MUTCD gripes

[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 agree that it wouldn't be a disaster, but the goal should be to minimize delays created by burned out signals. For example, if the green arrow were burned out, the confusion created by a red arrow suddenly disappearing may cause some drivers to go, some to wait...those who wait would eventually be greeted by a yellow and then red arrow, stuck again.

Realistically I think most drivers would figure out the green arrow is out if the other signals are still behaving normally from their visibility, thats what happened last time I was at an out-signal. The other thing is that was so insanely long ago... with the advent of the LED signal heads, most bulbs don't just die. When they fail, its typically shows up as sections failing, or it dimming or flickering, its not like the old incandescent bulbs... to the point where it just seems unnecessary. How often are people seeing LEDs street lights fail these days? Components in the controller seem just as likely if not more likely to fail.

[jeffandnicole]

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 agree that it wouldn't be a disaster, but the goal should be to minimize delays created by burned out signals. For example, if the green arrow were burned out, the confusion created by a red arrow suddenly disappearing may cause some drivers to go, some to wait...those who wait would eventually be greeted by a yellow and then red arrow, stuck again.

Realistically I think most drivers would figure out the green arrow is out if the other signals are still behaving normally from their visibility, thats what happened last time I was at an out-signal. The other thing is that was so insanely long ago... with the advent of the LED signal heads, most bulbs don't just die. When they fail, its typically shows up as sections failing, or it dimming or flickering, its not like the old incandescent bulbs... to the point where it just seems unnecessary. How often are people seeing LEDs street lights fail these days? Components in the controller seem just as likely if not more likely to fail.

Most drivers - Yes.  The skittish driver who refuses to go without a green indicator?  You'll be stuck there for many light cycles.

Also, going back to the basic rule - if a traffic light is out, then treat it as a 4 way.  If you come upon a signal that's not lit, you can't be absolutely certain the green signal is out.

[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 agree that it wouldn't be a disaster, but the goal should be to minimize delays created by burned out signals. For example, if the green arrow were burned out, the confusion created by a red arrow suddenly disappearing may cause some drivers to go, some to wait...those who wait would eventually be greeted by a yellow and then red arrow, stuck again.

Realistically I think most drivers would figure out the green arrow is out if the other signals are still behaving normally from their visibility, thats what happened last time I was at an out-signal. The other thing is that was so insanely long ago... with the advent of the LED signal heads, most bulbs don't just die. When they fail, its typically shows up as sections failing, or it dimming or flickering, its not like the old incandescent bulbs... to the point where it just seems unnecessary. How often are people seeing LEDs street lights fail these days? Components in the controller seem just as likely if not more likely to fail.

Most drivers - Yes.  The skittish driver who refuses to go without a green indicator?  You'll be stuck there for many light cycles.

Also, going back to the basic rule - if a traffic light is out, then treat it as a 4 way.  If you come upon a signal that's not lit, you can't be absolutely certain the green signal is out.

It just seems like such a rare scenario, and the vehicles behind will encourage the going with their horn at some point. I encounter those skittish drivers who refuse to go without a green signal all the time already at unsignalized intersections. 

[mgk920]

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

Canada and the USA are the only major countries on the planet that have not (yet) adopted the red circle style of speed limit signs.  Of the rest, only the UK posts those red circle signs as MPH, everyone else it is km/h.

As for New Mexico state highway shields, I'd change them to all orangish-yellow (like their state flag) with the Sun symbol at the top.  The look would be similar to those of Wyoming.

Mike

[mgk920]

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.

IIRC, the main uses for the Vienna Convention 'You Have Priority' sign is at traffic signals - in Europe, signs on the standards govern when the signals are dark, usually STOP/YIELD on one side and 'You have priority' on the other - something that IMHO should be seriously explored here in that it seems like fewer and fewer drivers these days know what to do with the signals are dark.  Another added benefit is that in periods of light traffic (ie, night), the signals can be purposely turned off (note that flashing yellow/red aspects do not exist in Europe).

