Maybe this is just a Baltimore thing, but I am not sure why the city DOT insists on signing with lots of text. Here's a thread to collect those types of signs.
To start: I feel like this sign is an insult to the illiterate driver
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7536/15662284629_66f127ef93_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pS2iya)
Left Turn Wordy (https://flic.kr/p/pS2iya) by Elliott Plack (https://www.flickr.com/people/88483799@N00/), on Flickr
What symbol would suffice?
I'll nominate the 'No Turn On Red' signs. I'd like to see the no right turn symbol with 'On Red' beneath it version added as a standard sign in the next version of the MUTCD. I've seen it in Missouri around St. Louis (Streetview of one) (https://www.google.com/maps?q=st.+louis,+mo&hl=en&ll=38.59303,-90.30082&spn=0.003665,0.008256&sll=41.931912,-88.057051&sspn=0.055807,0.164795&hnear=St+Louis,+Missouri&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.592715,-90.301948&panoid=My4p1RQvE3i-CVFLFqOYJw&cbp=12,305.1,,0,6.56), and I've also seen at least one on a DuPage County (IL) roadway somewhere.
Quote from: NE2 on November 21, 2014, 10:39:14 PM
What symbol would suffice?
I've come up with a few:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfrtNDp1.png&hash=2293d3687dece4b21b9608a212319faccac3610e)
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 21, 2014, 10:46:11 PM
I'll nominate the 'No Turn On Red' signs. I'd like to see the no right turn symbol with 'On Red' beneath it version added as a standard sign in the next version of the MUTCD. I've seen it in Missouri around St. Louis (Streetview of one) (https://www.google.com/maps?q=st.+louis,+mo&hl=en&ll=38.59303,-90.30082&spn=0.003665,0.008256&sll=41.931912,-88.057051&sspn=0.055807,0.164795&hnear=St+Louis,+Missouri&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.592715,-90.301948&panoid=My4p1RQvE3i-CVFLFqOYJw&cbp=12,305.1,,0,6.56), and I've also seen at least one on a DuPage County (IL) roadway somewhere.
How about:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.populardrive.com%2Findex_en%2Fmnbs_images%2Fno_right_red.gif&hash=4fc65602b5854aac86bdaeed5c569171a008d53f)
EDIT 2: I've seen both the sign above and the one you are describing in Seattle: (here (http://goo.gl/YzElUS)) and (here (http://goo.gl/x7UlmS)), respectively.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2014, 11:11:41 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.populardrive.com%2Findex_en%2Fmnbs_images%2Fno_right_red.gif&hash=4fc65602b5854aac86bdaeed5c569171a008d53f)
This is very much a thing where I am. :)
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2014, 11:11:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 21, 2014, 10:39:14 PM
What symbol would suffice?
I've come up with a few:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfrtNDp1.png&hash=2293d3687dece4b21b9608a212319faccac3610e)
Oh, something you came up with. The problem is that you always have to yield unless there's a green arrow. So if a driver can remember what your sign means, they probably remember that.
Why is a sign needed there period? Isn't yielding to traffic in the other direction the law everywhere on a green? I thought that only a green arrow indicated that you had the right of way.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2014, 11:11:41 PM
How about:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.populardrive.com%2Findex_en%2Fmnbs_images%2Fno_right_red.gif&hash=4fc65602b5854aac86bdaeed5c569171a008d53f)
EDIT 2: I've seen both the sign above and the one you are describing in Seattle: (here (http://goo.gl/YzElUS)) and (here (http://goo.gl/x7UlmS)), respectively.
I like the all symbol version better, but the one with only the no right turn symbol would be more likely to pass muster with FHWA since it uses a symbol already used with regulatory signs. The traffic light with only a red ball would have to go through the experimental process.
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 21, 2014, 11:52:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2014, 11:11:41 PM
How about:
EDIT 2: I've seen both the sign above and the one you are describing in Seattle: (here (http://goo.gl/YzElUS)) and (here (http://goo.gl/x7UlmS)), respectively.
I like the all symbol version better, but the one with only the no right turn symbol would be more likely to pass muster with FHWA since it uses a symbol already used with regulatory signs. The traffic light with only a red ball would have to go through the experimental process.
The first link that I posted was of the all-symbol version in downtown Seattle. I suppose that means SDOT is ignoring that process? :-D
Quote from: NE2 on November 21, 2014, 11:41:07 PM
Oh, something you came up with. The problem is that you always have to yield unless there's a green arrow. So if a driver can remember what your sign means, they probably remember that.
My point is, if Jose Garcia and his familia are visiting from Mexico, and are unfamiliar with the rules of the road (for whatever reason), they should be able to decipher what action they may or may not take from their left-turn lane.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 21, 2014, 11:45:57 PM
Why is a sign needed there period? Isn't yielding to traffic in the other direction the law everywhere on a green? I thought that only a green arrow indicated that you had the right of way.
Yes, that is the law. The signs exist as a reminder.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2014, 12:03:34 AM
The first link that I posted was of the all-symbol version in downtown Seattle. I suppose that means SDOT is ignoring that process? :-D
There's actually quite a few signs in the US that have non-compliant symbols.
