Rumble strips - do you hate them?

[Brandon]

The only ones I'm not fond of are the shoulder rumble strips in Missouri.  For some crazy reason, MoDOT decided that placing the shoulder rumble strip in the white line was a good idea, as opposed to standard practice elsewhere of placing said strip behind the white line.

[jeffandnicole]

There are other placements for rumble strips.  US8/WI47 near Rhinelander, WI has them directly on the centerline of the 2-lane highway.  https://goo.gl/maps/51Hhd3gLUKTqMBiV8 The DOT attempted to paint the centerline over this but it is hard to see when the paint and rumble occupy the same spots.

That's the normal placement of them. The centerline just needs basic repainting.

[WillWeaverRVA]

I like them. For the most part, they are necessary. They might be annoying in certain situations, like the construction example given above, but there's not a whole lot you can do about that.

[LM117]

II've seen some states using them on the center line on two-lane roads. I initially found that annoying. Then someone I know lost her father and brother when they were hit head-on on US-15 by a driver who drifted onto the wrong side of the road while going too fast, and that made me think maybe the annoyance isn't such a bad thing.

It's being done here in VA as well. VDOT recently put them on the center line of VA-41 in Pittsylvania County between the Mount Hermon area and at least as far as the Dollar General near Whitmell. I haven't driven VA-41 further than that since the strips were placed, so I don't know how much farther up the strips go. My guess is that they go all the way to the end of VA-41 in Callands.

[kkt]

If I was inattentive while driving, I'd much rather be wakened by the rumble strip than by colliding with the median barrier...

[SectorZ]

On freeways, no. On non-freeways, especially along the fog line where cyclist are allowed, they should not be used. I feel they're more effective going across the road to alert drivers to large changes in the roadway (example, MA 2 at US 202 in Phillipston where the road goes from a 4-lane freeway to a Super-2).

Also Vermont should never use them after the debacle of putting one on VT 9 west of Brattleboro, where they couldn't remotely be bothered to make it line up with the double yellow line.

[tolbs17]

On freeways, no. On non-freeways, especially along the fog line where cyclist are allowed, they should not be used. I feel they're more effective going across the road to alert drivers to large changes in the roadway (example, MA 2 at US 202 in Phillipston where the road goes from a 4-lane freeway to a Super-2).

Also Vermont should never use them after the debacle of putting one on VT 9 west of Brattleboro, where they couldn't remotely be bothered to make it line up with the double yellow line.

2-lane roads like US-17 (hard to see but they're there) have them on the shoulder.

Would you call this a "freeway"?

[SectorZ]

On freeways, no. On non-freeways, especially along the fog line where cyclist are allowed, they should not be used. I feel they're more effective going across the road to alert drivers to large changes in the roadway (example, MA 2 at US 202 in Phillipston where the road goes from a 4-lane freeway to a Super-2).

Also Vermont should never use them after the debacle of putting one on VT 9 west of Brattleboro, where they couldn't remotely be bothered to make it line up with the double yellow line.

2-lane roads like US-17 (hard to see but they're there) have them on the shoulder.

Would you call this a "freeway"?

Whoever did that to 17 in the first link shouldn't be allowed to build a dollhouse, let alone a road. That is an embarrassment. The lack of shoulder, forcing a cyclist to drive far from the fog line should be implied liability on the designer/builder if a fatality occurs. It's frightening that with all the space down there they feel such a road needs to be 25 feet wide pavement end-to-end.

The second link, that is not a freeway and is really as bad as the first link.

Thank God in the northeast, in general, we don't build high-speed roads with grass 6 inches from the fog line. Most of the faster roads, in fact, have what's almost tantamount to a breakdown lane. If there is a rumble strip, it's on the left edge of that breakdown lane, with frequent gaps in it.

[jeffandnicole]

On freeways, no. On non-freeways, especially along the fog line where cyclist are allowed, they should not be used. I feel they're more effective going across the road to alert drivers to large changes in the roadway (example, MA 2 at US 202 in Phillipston where the road goes from a 4-lane freeway to a Super-2).

Also Vermont should never use them after the debacle of putting one on VT 9 west of Brattleboro, where they couldn't remotely be bothered to make it line up with the double yellow line.

2-lane roads like US-17 (hard to see but they're there) have them on the shoulder.

Would you call this a "freeway"?

Whoever did that to 17 in the first link shouldn't be allowed to build a dollhouse, let alone a road. That is an embarrassment. The lack of shoulder, forcing a cyclist to drive far from the fog line should be implied liability on the designer/builder if a fatality occurs. It's frightening that with all the space down there they feel such a road needs to be 25 feet wide pavement end-to-end.

The second link, that is not a freeway and is really as bad as the first link.

Thank God in the northeast, in general, we don't build high-speed roads with grass 6 inches from the fog line. Most of the faster roads, in fact, have what's almost tantamount to a breakdown lane. If there is a rumble strip, it's on the left edge of that breakdown lane, with frequent gaps in it.

The 'builder' is the public works department or contractor that won the bid to build the road.  They are building it based on the plans provided to them.  The designer(s) are the engineers that built the road according to state and national standards at the time, and underwent numerous approvers.  None of them are going to be held liable because a bicyclist was in an accident.

