MUTCD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2020) now available

[interstatefan990]

(1) The W4-8 sign has been used IRL before, although perhaps without the dashed line (similar to W4-2, which used to not have the dashed line).  I know I saw it on Long Island, and I think it was at this interchange: https://goo.gl/maps/QbYzd2Cja1Ntuw3h7 , on the ramp from Loop Parkway to NB Meadowbrook Parkway, but if that's the case, then they re-signed and re-striped it to show the right lane ending instead.

Used here as well:

https://goo.gl/maps/FCYmKsJmDFHKdZXq8

[kphoger]

The alternative would be to sign the right lane with W4-1 and the left lane with a mirrored image of it.

[MCRoads]

The alternative would be to sign the right lane with W4-1 and the left lane with a mirrored image of it.

That might not be a great idea, drivers get confused enough as it is even without conflicting signage.

[interstatefan990]

Personally I would like to see it made a standard that traffic signal heads must correlate to the movement at the intersection (except for some yellows and reds). For example, if no turns are allowed and all lanes must continue straight through, the traffic signal should be required to display only an up arrow signal indication on green. If all lanes must turn right, the signal heads should be required to display right turn arrow indications only, and vice-versa if all lanes must turn left. Of course, if there is more than one possible movement or conflicting vehicular/pedestrian movements, then this wouldn't apply. Many state DOTs opt for this in various locations, but there are discrepancies and I don't see why it shouldn't be universal.

[hotdogPi]

Personally I would like to see it made a standard that traffic signal heads must correlate to the movement at the intersection (except for some yellows and reds). For example, if no turns are allowed and all lanes must continue straight through, the traffic signal should be required to display only an up arrow signal indication on green. If all lanes must turn right, the signal heads should be required to display right turn arrow indications only, and vice-versa if all lanes must turn left. Of course, if there is more than one possible movement or conflicting vehicular/pedestrian movements, then this wouldn't apply. Many state DOTs opt for this in various locations, but there are discrepancies and I don't see why it shouldn't be universal.

Unfortunately, the MUTCD would contradict itself if that was added. The MUTCD currently prohibits up arrows.

Some states have no turn on red arrow. Fortunately, this can be fixed: make it a flashing red arrow.

[interstatefan990]

Personally I would like to see it made a standard that traffic signal heads must correlate to the movement at the intersection (except for some yellows and reds). For example, if no turns are allowed and all lanes must continue straight through, the traffic signal should be required to display only an up arrow signal indication on green. If all lanes must turn right, the signal heads should be required to display right turn arrow indications only, and vice-versa if all lanes must turn left. Of course, if there is more than one possible movement or conflicting vehicular/pedestrian movements, then this wouldn't apply. Many state DOTs opt for this in various locations, but there are discrepancies and I don't see why it shouldn't be universal.

Unfortunately, the MUTCD would contradict itself if that was added. The MUTCD currently prohibits up arrows.

Some states have no turn on red arrow. Fortunately, this can be fixed: make it a flashing red arrow.

Huh? I was just looking at this in Sections 4D.05, 19, and 23:

05 If not otherwise prohibited, a steady straight-through green arrow signal indication may be used instead of a circular green signal indication in a signal face on an approach intersecting a one-way street to discourage wrong-way turns....

...02 A straight-through GREEN ARROW signal indication may be used instead of the CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication in Items A and B in Paragraph 1 on an approach where right turns are prohibited and a straight-through GREEN ARROW signal indication is also used instead of a CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication in the other signal face(s) for through traffic....

...02 A straight-through GREEN ARROW signal indication may be used instead of the CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication in Items A and B in Paragraph 1 on an approach where left turns are prohibited and a straight-through GREEN ARROW signal indication is also used instead of a CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication in the other signal face(s) for through traffic.

Am I missing something or does "straight through arrow" not mean the same thing as "up arrow"?

[Ned Weasel]

Am I missing something or does "straight through arrow" not mean the same thing as "up arrow"?

1 must have meant yellow and red up arrows.  Funny enough, downtown Kansas City, Missouri used to have red up arrows.

