These arrows DO NOT comply with the MUTCD. So why are they posted?

[rellis97]

How about this hideous example?

[tolbs17]

How about this hideous example?

Used to see those in Tennessee and Virginia tbh.

[Scott5114]

How about this hideous example?

Those are just down arrows that have been turned upward. Oklahoma likes to do that to avoid making EXIT ONLY panels bigger since the 2009 MUTCD requires the arrow to be contained inside of the yellow panel.

(Also, the other panel on that gantry has an upside-down H.)

[roadfro]

Those are just down arrows that have been turned upward. Oklahoma likes to do that to avoid making EXIT ONLY panels bigger since the 2009 MUTCD requires the arrow to be contained inside of the yellow panel.

And in this example at least, the EXIT ONLY panel is still taller than it needs to be, such that they probably could have used the correct arrow without issue...

[fwydriver405]

These two New Hampshire examples in my view are a bit questionable (I-93 NB Exit 3 Windham, US 3/Everett Turnpike SB Exit 2 Nashua*), and then you have this sign below at Exit 4 on I-93 NB in Londonderry (full size APL for an intermedate exit, with Derry omitted)... The option lane doen't start until 400 m (1/4 mile) before the exit.

ANOTHER new APL with only one control city, this time at the exit. Exit 4 on I-93 NB.

*If you look closely, the "EXIT ONLY" plaque used to be in the middle above the two arrows.