We all have things that bother us about the MUTCD–the document is almost 10 years old and is starting to leave a lot to be desired. This thread is for everything you would change if you had the chance, regardless of how realistic it is.
Here are mine, which I know others share:
How overly restrictive the conditions for APL use are, and the massive waste of vertical space they require
HAWK beacons in general. Their signal indications are contradictory to driver expectancy: proceeding on a dark signal, flashing yellow indicating an upcoming red indication, alternating red flash not meaning to stop and wait as with a railroad grade crossing. Just use a three-head signal
"Share the road." This is the worst sign in the manual and violates the basic principles of traffic control devices. Its meaning is widely misunderstood and it actively leads to dangerous behavior by motorists who interpret the sign as meaning they are entitled to pass cyclists in the same lane. Either "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" or no sign at all is always more appropriate
The general lack of 21st-century bicycle facility guidance
Might get flak for this: the 85th percentile rule. The NTSB report "Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles" goes into good detail about the shortcomings of the system. There is really not any strong evidence that applying the rule always leads to the lowest crash involvement rate. At any rate, the idea that a single catch-all rule is always going to achieve the best results when setting the speed limit in every single road design context is pretty simplistic
Pedheads should be mandatory at all new signalized pedestrian crossings
"When children are present"–moronic for so many reasons
The number of variants that have stuck around just to appease a few state agencies. E.g. R10-6a, R10-11a/b, "OK" variant of lane control signs
Pedestrian crossing signs always say "push button to cross street," etc even if signal is not actuated. This is a larger problem with APS now recommended for all intersections by the draft PROWAG
Exit 41
Example St.
Example City
↗
is not allowed, although many states do it anyway (as they should).
Same with
(99) {158} [12]
Kitty Hawk
Duck Goat
Virginia Beach VA
↗
as only two cities are allowed.
The infamous Section 2A.13¶13, which says:
QuoteWhen a mixed-case legend is used, the height of the lower-case letters shall be 3/4 of the height of the initial upper-case letter.
Of course, this is
meant to simply say "The dimensions of FHWA Series are as such." Unfortunately, some boneheaded sign designers think this means the lowercase letters shall be ¾ of the
point size of the initial uppercase letter, and then we get garbage signs.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2018, 05:52:57 AM
The infamous Section 2A.13¶13, which says:
QuoteWhen a mixed-case legend is used, the height of the lower-case letters shall be 3/4 of the height of the initial upper-case letter.
Of course, this is meant to simply say "The dimensions of FHWA Series are as such." Unfortunately, some boneheaded sign designers think this means the lowercase letters shall be ¾ of the point size of the initial uppercase letter, and then we get garbage signs.
Such garbage signs (https://goo.gl/maps/nzWvAVBnq4K2) can be found all over western PA. Many of these ugly signs were put up 7-10 years ago when Clearview was new.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 09, 2018, 07:45:23 PM
"Share the road." This is the worst sign in the manual and violates the basic principles of traffic control devices. Its meaning is widely misunderstood and it actively leads to dangerous behavior by motorists who interpret the sign as meaning they are entitled to pass cyclists in the same lane. Either "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" or no sign at all is always more appropriate
I don't think the sign is causing this issue. The problem is when bicyclists are going well below the normal speed limit for the road, and cars are simply trying to get around the bicyclists. Most people think of sharing the roads as car drivers have to share the roads with bicyclists. In reality, all people driving all modes of transportation need to share the road with each other. If a bicyclist is doing 10 mph in the middle of the lane of a 30 mph roadway, it would make sense for the bicyclist to move over and allow others to pass. Any signage that appears to give bicyclists the right to block traffic creates issues. Yes, the bicyclist may have the right to use the full lane, just like any car driver, but any car driver would be cited for obstructing traffic if they were going 10 mph in the travel lane. Bicyclists should be cited for the same if they're not sharing the road and allow other traffic to occasionally pass.[/quote]
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 09, 2018, 07:45:23 PM
Might get flak for this: the 85th percentile rule. The NTSB report "Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles" goes into good detail about the shortcomings of the system. There is really not any strong evidence that applying the rule always leads to the lowest crash involvement rate. At any rate, the idea that a single catch-all rule is always going to achieve the best results when setting the speed limit in every single road design context is pretty simplistic
You must've misread the rule, or the reports you site are misconstruing the rule. The 85th percentile has never been a single catch-all rule in regards to the speed limit. There's about 6 different criteria that is used in establishing speed limits; the 85th percentile is simply one of them.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 09, 2018, 07:45:23 PM
Pedheads should be mandatory at all new signalized pedestrian crossings
This appears to be the norm in NJ now. Although sometimes they put them in such rural locations that there's no sensible reason people would normally be walking in those areas.
I have noticed this recently. The MUTCD does not deal with the increasingly complex toll situations.
Local, non-standard, confusing, and non-literal terms, are being applied to roads in and and near urban areas which non-local motorists should not be expected to understand.
It would seem that a new secion, with clear terms defined for what is needed and expected to drive a particular road, uniform across all areas. is needed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 09, 2018, 07:45:23 PM
"Share the road." This is the worst sign in the manual and violates the basic principles of traffic control devices. Its meaning is widely misunderstood and it actively leads to dangerous behavior by motorists who interpret the sign as meaning they are entitled to pass cyclists in the same lane. Either "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" or no sign at all is always more appropriate
I don't think the sign is causing this issue. The problem is when bicyclists are going well below the normal speed limit for the road, and cars are simply trying to get around the bicyclists. Most people think of sharing the roads as car drivers have to share the roads with bicyclists. In reality, all people driving all modes of transportation need to share the road with each other. If a bicyclist is doing 10 mph in the middle of the lane of a 30 mph roadway, it would make sense for the bicyclist to move over and allow others to pass. Any signage that appears to give bicyclists the right to block traffic creates issues. Yes, the bicyclist may have the right to use the full lane, just like any car driver, but any car driver would be cited for obstructing traffic if they were going 10 mph in the travel lane. Bicyclists should be cited for the same if they're not sharing the road and allow other traffic to occasionally pass.
Perhaps off-topic as it's not a MUTCD gripe
per se.
I live on a road that looks very similar to this one in the same ZIP code (http://this%20one%20in%20the%20same%20zip%20code): Semi-rural surroundings, little to no shoulder to speak of. The white lines are sometimes not painted at all.
My road appears to be a popular route for bicyclists on Saturday and/or Sunday mornings. If I've got the misfortune of driving near my house during these times, I'll often find bicyclists taking up the entire travel lane so that you (as a driver) need to weave around them. They COULD move over as far right as possible, but they often don't.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 10, 2018, 09:09:57 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 09, 2018, 07:45:23 PM
"Share the road." This is the worst sign in the manual and violates the basic principles of traffic control devices. Its meaning is widely misunderstood and it actively leads to dangerous behavior by motorists who interpret the sign as meaning they are entitled to pass cyclists in the same lane. Either "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" or no sign at all is always more appropriate
I don't think the sign is causing this issue. The problem is when bicyclists are going well below the normal speed limit for the road, and cars are simply trying to get around the bicyclists. Most people think of sharing the roads as car drivers have to share the roads with bicyclists. In reality, all people driving all modes of transportation need to share the road with each other. If a bicyclist is doing 10 mph in the middle of the lane of a 30 mph roadway, it would make sense for the bicyclist to move over and allow others to pass. Any signage that appears to give bicyclists the right to block traffic creates issues. Yes, the bicyclist may have the right to use the full lane, just like any car driver, but any car driver would be cited for obstructing traffic if they were going 10 mph in the travel lane. Bicyclists should be cited for the same if they're not sharing the road and allow other traffic to occasionally pass.
[/quote]
Massachusetts and other states have dropped the "Share The Road" tabs in favor of "On Roadway".
Clearview. :sombrero:
Seriously, the Clearview debacle has created an OCD nightmare in several states. Since they created the mess by allowing and then disallowing Clearview, they should say something about how to keep the mess from getting worse.
Quote from: jbnv on September 10, 2018, 02:18:00 PM
Clearview. :sombrero:
Seriously, the Clearview debacle has created an OCD nightmare in several states. Since they created the mess by allowing and then disallowing Clearview, they should say something about how to keep the mess from getting worse.
They did–they disallowed Clearview.
Congress brought it back.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 10, 2018, 08:18:38 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2018, 05:52:57 AM
The infamous Section 2A.13¶13, which says:
QuoteWhen a mixed-case legend is used, the height of the lower-case letters shall be 3/4 of the height of the initial upper-case letter.
Of course, this is meant to simply say "The dimensions of FHWA Series are as such." Unfortunately, some boneheaded sign designers think this means the lowercase letters shall be ¾ of the point size of the initial uppercase letter, and then we get garbage signs.
Such garbage signs (https://goo.gl/maps/nzWvAVBnq4K2) can be found all over western PA. Many of these ugly signs were put up 7-10 years ago when Clearview was new.
More recent overpass signs (the ones that list the street name of the overpass) in CT, a state that never officially adopted Clearview, does similar. The lower-case lettering heights are about half the height of the upper-case letters.
Font requirements.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 10, 2018, 03:25:28 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 10, 2018, 08:18:38 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2018, 05:52:57 AM
The infamous Section 2A.13¶13, which says:
QuoteWhen a mixed-case legend is used, the height of the lower-case letters shall be 3/4 of the height of the initial upper-case letter.
Of course, this is meant to simply say "The dimensions of FHWA Series are as such." Unfortunately, some boneheaded sign designers think this means the lowercase letters shall be ¾ of the point size of the initial uppercase letter, and then we get garbage signs.
Such garbage signs (https://goo.gl/maps/nzWvAVBnq4K2) can be found all over western PA. Many of these ugly signs were put up 7-10 years ago when Clearview was new.
More recent overpass signs (the ones that list the street name of the overpass) in CT, a state that never officially adopted Clearview, does similar. The lower-case lettering heights are about half the height of the upper-case letters.
Like "A
NN U
CCELLO S
T?" (https://goo.gl/maps/szbUVUbVCLG2)
Quote from: 1 on September 09, 2018, 07:56:21 PM
Exit 41
Example St.
Example City
↗
is not allowed, although many states do it anyway (as they should).
Same with
(99) {158} [12]
Kitty Hawk
Duck Goat
Virginia Beach VA
↗
as only two cities are allowed.
:thumbsup: I agree with you on both counts.
With such in mind; now that I have some time to comment; here are my other MUTCD gripes:
1. The recent prohibition of using state names, bridges and/or tunnels as control points. There are instances where using such instead of cities makes more logical sense.
2. Although this may not be a mandate from MUTCD, but the listing of two control cities on some pull-through and/or interchange ramp signage (even if the highway has only one (prominent) route number) can be a benefit... especially in areas where there are two cities nearby or there's one minor city that's much closer than the next major city.
3. I'm not 100% sure if such is MUTCD or somebody misinterpreting/misapplying such but the standard of using the same control cities for interchange ramps along both directions of a highway even when such doesn't make sense logically.
Example: while it is logical to have the Exit 9/I-84 interchange signage along I-90 westbound to list Hartford, CT & New York, NY on it; listing the latter city along I-90 eastbound makes no sense at all since NYC-bound traffic along I-90 eastbound would've exited at either I-91/Exit 5 or I-291/exit 6 for such. One could make a similar argument regarding Hartford as well, but such is the first major city one encounters along I-84 westbound from MA. Either the
Sturbridge/Hartford, CT combo (similar to what the old signs listed) or just a single-line
Hartford, CT (similar to the signage along nearby US 20 eastbound) listing would've sufficed.
Quote from: tckma on September 11, 2018, 01:03:40 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 10, 2018, 03:25:28 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 10, 2018, 08:18:38 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2018, 05:52:57 AM
The infamous Section 2A.13¶13, which says:
QuoteWhen a mixed-case legend is used, the height of the lower-case letters shall be 3/4 of the height of the initial upper-case letter.
Of course, this is meant to simply say "The dimensions of FHWA Series are as such." Unfortunately, some boneheaded sign designers think this means the lowercase letters shall be ¾ of the point size of the initial uppercase letter, and then we get garbage signs.
Such garbage signs (https://goo.gl/maps/nzWvAVBnq4K2) can be found all over western PA. Many of these ugly signs were put up 7-10 years ago when Clearview was new.
More recent overpass signs (the ones that list the street name of the overpass) in CT, a state that never officially adopted Clearview, does similar. The lower-case lettering heights are about half the height of the upper-case letters.
Like "ANN UCCELLO ST?" (https://goo.gl/maps/szbUVUbVCLG2)
Such doesn't have lower-case lettering nor is it a small streetblade-like sign placed at an overpass (or underpass).
I was referring to the small,
mixed-case signs that list the streetname on either an overpass or underpass. Such were erected on stretches of I-84 west of Hartford within the past year and are too new for the latest GSVs (otherwise, I would've included a link to such).
My biggest gripes concerning allowing dangerous situations.
1. Allowing uncontrolled intersections. Drivers have no way of knowing that they are approaching one. Right-Of-Way assignment is the most basic and important aspect of traffic control
2. Allowing a single stop sign to contol more than one lane on multi-lane roads. Drivers in the left lane cannot see stop signs if there is a large truck or bus in the right lane. Also, drivers in the left lane tend to miss stop signs in these situations due to their distance from the their travel lane. Overhead flashers or rectangular stop signs shoud be required in these situations.
3. New stop sign installations on existing roadways should be required to have flags and flashing lights. Flags are invisible at night. Using flags only violates the principal that traffic control devices must be equally visible and effective both day and night.
Quote from: Brian556 on September 12, 2018, 06:25:49 PM
My biggest gripes concerning allowing dangerous situations.
1. Allowing uncontrolled intersections. Drivers have no way of knowing that they are approaching one. Right-Of-Way assignment is the most basic and important aspect of traffic control
This is an intentional setup throughout much of the Seattle area, as drivers approach intersections more cautiously and slowly than if their ROW was already established.
From experience, they work fine as you do end up approaching most intersections more cautiously than you might otherwise. And in the city, what's wrong with that?
Quote from: Brian556 on September 12, 2018, 06:25:49 PM
My biggest gripes concerning allowing dangerous situations.
3. New stop sign installations on existing roadways should be required to have flags and flashing lights. Flags are invisible at night. Using flags only violates the principal that traffic control devices must be equally visible and effective both day and night.