[UCFKnights]

Personally I would like to see it made a standard that traffic signal heads must correlate to the movement at the intersection (except for some yellows and reds). For example, if no turns are allowed and all lanes must continue straight through, the traffic signal should be required to display only an up arrow signal indication on green. If all lanes must turn right, the signal heads should be required to display right turn arrow indications only, and vice-versa if all lanes must turn left. Of course, if there is more than one possible movement or conflicting vehicular/pedestrian movements, then this wouldn't apply. Many state DOTs opt for this in various locations, but there are discrepancies and I don't see why it shouldn't be universal.

Unfortunately, the MUTCD would contradict itself if that was added. The MUTCD currently prohibits up arrows.

Some states have no turn on red arrow. Fortunately, this can be fixed: make it a flashing red arrow.

I really wish they would mandate that fix for right arrows all the time instead of just making it an option. We're starting to see good adoption of the FYA for left turns, but I'd really like to see it pushed for right turns as well, along with a flashing red arrow all the time to indicate RTOR.

[JoePCool14]

Yeah, 'for exit only' makes no sense to me.

'Must exit' seems much easier to comprehend.

It felt a bit awkward to me the first time I saw it, which might have been around 15 years ago.  But it didn't take any mental gymnastics to make sense of it.  Frankly, I can understand why they use that wording.  "Right Lane Exit Only" could be misinterpreted as meaning the exit is only from the right and not from the left, rather than the intended meaning which we all know as, the right-hand lane is being dropped from the mainline at the exit.  "Right Lane for Exit Only" removes that ambiguity without quite making it a complete sentence (the most direct complete sentence translation would be "The right lane is for exiting only" or "The right lane is for the exit only").  As for "Right Lane Must Exit," while I can't claim to read the minds of the MUTCD gods, I suspect they don't want the word "must" on anything that isn't regulatory signage, and they in fact have a separate, black-on-white regulatory sign reading "RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT" (R3-33).

Then why shouldn't we just use the regulatory sign version? I don't understand why there should be two versions of signs in two different categories saying the exact same thing.

[Scott5114]

Metric discussion split off and merged to the existing metric discussion in Off-Topic: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28588.0

[interstatefan990]

Am I missing something or does "straight through arrow" not mean the same thing as "up arrow"?

1 must have meant yellow and red up arrows.  Funny enough, downtown Kansas City, Missouri used to have red up arrows.

Now that's just a poor design thought process. What makes more sense, a circular red or a red up arrow? The former, as it's more visible and gives a clearer message. There's a reason the MUTCD only allows green up arrows.

[Scott5114]

Missouri loves its up arrows though. 🤷

[Ned Weasel]

Then why shouldn't we just use the regulatory sign version? I don't understand why there should be two versions of signs in two different categories saying the exact same thing.

Good question.

[Scott5114]

Then why shouldn't we just use the regulatory sign version? I don't understand why there should be two versions of signs in two different categories saying the exact same thing.

Good question.

Another question in the same vein–why is "right lane ends" warning, but "right lane must turn right" regulatory? Either way, the lane you are in doesn't continue past a certain point so if you don't do something you're going to be off the traveled way.

[JoePCool14]

Then why shouldn't we just use the regulatory sign version? I don't understand why there should be two versions of signs in two different categories saying the exact same thing.

Good question.

Another question in the same vein–why is "right lane ends" warning, but "right lane must turn right" regulatory? Either way, the lane you are in doesn't continue past a certain point so if you don't do something you're going to be off the traveled way.

The general question then becomes, what determines something to be "regulatory" versus "warning"? Technically, a curve ahead sign could be regulatory and a yield or stop sign could be a warning sign.

[GaryV]

Another question in the same vein–why is "right lane ends" warning, but "right lane must turn right" regulatory? Either way, the lane you are in doesn't continue past a certain point so if you don't do something you're going to be off the traveled way.

"Right lane ends" warns you ahead of time that you will have to do something.
"Must turn" tells you what you are required to do.

[JoePCool14]

Another question in the same vein–why is "right lane ends" warning, but "right lane must turn right" regulatory? Either way, the lane you are in doesn't continue past a certain point so if you don't do something you're going to be off the traveled way.