Experimenting with options for a more symbolic "Left Turn Yield on Green" sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1375.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag457%2Frevive755%2FLeftTurnYieldOnGreenSign_resized_zps202f642e.jpg&hash=1e2f0d9a482a60c490afbe52672a12a6d38008b0)
Was wondering how well the vertical version would work when mounted next to a traffic signal head.
Why do you need a sign here? Turning traffic always has to yield on a solid green...
Quote from: DevalDragon on November 22, 2014, 04:16:00 AM
Why do you need a sign here? Turning traffic always has to yield on a solid green...
Because people tend to forget that (for whatever reason).
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 21, 2014, 11:45:57 PM
Why is a sign needed there period? Isn't yielding to traffic in the other direction the law everywhere on a green? I thought that only a green arrow indicated that you had the right of way.
That was my thought as well, come to think of it. Yielding is implicit if you are turning left without an arrow.
Looking at the picture, why would there be such a sign as it looks to be a one way street going away from the traffic signal?
Now I think of it.............
Aren't there some states that allow you to turn left on red onto another one way? Maybe this is an east-west one way and you would be turning left onto a southbound one way?
In that case, turning WOULD require you to yield to southbound traffic and the sign would be helpful to out of staters who may know that they can even legally turn left on red.
I remember someone on these forums suggested that logo signs should use symbols rather than words such as "FOOD", "GAS", "LODGING", or "CAMPING", as do many general services signs do. However, such symbols would take up more space on the sign, requiring the signs to be larger (especially if there is more than one service type on a single sign). Plus, I don't believe there is an official MUTCD-compliant symbol for "ATTRACTIONS".
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 22, 2014, 01:34:18 AM
Was wondering how well the vertical version would work when mounted next to a traffic signal head.
Probably best with a stacked doghouse:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0dVS2j9.png&hash=d878b57ab8dc89341bf9fc11de52b81cfa1c6406)
Why the need for a sign? If it had been a protected turn there would've been a green arrow instead of a green circle in the traffic light, right?
Quote from: riiga on November 23, 2014, 04:52:11 PM
Why the need for a sign? If it had been a protected turn there would've been a green arrow instead of a green circle in the traffic light, right?
Right, yes. The problem is that, unlike most countries, most Americans don't understand general rules of the road. I know that sounds a bit brash, but it's true. People see green and automatically assume the right-of-way is theirs. That's why roundabouts have worked so well (people don't have a signal controlling their movement so they have to actually look up from their phones to make sure they don't wreck). People take a green light far too literally (a common saying here is "green means go", despite only being true for through-movements).
Quote from: jakeroot on November 23, 2014, 05:45:40 PMPeople take a green light far too literally (a common saying here is "green means go", despite only being true for through-movements).
Red light stop, green light go, yellow light go very fast.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 05:56:10 PM
[...]yellow light go very fast.
I was told it meant "drive like hell" while visiting the States. :P
Here in Arizona, "Left Turn Yield On Green" signs are completely optional. However, a sign is required for "Left Turn Yield on Flashing Yellow Arrow", although the yellow arrow symbol is optional (signs in Mesa typically don't include the symbol).
"No right turn on Red". With a placard below, "Except on Green Arrow."
Uh, if you have a green arrow, then you don't have a red light - even if straight through does have a red light.
^ Had a couple times a couple months ago I would have liked to have seen that "Except on Green Arrow" plaque. The signals where this plaque could have been used were five section towers where the green arrow and red ball are on at the same time, and the driver at the front of the line in the right turn lane would not turn when the arrow was up.
Of course, the agencies in charge of those signals could have simply used a separate four-section right turn signal (red arrow, yellow arrow, flashing yellow arrow, green arrow) since the opposing lefts were protected only.
Sigh, I regret starting a thread with such a poor example. The initial sign should have probably been in the redundant thread. Still, there are plenty of extra-wordy signs around town that I can add.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 23, 2014, 05:45:40 PM
Quote from: riiga on November 23, 2014, 04:52:11 PM
Why the need for a sign? If it had been a protected turn there would've been a green arrow instead of a green circle in the traffic light, right?
Right, yes. The problem is that, unlike most countries, most Americans don't understand general rules of the road. I know that sounds a bit brash, but it's true. People see green and automatically assume the right-of-way is theirs. That's why roundabouts have worked so well (people don't have a signal controlling their movement so they have to actually look up from their phones to make sure they don't wreck). People take a green light far too literally (a common saying here is "green means go", despite only being true for through-movements).
And sometimes it may come to deal with the opposite problem, Americans being too cautious and not turning, even when they have the right to make the turn. There are many times when I'm making a left at a doghouse and the guy in front of me doesn't make the left turn, even though opposing traffic is clear. Some people think that if there was a green arrow, and now the green arrow is off, you are not allowed to turn left without the green arrow. So in such cases, a sign like this is helpful. yes, you are allowed to make this left on green ball, but you must yield to opposing traffic.