Also, the 'You have priority' sign is often used with the word 'ZONE' underneath, signifying that all cross roads stop for the marked road until a similar sign with a red slash appears.  This is most often used in built up urban/suburban areas.

Mike

[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.

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?

Neither one of those actually applies to a five-section signal head.  Below is an intersection close to my house.  Imagine you're waiting to turn left, but the green left arrow has burnt out.  As you are now facing nothing but a steady red ball, "yield to oncoming traffic" does not apply.  As the stoplight is obviously still working, "stop at a non-functional signal" does not apply.  Instead, drivers would naturally just not go during the entire cycle length of the protected left turn.  With that being heavy enough of a movement, it's easy to imagine left-turning traffic stacking up, spilling into the through lanes, and blocking through traffic.  And that's a recipe for rear-end collisions.

[mgk920]

My main beefs with the MUTCD (ie, what I would change):

- (Street Name Blades) Require that all streets be identified at all intersections.  It seems like an elementary thing, but waaaaaaaay too many munis cheapen out here and only identify one of them, usually the more minor of the (usually) two.

- The MUTCD graphical 'KEEP RIGHT/LEFT' sign is too 'busy', IMHO.  I'd go with a three-quarter down-pointing arrow sign mounted low, like is the norm in Europe.

- Make the retro-reflective yellow outline around a total jet-black background on traffic signal heads mandatory.  These really make the signals stand out from the flotsam, especially in congested commercial areas, and are a Godsend for red-green colorblind drivers.  "What about those classic NYC signals???"  "Too bad, get with the program!"

- At the entrances to roundabouts, require that black-on-white signs with a roundabout symbol be mounted below the YIELD signs.  Right now, it is a mish-mash of ONE WAY, "To traffic on left", etc.  This is the norm in Europe.

- Explore the use of additional graphical images for yellow warning signs, such as a windsock for high crosswinds, a head-on view of a line of cars for areas of congestion, etc.

- Upcoming changes in lane configurations should have yellow warning signs that use up-pointing arrows.  The 'LANE ENDS' image especially - use up-pointing arrows, one per lane, with the arrow for the lane that ends pointing into the arrow for a lane that continues on.  The evolution of the existing 'lane ends' image is both amazing and a bit distressing, resulting in a image that is just too 'busy'.  OTOH, the existing divided highway begins/ends image is a good example of this concept in use.

Mike

[kphoger]

- At the entrances to roundabouts, require that black-on-white signs with a roundabout symbol be mounted below the YIELD signs.  Right now, it is a mish-mash of ONE WAY, "To traffic on left", etc.  This is the norm in Europe.

To clarify what I think you're saying...

R6-5P should be mounted below the YIELD sign for all roundabouts, not just mini-roundabouts.  I wholeheartedly agree, and I go so far as to say ONE WAY signage shouldn't be used at all on roundabouts; it's a little misleading, because the cross-street isn't actually a one-way road.

I do note that the MUTCD allows R6-5P to be used on larger roundabouts, in Sec. 2B.44(2) and Sec. 2B.44(03), but I think mandating its use across all roundabout types would be a good idea.  Uniformity improves driver expectations.

[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?

Neither one of those actually applies to a five-section signal head.  Below is an intersection close to my house.  Imagine you're waiting to turn left, but the green left arrow has burnt out.  As you are now facing nothing but a steady red ball, "yield to oncoming traffic" does not apply.  As the stoplight is obviously still working, "stop at a non-functional signal" does not apply.  Instead, drivers would naturally just not go during the entire cycle length of the protected left turn.  With that being heavy enough of a movement, it's easy to imagine left-turning traffic stacking up, spilling into the through lanes, and blocking through traffic.  And that's a recipe for rear-end collisions.

Well thats a good reason to mandate either protected or a FYA signal for all turn lanes, which is a change I'd really like to see.

[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.

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?

