MUTCD gripes

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

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

[hotdogPi]

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.

[Scott5114]

The infamous Section 2A.13¶13, which says:

When 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.

[Roadsguy]

The infamous Section 2A.13¶13, which says:

When 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 can be found all over western PA. Many of these ugly signs were put up 7-10 years ago when Clearview was new.

[jeffandnicole]

"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]

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.

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.

[SP Cook]

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.

[tckma]

"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: 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.

[roadman]

"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".

[jbnv]

Clearview. 

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.

[Scott5114]

Clearview. 

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.

[PHLBOS]

The infamous Section 2A.13¶13, which says:

When 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 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.

[hbelkins]

Font requirements.

[tckma]

The infamous Section 2A.13¶13, which says:

When 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 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?"

[PHLBOS]

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.

  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.

The infamous Section 2A.13¶13, which says:

When 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 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?"

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).

[Brian556]

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.

[jakeroot]

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?

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[roadman]

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."

[1995hoo]

"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.)

[Brian556]

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?

[roadman]

“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).

[tckma]

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.

[CtrlAltDel]

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.

[tckma]

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.