If it's on a main road, most Stop Sign additions I've seen include a temporary VMS sign prior to the intersection announcing the Stop Sign. The VMS sign is there for a few weeks, so that provides enough notice to most people going thru there.
My main gripe (singular) with the MUTCD is the lax requirement for extra traffic signals at intersections. At the very least, two signals should be required for each movement. Right now, only through movements are required to use two signals. Ideally, there should be requirements for signals in the corners of the intersection, in addition to overhead signals.
I am in California at the moment, and it's reminded me just how terrible much of the country is at signal placement. In CA, every four-way intersection has at least eight post mounted signals, with most having 12. I have yet to encounter a vehicular position where at least one signal wasn't visible, a change from what I'm used to seeing in WA and OR (though WA has improved).
As for other minor changes I'd make,
* Require edge extension markings for all lane beginnings and endings.
* Reduce APL requirements to allow legend placement between arrows.
* Require all points at which bike and vehicle lanes cross to be marked by a contrasting color (by painting the surface or using a different road material).
* Require the "YIELD AHEAD" roadway marking for all applicable approaches.
* Require the FYA be used for all left turn signal heads, with operation being decided later on.
* Require backlit street blades at signalised intersections.
* Require bus lanes to be marked with a different color (not just "BUS LANE").
Many states do one or more of these, but I'd like to see them all implemented more widely.
For Attractions service signs, I'd like to see the MUTCD give a more precise definition of "regional significance." I'd also like to see minimum attendance standards adopted for the various categories of "attractions."
"Reduced Speed Ahead" should be revised to say "Reduce Speed Ahead" (NCDOT already does this). It's the speed LIMIT that is reduced. Whether "speed" is reduced depends on the driver obeying the lower speed limit. (To be clear, either way I prefer the sign telling you what the lower limit will be because that's more useful.)
Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2018, 02:01:03 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on September 12, 2018, 06:25:49 PM
My biggest gripes concerning allowing dangerous situations.
1. Allowing uncontrolled intersections. Drivers have no way of knowing that they are approaching one. Right-Of-Way assignment is the most basic and important aspect of traffic control
This is an intentional setup throughout much of the Seattle area, as drivers approach intersections more cautiously and slowly than if their ROW was already established.
From experience, they work fine as you do end up approaching most intersections more cautiously than you might otherwise. And in the city, what's wrong with that?
Drivers have no way of knowing that they are approaching an uncontrolled intersection. Standard practice in over 99% or more areas is to have stop signs. How are drivers supposed to know that they are entering an area that violates expectations/norms?
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 13, 2018, 06:54:50 PM
“Reduced Speed Ahead” should be revised to say “Reduce Speed Ahead” (NCDOT already does this). It’s the speed LIMIT that is reduced. Whether “speed” is reduced depends on the driver obeying the lower speed limit. (To be clear, either way I prefer the sign telling you what the lower limit will be because that’s more useful.)
The Reduced Speed Ahead regulatory sign is no longer MUTCD compliant. It was replaced with the Reduced Speed Limit Ahead warning signs (W3-5 and W3-5a).
Quote from: roadman on September 14, 2018, 11:35:58 AM
The Reduced Speed Ahead regulatory sign is no longer MUTCD compliant. It was replaced with the Reduced Speed Limit Ahead warning signs (W3-5 and W3-5a).
On that note, do Oregon's SPEED (versus SPEED LIMIT) signs meet MUTCD regulations? I gather they probably never have.
Speaking of four-way stops, they should probably have a different sign from two-way stops. (Having to look at the back of another sign to know if cross traffic will stop ultimately doesn't seem like a good practice. The little plaque that's sometimes there isn't enough, I don't think.) Or perhaps just get rid of four-way stops altogether. I admit, though, that this would not be a small tweak.
Quote from: US 89 on September 14, 2018, 03:51:46 PM
Most places assign right of the way to the vehicle on the right, but that's only in the absence of any other signs or indications.
(Emphasis mine.)
I disagree. The New York State Driver's Manual (in 1995, anyway, which is when I took my permit test) specifically stated that the right of way goes to the vehicle on the right
at a four-way stop. State driving laws
have to be similar enough between states/provinces that a driver from another jurisdiction isn't going to have to remember several sets of state laws regarding the rules of the road. That's why we can all drive in other states. That's why the road test I took in New York State was later honored to transfer my driver's license to Massachusetts, New Hampshire, back to Mass, then to Virginia, and then Maryland... and why VA and MD honored the motorcycle road test I'd taken in Mass.
Back to four-way stops... I always wondered who's supposed to go first if cars arrive at the intersection from all four directions at the same time. In my experience, it seems to be a sort of ESP-ish method of communication, negotiation, and agreement between those four drivers. :D
Same gripe I always have - speed limit signs. Should be more like Australia's to handle the question of confusion with State Highway signs.
The number of ways at a stop is not supposed to be signed. The correct terminology these days is all-way stop. There are black-on-white "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" signs that can be mounted beneath stop signs.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 14, 2018, 04:40:12 PM
Same gripe I always have - speed limit signs. Should be more like Australia's to handle the question of confusion with State Highway signs.
Um, there is the issue of New Mexico out there.
Quote from: tckma on September 14, 2018, 04:24:30 PMState driving laws have to be similar enough between states/provinces that a driver from another jurisdiction isn't going to have to remember several sets of state laws regarding the rules of the road. That's why we can all drive in other states. That's why the road test I took in New York State was later honored to transfer my driver's license to Massachusetts, New Hampshire, back to Mass, then to Virginia, and then Maryland... and why VA and MD honored the motorcycle road test I'd taken in Mass.
This is the theory, and there is actually a body called the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO) that works to coordinate traffic laws across the different states and maintains a model Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC). I basically call a state an "UVC direct adopter" if it makes few, if any, departures from the UVC; this usage is deliberately analogous to the phrase "
MUTCD direct adopter."
However, I don't think there is such a thing as a 100% UVC direct adopter because legislatures don't have to adopt the UVC
in toto (unlike the case with the
MUTCD, where variations from the national
MUTCD at minimum put you in the position of compiling a
MUTCD supplement), and few if any legislatures can resist the temptation to tinker with the traffic laws. And there is nothing in the doctrines of full faith and credit or substantive due process that prevents you from being fined or arrested for breaking a traffic law in one state when it differs from the law in your home state. The underlying rule is
ignorantia non excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse). If the police choose to let you go, it is a courtesy, not something they are obliged to do by law.
As an example: there are about five states (Texas, California, and Missouri among them) that do not require you to turn to the nearest lane when you are turning from one road into another road that has multiple lanes in the same direction. The rest do require you to turn to the nearest lane. So if you are driving in Kansas on Missouri plates and you are stopped for (e.g.) turning right to left, it is a righteous bust. (In Wichita this provision has been used extensively in the past for pretext stops, including one about 23 years ago that snagged the then city manager in his city-issued vehicle, after he had been drinking at a bar.)
Quote from: tckma on September 14, 2018, 04:24:30 PM
Quote from: US 89 on September 14, 2018, 03:51:46 PM
Most places assign right of the way to the vehicle on the right, but that's only in the absence of any other signs or indications.
(Emphasis mine.)
I disagree. The New York State Driver's Manual (in 1995, anyway, which is when I took my permit test) specifically stated that the right of way goes to the vehicle on the right at a four-way stop. State driving laws have to be similar enough between states/provinces that a driver from another jurisdiction isn't going to have to remember several sets of state laws regarding the rules of the road. That's why we can all drive in other states. That's why the road test I took in New York State was later honored to transfer my driver's license to Massachusetts, New Hampshire, back to Mass, then to Virginia, and then Maryland... and why VA and MD honored the motorcycle road test I'd taken in Mass.
Back to four-way stops... I always wondered who's supposed to go first if cars arrive at the intersection from all four directions at the same time. In my experience, it seems to be a sort of ESP-ish method of communication, negotiation, and agreement between those four drivers. :D
I misspoke. According to the Utah handbook, at a four-way stop, the vehicle on the right has priority, but only if two cars arrive at exactly the same time. But nobody really needs to know that, because at that point it's more of a "is he going to go first, or is he letting me go" game of waiting and hand signals, like what you described above.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 14, 2018, 04:42:36 PM
The number of ways at a stop is not supposed to be signed. The correct terminology these days is all-way stop. There are black-on-white "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" signs that can be mounted beneath stop signs.
I've seen several black-on-
yellow "Cross traffic does not stop" signs, but these are by no means regular. Typically in Utah, at an all-way stop there will be a small white-on-red "all way" or "4-way" sign (or "3-way", if it's a T intersection) underneath the stop sign. So if I don't see that little sign, my initial assumption is that it's not an all-way, even if there's no "cross traffic does not stop" sign. Of course, if I get up there and see that all the other streets coming in have stop signs, that changes things. But IMO, every all-way stop should have that little sign, because that significantly changes how you handle the intersection.
Quote from: US 89 on September 14, 2018, 05:16:15 PM
I've seen several black-on-yellow "Cross traffic does not stop" signs, but these are by no means regular. Typically in Utah, at an all-way stop there will be a small white-on-red "all way" or "4-way" sign (or "3-way", if it's a T intersection) underneath the stop sign. So if I don't see that little sign, my initial assumption is that it's not an all-way, even if there's no "cross traffic does not stop" sign. Of course, if I get up there and see that all the other streets coming in have stop signs, that changes things. But IMO, every all-way stop should have that little sign, because that significantly changes how you handle the intersection.
Yes, every time I've seen these (or similar "oncoming traffic does not stop" or "traffic from right does not stop"), they have been black on
yellow. The only one I see that is consistently black on
white is the "incoming mall traffic has right of way" banner under a stop sign, and the "EXCEPT RIGHT TURN" banner under a stop sign (the latter seems only to exist in Pennsylvania, where it is astonishingly prevalent).
We really need a "like" feature on these boards. I completely agree with several earlier posters re:
BGS: The Manual's advice to avoid a street name and city name on the same sign should be deleted. There is no problem with that practice.
The requirement that only city names be used as destinations should be modified to include any logical designation that makes sense at the site including bridges, tunnels, regions, states, etc. In some cases a city could be shown with a bridge or tunnel.
The standards for APL's should allow shorter arrow stems and consequently smaller signs, OR better yet, go back to allowing two arrows for different routes over the same lane.
And a gripe of my own: The standard for supplemental signs for exits should be changed to allow more than one such sign per exit and/or should allow three instead of the current two names.
And re: Traffic Lights, Yes, at least two signal faces should be required for every movement, not just the thru movement.
And "Hawk" Beacons never should have been allowed. Their operation is contrary to normal signal practice. How the FHWA ever approved this is beyond me!
Quote from: Brandon on September 14, 2018, 04:57:29 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 14, 2018, 04:40:12 PM
Same gripe I always have - speed limit signs. Should be more like Australia's to handle the question of confusion with State Highway signs.
Um, there is the issue of New Mexico out there.
Well overblown. Aussie speed limit signs don't have black backgrounds, for one. You could put "MPH" at the bottom of the sign outside of the circle.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 15, 2018, 12:42:25 AM
Same gripe I always have - speed limit signs. Should be more like Australia's to handle the question of confusion with State Highway signs.
Doesn't matter what the speed limit sign looks like. No matter what it looks like, at least 15% will still ignore it.
My gripe is how the MUTCD handles roundabout signing and marking. With a few exceptions, it seems like they threw up their hands and said "here pick something...the hell with uniformity." Pick a damn arrow style and stick with it. Take a stance on what lines go across the entry.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 15, 2018, 01:17:31 AM
Given that, prohibiting uncontrolled intersections is the only way to eliminate the hazard described above.
I think it's more of a perceived hazard, than a real one. In Seattle, uncontrolled intersections are generally used in residential areas with very low traffic speeds: https://goo.gl/VDwZzK (in the evening and morning, there are cars parked along both sides of every road in the image, making all roads two-way one lane -- it's hard to go above 15 or 20 without feeling like you're flying).
Quote from: Duke87 on September 15, 2018, 01:17:31 AM
Priority at an intersection is only ever implicit; if the other street has to stop or yield and you do not, there is no sign for you - you just keep driving because no sign says you need to do otherwise.
Flashing yellow makes it explicit, since the cross street must have a flashing red.
Quote from: DaBigE on September 15, 2018, 01:27:15 AM
My gripe is how the MUTCD handles roundabout signing and marking. With a few exceptions, it seems like they threw up their hands and said "here pick something...the hell with uniformity." Pick a damn arrow style and stick with it...
Nah, let's just use 2 different styles at the same roundabout!
New Jersey
https://goo.gl/maps/9WxSrwZf4Du
Quote from: Duke87 on September 15, 2018, 01:17:31 AMI think part of the problem here is that the US has no equivalent of the Vienna convention "you have priority" sign:
(https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/Vagmarken/Vajningspliktsmarken/B4/B4-1/laddahem/B4-1.png)
Priority at an intersection is only ever implicit; if the other street has to stop or yield and you do not, there is no sign for you - you just keep driving because no sign says you need to do otherwise.
I disagree that we need a priority sign or a ban on uncontrolled intersections.
* In countries that actually use the Vienna convention priority sign, it is reserved for important (generally high-volume) through roads with flat intersections, and is not used as a method for assigning priority on low-volume surface roads.
* Plenty of countries that adhere to the Vienna convention and have very good overall road safety records, like Britain, do not use the priority sign at all or ban uncontrolled intersections. In Britain, the priority sign is not in TSRGD or even available for use as a nonprescribed sign. Also, unlike the vast majority of US states and some continental European countries like France (
priorité Ã droite), Britain does not have a rule for assigning priority at uncontrolled intersections.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 15, 2018, 01:17:31 AMBut, this fairly common scenario looks pretty much identical to the rare instance of approaching an uncontrolled intersection. Which is dangerous, because then how does a driver reliably identify an uncontrolled intersection?
By observing the fundamental rule of (defensive) driving: never choose a speed or position that is not compatible with your forward visibility. If you can't tell if the intersection is uncontrolled as you approach it--
slow down until you can. If you know the intersection is uncontrolled but can't see whether there is conflicting traffic--
slow down until you can.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 15, 2018, 01:17:31 AMNow, I don't see the US adopting a "you have priority" sign - the Vienna convention one looks too much like a US warning sign and it would be a completely new concept to American drivers besides. Given that, prohibiting uncontrolled intersections is the only way to eliminate the hazard described above.