Neither one of those actually applies to a five-section signal head.  Below is an intersection close to my house.  Imagine you're waiting to turn left, but the green left arrow has burnt out.  As you are now facing nothing but a steady red ball, "yield to oncoming traffic" does not apply.  As the stoplight is obviously still working, "stop at a non-functional signal" does not apply.  Instead, drivers would naturally just not go during the entire cycle length of the protected left turn.  With that being heavy enough of a movement, it's easy to imagine left-turning traffic stacking up, spilling into the through lanes, and blocking through traffic.  And that's a recipe for rear-end collisions.

Well thats a good reason to mandate either protected or a FYA signal for all turn lanes, which is a change I'd really like to see.

Protected, OK.  I hate protected-only arrows in general, but they would solve the problem I've described.  With an FYA signal, however, I'm not so sure.

Scenario 1
Oncoming traffic gets a green ball and green left arrow.
Through-traffic on your side keeps a red ball, your left-turn signal gets an FYA.
If the FYA is burnt out, then the set of signals facing you is (DARK)(RED BALL)(RED BALL).

Scenario 2
Oncoming traffic gets a red ball and green left arrow.
Through-traffic on your side keeps a red ball, your left-turn signal gets a green left arrow.
If the green left arrow is burnt out, then the set of signals facing you is (DARK)(RED BALL)(RED BALL).

You're presented with exactly the same information in both scenarios.  But in Scenario 2, your turn is protected–whereas, in Scenario 1, your turn is not protected.

[jakeroot]

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 agree that it wouldn't be a disaster, but the goal should be to minimize delays created by burned out signals. For example, if the green arrow were burned out, the confusion created by a red arrow suddenly disappearing may cause some drivers to go, some to wait...those who wait would eventually be greeted by a yellow and then red arrow, stuck again.

Realistically I think most drivers would figure out the green arrow is out if the other signals are still behaving normally from their visibility, thats what happened last time I was at an out-signal. The other thing is that was so insanely long ago... with the advent of the LED signal heads, most bulbs don't just die. When they fail, its typically shows up as sections failing, or it dimming or flickering, its not like the old incandescent bulbs... to the point where it just seems unnecessary. How often are people seeing LEDs street lights fail these days? Components in the controller seem just as likely if not more likely to fail.

Most drivers - Yes.  The skittish driver who refuses to go without a green indicator?  You'll be stuck there for many light cycles.

Also, going back to the basic rule - if a traffic light is out, then treat it as a 4 way.  If you come upon a signal that's not lit, you can't be absolutely certain the green signal is out.

It just seems like such a rare scenario, and the vehicles behind will encourage the going with their horn at some point. I encounter those skittish drivers who refuse to go without a green signal all the time already at unsignalized intersections.

Rare as it may be, it's a totally avoidable situation if more than one signal is used for each movement. This discussion wouldn't even be taking place if the MUTCD already required redundancy for each movement. Then, there's the advantage I described earlier: having more than one signal helps in case of electrical issues with a signal, but also with visibility. It's a two-fold advantage over a basic one-signal-per-movement requirement, which is the case for every movement except straight-ahead movements per the federal MUTCD.

[mgk920]

- At the entrances to roundabouts, require that black-on-white signs with a roundabout symbol be mounted below the YIELD signs.  Right now, it is a mish-mash of ONE WAY, "To traffic on left", etc.  This is the norm in Europe.

To clarify what I think you're saying...

R6-5P should be mounted below the YIELD sign for all roundabouts, not just mini-roundabouts.  I wholeheartedly agree, and I go so far as to say ONE WAY signage shouldn't be used at all on roundabouts; it's a little misleading, because the cross-street isn't actually a one-way road.

I do note that the MUTCD allows R6-5P to be used on larger roundabouts, in Sec. 2B.44(2) and Sec. 2B.44(03), but I think mandating its use across all roundabout types would be a good idea.  Uniformity improves driver expectations.

That's what I'm thinking about here, thanx!



