MUTCD gripes

[TXtoNJ]

Same gripe I always have - speed limit signs. Should be more like Australia's to handle the question of confusion with State Highway signs.

[hbelkins]

The number of ways at a stop is not supposed to be signed. The correct terminology these days is all-way stop. There are black-on-white "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" signs that can be mounted beneath stop signs.

[Brandon]

Same gripe I always have - speed limit signs. Should be more like Australia's to handle the question of confusion with State Highway signs.

Um, there is the issue of New Mexico out there.

[J N Winkler]

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.

This is the theory, and there is actually a body called the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO) that works to coordinate traffic laws across the different states and maintains a model Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC).  I basically call a state an "UVC direct adopter" if it makes few, if any, departures from the UVC; this usage is deliberately analogous to the phrase "MUTCD direct adopter."

However, I don't think there is such a thing as a 100% UVC direct adopter because legislatures don't have to adopt the UVC in toto (unlike the case with the MUTCD, where variations from the national MUTCD at minimum put you in the position of compiling a MUTCD supplement), and few if any legislatures can resist the temptation to tinker with the traffic laws.  And there is nothing in the doctrines of full faith and credit or substantive due process that prevents you from being fined or arrested for breaking a traffic law in one state when it differs from the law in your home state.  The underlying rule is ignorantia non excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse).  If the police choose to let you go, it is a courtesy, not something they are obliged to do by law.

As an example:  there are about five states (Texas, California, and Missouri among them) that do not require you to turn to the nearest lane when you are turning from one road into another road that has multiple lanes in the same direction.  The rest do require you to turn to the nearest lane.  So if you are driving in Kansas on Missouri plates and you are stopped for (e.g.) turning right to left, it is a righteous bust.  (In Wichita this provision has been used extensively in the past for pretext stops, including one about 23 years ago that snagged the then city manager in his city-issued vehicle, after he had been drinking at a bar.)

[US 89]

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.

I misspoke. According to the Utah handbook, at a four-way stop, the vehicle on the right has priority, but only if two cars arrive at exactly the same time. But nobody really needs to know that, because at that point it's more of a "is he going to go first, or is he letting me go" game of waiting and hand signals, like what you described above.

The number of ways at a stop is not supposed to be signed. The correct terminology these days is all-way stop. There are black-on-white "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" signs that can be mounted beneath stop signs.

I've seen several black-on-yellow "Cross traffic does not stop" signs, but these are by no means regular. Typically in Utah, at an all-way stop there will be a small white-on-red "all way" or "4-way" sign (or "3-way", if it's a T intersection) underneath the stop sign. So if I don't see that little sign, my initial assumption is that it's not an all-way, even if there's no "cross traffic does not stop" sign. Of course, if I get up there and see that all the other streets coming in have stop signs, that changes things. But IMO, every all-way stop should have that little sign, because that significantly changes how you handle the intersection.

[tckma]

I've seen several black-on-yellow "Cross traffic does not stop" signs, but these are by no means regular. Typically in Utah, at an all-way stop there will be a small white-on-red "all way" or "4-way" sign (or "3-way", if it's a T intersection) underneath the stop sign. So if I don't see that little sign, my initial assumption is that it's not an all-way, even if there's no "cross traffic does not stop" sign. Of course, if I get up there and see that all the other streets coming in have stop signs, that changes things. But IMO, every all-way stop should have that little sign, because that significantly changes how you handle the intersection.

Yes, every time I've seen these (or similar "oncoming traffic does not stop" or "traffic from right does not stop"), they have been black on yellow.  The only one I see that is consistently black on white is the "incoming mall traffic has right of way" banner under a stop sign, and the "EXCEPT RIGHT TURN" banner under a stop sign (the latter seems only to exist in Pennsylvania, where it is astonishingly prevalent).

[SignBridge]

We really need a "like" feature on these boards. I completely agree with several earlier posters re:

BGS: The Manual's advice to avoid a street name and city name on the same sign should be deleted. There is no problem with that practice.

The requirement that only city names be used as destinations should be modified to include any logical designation that makes sense at the site including bridges, tunnels, regions, states, etc. In some cases a city could be shown with a bridge or tunnel.

The standards for APL's should allow shorter arrow stems and consequently smaller signs, OR better yet, go back to allowing two arrows for different routes over the same lane.

And a gripe of my own: The standard for supplemental signs for exits should be changed to allow more than one such sign per exit and/or should allow three instead of the current two names.

And re: Traffic Lights, Yes, at least two signal faces should be required for every movement, not just the thru movement.

And "Hawk" Beacons never should have been allowed. Their operation is contrary to normal signal practice. How the FHWA ever approved this is beyond me!

[TXtoNJ]

Same gripe I always have - speed limit signs. Should be more like Australia's to handle the question of confusion with State Highway signs.

Um, there is the issue of New Mexico out there.

Well overblown. Aussie speed limit signs don't have black backgrounds, for one. You could put "MPH" at the bottom of the sign outside of the circle.

[DaBigE]

Same gripe I always have - speed limit signs. Should be more like Australia's to handle the question of confusion with State Highway signs.