The yellow diamond is actually part of the Vienna convention. (It is the "B" option for warning signs; the red-rimmed white/yellow triangles are the "A" option.) The real reason many countries, including many Vienna adherents, do not use the priority sign is that it is pretty useless.
That Seattle intersection should be a four way stop. Or if that's not desired, you can make it a two-way yield, with Roanoke being the favored movement. The risk is not in drivers who are familiar with the area, the risk is in people who aren't from there. And that's something that has to be taken into account. I bet there have been close calls there from out-of-town drivers, who think to themselves afterwards "did I have a stop or yield sign there?" It may work well for most people, but as much as I hate saying this, you have to cater to the lowest common denominator driver.
To use 1's example, having an uncontrolled intersection is no different from putting up a flashing yellow light on both roads at an intersection. That's undeniably dangerous. Drivers treat a flashing yellow light the same as if they don't see anything at all. To almost all drivers, that tells them they have the right of way.
If you put up a black on yellow "Uncontrolled Intersection" warning diamond in advance of the intersection on all approaches, then I'd be ok with that. But until you put that sign up, you have an intersection where two "favored drivers" are coming straight at each other.
I can promise you no agency from FHWA on down will undertake to sign all uncontrolled intersections. There are just too many of them.
Quote from: roadman on September 14, 2018, 11:35:58 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 13, 2018, 06:54:50 PM
"Reduced Speed Ahead" should be revised to say "Reduce Speed Ahead" (NCDOT already does this). It's the speed LIMIT that is reduced. Whether "speed" is reduced depends on the driver obeying the lower speed limit. (To be clear, either way I prefer the sign telling you what the lower limit will be because that's more useful.)
The Reduced Speed Ahead regulatory sign is no longer MUTCD compliant. It was replaced with the Reduced Speed Limit Ahead warning signs (W3-5 and W3-5a).
:clap:
Quote from: tckma on September 11, 2018, 01:03:40 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 10, 2018, 03:25:28 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 10, 2018, 08:18:38 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2018, 05:52:57 AM
The infamous Section 2A.13¶13, which says:
QuoteWhen a mixed-case legend is used, the height of the lower-case letters shall be 3/4 of the height of the initial upper-case letter.
Of course, this is meant to simply say "The dimensions of FHWA Series are as such." Unfortunately, some boneheaded sign designers think this means the lowercase letters shall be ¾ of the point size of the initial uppercase letter, and then we get garbage signs.
Such garbage signs (https://goo.gl/maps/nzWvAVBnq4K2) can be found all over western PA. Many of these ugly signs were put up 7-10 years ago when Clearview was new.
More recent overpass signs (the ones that list the street name of the overpass) in CT, a state that never officially adopted Clearview, does similar. The lower-case lettering heights are about half the height of the upper-case letters.
Like "ANN UCCELLO ST?" (https://goo.gl/maps/szbUVUbVCLG2)
No–more like
Oklahoma City Boulevard (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4554413,-97.4897862,3a,15.1y,314.6h,103.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srdNPSXioCJoLl74KW-bugg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Unlike a lot of ODOT specials, this particular error is also spotted in KS and PA, among other places.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 14, 2018, 10:37:22 PM
BGS: The Manual's advice to avoid a street name and city name on the same sign should be deleted. There is no problem with that practice.
It would help if we had some kind of way of signing street/highway names on guide signs that differentiates them from destinations. It seems to have worked out for the Aussies, although I'm not a fan of the small, all-caps, black-on-white patch that they use (maybe it's just because I'm from Texas and we already have way too many white rectangles with black text.)
Quote from: SignBridge on September 14, 2018, 10:37:22 PM
And re: Traffic Lights, Yes, at least two signal faces should be required for every movement, not just the thru movement.
Redundancy would be nice, but I'd rather have them mandate better visibility and not just a specific number. Permissive left turns (FYA or green ball) should have a signal head either pole mounted adjacent to the oncoming traffic or on a mast armor span wire above it, potentially in addition to one that's readily visible on the approach to the intersection. Similarly, areas with heavy pedestrian or bicycle activity should have a pole-mounted signal on the corner at the right far side so that drivers yielding to pedestrians don't have to look away to make sure they still have a green.
Quote from: djlynch on October 03, 2018, 01:03:02 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 14, 2018, 10:37:22 PM
BGS: The Manual's advice to avoid a street name and city name on the same sign should be deleted. There is no problem with that practice.
It would help if we had some kind of way of signing street/highway names on guide signs that differentiates them from destinations. It seems to have worked out for the Aussies, although I'm not a fan of the small, all-caps, black-on-white patch that they use (maybe it's just because I'm from Texas and we already have way too many white rectangles with black text.)
New York's practice of boxing the street name works fine, in my book.
Quote from: djlynch on October 03, 2018, 01:03:02 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 14, 2018, 10:37:22 PM
And re: Traffic Lights, Yes, at least two signal faces should be required for every movement, not just the thru movement.
Redundancy would be nice, but I'd rather have them mandate better visibility and not just a specific number. Permissive left turns (FYA or green ball) should have a signal head either pole mounted adjacent to the oncoming traffic or on a mast armor span wire above it, potentially in addition to one that's readily visible on the approach to the intersection. Similarly, areas with heavy pedestrian or bicycle activity should have a pole-mounted signal on the corner at the right far side so that drivers yielding to pedestrians don't have to look away to make sure they still have a green.
I don't disagree. Improved redundancy requirements, plus improved visibility requirements, would be the best of both worlds. A first step towards improving signal visibility is to require X-number of signals for each movement. Ideally, two, although some places like Illinois or British Columbia require three depending on the location and movement. In most cases, you'd end up having a signal on a pole for each movement, as there would be enough horizontal spacing overhead to fit every signal. But if there were, that's where you'd need the improved visibility requirements. For example, factoring tall vehicles into the visibility equation.
I agree with your comments regarding pedestrian visibility. This new signal in Seattle includes a signal for right turning traffic, but it's placed way overhead. Instead of watching the crosswalk, drivers are going to be staring at the overhead signal, and when it turns green, may not notice any pedestrians still in the crosswalk. They also may not notice the signal at all, as they should be watching for pedestrians (at eye level) instead:
https://twitter.com/dongho_chang/status/1006737282584403968
I do find it hard to believe two signals per movement isn't mandated. A burnt-out left turn signal is a recipe for disaster if there's no second signal.
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 04:03:09 PM
I do find it hard to believe two signals per movement isn't mandated. A burnt-out left turn signal is a recipe for disaster if there's no second signal.
Why?
A burnt out left would appear the same as no left turn signal, which would mean lefts need to yield to oncoming traffic, or stop at a non-functional signal. Why is either of those dangerous?
I'm in the 1 signal per lane (including all turning lanes) camp so the signals can clearly indicate what movement is allowed from each lane.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 03, 2018, 12:22:39 PM
Quote from: djlynch on October 03, 2018, 01:03:02 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 14, 2018, 10:37:22 PM
BGS: The Manual's advice to avoid a street name and city name on the same sign should be deleted. There is no problem with that practice.
It would help if we had some kind of way of signing street/highway names on guide signs that differentiates them from destinations. It seems to have worked out for the Aussies, although I'm not a fan of the small, all-caps, black-on-white patch that they use (maybe it's just because I'm from Texas and we already have way too many white rectangles with black text.)
New York's practice of boxing the street name works fine, in my book.
Actually, only certain regions of NYSDOT use those lower-case boxed street names, notably Region-9 in Westchester County. Region-10 on Long Island thankfully has never used that design, which I've never liked. For almost sixty years, since I was a little kid, Region-10 has shown both the road name and the town name in mixed case lettering and it looks good and works just fine. There is no need that I can see to show them in different styles of lettering or boxes or different color panels.
For a good example of this type of signing see Fig. 2E-12 on Page 205 of the 2009 MUTCD. I'm surprised they even have that graphic in there since they discourage the practice elsewhere in the Manual.
For all of PennDOT's problems, they seem to have traffic signals figured out. On the main mast arm (or wire), there's always at least two through signals, but there's one signal per through lane with three or more lanes. There's one left turn signal per left turn lane, and the same applies to the occasional "hard" right turn signal. Left turn doghouses and FYAs (never used with more than one turning lane) are usually an extra signal on the left unless there's only one through lane, in which case the doghouse replaces one of the two standard signals. Right turn doghouses are always extra. On top of all that, you even sometimes see bonus signals (https://goo.gl/maps/E3ddoMUXsER2) on the backs of nearer mast arms for added visibility. They only just recently jumped on the FYA and (probably as a result) red arrow bandwagons, though, and I'm sure there's other features they should use that I don't know about because I never see them.
And yet for an intersection like this (https://goo.gl/maps/JmU4E7bJ8H82), many states would just hang two doghouses from a wire span and call it that.
Roadsguy, I generally agree about PennDOT's diligent mounting of one head per lane on their mast-arms though sometimes they mount the thru heads too close together. Another problem I've noticed is when there are two left-turn lanes, the two left-turn heads are often too close together, the result of the mast-arm being a little too short for the number of lanes involved.
They seem to do okay with only three heads on the arm, but more than three seems to get too crowded. The arm should be long enough to mount the heads a lane-width apart, normally twelve feet.
And I too like the "bonus signals" you mentioned, especially for curved approaches.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2018, 09:19:05 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 03, 2018, 06:36:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 04:03:09 PM
I do find it hard to believe two signals per movement isn't mandated. A burnt-out left turn signal is a recipe for disaster if there's no second signal.
Why?
A burnt out left would appear the same as no left turn signal, which would mean lefts need to yield to oncoming traffic, or stop at a non-functional signal. Why is either of those dangerous?
I agree that it wouldn't be a disaster, but the goal should be to minimize delays created by burned out signals. For example, if the green arrow were burned out, the confusion created by a red arrow suddenly disappearing may cause some drivers to go, some to wait...those who wait would eventually be greeted by a yellow and then red arrow, stuck again.
Realistically I think most drivers would figure out the green arrow is out if the other signals are still behaving normally from their visibility, thats what happened last time I was at an out-signal. The other thing is that was so insanely long ago... with the advent of the LED signal heads, most bulbs don't just die. When they fail, its typically shows up as sections failing, or it dimming or flickering, its not like the old incandescent bulbs... to the point where it just seems unnecessary. How often are people seeing LEDs street lights fail these days? Components in the controller seem just as likely if not more likely to fail.
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 04, 2018, 09:47:12 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2018, 09:19:05 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 03, 2018, 06:36:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 04:03:09 PM
I do find it hard to believe two signals per movement isn't mandated. A burnt-out left turn signal is a recipe for disaster if there's no second signal.
Why?
A burnt out left would appear the same as no left turn signal, which would mean lefts need to yield to oncoming traffic, or stop at a non-functional signal. Why is either of those dangerous?
I agree that it wouldn't be a disaster, but the goal should be to minimize delays created by burned out signals. For example, if the green arrow were burned out, the confusion created by a red arrow suddenly disappearing may cause some drivers to go, some to wait...those who wait would eventually be greeted by a yellow and then red arrow, stuck again.
Realistically I think most drivers would figure out the green arrow is out if the other signals are still behaving normally from their visibility, thats what happened last time I was at an out-signal. The other thing is that was so insanely long ago... with the advent of the LED signal heads, most bulbs don't just die. When they fail, its typically shows up as sections failing, or it dimming or flickering, its not like the old incandescent bulbs... to the point where it just seems unnecessary. How often are people seeing LEDs street lights fail these days? Components in the controller seem just as likely if not more likely to fail.
Most drivers - Yes. The skittish driver who refuses to go without a green indicator? You'll be stuck there for many light cycles.
Also, going back to the basic rule - if a traffic light is out, then treat it as a 4 way. If you come upon a signal that's not lit, you can't be absolutely certain the green signal is out.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 09:57:52 AM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 04, 2018, 09:47:12 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2018, 09:19:05 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 03, 2018, 06:36:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 04:03:09 PM
I do find it hard to believe two signals per movement isn't mandated. A burnt-out left turn signal is a recipe for disaster if there's no second signal.
Why?
A burnt out left would appear the same as no left turn signal, which would mean lefts need to yield to oncoming traffic, or stop at a non-functional signal. Why is either of those dangerous?
I agree that it wouldn't be a disaster, but the goal should be to minimize delays created by burned out signals. For example, if the green arrow were burned out, the confusion created by a red arrow suddenly disappearing may cause some drivers to go, some to wait...those who wait would eventually be greeted by a yellow and then red arrow, stuck again.
Realistically I think most drivers would figure out the green arrow is out if the other signals are still behaving normally from their visibility, thats what happened last time I was at an out-signal. The other thing is that was so insanely long ago... with the advent of the LED signal heads, most bulbs don't just die. When they fail, its typically shows up as sections failing, or it dimming or flickering, its not like the old incandescent bulbs... to the point where it just seems unnecessary. How often are people seeing LEDs street lights fail these days? Components in the controller seem just as likely if not more likely to fail.
Most drivers - Yes. The skittish driver who refuses to go without a green indicator? You'll be stuck there for many light cycles.
Also, going back to the basic rule - if a traffic light is out, then treat it as a 4 way. If you come upon a signal that's not lit, you can't be absolutely certain the green signal is out.
It just seems like such a rare scenario, and the vehicles behind will encourage the going with their horn at some point. I encounter those skittish drivers who refuse to go without a green signal all the time already at unsignalized intersections. :pan:
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 14, 2018, 04:40:12 PM
Same gripe I always have - speed limit signs. Should be more like Australia's to handle the question of confusion with State Highway signs.
Canada and the USA are the only major countries on the planet that have not (yet) adopted the red circle style of speed limit signs. Of the rest, only the UK posts those red circle signs as MPH, everyone else it is km/h.
As for New Mexico state highway shields, I'd change them to all orangish-yellow (like their state flag) with the Sun symbol at the top. The look would be similar to those of Wyoming.
Mike
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 15, 2018, 10:13:16 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 15, 2018, 01:17:31 AMI think part of the problem here is that the US has no equivalent of the Vienna convention "you have priority" sign:
(https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/Vagmarken/Vajningspliktsmarken/B4/B4-1/laddahem/B4-1.png)
Priority at an intersection is only ever implicit; if the other street has to stop or yield and you do not, there is no sign for you - you just keep driving because no sign says you need to do otherwise.
