Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs aka The good, the bad, and the ugly

[jakeroot]

There's a street in Edmonton who have a forest of street signs who frustrated drivers.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/street-signs-everywhere-edmonton-1.4693399
https://globalnews.ca/news/5020069/edmonton-106-street-signs-removed-reduced/

Those who are not keen on Clearview are hereby advised against clicking either of those links! Clearview is a lot more common in Western Canada, but this is approaching sensory overload territory.

[formulanone]

Historic Byler Road in northwestern Alabama, as it was the first road to be created by the state.



Probably the only brown pentagon sign I've ever seen.

[J3ebrules]

Is it just me, or does this speed limit sign at Montauk Point State Park date back to the 1960's?

I know this was a while back, but there are a few speed limit signs in my area (Camden Co, NJ) that have this older style font. I wonder when they're from?

[ClassicHasClass]

Probably the only brown pentagon sign I've ever seen.

Australia uses brown pentagons for Tourist Drives.

http://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/au/#img_25

[RobbieL2415]

Found these beauties while perusing GSV.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0980149,-72.5965788,3a,43y,236.37h,89.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfq7-ggsVkGnc4wCivgiDuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[Amtrakprod]

Here is a weird sign from US 60 in Williamsburg VA, right by Busch gardens!


iPhone

[frankenroad]

Found these beauties while perusing GSV.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0980149,-72.5965788,3a,43y,236.37h,89.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfq7-ggsVkGnc4wCivgiDuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seeing how this is in Massachusetts, I'm surprised they refer to it as a roundabout instead of a rotary.

[J3ebrules]

Found these beauties while perusing GSV.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0980149,-72.5965788,3a,43y,236.37h,89.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfq7-ggsVkGnc4wCivgiDuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seeing how this is in Massachusetts, I'm surprised they refer to it as a roundabout instead of a rotary.

A bit off-topic, but when I was a little kid mostly living in Rockland County, NY with my grandparents, I knew two definitions of "rotary"  - the phone and the traffic circle. For some reason, my little kid brain figured that a local Rotary Club was for road enthusiasts - specifically, road structures like traffic circles... because it made no sense to me to have a club dedicated to rotary phones.

[plain]

Here is a weird sign from US 60 in Williamsburg VA, right by Busch gardens!


iPhone

It's there because there's a tram-like vehicle there that takes people from the parking lot across the street into the park and VDOT wants drivers to be on the lookout for them. Note the double signals at the entrance to the parking lot there... those are for the trams.

[PurdueBill]

Found these beauties while perusing GSV.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0980149,-72.5965788,3a,43y,236.37h,89.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfq7-ggsVkGnc4wCivgiDuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seeing how this is in Massachusetts, I'm surprised they refer to it as a roundabout instead of a rotary.

It is sad to see the demise of the classic ROTARY signs in Mass; they are being replaced with signs with multiple chevrons.  I liked the long right arrow and word ROTARY over the yellow and black stripes; it was uniquely Mass.

[RobbieL2415]

Found these beauties while perusing GSV.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0980149,-72.5965788,3a,43y,236.37h,89.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfq7-ggsVkGnc4wCivgiDuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seeing how this is in Massachusetts, I'm surprised they refer to it as a roundabout instead of a rotary.

Because it isn't a rotary.
Rotaries are large traffic circles with no lane markings.
But AFIAK MassDOT is discontinuing the "rotary" verbage when they do sign replacements.

[jakeroot]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200527/a703bb576416d514bcc59bb45dc4d6fd.jpg

Here is a weird sign from US 60 in Williamsburg VA, right by Busch gardens!

Similar sign in Tacoma, WA along Steele St. Absolutely nothing special about this turn. As far as I can tell, this sign legally gives someone the right to "yield on red" (AKA no stop required):

[kphoger]

Similar sign in Tacoma, WA along Steele St. Absolutely nothing special about this turn. As far as I can tell, this sign legally gives someone the right to "yield on red" (AKA no stop required):

I don't think so.  Legally, the word 'yield' is used in two phrases:  'yield sign' and 'yield the right-of-way'.  The first phrase does not apply, because there is no yield sign (which is defined by RCW 47.36.110 to be the sign found in the state's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways).  The second phrase is therefore the pertinent one, and it in no way implies that a driver doesn't need to stop before yielding–considering that the phrase is used specifically in RCW 46.61.190(2), which governs stop signs.  That is to say, no verbiage on the sign you posted negates the requirement to stop found in RCW 46.61.055(3)(a) or -(c).



Short version:  "yield on red" does not equal "don't stop on red".

[jakeroot]

Great analysis, kphoger. I hadn't thought to look into that closely. I was simply taking the sign at face value as saying "MUST YIELD ON RED" which, to me, says "on red you must yield" but mustn't necessarily stop

[J N Winkler]

Kphoger's argument makes sense, but on the whole I am not sure I completely buy it.  I would want to be satisfied on the following points:

*  If this sign does not actually modify the underlying rule of the road (stop on red and then yield before making a right turn), why is it posted?

*  Is this a standard sign with a design detail and sign code that appears in WSDOT's Sign Fabrication Manual?

*  Assuming it does appear in the manual, can we rule out its being specified in some way in the Washington state MUTCD supplement?

The presence of this sign seems to me also consistent with the agency making a half-assed (and possibly legally improper) attempt to eliminate the requirement to stop before yielding.  There is no right-turn channel lane, so that approach cannot be used, and "continuous right turn" signing (as used in several other states) is not appropriate since there is a yield condition that applies intermittently depending on signal color.

[jakeroot]

*  Is this a standard sign with a design detail and sign code that appears in WSDOT's Sign Fabrication Manual?

Not according to their index (PDF). It appears to be a one-off.