"Right lane ends" warns you ahead of time that you will have to do something.
"Must turn" tells you what you are required to do.

But technically you're also required to get out of the right lane because it's ending.

[stevashe]

Another question in the same vein–why is "right lane ends" warning, but "right lane must turn right" regulatory? Either way, the lane you are in doesn't continue past a certain point so if you don't do something you're going to be off the traveled way.

"Right lane ends" warns you ahead of time that you will have to do something.
"Must turn" tells you what you are required to do.

But technically you're also required to get out of the right lane because it's ending.

Not necessarily. I've seen plenty of examples where the lane continues past the intersection but you are required to turn right.

[wanderer2575]

Another question in the same vein–why is "right lane ends" warning, but "right lane must turn right" regulatory? Either way, the lane you are in doesn't continue past a certain point so if you don't do something you're going to be off the traveled way.

"Right lane ends" warns you ahead of time that you will have to do something.
"Must turn" tells you what you are required to do.

But technically you're also required to get out of the right lane because it's ending.

Think of it this way:  A warning sign states a point of information, while a regulatory sign states a specific action you must take.  "Right Lane Ends" is informational.  Yes, you're going to have to take the action of moving out of that lane, but that's not specified on the sign.

Technically, a curve ahead sign could be regulatory and a yield or stop sign could be a warning sign.

No, "Curve Ahead" is informational so it is a warning sign.  You're going to have to turn the wheel to follow the curve, but that is not stated on the sign.  "Yield" and "Stop" signs are regulatory because they specify actions.

[JoePCool14]

Another question in the same vein–why is "right lane ends" warning, but "right lane must turn right" regulatory? Either way, the lane you are in doesn't continue past a certain point so if you don't do something you're going to be off the traveled way.

"Right lane ends" warns you ahead of time that you will have to do something.
"Must turn" tells you what you are required to do.

But technically you're also required to get out of the right lane because it's ending.

Think of it this way:  A warning sign states a point of information, while a regulatory sign states a specific action you must take.  "Right Lane Ends" is informational.  Yes, you're going to have to take the action of moving out of that lane, but that's not specified on the sign.

Technically, a curve ahead sign could be regulatory and a yield or stop sign could be a warning sign.

No, "Curve Ahead" is informational so it is a warning sign.  You're going to have to turn the wheel to follow the curve, but that is not stated on the sign.  "Yield" and "Stop" signs are regulatory because they specify actions.

Ah, that does makes sense, thank you.

Returning to the original question, I somewhat see the value in having both the warning and regulatory versions of the sign, though I'm not sure when you'd want to use one over the other. DOT preference is all I could suggest...

[kphoger]

Lanes end for a variety of reasons.  You might have to merge left, you might have to turn right.

[jakeroot]

On freeways: could we conceivably replace black-on-yellow "EXIT ONLY" warnings with black-on-white regulatory messages, like "MUST EXIT"?

The warning vs regulatory debate drives me nuts. We can't even figure it out half the time, and we're supposed to be the sign nerds. How the hell is the public supposed to make sense of things?

[JoePCool14]

On freeways: could we conceivably replace black-on-yellow "EXIT ONLY" warnings with black-on-white regulatory messages, like "MUST EXIT"?

The warning vs regulatory debate drives me nuts. We can't even figure it out half the time, and we're supposed to be the sign nerds. How the hell is the public supposed to make sense of things?

Simple. The public simply doesn't. 

[kphoger]

On freeways: could we conceivably replace black-on-yellow "EXIT ONLY" warnings with black-on-white regulatory messages, like "MUST EXIT"?

Aren't those plaques actually warnings, though?  Warning! the lane you're in doesn't continue along the mainline.  After all, if I'm in that lane, it is perfectly legal for me to change lanes and not actually exit.

[stevashe]

Well if we want the actual answer to this, we need only look at the proposed MUTCD text, which indicates the the warning version should be used upstream of the regulatory version.

This makes sense, when you're farther away, you are warned that the lane will eventually exit, then it becomes a requirement as you approach the actual divergence of the lane.

As for the public knowing the difference, they don't really need to know. Whether a sign is yellow or white you still need to take heed of what it says. Yellow is just a bit more eye-catching, for good reason.