I disagree that we need a priority sign or a ban on uncontrolled intersections.
* In countries that actually use the Vienna convention priority sign, it is reserved for important (generally high-volume) through roads with flat intersections, and is not used as a method for assigning priority on low-volume surface roads.
* Plenty of countries that adhere to the Vienna convention and have very good overall road safety records, like Britain, do not use the priority sign at all or ban uncontrolled intersections. In Britain, the priority sign is not in TSRGD or even available for use as a nonprescribed sign. Also, unlike the vast majority of US states and some continental European countries like France (priorité Ã droite), Britain does not have a rule for assigning priority at uncontrolled intersections.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 15, 2018, 01:17:31 AMBut, this fairly common scenario looks pretty much identical to the rare instance of approaching an uncontrolled intersection. Which is dangerous, because then how does a driver reliably identify an uncontrolled intersection?
By observing the fundamental rule of (defensive) driving: never choose a speed or position that is not compatible with your forward visibility. If you can't tell if the intersection is uncontrolled as you approach it--slow down until you can. If you know the intersection is uncontrolled but can't see whether there is conflicting traffic--slow down until you can.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 15, 2018, 01:17:31 AMNow, I don't see the US adopting a "you have priority" sign - the Vienna convention one looks too much like a US warning sign and it would be a completely new concept to American drivers besides. Given that, prohibiting uncontrolled intersections is the only way to eliminate the hazard described above.
The yellow diamond is actually part of the Vienna convention. (It is the "B" option for warning signs; the red-rimmed white/yellow triangles are the "A" option.) The real reason many countries, including many Vienna adherents, do not use the priority sign is that it is pretty useless.
IIRC, the main uses for the Vienna Convention 'You Have Priority' sign is at traffic signals - in Europe, signs on the standards govern when the signals are dark, usually STOP/YIELD on one side and 'You have priority' on the other - something that IMHO should be seriously explored here in that it seems like fewer and fewer drivers these days know what to do with the signals are dark. Another added benefit is that in periods of light traffic (ie, night), the signals can be purposely turned off (note that flashing yellow/red aspects do not exist in Europe).
Also, the 'You have priority' sign is often used with the word 'ZONE' underneath, signifying that all cross roads stop for the marked road until a similar sign with a red slash appears. This is most often used in built up urban/suburban areas.
Mike
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 03, 2018, 06:36:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 04:03:09 PM
I do find it hard to believe two signals per movement isn't mandated. A burnt-out left turn signal is a recipe for disaster if there's no second signal.
Why?
A burnt out left would appear the same as no left turn signal, which would mean lefts need to yield to oncoming traffic, or stop at a non-functional signal. Why is either of those dangerous?
Neither one of those actually applies to a five-section signal head. Below is an intersection close to my house. Imagine you're waiting to turn left, but the green left arrow has burnt out. As you are now facing nothing but a steady red ball, "yield to oncoming traffic" does not apply. As the stoplight is obviously still working, "stop at a non-functional signal" does not apply. Instead, drivers would naturally just
not go during the entire cycle length of the protected left turn. With that being heavy enough of a movement, it's easy to imagine left-turning traffic stacking up, spilling into the through lanes, and blocking through traffic. And that's a recipe for rear-end collisions.
(https://i.imgur.com/vUFChAk.png)
My main beefs with the MUTCD (ie, what I would change):
- (Street Name Blades) Require that all streets be identified at all intersections. It seems like an elementary thing, but waaaaaaaay too many munis cheapen out here and only identify one of them, usually the more minor of the (usually) two.
- The MUTCD graphical 'KEEP RIGHT/LEFT' sign is too 'busy', IMHO. I'd go with a three-quarter down-pointing arrow sign mounted low, like is the norm in Europe.
- Make the retro-reflective yellow outline around a total jet-black background on traffic signal heads mandatory. These really make the signals stand out from the flotsam, especially in congested commercial areas, and are a Godsend for red-green colorblind drivers. "What about those classic NYC signals???" "Too bad, get with the program!"
- At the entrances to roundabouts, require that black-on-white signs with a roundabout symbol be mounted below the YIELD signs. Right now, it is a mish-mash of ONE WAY, "To traffic on left", etc. This is the norm in Europe.
- Explore the use of additional graphical images for yellow warning signs, such as a windsock for high crosswinds, a head-on view of a line of cars for areas of congestion, etc.
- Upcoming changes in lane configurations should have yellow warning signs that use up-pointing arrows. The 'LANE ENDS' image especially - use up-pointing arrows, one per lane, with the arrow for the lane that ends pointing into the arrow for a lane that continues on. The evolution of the existing 'lane ends' image is both amazing and a bit distressing, resulting in a image that is just too 'busy'. OTOH, the existing divided highway begins/ends image is a good example of this concept in use.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on October 04, 2018, 10:56:21 AM
- At the entrances to roundabouts, require that black-on-white signs with a roundabout symbol be mounted below the YIELD signs. Right now, it is a mish-mash of ONE WAY, "To traffic on left", etc. This is the norm in Europe.
To clarify what I think you're saying...
R6-5P (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2b_20_longdesc.htm) should be mounted below the YIELD sign for all roundabouts, not just mini-roundabouts. I wholeheartedly agree, and I go so far as to say ONE WAY signage shouldn't be used at all on roundabouts; it's a little misleading, because the cross-street isn't actually a one-way road.
I do note that the MUTCD
allows R6-5P to be used on larger roundabouts, in Sec. 2B.44(2) and Sec. 2B.44(03), but I think mandating its use across all roundabout types would be a good idea. Uniformity improves driver expectations.
Quote from: kphoger on October 04, 2018, 10:41:36 AM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 03, 2018, 06:36:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 04:03:09 PM
I do find it hard to believe two signals per movement isn't mandated. A burnt-out left turn signal is a recipe for disaster if there's no second signal.
Why?
A burnt out left would appear the same as no left turn signal, which would mean lefts need to yield to oncoming traffic, or stop at a non-functional signal. Why is either of those dangerous?
Neither one of those actually applies to a five-section signal head. Below is an intersection close to my house. Imagine you're waiting to turn left, but the green left arrow has burnt out. As you are now facing nothing but a steady red ball, "yield to oncoming traffic" does not apply. As the stoplight is obviously still working, "stop at a non-functional signal" does not apply. Instead, drivers would naturally just not go during the entire cycle length of the protected left turn. With that being heavy enough of a movement, it's easy to imagine left-turning traffic stacking up, spilling into the through lanes, and blocking through traffic. And that's a recipe for rear-end collisions.
(https://i.imgur.com/vUFChAk.png)
Well thats a good reason to mandate either protected or a FYA signal for all turn lanes, which is a change I'd really like to see.
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 04, 2018, 11:48:12 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 04, 2018, 10:41:36 AM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 03, 2018, 06:36:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 04:03:09 PM
I do find it hard to believe two signals per movement isn't mandated. A burnt-out left turn signal is a recipe for disaster if there's no second signal.
Why?
A burnt out left would appear the same as no left turn signal, which would mean lefts need to yield to oncoming traffic, or stop at a non-functional signal. Why is either of those dangerous?
Neither one of those actually applies to a five-section signal head. Below is an intersection close to my house. Imagine you're waiting to turn left, but the green left arrow has burnt out. As you are now facing nothing but a steady red ball, "yield to oncoming traffic" does not apply. As the stoplight is obviously still working, "stop at a non-functional signal" does not apply. Instead, drivers would naturally just not go during the entire cycle length of the protected left turn. With that being heavy enough of a movement, it's easy to imagine left-turning traffic stacking up, spilling into the through lanes, and blocking through traffic. And that's a recipe for rear-end collisions.
(https://i.imgur.com/vUFChAk.png)
Well thats a good reason to mandate either protected or a FYA signal for all turn lanes, which is a change I'd really like to see.
Protected, OK. I hate protected-only arrows in general, but they would solve the problem I've described. With an FYA signal, however, I'm not so sure.
Scenario 1
Oncoming traffic gets a green ball and green left arrow.
Through-traffic on your side keeps a red ball, your left-turn signal gets an FYA.
If the FYA is burnt out, then the set of signals facing you is (DARK)(RED BALL)(RED BALL).
Scenario 2
Oncoming traffic gets a red ball and green left arrow.
Through-traffic on your side keeps a red ball, your left-turn signal gets a green left arrow.
If the green left arrow is burnt out, then the set of signals facing you is (DARK)(RED BALL)(RED BALL).
You're presented with exactly the same information in both scenarios. But in Scenario 2, your turn is protected–whereas, in Scenario 1, your turn is
not protected.
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 04, 2018, 10:11:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 09:57:52 AM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 04, 2018, 09:47:12 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2018, 09:19:05 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 03, 2018, 06:36:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 04:03:09 PM
I do find it hard to believe two signals per movement isn't mandated. A burnt-out left turn signal is a recipe for disaster if there's no second signal.
Why?
A burnt out left would appear the same as no left turn signal, which would mean lefts need to yield to oncoming traffic, or stop at a non-functional signal. Why is either of those dangerous?
I agree that it wouldn't be a disaster, but the goal should be to minimize delays created by burned out signals. For example, if the green arrow were burned out, the confusion created by a red arrow suddenly disappearing may cause some drivers to go, some to wait...those who wait would eventually be greeted by a yellow and then red arrow, stuck again.
Realistically I think most drivers would figure out the green arrow is out if the other signals are still behaving normally from their visibility, thats what happened last time I was at an out-signal. The other thing is that was so insanely long ago... with the advent of the LED signal heads, most bulbs don't just die. When they fail, its typically shows up as sections failing, or it dimming or flickering, its not like the old incandescent bulbs... to the point where it just seems unnecessary. How often are people seeing LEDs street lights fail these days? Components in the controller seem just as likely if not more likely to fail.
Most drivers - Yes. The skittish driver who refuses to go without a green indicator? You'll be stuck there for many light cycles.
Also, going back to the basic rule - if a traffic light is out, then treat it as a 4 way. If you come upon a signal that's not lit, you can't be absolutely certain the green signal is out.
It just seems like such a rare scenario, and the vehicles behind will encourage the going with their horn at some point. I encounter those skittish drivers who refuse to go without a green signal all the time already at unsignalized intersections.
Rare as it may be, it's a totally avoidable situation if more than one signal is used for each movement. This discussion wouldn't even be taking place if the MUTCD already required redundancy for each movement. Then, there's the advantage I described earlier: having more than one signal helps in case of electrical issues with a signal, but also with visibility. It's a two-fold advantage over a basic one-signal-per-movement requirement, which is the case for every movement except straight-ahead movements per the
federal MUTCD.
Quote from: kphoger on October 04, 2018, 11:22:25 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 04, 2018, 10:56:21 AM
- At the entrances to roundabouts, require that black-on-white signs with a roundabout symbol be mounted below the YIELD signs. Right now, it is a mish-mash of ONE WAY, "To traffic on left", etc. This is the norm in Europe.
To clarify what I think you're saying...
R6-5P (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2b_20_longdesc.htm) should be mounted below the YIELD sign for all roundabouts, not just mini-roundabouts. I wholeheartedly agree, and I go so far as to say ONE WAY signage shouldn't be used at all on roundabouts; it's a little misleading, because the cross-street isn't actually a one-way road.
I do note that the MUTCD allows R6-5P to be used on larger roundabouts, in Sec. 2B.44(2) and Sec. 2B.44(03), but I think mandating its use across all roundabout types would be a good idea. Uniformity improves driver expectations.
That's what I'm thinking about here, thanx!
:nod:
Mike
My understanding was that R6-5P was for mini-roundabouts, and W2-6 was for standard roundabouts. The reason for the mounting of the R6-5P sign at a mini roundabout was that the geometrical layout accommodates "cheating" a bit better, so a reminder of required movements is necessary.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2018, 04:35:57 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 04, 2018, 10:11:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 09:57:52 AM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 04, 2018, 09:47:12 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2018, 09:19:05 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 03, 2018, 06:36:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2018, 04:03:09 PM
I do find it hard to believe two signals per movement isn't mandated. A burnt-out left turn signal is a recipe for disaster if there's no second signal.
Why?
A burnt out left would appear the same as no left turn signal, which would mean lefts need to yield to oncoming traffic, or stop at a non-functional signal. Why is either of those dangerous?
I agree that it wouldn't be a disaster, but the goal should be to minimize delays created by burned out signals. For example, if the green arrow were burned out, the confusion created by a red arrow suddenly disappearing may cause some drivers to go, some to wait...those who wait would eventually be greeted by a yellow and then red arrow, stuck again.
Realistically I think most drivers would figure out the green arrow is out if the other signals are still behaving normally from their visibility, thats what happened last time I was at an out-signal. The other thing is that was so insanely long ago... with the advent of the LED signal heads, most bulbs don't just die. When they fail, its typically shows up as sections failing, or it dimming or flickering, its not like the old incandescent bulbs... to the point where it just seems unnecessary. How often are people seeing LEDs street lights fail these days? Components in the controller seem just as likely if not more likely to fail.
Most drivers - Yes. The skittish driver who refuses to go without a green indicator? You'll be stuck there for many light cycles.
Also, going back to the basic rule - if a traffic light is out, then treat it as a 4 way. If you come upon a signal that's not lit, you can't be absolutely certain the green signal is out.
It just seems like such a rare scenario, and the vehicles behind will encourage the going with their horn at some point. I encounter those skittish drivers who refuse to go without a green signal all the time already at unsignalized intersections.
Rare as it may be, it's a totally avoidable situation if more than one signal is used for each movement. This discussion wouldn't even be taking place if the MUTCD already required redundancy for each movement. Then, there's the advantage I described earlier: having more than one signal helps in case of electrical issues with a signal, but also with visibility. It's a two-fold advantage over a basic one-signal-per-movement requirement, which is the case for every movement except straight-ahead movements per the federal MUTCD.
Yeah, but it seems like the money would be better spent towards other things. If reliability of the signals is a concern, you probably would have better bang for the buck mandating battery backups for traffic signals, which probably would cost about the same as extra redundant signals.
