I see now that in FL the crosswalk striping has been changed. The original bars all aligned perfectly across streets have been now painted with two side bars that mark the outer border, with less of the other bars connecting.
I am guessing this is another change in MUTCD guidelines as I have not seen markings outside of FL yet. I do notice that the original school crossing signs were changed not only the yellow to neon green, but the original crosswalk ahead is used now at the crosswalk proper as well as before it. Instead of showing the lines at the feet of the crossing guard and child, it has an angled arrow pointing down at the crosswalk instead.
The latter I know is nationwide and is a change in guidelines, but what about the former. Is this state or federal changes? This actually does go back to the 70s when I went to school as Clark, NJ striped all crosswalks in that matter back then. So is this trying old stuff again.
May just be to save paint, may be because of wear from the tire paths.
There has been no change to the MUTCD crosswalk markings.
The MUTCD "default" appears to be the two transverse lines that outline the crosswalk edges (I only say this is the "default" because practically all illustrations of crosswalks throughout the MUTCD are the simple transverse line type).
The MUTCD a figure that depicts both diagonal and longitudinal lines as other examples of crosswalk markings. There are some guidelines on their design, but there is a fair degree of flexibility in design in regards to that flexibility. It also says that transverse lines are optional with the diagonal or longitudinal crosswalk bars.
Huh, I didn't know the MUTCD offered such wide latitude when it comes to crosswalks. I'd always assumed the longitudinal bars were the method blessed by the MUTCD, since that's what I see the most. I just assumed Springfield, MO and its transverse lines were doing it old-school.
At my workplace the crosswalks are delineated with just a large, solid yellow patch. I wonder what the MUTCD would say about that?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 11, 2012, 01:15:15 AM
Huh, I didn't know the MUTCD offered such wide latitude when it comes to crosswalks. I'd always assumed the longitudinal bars were the method blessed by the MUTCD, since that's what I see the most. I just assumed Springfield, MO and its transverse lines were doing it old-school.
At my workplace the crosswalks are delineated with just a large, solid yellow patch. I wonder what the MUTCD would say about that?
I've seen a trend around a lot of Wisconsin towns, where they're switching to the longitudinal or "continental" style of crosswalk marking. By far, the transverse lines are still the most popular/prevalent around the state. For a while, the city of Milwaukee went completely different, and marked crosswalks with transverse lines comprised of 1' long x 4" wide diagonal white lines. They seem to have since ended that practice.
IMHO, I prefer the longitudinal bars. While the initial cost is higher, when placed appropriately, they tend to last much longer between refreshenings. They're also able to be seen by the driver from a much further distance. The down side is that they can become larger potential slip hazards when wet.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 11, 2012, 01:15:15 AM
At my workplace the crosswalks are delineated with just a large, solid yellow patch. I wonder what the MUTCD would say about that?
Non-conforming on two points: color and width.
Section 3B.18 p04
Standard:
"When crosswalk lines are used, they shall consist of solid white lines that mark the crosswalk. They shall not be less than 6 inches or greater than 24 inches in width."
In Alabama I have either seen just two transverse white lines across the road or two transverse white lines with the longitudinal bars connecting them.