Mike

[jakeroot]

My understanding was that R6-5P was for mini-roundabouts, and W2-6 was for standard roundabouts. The reason for the mounting of the R6-5P sign at a mini roundabout was that the geometrical layout accommodates "cheating" a bit better, so a reminder of required movements is necessary.

[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 agree that it wouldn't be a disaster, but the goal should be to minimize delays created by burned out signals. For example, if the green arrow were burned out, the confusion created by a red arrow suddenly disappearing may cause some drivers to go, some to wait...those who wait would eventually be greeted by a yellow and then red arrow, stuck again.

Realistically I think most drivers would figure out the green arrow is out if the other signals are still behaving normally from their visibility, thats what happened last time I was at an out-signal. The other thing is that was so insanely long ago... with the advent of the LED signal heads, most bulbs don't just die. When they fail, its typically shows up as sections failing, or it dimming or flickering, its not like the old incandescent bulbs... to the point where it just seems unnecessary. How often are people seeing LEDs street lights fail these days? Components in the controller seem just as likely if not more likely to fail.

Most drivers - Yes.  The skittish driver who refuses to go without a green indicator?  You'll be stuck there for many light cycles.

Also, going back to the basic rule - if a traffic light is out, then treat it as a 4 way.  If you come upon a signal that's not lit, you can't be absolutely certain the green signal is out.

It just seems like such a rare scenario, and the vehicles behind will encourage the going with their horn at some point. I encounter those skittish drivers who refuse to go without a green signal all the time already at unsignalized intersections.

Rare as it may be, it's a totally avoidable situation if more than one signal is used for each movement. This discussion wouldn't even be taking place if the MUTCD already required redundancy for each movement. Then, there's the advantage I described earlier: having more than one signal helps in case of electrical issues with a signal, but also with visibility. It's a two-fold advantage over a basic one-signal-per-movement requirement, which is the case for every movement except straight-ahead movements per the federal MUTCD.

Yeah, but it seems like the money would be better spent towards other things. If reliability of the signals is a concern, you probably would have better bang for the buck mandating battery backups for traffic signals, which probably would cost about the same as extra redundant signals.

And I do find that there is a disadvantage to that: it discourages signal per lane, and in my ideal world, the signal per lane lined up over each lane would make it super-clear what movements are allowed in each lane and if any conflicts exist (including mandatory FYA for right turn if your parallel crosswalk is permitting walking, no more green balls with the assumption people will yield to pedestrians).

I lived in Palm Beach County about a decade ago, and near side signals for straight and any double lefts were very common, after the hurricanes blew all the signals away and they decided to upgrade many lights to mast arms so they could withstand hurricanes instead of hanging from the wires, a loss incurred in that upgrade was losing many near side signals. I can't say that ever really bothered me too much.

[jakeroot]

Also, going back to the basic rule - if a traffic light is out, then treat it as a 4 way.  If you come upon a signal that's not lit, you can't be absolutely certain the green signal is out.

It just seems like such a rare scenario, and the vehicles behind will encourage the going with their horn at some point. I encounter those skittish drivers who refuse to go without a green signal all the time already at unsignalized intersections.

Rare as it may be, it's a totally avoidable situation if more than one signal is used for each movement. This discussion wouldn't even be taking place if the MUTCD already required redundancy for each movement. Then, there's the advantage I described earlier: having more than one signal helps in case of electrical issues with a signal, but also with visibility. It's a two-fold advantage over a basic one-signal-per-movement requirement, which is the case for every movement except straight-ahead movements per the federal MUTCD.

Yeah, but it seems like the money would be better spent towards other things. If reliability of the signals is a concern, you probably would have better bang for the buck mandating battery backups for traffic signals, which probably would cost about the same as extra redundant signals.

And I do find that there is a disadvantage to that: it discourages signal per lane, and in my ideal world, the signal per lane lined up over each lane would make it super-clear what movements are allowed in each lane and if any conflicts exist (including mandatory FYA for right turn if your parallel crosswalk is permitting walking, no more green balls with the assumption people will yield to pedestrians).