And I do find that there is a disadvantage to that: it discourages signal per lane, and in my ideal world, the signal per lane lined up over each lane would make it super-clear what movements are allowed in each lane and if any conflicts exist (including mandatory FYA for right turn if your parallel crosswalk is permitting walking, no more green balls with the assumption people will yield to pedestrians).
I lived in Palm Beach County about a decade ago, and near side signals for straight and any double lefts were very common, after the hurricanes blew all the signals away and they decided to upgrade many lights to mast arms so they could withstand hurricanes instead of hanging from the wires, a loss incurred in that upgrade was losing many near side signals. I can't say that ever really bothered me too much.
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 04, 2018, 09:50:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2018, 04:35:57 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 04, 2018, 10:11:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 09:57:52 AM
Also, going back to the basic rule - if a traffic light is out, then treat it as a 4 way. If you come upon a signal that's not lit, you can't be absolutely certain the green signal is out.
It just seems like such a rare scenario, and the vehicles behind will encourage the going with their horn at some point. I encounter those skittish drivers who refuse to go without a green signal all the time already at unsignalized intersections.
Rare as it may be, it's a totally avoidable situation if more than one signal is used for each movement. This discussion wouldn't even be taking place if the MUTCD already required redundancy for each movement. Then, there's the advantage I described earlier: having more than one signal helps in case of electrical issues with a signal, but also with visibility. It's a two-fold advantage over a basic one-signal-per-movement requirement, which is the case for every movement except straight-ahead movements per the federal MUTCD.
Yeah, but it seems like the money would be better spent towards other things. If reliability of the signals is a concern, you probably would have better bang for the buck mandating battery backups for traffic signals, which probably would cost about the same as extra redundant signals.
And I do find that there is a disadvantage to that: it discourages signal per lane, and in my ideal world, the signal per lane lined up over each lane would make it super-clear what movements are allowed in each lane and if any conflicts exist (including mandatory FYA for right turn if your parallel crosswalk is permitting walking, no more green balls with the assumption people will yield to pedestrians).
I lived in Palm Beach County about a decade ago, and near side signals for straight and any double lefts were very common, after the hurricanes blew all the signals away and they decided to upgrade many lights to mast arms so they could withstand hurricanes instead of hanging from the wires, a loss incurred in that upgrade was losing many near side signals. I can't say that ever really bothered me too much.
Signal reliability is generally an issue signal-to-signal, not setup-to-setup. But, you're right about what you said earlier. Signals really don't burn out like they used to. But even if that's not a concern anymore, you cannot deny the issue of signal visibility when the only signals are directly in front of you.
I don't know what kind of car you drive, but seriously think about this: how often can you not see the car
in front of the car in front of you (read that twice)? For me, the only time I can see that car is when I'm behind another hatchback. Behind anything taller, and I'm virtually blind. People like me rely on extra signals on the left and right to safely approach intersections, because overhead signals are not always visible. Even if signals never broke down (which they still can), having multiple signals for each movement double or even triples the chance that a driver is going to see the signal, and react however they should.
Many areas practice signal-per-lane with left and right-side signals: Nevada, Wisconsin, Illinois, Spokane and Federal Way, WA to name a few. The argument that it "discourages signal per lane" is simply untrue.
With that said, signal-per-lane is trying to achieve a goal which could more readily be achieved by being a bit more clever: instead of cramming six or seven signals overhead, and requiring a massive unsightly mast arm, place a few overhead, so cars near the front can see the signals without looking left or right, and place a few on the far left, far right, and near side so cars a ways back, and those behind tall vehicles, can also see the signals. Why is this important? To know when to put in the clutch for some, to know if the light is green and the car in front of us is sitting still (probably on their phone), >>if moving, to know if the light turns red<<...the list goes on.
Importantly, extra signals are not expensive. A signal typically only costs a couple thousand. The only issue with extra signals is conduit capacity and available wiring, for installations where they weren't already included. So cost isn't an issue, and the left-over money not spent on extra signals might pay for...extra lighting? Certainly not something as beneficial.
So, what exactly are the negatives with extra signals? I'm sure there's plenty of reasons...just make sure to let CA, NV, AZ, NM, CO, WI, IL, MN, SD, WA, and ID know, as they all use pole-mounted signals on a fairly regular basis (mostly the east coast that sucks at it).
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2018, 01:40:47 AM
So, what exactly are the negatives with extra signals? I'm sure there's plenty of reasons...just make sure to let CA, NV, AZ, NM, CO, WI, IL, MN, SD, WA, and ID know, as they all use pole-mounted signals on a fairly regular basis (mostly the east coast that sucks at it).
NJ is very good at it. Good to a fault, honestly.
NJ also requires at least two signals for every movement. Sure, you can find some older ones with only one, but they're very rare.
The only time I've seen newer one-signal indicators at a NJ Intersection is when there's a green right arrow while the cross street has a green left arrow. For some reason, not only is there only one green arrow, but it's often on the near-side pole in a position where someone at the stop line can't easily see it, so they don't know they have a green. Sure, in most cases they can turn right on red anyway, but some people have this look of fear if they see traffic to the left, even though they're still stopped for obvious reasons. Or in a recent case, a NJ Transit shuttle that isn't permitted to turn right on red stayed at the green arrow because the driver couldn't see it, to the annoying of the horn-honking car behind it.
Two examples:
Deptford, NJ: https://goo.gl/maps/tYv97MXSeHu The GSV doesn't allow for a great viewpoint here, but a car stopped at the stop line exiting this parking lot can't generally see the bottom lens to the right of their vehicle due to the glare shield.
Atlantic City, NJ: https://goo.gl/maps/zbjLTxLzQRG2 Even though there's 2 right-arrow signals here, the traffic lights are way too close to the stop line. It requires looking straight up or hard to the right. The signal seen to the left in the GSV link would've been a perfect spot for the right arrow, but a single over the right turn lane was omitted completely there. This appears to be the result of an intersection modification where the crosswalk was added to this particular area, rather than directly at the intersection further up (see the 2008 GSV for the old view...in which case the signal actually was even closer to the then-existing stop line!).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 05, 2018, 02:01:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2018, 01:40:47 AM
So, what exactly are the negatives with extra signals? I'm sure there's plenty of reasons...just make sure to let CA, NV, AZ, NM, CO, WI, IL, MN, SD, WA, and ID know, as they all use pole-mounted signals on a fairly regular basis (mostly the east coast that sucks at it).
NJ is very good at it. Good to a fault, honestly.
NJ also requires at least two signals for every movement. Sure, you can find some older ones with only one, but they're very rare.
The only time I've seen newer one-signal indicators at a NJ Intersection is when there's a green right arrow while the cross street has a green left arrow. For some reason, not only is there only one green arrow, but it's often on the near-side pole in a position where someone at the stop line can't easily see it, so they don't know they have a green. Sure, in most cases they can turn right on red anyway, but some people have this look of fear if they see traffic to the left, even though they're still stopped for obvious reasons. Or in a recent case, a NJ Transit shuttle that isn't permitted to turn right on red stayed at the green arrow because the driver couldn't see it, to the annoying of the horn-honking car behind it.
I completely forget about NJ. Hell, even NYC is pretty good at using pole-mounted signals in combination with overhead signals.
Really strange how close some of those signals are to the stop lines. Clearly an old standard that really doesn't have to change, so long as ample secondary signals are used beyond the stop line. I personally love near-side signals, but if they're the only ones, that's not so good.
When diagonal signals are used at small intersections over here (rare), the side with the close signals almost always gets a secondary pole-mounted signal on the far side, so drivers don't have to crane their neck. Here (https://goo.gl/tN4WTw), for example.
I agree with Jakeroot's philosophy that a California style combination of overhead and pole mounted signals provides the best all-around visibility of signals. IMO, the Manual's recommendation of one overhead signal per lane is kind of a default position that is not always the best answer.
My gripes with the MUTCD, where do I even start...
Given that I started a thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13997.0) some years back about how US road signs could be improved from a European (or International) perspective, my biggest gripe is the verbosity and non-usage of pictograms. Tied to this is another big issue, namely the lack of modularity when it comes to signage. Instead of fewer, but different signs that can be reused in various configurations, it seems the MUTCD tries to come up with a single sign for every possible situation. This is especially apparent regarding parking and related signs, as well as all the (in my opinion) unnecessary signs like:
- "LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT" (Use road markings and lane guidance signs)
- "STOP HERE FOR PEDESTRIANS" (Use pedestrian crossing signs and regular STOP sign)
- "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS" (Really? It's a basic rule of the road)
There are also plently of pictogram signs that have their older text-only variant still remaining in the MUTCD for no good reason.
Quote from: riiga on October 06, 2018, 02:58:56 PM
"LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT" (Use road markings and lane guidance signs)
It's not enforceable without that sign.
Quote from: 1 on October 06, 2018, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: riiga on October 06, 2018, 02:58:56 PM
"LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT" (Use road markings and lane guidance signs)
It's not enforceable without that sign.
Since when are road markings not enforceable?
Quote from: riiga on October 06, 2018, 02:58:56 PM
- "LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT" (Use road markings and lane guidance signs)
- "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS" (Really? It's a basic rule of the road)
Especially as states have to pass left lane camping laws, the latter is good to have--it can be topped with a yellow STATE LAW plaque. (Just today an example of SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT and a companion on the left with different but similar language about impeding the left lane was posted with the STATE LAW plaques; these are unfortunately necessary these days thanks to the drivers who think they have the job of enforcing the speed limit or something.)
LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT is reasonable. Not every left turn lane requires a full turn lane assignment sign, especially for a wide road where lots of straight-through arrows would have to be depicted or something. Especially where a lane becomes a "trap" at an intersection or there are several lanes and a sign depicting all the lanes would be overkill, the worded sign is good to have.
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 04, 2018, 09:47:12 AM
Realistically I think most drivers would figure out the green arrow is out if the other signals are still behaving normally from their visibility, thats what happened last time I was at an out-signal. The other thing is that was so insanely long ago... with the advent of the LED signal heads, most bulbs don't just die. When they fail, its typically shows up as sections failing, or it dimming or flickering, its not like the old incandescent bulbs... to the point where it just seems unnecessary. How often are people seeing LEDs street lights fail these days? Components in the controller seem just as likely if not more likely to fail.
Last week near the Port of Tacoma, I found a supplemental post-mounted light in which only three of the LED elements from the red light were still working. I never saw any of the other phases turn, but the green works fine in the street view. (https://goo.gl/maps/nufD8noYcss)
I tried to boost the exposure on this before I took the picture, but there's only so much you can do on a phone camera.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1922/45147378061_6295dabe2b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2bMw7A2)LED failure light, Fife, WA (https://flic.kr/p/2bMw7A2) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
I would be delighted to get rid of "Left Lane Must Turn Left" and "Right Lane Must Turn Right" because they are impossible to tell apart at a distance in situations where the markings are covered and only the upright signs are visible. Arizona has quite successfully used lane assignment signs (the ones with arrows) for decades, often with lane assignment just for the mandatory turn lane(s) with "Left Lane" or "Right Lane" plaques as appropriate (the plaques do not have to be readable from a distance since arrow orientation allows left/right to be differentiated from a distance). The norm in many Vienna adherents is to use a lane assignment sign that indicates the orientation of each lane.
I also agree with what Riiga says about KRETP/STKR signs, but the reality is that signs of this type--which serve only to remind drivers of basic rules of the road--will continue to be posted, often over the objections of duly qualified traffic practitioners, not just in the US but also internationally. As an example, France, Britain, and certain US states all employ signing schemes that are designed to remind drivers to maintain a two-second following distance. One of the biggest tensions that has to be navigated when compiling the MUTCD is between promoting good engineering practice, including minimal or no use of educational or reminder signing, and ensuring uniformity in the signing that is actually provided even if it is of a type agencies should not be using in the first place. This conflict is also something the UNECE traffic signing committee (the closest equivalent of a NCUTCD for Vienna countries) has had to navigate many times, notably in the case of accident black spot signing.
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 06, 2018, 11:30:08 PM
Last week near the Port of Tacoma, I found a supplemental post-mounted light in which only three of the LED elements from the red light were still working. I never saw any of the other phases turn, but the green works fine in the street view. (https://goo.gl/maps/nufD8noYcss)
I tried to boost the exposure on this before I took the picture, but there's only so much you can do on a phone camera.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1922/45147378061_6295dabe2b_c.jpg
I remember running into that signal not that long ago, and remembering how badly it was failing. Looks like it's somehow gotten worse since I last saw it. I appreciate it's existence -- it's impossible to see the overhead signals behind the trucks heading S/E along Taylor Way -- but it's worthless if it's not working.
I swear I remember going so far as to actually post about the signal on this site, but I can't find any post about it.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 07, 2018, 10:28:14 AM
I also agree with what Riiga says about KRETP/STKR signs, but the reality is that signs of this type--which serve only to remind drivers of basic rules of the road--will continue to be posted, often over the objections of duly qualified traffic practitioners, not just in the US but also internationally. As an example, France, Britain, and certain US states all employ signing schemes that are designed to remind drivers to maintain a two-second following distance. One of the biggest tensions that has to be navigated when compiling the MUTCD is between promoting good engineering practice, including minimal or no use of educational or reminder signing, and ensuring uniformity in the signing that is actually provided even if it is of a type agencies should not be using in the first place. This conflict is also something the UNECE traffic signing committee (the closest equivalent of a NCUTCD for Vienna countries) has had to navigate many times, notably in the case of accident black spot signing.
I'm not opposed to KRETP/STKR signs (though I prefer the former 99/100 times); in fact, they're necessary due to varying laws state-to-state. Here in WA, left lane use is prohibited unless passing or turning left. That's definitely not the law in every other state, so while the signs are technically educational (and therefore something that should minimized in terms of how often they're used), it's a sign that I appreciate as it sometimes helps clear the left lane.
Doesn't France go so far as to actually stagger their shoulder markings to the appropriate following distance (rather than use signs)?
I assume you guys called in that malfunctioning signal to the appropriate agency for repair, right?
Quote from: SignBridge on October 07, 2018, 08:13:34 PM
I assume you guys called in that malfunctioning signal to the appropriate agency for repair, right?
Never did think to mention it to them. Probably why it's still broken!
I have sent them an issue report via the "Tacoma 311" app.