Of course, as you said, this sign actually verbalizes a basic rule of the road that as far as I'm aware, is true in all 50 states. You may turn left on green ball (even in interesection where there is a green arrow phase) so long as you yield to opposing traffic and there is no red left arrow or sign that says left turn on green arrow only.
A similar sign that is sometimes posted, but totally unnecessary because it's a basic rule of the road* is "right turn on red after stop"
* Except in NYC. Since there is a citywide ban on right on red there, these signs are necessary to mark the exceptions.
Quote from: mrsman on November 25, 2014, 12:17:25 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 23, 2014, 05:45:40 PM
Quote from: riiga on November 23, 2014, 04:52:11 PM
Why the need for a sign? If it had been a protected turn there would've been a green arrow instead of a green circle in the traffic light, right?
Right, yes. The problem is that, unlike most countries, most Americans don't understand general rules of the road. I know that sounds a bit brash, but it's true. People see green and automatically assume the right-of-way is theirs. That's why roundabouts have worked so well (people don't have a signal controlling their movement so they have to actually look up from their phones to make sure they don't wreck). People take a green light far too literally (a common saying here is "green means go", despite only being true for through-movements).
And sometimes it may come to deal with the opposite problem, Americans being too cautious and not turning, even when they have the right to make the turn. There are many times when I'm making a left at a doghouse and the guy in front of me doesn't make the left turn, even though opposing traffic is clear. Some people think that if there was a green arrow, and now the green arrow is off, you are not allowed to turn left without the green arrow. So in such cases, a sign like this is helpful. yes, you are allowed to make this left on green ball, but you must yield to opposing traffic.
Of course, as you said, this sign actually verbalizes a basic rule of the road that as far as I'm aware, is true in all 50 states. You may turn left on green ball (even in interesection where there is a green arrow phase) so long as you yield to opposing traffic and there is no red left arrow or sign that says left turn on green arrow only.
A similar sign that is sometimes posted, but totally unnecessary because it's a basic rule of the road* is "right turn on red after stop"
* Except in NYC. Since there is a citywide ban on right on red there, these signs are necessary to mark the exceptions.
There are also places you can make a
left on circular red or red arrow onto a one-way street or freeway onramp,
even from a two-way street - Oregon and Washington being two of those places. I didn't know about it until I read up on the actual traffic laws. It would probably be too expensive to do so, but it would be nice if ODOT and WSDOT put up signs saying something to the effect of "Left Turn Yield on Red After Stop".
Quote from: Ace10 on November 25, 2014, 03:10:59 AM
There are also places you can make a left on circular red or red arrow onto a one-way street or freeway onramp, even from a two-way street - Oregon and Washington being two of those places. I didn't know about it until I read up on the actual traffic laws. It would probably be too expensive to do so, but it would be nice if ODOT and WSDOT put up signs saying something to the effect of "Left Turn Yield on Red After Stop".
There's a sign with similar text at the I-405 SB off-ramp at NE 6th Street: "Right Turn On Red Arrow After Stop". For people who don't realize that in Washington, a red arrow does not automatically mean No Turn On Red.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 25, 2014, 12:43:51 PM
Quote from: Ace10 on November 25, 2014, 03:10:59 AM
There are also places you can make a left on circular red or red arrow onto a one-way street or freeway onramp, even from a two-way street - Oregon and Washington being two of those places. I didn't know about it until I read up on the actual traffic laws. It would probably be too expensive to do so, but it would be nice if ODOT and WSDOT put up signs saying something to the effect of "Left Turn Yield on Red After Stop".
There's a sign with similar text at the I-405 SB off-ramp at NE 6th Street: "Right Turn On Red Arrow After Stop". For people who don't realize that in Washington, a red arrow does not automatically mean No Turn On Red.
Same law in British Columbia as well. Best part is, none of the locations specify a maximum amount of lanes before you are no longer allowed to turn on red. So technically, places like this (http://goo.gl/1dlsft) and this (http://goo.gl/RJ45HN) are legal left-turn on red locations (and both locations at which I have performed said maneuver).
This is what overreliance on symbols gets you:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3bbqWFX.jpg&hash=00db93be363c29a24690e7fc4f692c0cd4f41e76) (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.717706,-94.937689&spn=0.012872,0.024784&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.717753,-94.941852&panoid=eFd3j0NerkkqaZBtXMXw1g&cbp=12,341.62,,1,-5.27)
It's unambiguously legal to turn on red here.
Here's a better example of the thread title-sake:
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8569/15714809100_a697715d2a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pWEvfu)
No Left Turn (https://flic.kr/p/pWEvfu) by Elliott Plack (https://www.flickr.com/people/88483799@N00/), on Flickr
As opposed to:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzgySKZA.png&hash=1da0c0125595ee969c3c57319640a79f426d2a08) (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2b_04_longdesc.htm)
It seems like the sign came in before the international symbols were widely used. And Baltimore never updated their signs. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Quote from: mrsman on November 30, 2014, 08:28:56 AM
It seems like the sign came in before the international symbols were widely used. And Baltimore never updated their signs. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Baltimore City has plenty of vintage sign infrastructure left on its arterial street network.