Most likely, rumblestrips are being installed because motorists ran off the road and died.

Many bicyclists want the ability to use the full lane.  You're saying that bicyclists should only be using the shoulder. The bicyclist community needs to get themselves together and agree on national standards, because right now you all want something different. 

[vdeane]

In New York at least, SHARDS are not supposed to be installed on shoulders that don't have at least 6 feet of pavement, for precisely this reason.

[hbelkins]

If we're talking about full-lane-width rumble strips to warn of an approaching hazard, the Mountain Parkway has some interesting ones in the westbound lanes approaching I-64. Concrete rumble strips in an otherwise asphalt-surfaced road. And each lane has a different pattern.

https://goo.gl/maps/6QQymEtjBj8rNDjn7

Street View:

https://goo.gl/maps/VGketcY23Gq5rDVeA

[SectorZ]

The 'builder' is the public works department or contractor that won the bid to build the road.  They are building it based on the plans provided to them.  The designer(s) are the engineers that built the road according to state and national standards at the time, and underwent numerous approvers.  None of them are going to be held liable because a bicyclist was in an accident.

Most likely, rumblestrips are being installed because motorists ran off the road and died.

Many bicyclists want the ability to use the full lane.  You're saying that bicyclists should only be using the shoulder. The bicyclist community needs to get themselves together and agree on national standards, because right now you all want something different.

Bicyclists do not want to use the full lane when there is no need to do so. There is no need in this case because it didn't need to be designed that way. No bicyclist wants to take the lane on a 55 MPH road.

And we may disagree on this, but I fully believe there should be liability on those that design death traps. You design a car that kills people because of a mistake you're liable, a road should be no different if it's flagrant and obvious. You can't look at these pix and tell me it couldn't have been designed better.

[kphoger]

I like rumble strips on the shoulder–as long as they're a couple of feet outside the white line, not RIGHT ON THE LINE.

I like rumble strips within the center line–as long as they're only on the double yellow sections, not on passing zones.

[tolbs17]

Also, why are there no rumble strips on bridges?

[interstatefan990]

Also, why are there no rumble strips on bridges?

Maybe because bridges have guardrails and barriers that will stop any car leaving the roadway, as opposed to roads on the ground where a rumble strip is needed as extra forewarning because nothing will stop the vehicle from leaving the road and spinning out/rolling over.

[Rothman]

Also, why are there no rumble strips on bridges?

Maybe because bridges have guardrails and barriers that will stop any car leaving the roadway, as opposed to roads on the ground where a rumble strip is needed as extra forewarning because nothing will stop the vehicle from leaving the road and spinning out/rolling over.

Hm.  There have been videos shared on this forum of cars and trucks flying off bridges over this winter.

[tolbs17]

Also, why are there no rumble strips on bridges?

Maybe because bridges have guardrails and barriers that will stop any car leaving the roadway, as opposed to roads on the ground where a rumble strip is needed as extra forewarning because nothing will stop the vehicle from leaving the road and spinning out/rolling over.

Unless the bridge is asphalt like this one. (Both bridges need to be replaced)

[ET21]

They wake you up and scare you!

That's the whole point, so no I don't mind them at all. The main use I always see them used for is stop signs in the country when you are going 60+ mph, gives you plenty of heads up to start slowing down

[skluth]

I personally like them even when I find them annoying. I like having safe roads more than I dislike the occasional mildly annoying rumbling. I agree with those who say they don't belong on non-limited access road edges if there is not an adequate shoulder for cyclists as I was primarily a cyclist for transportation until 29. Sometimes highway planners go a little overboard on just how many consecutive rumble strips are needed for full-lane rumble strips (one is usually enough). But I'd rather have them than not.

[tolbs17]

Here's another bridge that has rumble strips.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8639528,-76.6150413,3a,75.7y,273.33h,64.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx_b7ZiPOP82awxqnPKUdng!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dx_b7ZiPOP82awxqnPKUdng%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D3.3266048%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[tolbs17]

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.794955,-78.5150301,3a,75y,21.05h,70.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1ORUx4TRY78ql5lmUGQ5bQ!2e0!5s20070901T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en

The 2007 and 2009 years on this part they didn't have rumble strips. NCDOT must of forgot to add them during that time xD

Also in 2007 that highway looks fresh cause it opened in January during that time.

[HighwayStar]

They are a safety device and belong on any high speed road frankly. I will point out Montana uses them on the center line of 2 lane highways, a good idea but one that generates a very unnerving noise when passing at 70 or 80 miles an hour.

As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.

[kphoger]

... uses them on the center line of 2 lane highways, a good idea but one that generates a very unnerving noise when passing at 70 or 80 miles an hour.

And it wakes up napping passengers, too.

[frankenroad]

One night, I got caught in a freak snowstorm on I-71 between Lebanon and Cincinnati, and it was impossible to see the lanes.   I drove with my right tires on the rumble strip for several miles to ensure I didn't drift off the road, or into the left lane.

[Mr. Matté]

As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.

Yes we are.