Doesn't matter what the speed limit sign looks like. No matter what it looks like, at least 15% will still ignore it.

My gripe is how the MUTCD handles roundabout signing and marking. With a few exceptions, it seems like they threw up their hands and said "here pick something...the hell with uniformity." Pick a damn arrow style and stick with it. Take a stance on what lines go across the entry.

[jakeroot]

Given that, prohibiting uncontrolled intersections is the only way to eliminate the hazard described above.

I think it's more of a perceived hazard, than a real one. In Seattle, uncontrolled intersections are generally used in residential areas with very low traffic speeds: https://goo.gl/VDwZzK (in the evening and morning, there are cars parked along both sides of every road in the image, making all roads two-way one lane -- it's hard to go above 15 or 20 without feeling like you're flying).

[hotdogPi]

Priority at an intersection is only ever implicit; if the other street has to stop or yield and you do not, there is no sign for you - you just keep driving because no sign says you need to do otherwise.

Flashing yellow makes it explicit, since the cross street must have a flashing red.

[jeffandnicole]

My gripe is how the MUTCD handles roundabout signing and marking. With a few exceptions, it seems like they threw up their hands and said "here pick something...the hell with uniformity." Pick a damn arrow style and stick with it...

Nah, let's just use 2 different styles at the same roundabout!

New Jersey

https://goo.gl/maps/9WxSrwZf4Du

[J N Winkler]

I think part of the problem here is that the US has no equivalent of the Vienna convention "you have priority" sign:



Priority at an intersection is only ever implicit; if the other street has to stop or yield and you do not, there is no sign for you - you just keep driving because no sign says you need to do otherwise.

I disagree that we need a priority sign or a ban on uncontrolled intersections.

*  In countries that actually use the Vienna convention priority sign, it is reserved for important (generally high-volume) through roads with flat intersections, and is not used as a method for assigning priority on low-volume surface roads.

*  Plenty of countries that adhere to the Vienna convention and have very good overall road safety records, like Britain, do not use the priority sign at all or ban uncontrolled intersections.  In Britain, the priority sign is not in TSRGD or even available for use as a nonprescribed sign.  Also, unlike the vast majority of US states and some continental European countries like France (priorité à droite), Britain does not have a rule for assigning priority at uncontrolled intersections.

But, this fairly common scenario looks pretty much identical to the rare instance of approaching an uncontrolled intersection. Which is dangerous, because then how does a driver reliably identify an uncontrolled intersection?

By observing the fundamental rule of (defensive) driving:  never choose a speed or position that is not compatible with your forward visibility.  If you can't tell if the intersection is uncontrolled as you approach it--slow down until you can.  If you know the intersection is uncontrolled but can't see whether there is conflicting traffic--slow down until you can.

Now, I don't see the US adopting a "you have priority" sign - the Vienna convention one looks too much like a US warning sign and it would be a completely new concept to American drivers besides. Given that, prohibiting uncontrolled intersections is the only way to eliminate the hazard described above.

The yellow diamond is actually part of the Vienna convention.  (It is the "B" option for warning signs; the red-rimmed white/yellow triangles are the "A" option.)  The real reason many countries, including many Vienna adherents, do not use the priority sign is that it is pretty useless.

[US 89]

That Seattle intersection should be a four way stop. Or if that's not desired, you can make it a two-way yield, with Roanoke being the favored movement. The risk is not in drivers who are familiar with the area, the risk is in people who aren't from there. And that's something that has to be taken into account. I bet there have been close calls there from out-of-town drivers, who think to themselves afterwards "did I have a stop or yield sign there?"  It may work well for most people, but as much as I hate saying this, you have to cater to the lowest common denominator driver.

To use 1's example, having an uncontrolled intersection is no different from putting up a flashing yellow light on both roads at an intersection. That's undeniably dangerous. Drivers treat a flashing yellow light the same as if they don't see anything at all. To almost all drivers, that tells them they have the right of way.

If you put up a black on yellow "Uncontrolled Intersection"   warning diamond in advance of the intersection on all approaches, then I'd be ok with that. But until you put that sign up, you have an intersection where two "favored drivers"  are coming straight at each other.

[J N Winkler]

I can promise you no agency from FHWA on down will undertake to sign all uncontrolled intersections.  There are just too many of them.

[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.)

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).

[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.

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?"

No–more like Oklahoma City Boulevard. Unlike a lot of ODOT specials, this particular error is also spotted in KS and PA, among other places.

[djlynch]

BGS: The Manual's advice to avoid a street name and city name on the same sign should be deleted. There is no problem with that practice.

It would help if we had some kind of way of signing street/highway names on guide signs that differentiates them from destinations. It seems to have worked out for the Aussies, although I'm not a fan of the small, all-caps, black-on-white patch that they use (maybe it's just because I'm from Texas and we already have way too many white rectangles with black text.)

And re: Traffic Lights, Yes, at least two signal faces should be required for every movement, not just the thru movement.