I lived in Palm Beach County about a decade ago, and near side signals for straight and any double lefts were very common, after the hurricanes blew all the signals away and they decided to upgrade many lights to mast arms so they could withstand hurricanes instead of hanging from the wires, a loss incurred in that upgrade was losing many near side signals. I can't say that ever really bothered me too much.

Signal reliability is generally an issue signal-to-signal, not setup-to-setup. But, you're right about what you said earlier. Signals really don't burn out like they used to. But even if that's not a concern anymore, you cannot deny the issue of signal visibility when the only signals are directly in front of you.

I don't know what kind of car you drive, but seriously think about this: how often can you not see the car in front of the car in front of you (read that twice)? For me, the only time I can see that car is when I'm behind another hatchback. Behind anything taller, and I'm virtually blind. People like me rely on extra signals on the left and right to safely approach intersections, because overhead signals are not always visible. Even if signals never broke down (which they still can), having multiple signals for each movement double or even triples the chance that a driver is going to see the signal, and react however they should.

Many areas practice signal-per-lane with left and right-side signals: Nevada, Wisconsin, Illinois, Spokane and Federal Way, WA to name a few. The argument that it "discourages signal per lane" is simply untrue. With that said, signal-per-lane is trying to achieve a goal which could more readily be achieved by being a bit more clever: instead of cramming six or seven signals overhead, and requiring a massive unsightly mast arm, place a few overhead, so cars near the front can see the signals without looking left or right, and place a few on the far left, far right, and near side so cars a ways back, and those behind tall vehicles, can also see the signals. Why is this important? To know when to put in the clutch for some, to know if the light is green and the car in front of us is sitting still (probably on their phone), >>if moving, to know if the light turns red<<...the list goes on.

Importantly, extra signals are not expensive. A signal typically only costs a couple thousand. The only issue with extra signals is conduit capacity and available wiring, for installations where they weren't already included. So cost isn't an issue, and the left-over money not spent on extra signals might pay for...extra lighting? Certainly not something as beneficial.

So, what exactly are the negatives with extra signals? I'm sure there's plenty of reasons...just make sure to let CA, NV, AZ, NM, CO, WI, IL, MN, SD, WA, and ID know, as they all use pole-mounted signals on a fairly regular basis (mostly the east coast that sucks at it).

[jeffandnicole]

So, what exactly are the negatives with extra signals? I'm sure there's plenty of reasons...just make sure to let CA, NV, AZ, NM, CO, WI, IL, MN, SD, WA, and ID know, as they all use pole-mounted signals on a fairly regular basis (mostly the east coast that sucks at it).

NJ is very good at it.  Good to a fault, honestly.

NJ also requires at least two signals for every movement.  Sure, you can find some older ones with only one, but they're very rare. 

The only time I've seen newer one-signal indicators at a NJ Intersection is when there's a green right arrow while the cross street has a green left arrow.  For some reason, not only is there only one green arrow, but it's often on the near-side pole in a position where someone at the stop line can't easily see it, so they don't know they have a green.  Sure, in most cases they can turn right on red anyway, but some people have this look of fear if they see traffic to the left, even though they're still stopped for obvious reasons.  Or in a recent case, a NJ Transit shuttle that isn't permitted to turn right on red stayed at the green arrow because the driver couldn't see it, to the annoying of the horn-honking car behind it.

Two examples:

Deptford, NJ: https://goo.gl/maps/tYv97MXSeHu  The GSV doesn't allow for a great viewpoint here, but a car stopped at the stop line exiting this parking lot can't generally see the bottom lens to the right of their vehicle due to the glare shield.

Atlantic City, NJ: https://goo.gl/maps/zbjLTxLzQRG2 Even though there's 2 right-arrow signals here, the traffic lights are way too close to the stop line.  It requires looking straight up or hard to the right.  The signal seen to the left in the GSV link would've been a perfect spot for the right arrow, but a single over the right turn lane was omitted completely there.  This appears to be the result of an intersection modification where the crosswalk was added to this particular area, rather than directly at the intersection further up (see the 2008 GSV for the old view...in which case the signal actually was even closer to the then-existing stop line!).

