What’s with the red strips now on certain signs?

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/tGEegvKa6pgHASKk8
The DO NOT ENTER features here a red strip on its mooring.

I've seen it also used on STOP signs in my own area in Florida.  Is it a MUTCD requirement or some sort?

[Big John]

Optional to help bring attention to the sign.

[-- US 175 --]

https://goo.gl/maps/tGEegvKa6pgHASKk8
The DO NOT ENTER features here a red strip on its mooring.

I've seen it also used on STOP signs in my own area in Florida.  Is it a MUTCD requirement or some sort?

It can be in red (Stop, Yield, Do Not Enter); I have also seen it in yellow (school ahead, school crosswalks) and white.

[steviep24]

Here's a yellow strip that yells SLOW DOWN.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1062294,-77.7323969,3a,30y,205.96h,83.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssscQ7--MWYpWnvgitPSHYQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu

[Dirt Roads]

NCDOT District 7 is big on both red and yellow strips.  Here is a double-wide arrangement for W3-1 Stop Ahead signage on Old Number 10, along with their complementary Stop Sign arrangements.  Just on up ahead, you've also got them on the Low Clearance ahead signage.  Before the advent of the red strips and yellow strips, NCDOT was placing double red diamonds over the new signs.  These signs did not require additional treatment when newly installed, but the new Stop Sign installation on Cornwallis Road at Kerley Road has flashing LEDs outlining the entire hexagon (right side stoppers only).  Google Street View doesn't show them yet.

[roadfro]

I do like the use of reflective strips on signposts. It shouldn't be used everywhere, but for emphasis in certain situations as the MUTCD option allows.


On a recent trip to Las Vegas, I noticed several instances of freeway exit gore signs along CC-215 having green reflective strips on the signposts (example). Although not technically permitted by the MUTCD, I don't mind this either. I imagine that Clark County is using this on exit gore signs that have been struck repeatedly.

[CtrlAltDel]

On a recent trip to Las Vegas, I noticed several instances of freeway exit gore signs along CC-215 having green reflective strips on the signposts (example). Although not technically permitted by the MUTCD, I don't mind this either. I imagine that Clark County is using this on exit gore signs that have been struck repeatedly.

As pointed out above, it seems okay to me:

If a strip of retroreflective material is used on the sign support, it shall be at least 2 inches in width, it shall be placed for the full length of the support from the sign to within 2 feet above the edge of the roadway, and its color shall match the background color of the sign, except that the color of the strip for the YIELD and DO NOT ENTER signs shall be red.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/wJNyVN8T4CHoWtDt5
I found more using two strips on both moorings on this two post larger sign assembly.

[roadfro]

On a recent trip to Las Vegas, I noticed several instances of freeway exit gore signs along CC-215 having green reflective strips on the signposts (example). Although not technically permitted by the MUTCD, I don't mind this either. I imagine that Clark County is using this on exit gore signs that have been struck repeatedly.

As pointed out above, it seems okay to me:

If a strip of retroreflective material is used on the sign support, it shall be at least 2 inches in width, it shall be placed for the full length of the support from the sign to within 2 feet above the edge of the roadway, and its color shall match the background color of the sign, except that the color of the strip for the YIELD and DO NOT ENTER signs shall be red.

The standard you quoted applies to the option paragraph that immediately precedes it (emphasis added):

Where engineering judgment indicates a need to draw attention to the sign during nighttime conditions, a strip of retroreflective material may be used on regulatory and warning sign supports.

So the use of green reflective strip in the manner I described technically is not permitted, because exit gore signs are not regulatory or warning signs.

[CtrlAltDel]

On a recent trip to Las Vegas, I noticed several instances of freeway exit gore signs along CC-215 having green reflective strips on the signposts (example). Although not technically permitted by the MUTCD, I don't mind this either. I imagine that Clark County is using this on exit gore signs that have been struck repeatedly.

As pointed out above, it seems okay to me:

If a strip of retroreflective material is used on the sign support, it shall be at least 2 inches in width, it shall be placed for the full length of the support from the sign to within 2 feet above the edge of the roadway, and its color shall match the background color of the sign, except that the color of the strip for the YIELD and DO NOT ENTER signs shall be red.

The standard you quoted applies to the option paragraph that immediately precedes it (emphasis added):

Where engineering judgment indicates a need to draw attention to the sign during nighttime conditions, a strip of retroreflective material may be used on regulatory and warning sign supports.

So the use of green reflective strip in the manner I described technically is not permitted, because exit gore signs are not regulatory or warning signs.

Ah. Good point.

[JoePCool14]

I think this practice from WisDOT seems more appropriate for marking gore point signs.

https://goo.gl/maps/X3hEbYYFKnY7qkde7

[roadfro]

I think this practice from WisDOT seems more appropriate for marking gore point signs.

https://goo.gl/maps/X3hEbYYFKnY7qkde7

I think this also has the happy benefit of being MUTCD-compliant.

[TEG24601]

Island County, WA has been doing this for several years (at least 5).  Doesn't seem to help, as people are still blowing through a large number of 4-ways, due to low traffic volumes.  I had thought it was a better thing than Seattle's "Barber Poll" paint jobs on their stop signs.