Redundancy would be nice, but I'd rather have them mandate better visibility and not just a specific number. Permissive left turns (FYA or green ball) should have a signal head either pole mounted adjacent to the oncoming traffic or on a mast armor span wire above it, potentially in addition to one that's readily visible on the approach to the intersection. Similarly, areas with heavy pedestrian or bicycle activity should have a pole-mounted signal on the corner at the right far side so that drivers yielding to pedestrians don't have to look away to make sure they still have a green.

[hbelkins]

BGS: The Manual's advice to avoid a street name and city name on the same sign should be deleted. There is no problem with that practice.

It would help if we had some kind of way of signing street/highway names on guide signs that differentiates them from destinations. It seems to have worked out for the Aussies, although I'm not a fan of the small, all-caps, black-on-white patch that they use (maybe it's just because I'm from Texas and we already have way too many white rectangles with black text.)

New York's practice of boxing the street name works fine, in my book.

[jakeroot]

And re: Traffic Lights, Yes, at least two signal faces should be required for every movement, not just the thru movement.

Redundancy would be nice, but I'd rather have them mandate better visibility and not just a specific number. Permissive left turns (FYA or green ball) should have a signal head either pole mounted adjacent to the oncoming traffic or on a mast armor span wire above it, potentially in addition to one that's readily visible on the approach to the intersection. Similarly, areas with heavy pedestrian or bicycle activity should have a pole-mounted signal on the corner at the right far side so that drivers yielding to pedestrians don't have to look away to make sure they still have a green.

I don't disagree. Improved redundancy requirements, plus improved visibility requirements, would be the best of both worlds. A first step towards improving signal visibility is to require X-number of signals for each movement. Ideally, two, although some places like Illinois or British Columbia require three depending on the location and movement. In most cases, you'd end up having a signal on a pole for each movement, as there would be enough horizontal spacing overhead to fit every signal. But if there were, that's where you'd need the improved visibility requirements. For example, factoring tall vehicles into the visibility equation.

I agree with your comments regarding pedestrian visibility. This new signal in Seattle includes a signal for right turning traffic, but it's placed way overhead. Instead of watching the crosswalk, drivers are going to be staring at the overhead signal, and when it turns green, may not notice any pedestrians still in the crosswalk. They also may not notice the signal at all, as they should be watching for pedestrians (at eye level) instead:

https://twitter.com/dongho_chang/status/1006737282584403968

[kphoger]

I do find it hard to believe two signals per movement isn't mandated.  A burnt-out left turn signal is a recipe for disaster if there's no second signal.

[UCFKnights]

I do find it hard to believe two signals per movement isn't mandated.  A burnt-out left turn signal is a recipe for disaster if there's no second signal.

Why?

A burnt out left would appear the same as no left turn signal, which would mean lefts need to yield to oncoming traffic, or stop at a non-functional signal. Why is either of those dangerous?

I'm in the 1 signal per lane (including all turning lanes) camp so the signals can clearly indicate what movement is allowed from each lane.

[SignBridge]

BGS: The Manual's advice to avoid a street name and city name on the same sign should be deleted. There is no problem with that practice.

It would help if we had some kind of way of signing street/highway names on guide signs that differentiates them from destinations. It seems to have worked out for the Aussies, although I'm not a fan of the small, all-caps, black-on-white patch that they use (maybe it's just because I'm from Texas and we already have way too many white rectangles with black text.)

New York's practice of boxing the street name works fine, in my book.

Actually, only certain regions of NYSDOT use those lower-case boxed street names, notably Region-9 in Westchester County. Region-10 on Long Island thankfully has never used that design, which I've never liked. For almost sixty years, since I was a little kid, Region-10 has shown both the road name and the town name in mixed case lettering and it looks good and works just fine. There is no need that I can see to show them in different styles of lettering or boxes or different color panels.

For a good example of this type of signing see Fig. 2E-12 on Page 205 of the 2009 MUTCD. I'm surprised they even have that graphic in there since they discourage the practice elsewhere in the Manual. 

[Roadsguy]

For all of PennDOT's problems, they seem to have traffic signals figured out. On the main mast arm (or wire), there's always at least two through signals, but there's one signal per through lane with three or more lanes. There's one left turn signal per left turn lane, and the same applies to the occasional "hard" right turn signal. Left turn doghouses and FYAs (never used with more than one turning lane) are usually an extra signal on the left unless there's only one through lane, in which case the doghouse replaces one of the two standard signals. Right turn doghouses are always extra. On top of all that, you even sometimes see bonus signals on the backs of nearer mast arms for added visibility. They only just recently jumped on the FYA and (probably as a result) red arrow bandwagons, though, and I'm sure there's other features they should use that I don't know about because I never see them.

And yet for an intersection like this, many states would just hang two doghouses from a wire span and call it that.

[SignBridge]

Roadsguy, I generally agree about PennDOT's diligent mounting of one head per lane on their mast-arms though sometimes they mount the thru heads too close together. Another problem I've noticed is when there are two left-turn lanes, the two left-turn heads are often too close together, the result of the mast-arm being a little too short for the number of lanes involved.

They seem to do okay with only three heads on the arm, but more than three seems to get too crowded. The arm should be long enough to mount the heads a lane-width apart, normally twelve feet.

And I too like the "bonus signals" you mentioned, especially for curved approaches.