[jakeroot]

So, what exactly are the negatives with extra signals? I'm sure there's plenty of reasons...just make sure to let CA, NV, AZ, NM, CO, WI, IL, MN, SD, WA, and ID know, as they all use pole-mounted signals on a fairly regular basis (mostly the east coast that sucks at it).

NJ is very good at it.  Good to a fault, honestly.

NJ also requires at least two signals for every movement.  Sure, you can find some older ones with only one, but they're very rare. 

The only time I've seen newer one-signal indicators at a NJ Intersection is when there's a green right arrow while the cross street has a green left arrow.  For some reason, not only is there only one green arrow, but it's often on the near-side pole in a position where someone at the stop line can't easily see it, so they don't know they have a green.  Sure, in most cases they can turn right on red anyway, but some people have this look of fear if they see traffic to the left, even though they're still stopped for obvious reasons.  Or in a recent case, a NJ Transit shuttle that isn't permitted to turn right on red stayed at the green arrow because the driver couldn't see it, to the annoying of the horn-honking car behind it.

I completely forget about NJ. Hell, even NYC is pretty good at using pole-mounted signals in combination with overhead signals.

Really strange how close some of those signals are to the stop lines. Clearly an old standard that really doesn't have to change, so long as ample secondary signals are used beyond the stop line. I personally love near-side signals, but if they're the only ones, that's not so good.

When diagonal signals are used at small intersections over here (rare), the side with the close signals almost always gets a secondary pole-mounted signal on the far side, so drivers don't have to crane their neck. Here, for example.

[SignBridge]

I agree with Jakeroot's philosophy that a California style combination of overhead and pole mounted signals provides the best all-around visibility of signals. IMO, the Manual's recommendation of one overhead signal per lane is kind of a default position that is not always the best answer.

[riiga]

My gripes with the MUTCD, where do I even start...

Given that I started a thread some years back about how US road signs could be improved from a European (or International) perspective, my biggest gripe is the verbosity and non-usage of pictograms. Tied to this is another big issue, namely the lack of modularity when it comes to signage. Instead of fewer, but different signs that can be reused in various configurations, it seems the MUTCD tries to come up with a single sign for every possible situation. This is especially apparent regarding parking and related signs, as well as all the (in my opinion) unnecessary signs like:

• "LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT" (Use road markings and lane guidance signs)
• "STOP HERE FOR PEDESTRIANS" (Use pedestrian crossing signs and regular STOP sign)
• "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS" (Really? It's a basic rule of the road)

There are also plently of pictogram signs that have their older text-only variant still remaining in the MUTCD for no good reason.

[hotdogPi]

"LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT" (Use road markings and lane guidance signs)

It's not enforceable without that sign.

[jakeroot]

"LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT" (Use road markings and lane guidance signs)

It's not enforceable without that sign.

Since when are road markings not enforceable?

[PurdueBill]

• "LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT" (Use road markings and lane guidance signs)
• "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS" (Really? It's a basic rule of the road)

Especially as states have to pass left lane camping laws, the latter is good to have--it can be topped with a yellow STATE LAW plaque.  (Just today an example of SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT and a companion on the left with different but similar language about impeding the left lane was posted with the STATE LAW plaques; these are unfortunately necessary these days thanks to the drivers who think they have the job of enforcing the speed limit or something.)

LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT is reasonable.  Not every left turn lane requires a full turn lane assignment sign, especially for a wide road where lots of straight-through arrows would have to be depicted or something.  Especially where a lane becomes a "trap" at an intersection or there are several lanes and a sign depicting all the lanes would be overkill, the worded sign is good to have.

