

There's two different but closely related conversations going on... One is regarding the tall narrow sign directed at all traffic (not just turning traffic) and is placed at a crosswalk across the road you're on (not the road you're turning onto). It's ideal midblock crossing, but can be placed at an unsignalized intersection... The second is the one in your second photo, meant for turning traffic at an intersection, including intersections with signals.

In other words, your second photo is fine. The sign in your first one should be replaced with the one in the second one.

[Ian]

Me, Steve, and Lou came across this one yesterday on I-78 eastbound in Allentown; a PA Turnpike 476 shield. There were several of them going east and one going west (approaching exit 53).

[image snipped]

'New Jersey' is a pretty vague and poor control city. Maybe Bethlehem would be better? Of course, that sign is a copy of the button copy sign that was there just a months prior.

Being that US 22 goes to Bethlehem and I-78 goes around it, that wouldn't be an appropriate control city.

Replacing LVI Airport with Bethlehem would be better.  That airport appears they have fewer than 20 arrivals and departures on a daily basis, which wouldn't generate much traffic on the highways.

There's also this [button copy] sign approaching the interchange from the west that states you can reach Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton from taking either I-78 or US 22.

[jakeroot]

I meant it's confusing to have a signal already tell you what to do, then there's more signage giving you a second message.  Here in Illinois, you should know how to turn right already based on whether there's a red ball, green ball, or yellow ball.  The signal already speaks for itself; as far as I'm concerned, any state that does this has a strong representation in the Department of Redundancy Department.

Your confusion is not unwarranted. Your Kentucky example upthread is a poor example of a channelized right turn. Channelized right turns should be clearly separated from the adjoining intersection using a concrete splitter island. If possible, the mast arms for the signal should be mounted in the splitter island, to help solidify to drivers that the lane they are in is not part of the intersection. Different crosswalk markings are preferable as well. Transverse for the signalized part of the intersection, zebra for the unsignalized part.

Here's your example, compared to a properly-constructed slip lane in Surrey, British Columbia (click to enlarge, I made the images small on purpose):

[Brandon]

I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2

That confuses you?

hint: it means you have to yield.

Wow no fucking shit.
I meant it's confusing to have a signal already tell you what to do, then there's more signage giving you a second message.  Here in Illinois, you should know how to turn right already based on whether there's a red ball, green ball, or yellow ball.  The signal already speaks for itself; as far as I'm concerned, any state that does this has a strong representation in the Department of Redundancy Department.

Not quite.  These enlightened states, unlike IDOT, believe that you can continue without stopping at the intersections if you are making a right turn, and if it is clear to proceed.  IDOT believes in making everyone stop, even if the right turn is channelized.

[Eth]

I would be surprised if not all 50 states had yield signs for right turning traffic at at least a few intersections

How about a stop sign for right turning traffic?

[74/171FAN]

I would be surprised if not all 50 states had yield signs for right turning traffic at at least a few intersections

How about a stop sign for right turning traffic?

I kinda agree that there should be a stop sign in this case as the sight distance to the left does not seem to be very good due to the tree in the way.

[Big John]

Another case of stop signs, all 4 quadrants in the intersection are the same in this aspect.  https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1788547,-88.1035887,3a,75y,18.04h,73.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-DQleiINsiaJdrglTz6viw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[jakeroot]

I would be surprised if not all 50 states had yield signs for right turning traffic at at least a few intersections

How about a stop sign for right turning traffic?

I kinda agree that there should be a stop sign in this case as the sight distance to the left does not seem to be very good due to the tree in the way.

Seeing as there are phases where right turns are effectively protected, its better to install yield signs at channelized right turns, instead of stop signs -- Half the time, the maneuver is protected! During other phases, a yield sign acts as a stop sign anyway. Visibility should play no role when deciding on channelized right turn lane signage -- always install yield signs (or right-facing FYAs (a new fad)).

Also, not to be a smartass, but a stop sign doesn't make the visibility any better.

[74/171FAN]

I would be surprised if not all 50 states had yield signs for right turning traffic at at least a few intersections

How about a stop sign for right turning traffic?

I kinda agree that there should be a stop sign in this case as the sight distance to the left does not seem to be very good due to the tree in the way.

Seeing as there are phases where right turns are effectively protected, its better to install yield signs at channelized right turns, instead of stop signs -- Half the time, the maneuver is protected! During other phases, a yield sign acts as a stop sign anyway. Visibility should play no role when deciding on channelized right turn lane signage -- always install yield signs (or right-facing FYAs (a new fad)).

Also, not to be a smartass, but a stop sign doesn't make the visibility any better.

Yeah the right-facing FYA or a different signal would work better I think.  Honestly I think a normal right-turn signal would work at this intersection done as a part of the VA 36 widening project in Hopewell a few years ago.

[busman_49]

I would be surprised if not all 50 states had yield signs for right turning traffic at at least a few intersections

How about a stop sign for right turning traffic?

Bugs the fire out of me...  The light is green, why the %^@# should I have to stop?

Even when I'm coming the other direction!!!

[paulthemapguy]

Bugs the fire out of me...  The light is green, why the %^@# should I have to stop?

Even when I'm coming the other direction!!!

See?  This is exactly the kind of garbage I don't like.  Fills me with so much nope.

[MisterSG1]

Even worse is TWO stop signs you'll find in the six points interchange in Etobioke at Kipling Ave/Dundas St/Bloor St, this is specifically from the Kipling NB to Dundas WB ramp, why there aren't yield signs here, I'll never know:

https://goo.gl/maps/Q7FFeSpuqzt

[wytout]

I took a picture of that very sign, which is sitting on my cell phone. It should be in a simple square.

Also, ConnDOT has done something similar. There are a few error "6" signs along I-84 in West Hartford, since US Route 6 is multiplexed with it from Exit 38 (Farmington) to 60 (Manchester). They simply took a few extra signs from nearby CT Route 9 and turned them upside down. I kid you not!

I Think you are right, not error signs, but surplus CT 9 signs, turned upside down, as CT usually does a pretty good job with US routes.  These are very new, and I'm thinking they used these willfully in the interim if they had a surplus of 9's, instead of running a small batch of 36X36 US 6's, because the blanket signing upgrade contract is going to bid on 7/13/16 to encompass that whole area (Upgrade signing I 84, vic exit 33-52),  those signs will be replaced.