What does appear very often around the state are "Right Turn On Red Yield To U-Turn" signs, but they don't use the word "must" like the sign on Steele St above. Still, it's not in the Sign Fabrication Manual either.

[kphoger]

*  Is this a standard sign with a design detail and sign code that appears in WSDOT's Sign Fabrication Manual?

Not according to their index (PDF). It appears to be a one-off.

What does appear very often around the state are "Right Turn On Red Yield To U-Turn" signs, but they don't use the word "must" like the sign on Steele St above. Still, it's not in the Sign Fabrication Manual either.

I too was surprised at what seems like a waste of letters and space, using the word "must" when not necessary for driver comprehension.

[jakeroot]

*  Is this a standard sign with a design detail and sign code that appears in WSDOT's Sign Fabrication Manual?

Not according to their index (PDF). It appears to be a one-off.

What does appear very often around the state are "Right Turn On Red Yield To U-Turn" signs, but they don't use the word "must" like the sign on Steele St above. Still, it's not in the Sign Fabrication Manual either.

I too was surprised at what seems like a waste of letters and space, using the word "must" when not necessary for driver comprehension.

It makes me think of the "LEFT TURN MUST YIELD" sign; you '...must yield' on green, not just all the time. For the sign above, it could potentially be construed that 'right turns must yield on red [after stopping]', but the way it's worded now, with the specific wording "MUST...ON RED" makes me think it's slightly different, especially since the "yield" rule is being forced upon drivers specifically during the red phase (according to the sign).

I fired off an email to WSDOT for clarification. I'll report back if and when I hear more about their intent. My hunch is that the sign might get removed now

[formulanone]

Similar sign in Tacoma, WA along Steele St. Absolutely nothing special about this turn. As far as I can tell, this sign legally gives someone the right to "yield on red" (AKA no stop required):

If that were truly the case, I think the not-so-common "KEEP MOVING" sign would cover that ideal more succinctly.

[jakeroot]

If that were truly the case, I think the not-so-common "KEEP MOVING" sign would cover that ideal more succinctly.

There is no dedicated right turn lane, and the on-ramp is only one lane (unless the meter is on), so traffic does need to yield to other traffic when the light is red.

[mrsman]

If that were truly the case, I think the not-so-common "KEEP MOVING" sign would cover that ideal more succinctly.

There is no dedicated right turn lane, and the on-ramp is only one lane (unless the meter is on), so traffic does need to yield to other traffic when the light is red.

Given this sign, pedestrians are not allowed to cross at this point.

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.1613321,-122.46738,3a,75y,167.13h,85.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYtf8rbfc7Y_7keU9sOwHzA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

So given the operations of the signal there is only one opportunity to yield.

When northbound Steele has green, there is nobody to yield to at all.  No peds and no other traffic will be in its way.

During part of the time that northbound Steele has red, the off-ramp traffic will have green.  Again, there is no conflict with this movement.

During the other part of the time that northbound Steele has red, southbound Steele has green and green arrow onto the on-ramp.  This is the situation that the sign is speaking to.  Since there is only one lane on the on-ramp, drivers wanting to turn right from northbound Steele to the on-ramp should absolutely yield to the opposing left turn and not inch their way onto the on-ramp.  Perhaps, it is a short left turn arrow and WSDOT does not want right turning interference with the movement. 

Are cars allowed to make the right turn on red? Yes. 

Should they wait at the corner if there are opposing cars wanting to turn left? Yes. 

Is the sign superfluous? Probably, but they may be emphasizing a point to yield to opposing traffic and not try to gun it if they see a gap in the opposing turning traffic and just wait for the green light.  This may be especially true if someone tries to take advantage of a gap that exists because of a truck or other vehicle with slow acceleration from stop.
Perhaps there may have been accidents in the past during this phase.

I recall in another thread someone posted an intersection in Utah at a diamond on-ramp where an electronic no turn on red sign would turn on only during the phase of the opposing left green arrow.  I believe that that sign was posted to accomplish a similar reaction (right turners should not turn when the opposing traffic has a left green arrow).

[US 89]

I recall in another thread someone posted an intersection in Utah at a diamond on-ramp where an electronic no turn on red sign would turn on only during the phase of the opposing left green arrow.  I believe that that sign was posted to accomplish a similar reaction (right turners should not turn when the opposing traffic has a left green arrow).

That was probably me, posting about this interchange on I-15 in Centerville:

https://goo.gl/maps/TWexAuAzHRaaRmm8A

[mrsman]

I recall in another thread someone posted an intersection in Utah at a diamond on-ramp where an electronic no turn on red sign would turn on only during the phase of the opposing left green arrow.  I believe that that sign was posted to accomplish a similar reaction (right turners should not turn when the opposing traffic has a left green arrow).

That was probably me, posting about this interchange on I-15 in Centerville:

https://goo.gl/maps/TWexAuAzHRaaRmm8A

Yes that's it!  And I believe I wrote that I believed they enforce the no turn on red during the opposing left turn's phase  was to avoid right turners "interfering" with traffic making the left turn during a short part of the cycle.  If the signal has good sensors, then the entire time that the left green arrow is lit, it is provided for servicing the left turners over all other customers.  Even though there are two lanes to this on-ramp, there is also a dual (left + option) left turn that would need to utilize both lanes.

Overall, the no turn on red is only for a small part of the signal cycle, so it should be no big deal either way.

[kphoger]

Given this sign, pedestrians are not allowed to cross at this point.

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.1613321,-122.46738,3a,75y,167.13h,85.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYtf8rbfc7Y_7keU9sOwHzA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

And, to further confirm, here is another sign just a few yards down the road.

[roadman65]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/49962953423/
Two 3 digit routes.  Two fonts. One assembly.  Same size shields.