[ErmineNotyours]

Realistically I think most drivers would figure out the green arrow is out if the other signals are still behaving normally from their visibility, thats what happened last time I was at an out-signal. The other thing is that was so insanely long ago... with the advent of the LED signal heads, most bulbs don't just die. When they fail, its typically shows up as sections failing, or it dimming or flickering, its not like the old incandescent bulbs... to the point where it just seems unnecessary. How often are people seeing LEDs street lights fail these days? Components in the controller seem just as likely if not more likely to fail.

Last week near the Port of Tacoma, I found a supplemental post-mounted light in which only three of the LED elements from the red light were still working.  I never saw any of the other phases turn, but the green works fine in the street view.

I tried to boost the exposure on this before I took the picture, but there's only so much you can do on a phone camera.

LED failure light, Fife, WA by Arthur Allen, on Flickr

[J N Winkler]

I would be delighted to get rid of "Left Lane Must Turn Left" and "Right Lane Must Turn Right" because they are impossible to tell apart at a distance in situations where the markings are covered and only the upright signs are visible.  Arizona has quite successfully used lane assignment signs (the ones with arrows) for decades, often with lane assignment just for the mandatory turn lane(s) with "Left Lane" or "Right Lane" plaques as appropriate (the plaques do not have to be readable from a distance since arrow orientation allows left/right to be differentiated from a distance).  The norm in many Vienna adherents is to use a lane assignment sign that indicates the orientation of each lane.

I also agree with what Riiga says about KRETP/STKR signs, but the reality is that signs of this type--which serve only to remind drivers of basic rules of the road--will continue to be posted, often over the objections of duly qualified traffic practitioners, not just in the US but also internationally.  As an example, France, Britain, and certain US states all employ signing schemes that are designed to remind drivers to maintain a two-second following distance.  One of the biggest tensions that has to be navigated when compiling the MUTCD is between promoting good engineering practice, including minimal or no use of educational or reminder signing, and ensuring uniformity in the signing that is actually provided even if it is of a type agencies should not be using in the first place.  This conflict is also something the UNECE traffic signing committee (the closest equivalent of a NCUTCD for Vienna countries) has had to navigate many times, notably in the case of accident black spot signing.

[jakeroot]

Last week near the Port of Tacoma, I found a supplemental post-mounted light in which only three of the LED elements from the red light were still working.  I never saw any of the other phases turn, but the green works fine in the street view.

I tried to boost the exposure on this before I took the picture, but there's only so much you can do on a phone camera.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1922/45147378061_6295dabe2b_c.jpg

I remember running into that signal not that long ago, and remembering how badly it was failing. Looks like it's somehow gotten worse since I last saw it. I appreciate it's existence -- it's impossible to see the overhead signals behind the trucks heading S/E along Taylor Way -- but it's worthless if it's not working.

I swear I remember going so far as to actually post about the signal on this site, but I can't find any post about it.

I also agree with what Riiga says about KRETP/STKR signs, but the reality is that signs of this type--which serve only to remind drivers of basic rules of the road--will continue to be posted, often over the objections of duly qualified traffic practitioners, not just in the US but also internationally.  As an example, France, Britain, and certain US states all employ signing schemes that are designed to remind drivers to maintain a two-second following distance.  One of the biggest tensions that has to be navigated when compiling the MUTCD is between promoting good engineering practice, including minimal or no use of educational or reminder signing, and ensuring uniformity in the signing that is actually provided even if it is of a type agencies should not be using in the first place.  This conflict is also something the UNECE traffic signing committee (the closest equivalent of a NCUTCD for Vienna countries) has had to navigate many times, notably in the case of accident black spot signing.

I'm not opposed to KRETP/STKR signs (though I prefer the former 99/100 times); in fact, they're necessary due to varying laws state-to-state. Here in WA, left lane use is prohibited unless passing or turning left. That's definitely not the law in every other state, so while the signs are technically educational (and therefore something that should minimized in terms of how often they're used), it's a sign that I appreciate as it sometimes helps clear the left lane.

Doesn't France go so far as to actually stagger their shoulder markings to the appropriate following distance (rather than use signs)?