Has anyone ever seen signs like this?

[2Co5_14]

I saw this set of signs in McDonough, GA and was wondering if anyone else had ever seen ones like it.

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.447758,-84.14724&spn=0.000002,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=33.447704,-84.147241&panoid=-Iy8fmmdRNoALJCIF8Bg2g&cbp=12,113.54,,0,-4.58

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.447581,-84.147238&spn=0.000002,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=33.447581,-84.147238&panoid=wwSw-JiErdwxLvnrXEpWmw&cbp=12,300.5,,0,-0.25

The signs I'm referring to are the "TAKE GAP - GIVE GAP" and the one to its right with the directional arrows.  The purpose of the signs is to attempt to direct the orderly movement of two simultaneous opposing turns onto the same street. (If you look at an aerial view of the intersection it shows these simultaneous left and right turning movements taking place.) As you can imagine, this intersection is somewhat dangerous and congested.

I'm actually working on a project that will get rid of this maneuver (among other things) and replace it with two east-west one-way pairs through McDonough Square.

[jhuntin1]

They're new to me. Something I would do is to paint a lane divider for the lane that has to turn right to make it clear they're suppose to stay in the lane. It may not solve all the problems with the intersection but would be more straight-forward than that approach.

[Tom958]

Is the verbiage even necessary? The sign says there are two parallel lanes, and not encroaching on the one that isn't yours should go without saying, IMO. I like the arrow signs, BTW.

I've seen "Take gap, give gap" before... at the former left side zipper merge of US 41 Tara Blvd to I-75.

[PColumbus73]

I think the easiest thing to do is to make the left protected/permissive.

[spooky]

If they're supposed to "take gap, give gap" then there shouldn't be a green right arrow. A green arrow is for protected movements only. The opposing through should be red during that interval.

[2Co5_14]

Is the verbiage even necessary? The sign says there are two parallel lanes, and not encroaching on the one that isn't yours should go without saying, IMO.

The short one-block stretch downstream of this intersection requires a lot of lane changing (i.e. a left turn followed by a right turn and vice versa), so I wouldn't be surprised if lane encroachment is frequently violated.

I think the easiest thing to do is to make the left protected/permissive.

That would probably work during off-peak hours, but the peak hour traffic would be even worse with an extra signal phase thrown in.

If they're supposed to "take gap, give gap" then there shouldn't be a green right arrow. A green arrow is for protected movements only. The opposing through should be red during that interval.

You're right about that - in this case the right arrow is supposed to signify that right is the only legal movement, but I'm sure there is some confusion when drivers see oncoming lefts moving at the same time.  It seems like the limited capacity of this intersection made planners decide to try to make a 2 phase signal work instead of having 3 phases.

[vdeane]

Is the verbiage even necessary? The sign says there are two parallel lanes, and not encroaching on the one that isn't yours should go without saying, IMO. I like the arrow signs, BTW.

I've seen "Take gap, give gap" before... at the former left side zipper merge of US 41 Tara Blvd to I-75.

Thing is, many drivers will just turn into whatever lane they want even though they're not supposed to.  Many times I've seen left-turning cars stop mid-turn because they did not anticipate that someone turning right would not yield to them when they wanted to turn into the rightmost lane instead of the leftmost.

If they're supposed to "take gap, give gap" then there shouldn't be a green right arrow. A green arrow is for protected movements only. The opposing through should be red during that interval.

If everyone follows the rules there would be no conflicts.  That through movement doesn't conflict with anything but the cross street and the left only conflicts if someone makes a left onto the right lane or a right onto the left lane.

[NE2]

If everyone follows the rules there would be no conflicts.  That through movement doesn't conflict with anything but the cross street and the left only conflicts if someone makes a left onto the right lane or a right onto the left lane.

This isn't the rule in Georgia: http://onlineathens.com/stories/060909/new_448974855.shtml (frankly, it seems fairly clear to me, but I'm no judge)
It's a stupid rule that makes it impossible to make a quick jog or U-turn into a driveway. It also kills the point of a Michigan left or similar setups.