Isn't there a direct phone number to the Traffic Signal Agency that you can call? Here on Long Island the County and New York State DOT both have advertised telephone numbers to report traffic signal problems.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 07, 2018, 09:32:35 PM
Isn't there a direct phone number to the Traffic Signal Agency that you can call? Here on Long Island the County and New York State DOT both have advertised telephone numbers to report traffic signal problems.
In case my 311 request doesn't go through, I called their after-hours line and they took the information.
I generally prefer written requests, as I like to keep a record of them. In WA, audio recording requires consent from both parties, so audio recordings for record-keeping purposes are usually a waste of time.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 07, 2018, 06:04:36 PMDoesn't France go so far as to actually stagger their shoulder markings to the appropriate following distance (rather than use signs)?
I have heard that suggested as the intended purpose of the broken shoulder stripe used on motorways and grade-separated dual carriageways in France. And I do remember seeing upright signs on the
autoroute with the message "Un trait--danger! Deux traits--sécurité!" (
Trait can mean line in French, though
ligne is the more obvious choice for English speakers with little fluency in French.) However, I have not found an official source that confirms allowing drivers to check their following distance as a design motivation. The stripe in question is type T4 (http://www.equipementsdelaroute.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/IISR_7ePARTIE_VC_20160215_cle217e65.pdf), with a skip cycle of 52 m, consisting of a 39 m dash with a 13 m break. Two dashes between vehicles is a separation of 91 m minimum, which is a bit longer than a two-second following distance at 130 km/h (72 m).
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 07, 2018, 10:28:14 AM
I would be delighted to get rid of "Left Lane Must Turn Left" and "Right Lane Must Turn Right" because they are impossible to tell apart at a distance in situations where
I would add to that the "All Traffic Must Turn Right" signs which I've mistaken for LLMTL / RLMTR signage at a distance.
Yesterday I even saw a "Delivery Trucks Turn Left Ahead" or something to that effect in the same 2 word/1 word/2 word black-on-white all caps style as all three of the above, to confusion with an LLMTL. This is a newer sign too, as it's when passing a brand new Wal-Mart (on Monocacy Blvd in Frederick, MD).
( back after a slight pause to correct that to "Delivery Trucks Next Left," since astonishingly, GMSV has recently updated: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4502017,-77.3882979,3a,51y,318.91h,92.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syDTGUpwh9Yu1_JHT6XbjCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 )
Quote from: riiga on October 06, 2018, 02:58:56 PM
My gripes with the MUTCD, where do I even start...
Given that I started a thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13997.0) some years back about how US road signs could be improved from a European (or International) perspective, my biggest gripe is the verbosity and non-usage of pictograms. Tied to this is another big issue, namely the lack of modularity when it comes to signage. Instead of fewer, but different signs that can be reused in various configurations, it seems the MUTCD tries to come up with a single sign for every possible situation. This is especially apparent regarding parking and related signs, as well as all the (in my opinion) unnecessary signs like:
- "LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT" (Use road markings and lane guidance signs)
- "STOP HERE FOR PEDESTRIANS" (Use pedestrian crossing signs and regular STOP sign)
- "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS" (Really? It's a basic rule of the road)
There are also plently of pictogram signs that have their older text-only variant still remaining in the MUTCD for no good reason.
Quote from: riiga on October 06, 2018, 02:58:56 PM
My gripes with the MUTCD, where do I even start...
Given that I started a thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13997.0) some years back about how US road signs could be improved from a European (or International) perspective, my biggest gripe is the verbosity and non-usage of pictograms. Tied to this is another big issue, namely the lack of modularity when it comes to signage. Instead of fewer, but different signs that can be reused in various configurations, it seems the MUTCD tries to come up with a single sign for every possible situation. This is especially apparent regarding parking and related signs, as well as all the (in my opinion) unnecessary signs like:
- "LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT" (Use road markings and lane guidance signs)
- "STOP HERE FOR PEDESTRIANS" (Use pedestrian crossing signs and regular STOP sign)
- "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS" (Really? It's a basic rule of the road)
There are also plently of pictogram signs that have their older text-only variant still remaining in the MUTCD for no good reason.
In general, I agree with you that the US MUTCD should employee more symbolization. The 2009 version took a bigger step than had been seen in quite some time, introducing new symbols and removing some word messages (e.g. finally removing "stop ahead" and "yield ahead" text signs, despite the symbol versions having been around for a few decades). But there is more work to do...
I will disagree with your solution to "stop here for pedestrians" though. This sign is often posted in conjunction with the peed crossing sign. But adding a normal stop sign would go against driver expectancy at mid-block crossings, not to mention it would require drivers to make a full stop at any crosswalk even in the absence of pedestrians.
The MUTCD needs to require more clarity about when to use black-on-yellow "exit only" signage--and they also need to stop downright promoting the use of symbology that isn't clear. If my assumptions are correct, the use of black-on-yellow warning sign colors is to warn drivers that they will be forced off the highway if they stay in that lane, with no option to continue straight. Because of this, I opine that any two-lane exit must have a yellow exit tab and corresponding black arrow for the right lane; both lanes if the second lane isn't an option lane. I think the MUTCD should change their language so that option lanes are not included in any yellow "exit only" text or symbology. All three examples below are from the MUTCD, and all three are wrong, in my opinion. I've seen places where the exit only tab covers only a portion of a sign's bottom edge, as is appropriate--locations in Washington State and Ohio come to mind. (Though Ohio is inconsistent.)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1938/31519365048_aa77270da4_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Q2fZ7q)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1963/31519364758_6354b1eef2_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Q2fZ2q)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1921/45394762251_5c882021bc_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2cao2hF)
20181010_151638 (https://flic.kr/p/Q2fZ7q) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr; 20181010_151640 (https://flic.kr/p/Q2fZ2q) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr; 20181010_151640 (https://flic.kr/p/2cao2hF) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Real-life good examples:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1798/42254815510_625afa0de0_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27nUYvU)
WA-I-5X011N (https://flic.kr/p/27nUYvU) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1905/44280161205_e2641468f6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2asTpeg)
OH-I-75X032S (https://flic.kr/p/2asTpeg) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Real-life bad examples that follow the MUTCD's arguable guidance:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1766/42123677295_c17aa761a7_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27bjRGc)
IL-I-80X145W (https://flic.kr/p/27bjRGc) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5624/29349587743_4816edb153_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LHwiUT)
WI-US51-029WS (https://flic.kr/p/LHwiUT) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
APL's do a good job of clearing up the ambiguity of what you can do in the second lane from the right. Note how the "exit only" text is only on the right lane:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4534/38127060354_8a585f2e3b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/216a9Hy)
IL-I-355X20ANG (https://flic.kr/p/216a9Hy) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
So yeah. My gripe is that option lanes are included in "exit only" content, and they shouldn't be.
Note: Please don't quote this entire post in any responses lol
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 18, 2018, 03:49:33 PM
Note: Please don't quote this entire post in any responses lol
Don't worry, I didn't. :sombrero:
I agree completely; for me, this is the single most objectionable feature of the MUTCD. Before 2011 or so (which I guess is when the new MUTCD went into effect), Utah always installed signs like this:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1805/29433884648_74e5f6622e_z.jpg)
Since then, Utah hasn't really been clear about what to do. There are several examples of them using the MUTCD guidance, such as this one:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4762/28378045399_f77d8199fb_z.jpg)
But more commonly, UDOT will use partial APLs for these situations:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/851/41702505340_dfbf8d42b6_z.jpg)
While the partial APLs aren't bad, I really wish we could go back to the pre-2009 versions.
No idea what the data shows on partial variations, but APLs have been shown to aid in driver recognition of option lane exits.
While I have no qualms with white arrows being used over a lane, I would prefer the arrows be designed to indicate what maneuver that lane performs.
Not sure it relates to Paul's post above, but I would also like to see exit only signs changed to black on white. I've never understood the idea of exit only signs being a warning. Technically, every regulatory sign is in itself a warning. Why exactly the exit only sign is special, I don't know.
Mine is simple, the US Route shield design is ugly and bland looking. As shitty as California is with signage standards at minimum I get to see cut-out shields with a eye catching design.
The condition being warned of by an "Exit Only" panel or patch is failure of the lane indicated to continue on the same roadway. In this sense it is conceptually similar to lane-ends warning signs. This does not preclude the simultaneous use of regulatory signs to indicate the compulsory nature of the lane drop (as shown in the current MUTCD), in a manner analogous to lane assignment signs for turn-only lanes on surface streets.
In the late 1960's and early 1970's when lane drop signing was being developed, some jurisdictions used yellow background for the "Exit Only" message while others used white. The language itself varied--"Must Exit" and "Right Lane Must Exit" were common. Yellow and "Exit Only" were simply the combination FHWA adopted when such signing was finally standardized in 1978.
I suspect yellow was and to an extent still remains the more natural choice than white, because up until 2009 agencies had two main sets of options for signing multilane exits involving lane drops. The one that was diagrammed in the MUTCD up to the 2003 edition is what I call the "Lunenfeld & Alexander" approach, because it was the one recommended in a 1976 FHWA report by Harold Lunenfeld and Gerson Alexander. It calls for a pull-through sign with lane arrows always to be provided so that there are two arrows over the option lane, and no "Exit Only" panels or patches whatsoever on either the pull-through or advance guide/exit direction sign. The other approach, which became popular with agencies having to oversee major metropolitan freeway networks (such as Caltrans and TxDOT), is what I call "non-Lunenfeld & Alexander." It calls for "Exit Only" panels or patches for the lanes that actually drop and a white-on-green arrow for the option lane. Pull-through signs do not have to be provided, and at service interchanges frequently aren't. The non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach was never diagrammed in the MUTCD but was allowable under a widely accepted interpretation of the MUTCD language.
The issue with these two approaches co-existing is that warning signs are basically a matter of engineer discretion, while regulatory signs are typically placed to effectuate a regulation. It is less impairing to uniformity to have warnings provided in some places and not in others than it is to have the same situation subject to regulatory signs in one place and not in another.
The 2009 MUTCD lays out basically two types of options for signing multilane exits involving lane drops. One is APL, which did very well in simple tachistoscope studies but tends to fall down in complex real-world situations owing to past failures to follow the directive "Never build what you cannot sign." The other arose (if memory serves) out of a study carried out by Jonathan Upchurch at the University of Massachusetts in 2003. The basic idea is to "hide" the option lane so that an arrow (with accompanying "Exit Only" panel/patch) for the added lane after the diverge is visible only on an exit direction sign that is itself situated after the diverge. Many agencies have cantilever sign structures situated upstream of the diverge to accommodate old-school non-Lunenfeld & Alexander signs, and I suspect at least some of them have been fudging by simply putting the option lane arrow in black against yellow in an otherwise carbon-copied design.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 18, 2018, 03:49:33 PM
snip
Quote from: US 89 on October 18, 2018, 04:15:11 PM
snip
Or you can just have wild inconsistency. Four examples from Des Moines area freeways, all with an option lane and an exiting lane. Only the first example is anywhere close to good, IMO:
(https://i.imgur.com/2yQ5nlBl.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/2Om11Wkl.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/lH6DC1xl.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0vRJOVKl.jpg)
I really hope future MUTCD changes disallow this sort of thing/address it more clearly. But this isn't a one-sided affair, either; engineers and DOTs also have to enforce consistency to get consistency.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 18, 2018, 05:17:45 PM
The condition being warned of by an "Exit Only" panel or patch is failure of the lane indicated to continue on the same roadway. In this sense it is conceptually similar to lane-ends warning signs. This does not preclude the simultaneous use of regulatory signs to indicate the compulsory nature of the lane drop (as shown in the current MUTCD), in a manner analogous to lane assignment signs for turn-only lanes on surface streets.
But even R3-5 signs are optional. I don't see them at every intersection involving a lane that suddenly goes from through to turn-only (equivalent to "exit only" situations). Most often in my area, these are signed only with pavement markings: https://goo.gl/9qW9Ua
If I understand correctly, guide signs that use the terminology "right only" or "left only" should be black-on-white (https://goo.gl/9a7Uem), but those with "exit only" or "lane ends" should be yellow? Perhaps we should consider adding a third movement for regulatory purposes: "exit".
Freeways and surface roads are entirely different animals. For one thing, "exit only" lanes are generally signed a LOT earlier than turn lanes. Plus exit only lanes do not have the force of law; they are warning that the lane leaves the road, not that all traffic in the lane must make a turn (since intersections and interchanges are themselves very different). Legally, there is no obligation to move over at the first sign, but a regulatory message would imply such.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 18, 2018, 05:17:45 PM
The condition being warned of by an "Exit Only" panel or patch is failure of the lane indicated to continue on the same roadway. In this sense it is conceptually similar to lane-ends warning signs.
This is the assumption I made about why exit only tabs have been black-on-yellow. It's like "hey, warning-this lane is ending unless you're trying to exit!" Which reminds me of
another MUTCD gripe--on surface streets, merge signs are suggestions and not requirements. WHAT!? Merging is one of the most dangerous hazards on a surface road! At least get the symbolic lane ends sign in there! (W4-2)
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 18, 2018, 06:29:18 PM
Or you can just have wild inconsistency. Four examples from Des Moines area freeways, all with an option lane and an exiting lane. Only the first example is anywhere close to good, IMO: (buncha images)
The example I showed in Ohio is far from the rule in that state...plenty of Ohio BGS's put black and yellow over option lanes. Some states like Illinois fail every time at this, some fail sometimes, and some are good about showing option lanes. As more states adopt APL's, I expect an uptick in clarity on which lanes are option lanes.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 18, 2018, 06:29:18 PMOr you can just have wild inconsistency.
In Iowa this has much to do with Iowa DOT's piecemeal approach to sign replacement. There are typically about two pure signing contracts each year per Iowa DOT district, plus usually at least one signing contract attached to each large turnkey project as it is advertised. The district contracts provide for isolated sign replacements (I suspect the signs to replace are chosen on the basis of some proxy for dilapidation such as age), and even the large projects tend to be fairly local in scope, so in Iowa you never see signs upgraded/replaced/brought up to standard throughout an entire corridor like you do in Kansas, Texas, Missouri, and so on.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 18, 2018, 06:29:18 PMFour examples from Des Moines area freeways, all with an option lane and an exiting lane. Only the first example is anywhere close to good, IMO:
(https://i.imgur.com/2yQ5nlBl.jpg)
The classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach would have saved sign panel area and, in my view, been as easy to understand. (Iowa is far from the only state to try to get clever with non-Lunenfeld & Alexander; Kansas (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6786013,-97.318436,3a,75y,75.7h,91.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW0-Rn0cmYJa1UoceWgS6fA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and Alabama (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5812155,-86.8091715,3a,75y,30.38h,79.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swmnybKIL4CV8f_DyE_J4ZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) have also experimented with nonstandard layouts. Odd treatment for bottom border aside, TxDOT (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7792239,-95.4456228,3a,50.2y,265.69h,90.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seR3nYXteFrFD9CpYu6SjzA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DeR3nYXteFrFD9CpYu6SjzA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D90.376625%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) had perhaps the best implementation of the classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach.)
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 18, 2018, 06:29:18 PM(https://i.imgur.com/2Om11Wkl.jpg)
This is a recent installation and is 100% by the book.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 18, 2018, 06:29:18 PM(https://i.imgur.com/lH6DC1xl.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0vRJOVKl.jpg)
These are definitely problematic, but for different reasons. The first looks like an attempt to re-use a 1980's sign designed for a simple lane drop with a new option lane created through restriping. And the second looks like an attempt to save on sign structure cost by making one structure do the work both of a final advance guide sign (one downward-pointing arrow) and an exit direction sign (two downward-pointing arrows), with bad border design to boot.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 18, 2018, 06:29:18 PMI really hope future MUTCD changes disallow this sort of thing/address it more clearly. But this isn't a one-sided affair, either; engineers and DOTs also have to enforce consistency to get consistency.
The "hide option lane" approach gets a lot of stick and I don't often see it applied in the field. It would not surprise me if, instead of going back to the old regime with non-Lunenfeld & Alexander signs, FHWA adds sawn-off APLs to the
MUTCD in the expectation that they will become the norm at service interchanges.
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2018, 07:45:44 PM
Freeways and surface roads are entirely different animals. For one thing, "exit only" lanes are generally signed a LOT earlier than turn lanes. Plus exit only lanes do not have the force of law; they are warning that the lane leaves the road, not that all traffic in the lane must make a turn (since intersections and interchanges are themselves very different). Legally, there is no obligation to move over at the first sign, but a regulatory message would imply such.
How about we just dump down arrows and exit only messages entirely, and just move to up arrows pointing in the correct direction?
The "incorrect examples" posted from the MUTCD are actually very correct, and are based on placement of the sign. If you'll notice, the sign is located overhead right at the gore point, where each lane is clearly identifiable. If course, I'm sure the new MUTCD will scrap the diagrammatics (which I like) in favor of those OAPL monstrosities, which I hate.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 10:10:18 AM
The "incorrect examples" posted from the MUTCD are actually very correct, and are based on placement of the sign. If you'll notice, the sign is located overhead right at the gore point, where each lane is clearly identifiable.
THIS. The problem IMO is that many DOTs don't pay attention to this fact - that sign placement is pretty specific and makes a big difference.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 18, 2018, 10:10:04 PM
How about we just dump down arrows and exit only messages entirely, and just move to up arrows pointing in the correct direction?
Seconded.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 19, 2018, 10:18:44 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 10:10:18 AM
The "incorrect examples" posted from the MUTCD are actually very correct, and are based on placement of the sign. If you'll notice, the sign is located overhead right at the gore point, where each lane is clearly identifiable.
THIS. The problem IMO is that many DOTs don't pay attention to this fact - that sign placement is pretty specific and makes a big difference.
Both of these.
If the sign is prior to the lane split, the arrow over the option lane is white on green. When it's after the split, as is shown on the referenced MUTCD pages, then both lanes are properly shown as black on yellow.
Note: Even if APLs are used prior to the lane split, the referenced locations of the signs and the style of BGS used is still accurate.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2018, 12:44:16 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 19, 2018, 10:18:44 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 10:10:18 AM
The "incorrect examples" posted from the MUTCD are actually very correct, and are based on placement of the sign. If you'll notice, the sign is located overhead right at the gore point, where each lane is clearly identifiable.
THIS. The problem IMO is that many DOTs don't pay attention to this fact - that sign placement is pretty specific and makes a big difference.
Both of these.
If the sign is prior to the lane split, the arrow over the option lane is white on green. When it's after the split, as is shown on the referenced MUTCD pages, then both lanes are properly shown as black on yellow.
Note: Even if APLs are used prior to the lane split, the referenced locations of the signs and the style of BGS used is still accurate.
The problem is that the 2009 vanilla MUTCD has no way of showing option lanes prior to the lane split on overhead signage. The overhead signage only shows the dropped lane; the only indications that an option lane exists are arrows painted on the pavement and small R3-8 signs posted on the side of the road. That to me is misleading. It's shown on page 24 of this PDF (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf).
The Utah version of the MUTCD solves this problem by using the partial APLs posted above, and also scrapping the R3-8 signs. See pages 278 and 279 (https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=12281504735606387) of the Utah MUTCD. (warning: large PDF file size)
Also, quick clarifying question: I assume the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach is something like this, with the dropped lane in yellow and the option lane outside the "exit only" yellow section:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/833/41497663950_e5a43eed4c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26e1nJE)
And would the Lunenfeld-Alexander approach be something like this? That third (well, fourth if you count the HOT) lane is an option lane for the I-80 exit.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4605/39573972542_f7e2e7b29f_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23i1Xiq)
(apologies for the poor picture quality: it was snowing at the time)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2018, 12:44:16 PMIf the sign is prior to the lane split, the arrow over the option lane is white on green.
This is the classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach and is no longer allowed. As US 89 points out, the current
MUTCD now requires practitioners to "hide" the option lane on the advance guide signs, by furnishing downward-pointing arrows and "Exit Only" messages only for the lanes that actually drop.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2018, 12:44:16 PMWhen it's after the split, as is shown on the referenced MUTCD pages, then both lanes are properly shown as black on yellow.
Yes.
Edit:
Quote from: US 89 on October 19, 2018, 01:03:25 PMAlso, quick clarifying question . . .
Yes--both of the photos you post show good examples respectively of the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander and the Lunenfeld & Alexander approaches.
Lunenfeld and Alexander's 1976 report
Signing treatments for interchange lane drops is actually online (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556036821429;view=1up;seq=1) now. There are numerous photo illustrations of the different approaches then in use. (Uniformity has since improved somewhat, but not by much.)
Back before I knew the MUTCD had changed its guidance on all of this, I brought up what I thought was an error in the Kellogg/KTA construction plans with a friend of mine whose firm was involved in the process. The plans called for a double-lane yellow exit only panel, and I told him that the second lane was going to be an option lane and shouldn't be like that. He escalated it to his boss, who agreed with me and in turn escalated it further up the chain. Someone up the chain figured out that it was in fact in keeping with current MUTCD guidance for option lanes, and that's how I first found out about the change.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 10:10:18 AM
The "incorrect examples" posted from the MUTCD are actually very correct, and are based on placement of the sign. If you'll notice, the sign is located overhead right at the gore point, where each lane is clearly identifiable.
I don't know about you, but given that I don't tend to look straight up at signs while driving, this seems of limited usefulness to me. Particularly in congested scenarios where the road beyond the gore point may in fact
not be very visible from your current location.
Quote from: riiga on October 19, 2018, 11:45:17 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 18, 2018, 10:10:04 PM
How about we just dump down arrows and exit only messages entirely, and just move to up arrows pointing in the correct direction?
Seconded.
Thanks. You know I prefer the Nordic method.
Quote from: US 89 on October 19, 2018, 01:03:25 PM
The problem is that the 2009 vanilla MUTCD has no way of showing option lanes prior to the lane split on overhead signage. The overhead signage only shows the dropped lane; the only indications that an option lane exists are arrows painted on the pavement and small R3-8 signs posted on the side of the road. That to me is misleading. It's shown on page 24 of this PDF (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf).
The Utah version of the MUTCD solves this problem by using the partial APLs posted above, and also scrapping the R3-8 signs. See pages 278 and 279 (https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=12281504735606387) of the Utah MUTCD. (warning: large PDF file size)
Option lane signage with down arrows were replaced with APLs. Full stop. You can still advertise option lanes prior to the split, you just have to use up arrows. Utah has circumvented this new requirement by inventing a variation that combines the original style, with down arrows, with up arrows. I'm not sure what the FHWA has to say about it, but I don't see any issues. The big positive of the new partial APL is that there is exactly as many arrowheads as there are movements. The old style had one arrow for a lane that did two things. Personally, I'm not a fan of that, regardless of how "successfully" it was used in the past.
One unfortunate side effect of the ban on dancing arrows is OkDOT's new favorite practice of just putting a small pullthrough at the left side of a gantry reading something along the lines of "I-35 South, Left 3 Lanes". It's hard to see how being forced to count lanes while navigating is any better than an arrow being at an angle other than 90°.
Quote from: Eth on October 19, 2018, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 10:10:18 AM
The "incorrect examples" posted from the MUTCD are actually very correct, and are based on placement of the sign. If you'll notice, the sign is located overhead right at the gore point, where each lane is clearly identifiable.
I don't know about you, but given that I don't tend to look straight up at signs while driving, this seems of limited usefulness to me. Particularly in congested scenarios where the road beyond the gore point may in fact not be very visible from your current location.
THANK YOU LOL. Pretty sure signs aren't designed for motorists who are 0.0 feet away.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 22, 2018, 03:22:13 PM
Quote from: Eth on October 19, 2018, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 10:10:18 AM
The "incorrect examples" posted from the MUTCD are actually very correct, and are based on placement of the sign. If you'll notice, the sign is located overhead right at the gore point, where each lane is clearly identifiable.
I don't know about you, but given that I don't tend to look straight up at signs while driving, this seems of limited usefulness to me. Particularly in congested scenarios where the road beyond the gore point may in fact not be very visible from your current location.
THANK YOU LOL. Pretty sure signs aren't designed for motorists who are 0.0 feet away.
Of course not. That's why signs placed
at the gore point are in fact
designed to be read by drivers who haven't gotten there yet. (That doesn't negate
Eth's point about the lanes beyond the gore point not being very visible from your current location.)
QuoteThe basic idea is to "hide" the option lane so that an arrow (with accompanying "Exit Only" panel/patch) for the added lane after the diverge is visible only on an exit direction sign that is itself situated after the diverge. Many agencies have cantilever sign structures situated upstream of the diverge to accommodate old-school non-Lunenfeld & Alexander signs, and I suspect at least some of them have been fudging by simply putting the option lane arrow in black against yellow in an otherwise carbon-copied design.
I never understood that logic. In cases where this happens (and CT does this a lot) it forces drivers to possibly unecessarily change into a right hand lane (if the exit is on the right) when they don't really have to and thus backing up traffic. Only to find up ahead at that they could've simply stayed in the option lane.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 10:10:18 AM
Also, quick clarifying question: I assume the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach is something like this, with the dropped lane in yellow and the option lane outside the "exit only" yellow section:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/833/41497663950_e5a43eed4c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26e1nJE)
I still say the best way to sign an option lane is to have an individual separate sign over each lane. It may be more complex but I think drivers get mixed up over the large overhead signage. In the pic above i can see thru drivers merging to the left from the "3rd lane from the right option lane" because they think "oh that lane is for US-6" even though there's a white arrow over the green portion of the sign.
↓ ↓ This remains true, it seems. ↓ ↓
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 24, 2013, 02:13:34 PM
none of the existing options for signing lane drops with option lanes hits a home run.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 22, 2018, 03:31:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 10:10:18 AM
Also, quick clarifying question: I assume the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach is something like this, with the dropped lane in yellow and the option lane outside the "exit only" yellow section:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/833/41497663950_e5a43eed4c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26e1nJE)
I still say the best way to sign an option lane is to have an individual separate sign over each lane. It may be more complex but I think drivers get mixed up over the large overhead signage. In the pic above i can see thru drivers merging to the left from the "3rd lane from the right option lane" because they think "oh that lane is for US-6" even though there's a white arrow over the green portion of the sign.
You can't really blame them. Pull-through signs ostensibly point to "only" lanes, but use white arrows instead of black. Unless we want everyone to second-guess white-on-green arrows, we need to figure out a scheme that's less "grey", as in the above sign. Seriously, if that lane on the left goes to more than just US-6/UT-156, why doesn't it say as much?
Why would it say as much? I generally assume that a lane continues as a through lanes unless there's a black on yellow "exit only" sign, I know the lane configuration is otherwise, or some other signage (such as a "lane ends" sign or through lanes being marked but not including that one) shows that it isn't.
Quote from: vdeane on October 23, 2018, 12:44:43 PM
Why would it say as much? I generally assume that a lane continues as a through lanes unless there's a black on yellow "exit only" sign, I know the lane configuration is otherwise, or some other signage (such as a "lane ends" sign or through lanes being marked but not including that one) shows that it isn't.
I just explained above. Pull through signs use white on green arrows, and they aren't option lanes (except in a few municipalities when butted up against a sign like the one above, with two arrows over one lane). How would anyone know where else that left lane went?
But they aren't exit lanes, either. For me, the default in through unless told otherwise. Is that not normal? Or are people so bad at navigating these days that they constantly need to be told where every single lane goes?
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 12:54:38 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 23, 2018, 12:44:43 PM
Why would it say as much? I generally assume that a lane continues as a through lanes unless there's a black on yellow "exit only" sign, I know the lane configuration is otherwise, or some other signage (such as a "lane ends" sign or through lanes being marked but not including that one) shows that it isn't.
I just explained above. Pull through signs use white on green arrows, and they aren't option lanes (except in a few municipalities when butted up against a sign like the one above, with two arrows over one lane). How would anyone know where else that left lane went?
Pull thru signs often don't use white on green arrows. The vast majority don't, unless is a very major interchange where the additional arrows may be of use.
It's an extremely clear exit sign - Exit Number, Exit Tab, Distance to Exit. It can't really be mistaken. And it's extremely rare for any sort of pull-thru sign to be used alongside a 1 Mile ahead sign anyway.
Quote from: vdeane on October 23, 2018, 01:04:32 PM
But they aren't exit lanes, either. For me, the default in through unless told otherwise. Is that not normal? Or are people so bad at navigating these days that they constantly need to be told where every single lane goes?
Am I allowed to write "Yes" in a 500 point large text here?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 23, 2018, 01:09:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 23, 2018, 01:04:32 PM
But they aren't exit lanes, either. For me, the default in through unless told otherwise. Is that not normal? Or are people so bad at navigating these days that they constantly need to be told where every single lane goes?
Am I allowed to write "Yes" in a 500 point large text here?
Well, you shouldn't be allowed to, because it was an either-or question, not a yes-no question.
Are you agreeing that it's perfectly acceptable to make his assumption, or are you agreeing that people are stupid?
Quote from: vdeane on October 23, 2018, 01:04:32 PM
But they aren't exit lanes, either. For me, the default in through unless told otherwise. Is that not normal? Or are people so bad at navigating these days that they constantly need to be told where every single lane goes?
I'm referring mostly to "only" situations, not exits per se.
Nevertheless, I assume everyone is an idiot.
Does shortening the quoted passage make it clearer?
Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2018, 01:37:50 PM
are you agreeing that people are stupid?
Yes.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1926/44610535955_fa1056b8a8_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2aY5E8D)I-91 (https://flic.kr/p/2aY5E8D) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
Case in point, in this pic the left 4-lanes continue straight for I-91. People think only the left 3-lanes do because the 4th lane is on the "exit" sign. I don't think they make the connection. So people change lanes when they don't have to.
If every lane had a separate sign over it saying which lane for which route (I-91 or CT-20 or both) with an arrow (kind of like how they paint shields in every individual lane), it would be clearer. Yes, you have to dumb things down for motorists.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 23, 2018, 02:52:15 PM
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1926/44610535955_fa1056b8a8_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2aY5E8D)I-91 (https://flic.kr/p/2aY5E8D) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
Case in point, in this pic the left 4-lanes continue straight for I-91. People think only 3-lanes do because the 4th lane is on the "exit" sign. I don't think they make the connection. So people change lanes when they don't have to.
If every lane had a sign over it here, it would be clearer. Yes, you have to dumb things down for motorists.
An APL would do nicely there, IMO.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 23, 2018, 02:52:15 PM
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1926/44610535955_fa1056b8a8_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2aY5E8D)I-91 (https://flic.kr/p/2aY5E8D) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
Case in point, in this pic the left 4-lanes continue straight for I-91. People think only the left 3-lanes do because the 4th lane is on the "exit" sign. I don't think they make the connection. So people change lanes when they don't have to.
If every lane had a separate sign over it saying which lane for which route (I-91 or CT-20 or both) with an arrow (kind of like how they paint shields in every individual lane), it would be clearer. Yes, you have to dumb things down for motorists.
That's an erroneous sign then that shouldn't have been used as such. A wider sign with the 4th arrow, or a pull-thru sign without arrows would've made way more sense here.
This is now an APL, but coming off the Delaware Memorial Bridge into NJ motorists were greeted with this: https://goo.gl/maps/MwDwrRKHrUK2 (The small arrows lined up better with the lane than it appears in this GSV shot). From my observations, while signage on the bridge stated "NJ TPK, US 40, Left 2 lanes", those coming off the bridge appeared to have no issues understanding the right-center lane was an option lane.
Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2018, 02:54:54 PM
An APL would do nicely there, IMO.
I think the FHWA would agree, as that's the requirement now. I would also prefer an APL.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 23, 2018, 03:22:18 PM
That's an erroneous sign then that shouldn't have been used as such. A wider sign with the 4th arrow, or a pull-thru sign without arrows would've made way more sense here.
The sign was designed properly. Pull-throughs with arrows are quite common, and the spacing between arrows is correct.
While I have problems with down arrows, there is a good version: MnDOT's vertical divider placed above the arrow allows the correct number of lanes and no guessing, since I think most drivers interpret a divider above their lane as meaning "two options".
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 04:31:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 23, 2018, 03:22:18 PMThat's an erroneous sign then that shouldn't have been used as such. A wider sign with the 4th arrow, or a pull-thru sign without arrows would've made way more sense here.
The sign was designed properly. Pull-throughs with arrows are quite common, and the spacing between arrows is correct.
Actually, Jeffandnicole is correct--this assembly is not designed properly according to the pre-2009 criteria, which call for the pull-through to have an arrow over the fourth lane to indicate the option to go straight. The classic Lunenfeld & Alexander approach would also eliminate the "Exit Only" panel on the advance guide sign for the exit.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 04:31:32 PMWhile I have problems with down arrows, there is a good version: MnDOT's vertical divider placed above the arrow allows the correct number of lanes and no guessing, since I think most drivers interpret a divider above their lane as meaning "two options".
Yes. This solution would also work well in this location.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 23, 2018, 04:46:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 04:31:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 23, 2018, 03:22:18 PMThat's an erroneous sign then that shouldn't have been used as such. A wider sign with the 4th arrow, or a pull-thru sign without arrows would've made way more sense here.
The sign was designed properly. Pull-throughs with arrows are quite common, and the spacing between arrows is correct.
Actually, Jeffandnicole is correct--this assembly is not designed properly according to the pre-2009 criteria, which calls for the pull-through to have an arrow over the fourth lane to indicate the option to go straight. The classic Lunenfeld & Alexander approach would also eliminate the "Exit Only" panel on the advance guide sign for the exit.
Ahh, thanks. I was thinking "one arrow per lane" was correct for down arrows, but now I remember why I'm not a giant fan of traditional down arrows.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 23, 2018, 02:52:15 PM
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1926/44610535955_fa1056b8a8_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2aY5E8D)I-91 (https://flic.kr/p/2aY5E8D) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
I would eliminate the confusion by deleting the arrows from the "pull-through" sign. That would eliminate the potential confusion and still have the exit signed clearly.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 23, 2018, 08:26:58 PM
I would eliminate the confusion by deleting the arrows from the "pull-through" sign. That would eliminate the potential confusion and still have the exit signed clearly.
That still wouldn't eliminate the confusion related to the single arrow going multiple places. If I'm expected to tie the white arrow on the exit sign to both the destination on the exit sign
and the pull-through, which without arrows would be farther off to the left than it already is (in the above photo), I'm probably going to get it wrong at-speed. Or at least falsely assume the wrong thing.
Remember, drivers are idiots. Don't let them assume anything. Most drivers are going to assume that white arrows go to the destination on the sign they are attached.
As an alternative, we could eliminate the pull-through sign altogether and just leave the existing exit sign in place which works fine for me. It's what our friend JNW calls a classic Non L & A type sign. We have some of those here on Long Island and I have no problem with this type of signing.
I'm a bit surprised at the confusing your expressing Jake. These signs have been the standard design for an option lane for decades, with a general non-arrow pull thru next to it. I can't recall seeing any confusion whatsoever, as some people turn for the exit, and some continue straight. I would be shocked if you don't encounter some of these on your normal drives.
The only thing about that option lane: if you do stay on I-91, it does end about 500 feet beyond the exit ramp. Future overhead signage (an APL for example), should indicate that. The only signage that does is a "Lane Ends 400 Feet" sign just beyond the exit gore.
Well if that's the case, you wonder why they don't just have both lanes drop into the exit, instead of forcing an unexpected merge just beyond the split. It would simplify the whole situation.
I have wondered about striping treatments such as this:
I-27/Buddy Holly Ave. (Exit 2 northbound) in Lubbock, Texas (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5569395,-101.844775,3a,53.2y,357.44h,92.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS2_d6ZeezG0vJ6UXzSNMGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The exit is a simple lane drop without option lane, and is signed accordingly. But as the stripe separating the dropped lane from the other lanes becomes solid, it bends to the right, and another lane begins to open up that looks like an option lane, except traffic in it is expected to merge back onto the mainline rather than to take the exit. The theory that has seemed most plausible to me is that this is to provide recovery area for confused motorists who realize at the last second that they do not want to take the exit.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 23, 2018, 09:56:54 PM
I'm a bit surprised at the confusing your expressing Jake. These signs have been the standard design for an option lane for decades, with a general non-arrow pull thru next to it. I can't recall seeing any confusion whatsoever, as some people turn for the exit, and some continue straight. I would be shocked if you don't encounter some of these on your normal drives.
I only started driving in 2011, and there's been seven years of new drivers right behind me who have to understand these signs. Just because they've been around for a while, doesn't mean they'll continue to be effective, or even that they've been effective. How do we know that the signs were even working? Couldn't it be that the drivers using the option lanes past the exit use it because they know about it? Or that they saw other markings or signs? I don't know what studies the L&A signs were part of, but I'm guessing they're no longer relevant, since their signs aren't allowed anymore.
For the record, I'm used to seeing both types of option lane signs. WSDOT continues to install the above type, with the sign assemblies installed in the wrong place (https://goo.gl/AvMeJV) (despite 2009 MUTCD adoption in 2011). BC uses the APL extensively (standard sign (https://goo.gl/QGeg4t) for all (https://goo.gl/iL8qXC) exit situations (https://goo.gl/AQNGqj)), and from my own perspective (not scientific), option lanes are better utilized there. That might be due to no instances of unsigned movements. If there's an option lane, both movements are signed. You really aren't allowed to assume anything.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 23, 2018, 10:27:04 PM
I have wondered about striping treatments such as this:
I-27/Buddy Holly Ave. (Exit 2 northbound) in Lubbock, Texas (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5569395,-101.844775,3a,53.2y,357.44h,92.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS2_d6ZeezG0vJ6UXzSNMGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The exit is a simple lane drop without option lane, and is signed accordingly. But as the stripe separating the dropped lane from the other lanes becomes solid, it bends to the right, and another lane begins to open up that looks like an option lane, except traffic in it is expected to merge back onto the mainline rather than to take the exit. The theory that has seemed most plausible to me is that this is to provide recovery area for confused motorists who realize at the last second that they do not want to take the exit.
That's just incredible...if they don't want people to think there's an exit, maybe they shouldn't stripe a lane there? If I was coming up on that exit, and saw a dashed line extending from the right edge of the non-exit-only lane beyond the point that the exit lane splits off, I would assume that's an unsigned optional exit.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 24, 2018, 01:20:03 AMThat's just incredible...if they don't want people to think there's an exit, maybe they shouldn't stripe a lane there? If I was coming up on that exit, and saw a dashed line extending from the right edge of the non-exit-only lane beyond the point that the exit lane splits off, I would assume that's an unsigned optional exit.
My own assumption, the first time I encountered this striping pattern in the mid-noughties (it is used elsewhere on I-27 in Lubbock, including Exits 3 and 4 northbound, but nowhere else in Texas that I have seen), was that a through lane was opening on the right, next to the dropped lane, and that I should move right to maintain good lane discipline. It was a bit of a shock to have to move back left almost immediately. I find it amazing that it is still visible in StreetView and satellite view over a decade and probably at least three striping touch-up cycles later.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 24, 2018, 11:06:25 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 24, 2018, 01:20:03 AMThat's just incredible...if they don't want people to think there's an exit, maybe they shouldn't stripe a lane there? If I was coming up on that exit, and saw a dashed line extending from the right edge of the non-exit-only lane beyond the point that the exit lane splits off, I would assume that's an unsigned optional exit.
My own assumption, the first time I encountered this striping pattern in the mid-noughties (it is used elsewhere on I-27 in Lubbock, including Exits 3 and 4 northbound, but nowhere else in Texas that I have seen), was that a through lane was opening on the right, next to the dropped lane, and that I should move right to maintain good lane discipline. It was a bit of a shock to have to move back left almost immediately. I find it amazing that it is still visible in StreetView and satellite view over a decade and probably at least three striping touch-up cycles later.
That's what I would have assumed as well: that another lane was opening up. And no, I've never encountered this kind of striping in Texas either. Texas, IMHO, is awesome at striping and wouldn't do anything like this without a reason.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 23, 2018, 10:27:04 PM
The theory that has seemed most plausible to me is that this is to provide recovery area for confused motorists who realize at the last second that they do not want to take the exit.
That, of course, is a proper use of the shoulder. But honestly, I see more people pulling out into traffic from a dead stop than I see using the shoulder to gain speed first, so maybe something like the Lubbock striping would help encourage drivers to avoid being rear-ended.
Minnesota addresses a similar problem by simply providing a short bit of acceleration lane after a cloverleaf exit,
like this (https://goo.gl/maps/SFdSX89nt5S2).
That mention of I-91 reminds me of a similar situation on I-390 south at I-590 - the left and middle left lanes go to I-590, the right (which itself is a ramp from NY 15A that merged in) stays with I-390, and the middle right is an option lane, with the lane on I-590 ending 800 feet later. In this case, it's actually only a few years old (it used to be for I-390 only), and is to make it easier to travel from NY 15A to I-590.
The Thruway also has some spots like that around here. EB at I-890 (exit 25), it's because the lane used to continue and it's now there so that traffic from I-890 (which is very heavy) doesn't have to merge in and can have the ramp lane continue. In the case of I-87 at either end of exits 23-24, I'm not really sure what the rationale is, beyond "the lane entered from a ramp on the right so we want it to end on the right and don't like exit only lanes".
As for I-27, that seems like something most DOTs would just stripe as part of the gore area/shoulder.
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 12:44:14 PM
Minnesota addresses a similar problem by simply providing a short bit of acceleration lane after a cloverleaf exit, like this (https://goo.gl/maps/SFdSX89nt5S2).
The Thruway has that around NY 33 near Buffalo.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 23, 2018, 10:27:04 PM
I have wondered about striping treatments such as this:
I-27/Buddy Holly Ave. (Exit 2 northbound) in Lubbock, Texas (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5569395,-101.844775,3a,53.2y,357.44h,92.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS2_d6ZeezG0vJ6UXzSNMGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The exit is a simple lane drop without option lane, and is signed accordingly. But as the stripe separating the dropped lane from the other lanes becomes solid, it bends to the right, and another lane begins to open up that looks like an option lane, except traffic in it is expected to merge back onto the mainline rather than to take the exit. The theory that has seemed most plausible to me is that this is to provide recovery area for confused motorists who realize at the last second that they do not want to take the exit.
There are several exits on the Ben White Freeway (US 290/TX 71) in Austin that have the same thing, but they're not at all of the lane drop exits, so it's not really clear why some get them and others don't.