MUTCD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2020) now available

[wanderer2575]

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

We already have a black-on white regulation sign:  "Right Lane Must Exit," or appropriate variations.

To my mind, the black-on-yellow "EXIT ONLY" is informational, not instructional, and therefore is correctly colored as a warning.  But don't ask me to coherently explain that opinion.

I also can't explain how the text "LANE ENDS MERGE LEFT (RIGHT)" sign (W4-2?) is warning, not regulatory.  I accept that for the graphic version, which essentially says only "LANE ENDS" with no specific action.

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?

It's the bureaucracy.  It's not supposed to make sense.   

[kphoger]

I also can't explain how the text "LANE ENDS MERGE LEFT (RIGHT)" sign (W4-2?) is warning, not regulatory.

It does seem that the first two words are a warning and the last two words are a required action.

[interstatefan990]

Look at it this way: The law says that all drivers must drive responsibly and have due care for the safety of others. Warning signs give the information needed to do that, where it would not be readily apparent. Regulatory signs remind you of the law. We can't put a regulatory sign for every required action, like a black-on-white sign that says to make sure it's safe before changing lanes. At a certain point, the blanket responsibility simply has to be on the driver to determine the best course of action, which, again, is what warning signs aid in doing.

So, when there's a Lane Ends sign, the driver is not explicitly legally required to change lanes. But rather, if they didn't get out of the ending lane and subsequently almost caused a crash, that would be failing to drive responsibly with due care for the safety of others, which then would be a violation of the law.

[stevashe]

I also can't explain how the text "LANE ENDS MERGE LEFT (RIGHT)" sign (W4-2?) is warning, not regulatory.

It does seem that the first two words are a warning and the last two words are a required action.

It's a required action, but it's not because of a law, it's because of a physical change in the road's configuration, so it still falls under a warning as I see it.

[Scott5114]

In some (most?) jurisdictions there's also laws requiring you to stay within the marked lanes, though, so if a lane ends and you don't merge, instead driving down the shoulder, you can get pulled over for that. Er. Stopped. You can't get pulled over if you're already on the shoulder, cause there's no more, well, you know, over.

[JoePCool14]

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

[kphoger]

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

See now...  That makes it sound like I'm not allowed to change lanes in order to NOT exit.

[interstatefan990]

See now...  That makes it sound like I'm not allowed to change lanes in order to NOT exit.

Not like it would stop anyone. Most drivers already cross solid white lines to get out of turn-only lanes at intersections.

[kphoger]

See now...  That makes it sound like I'm not allowed to change lanes in order to NOT exit.

Not like it would stop anyone. Most drivers already cross solid white lines to get out of turn-only lanes at intersections.

Crossing a solid white line isn't illegal.

Crossing a double solid white line is, though.

[PurdueBill]

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

See now...  That makes it sound like I'm not allowed to change lanes in order to NOT exit.

Make it yellow at the bottom and we have Delaware!

I liked when Delaware used MUST EXIT...I get going along with everyone else, but I liked the meaning of it.

[kphoger]

See now...  That makes it sound like I'm not allowed to change lanes in order to NOT exit.

Not like it would stop anyone. Most drivers already cross solid white lines to get out of turn-only lanes at intersections.

Crossing a solid white line isn't illegal.

Crossing a double solid white line is, though.

For reference:

Section 3B.04 White Lane Line Pavement Markings and Warrants

20   Where crossing the lane line markings is discouraged, the lane line markings shall consist of a normal or wide solid white line.

30   Where crossing the lane line markings is prohibited, the lane line markings shall consist of a solid double white line (see Figure 3B-12).

Discouraged ≠ Prohibited

[J N Winkler]

Back before lane drop signing was systematized (don't remember offhand whether it was in the 1971 or the 1978 MUTCD), many agencies did use "Must Exit" or similar verbiage in black on white.

Although the existing standard of "Exit Only" in black on yellow is not perfect--for example, foreigners with no experience of driving in the US tend to interpret it as "re-entry is not possible at this interchange"--it works partly because it is uniform in application (exits not involving lane drops generally do not have "Exit Only" while ones that do generally have it).

[interstatefan990]

See now...  That makes it sound like I'm not allowed to change lanes in order to NOT exit.

Not like it would stop anyone. Most drivers already cross solid white lines to get out of turn-only lanes at intersections.

Crossing a solid white line isn't illegal.

Crossing a double solid white line is, though.

Yes I knew that, but similarly, I don't think the white MUST EXIT sign would be any more prohibitive than the pavement markings and signs at turn-only lanes. Drivers would probably still continue to change lanes as needed up until the gore point, and for a select few, even past the gore point. So, when you said in your other reply that it makes it sound like you're not allowed to change lanes, I was saying that I don't think the sign would stop anyone from changing lanes in the first place, just like how a single solid white line doesn't stop anyone from changing lanes either. In fact, if that sign did exist in widespread use, it probably would be accompanied by a single solid white line.

[kphoger]

Gotcha.   

[jakeroot]

Although the existing standard of "Exit Only" in black on yellow is not perfect--for example, foreigners with no experience of driving in the US tend to interpret it as "re-entry is not possible at this interchange"--it works partly because it is uniform in application (exits not involving lane drops generally do not have "Exit Only" while ones that do generally have it).

It is indeed a uniform warning of something someone should do (I would be wary suggesting that a warning is regulatory), but why is there so little interest in regulatory messages for such an application? Few exit-only lanes along Washington freeways have any black-on-white regulatory signage, with the "exit only" messages being the only indication that you have to leave the road, besides the pavement-painted "Exit Only" messages (which could be regulatory) and other laws about leaving the roadway. I'm sure overhead signage is more commonly seen than pavement or post-mounted messages, yet black-on-white overhead regulatory messages signing a freeway exit are rare as hens teeth.

Of interest to some: one of the newest exit-only lanes in Washington State has this black-on-yellow "Right Lane Must Exit" sign. Seeing a black-on-yellow "MUST" message is extremely confusing to me.

It would seem to me that arrow-per-lane signage would be perfect applications for black-on-white "Only" messages; it would be akin to signing an overhead R3-X sign, apart from the green background behind the arrow.

[JoePCool14]

Although the existing standard of "Exit Only" in black on yellow is not perfect--for example, foreigners with no experience of driving in the US tend to interpret it as "re-entry is not possible at this interchange"--it works partly because it is uniform in application (exits not involving lane drops generally do not have "Exit Only" while ones that do generally have it).

It is indeed a uniform warning of something someone should do (I would be wary suggesting that a warning is regulatory), but why is there so little interest in regulatory messages for such an application? Few exit-only lanes along Washington freeways have any black-on-white regulatory signage, with the "exit only" messages being the only indication that you have to leave the road, besides the pavement-painted "Exit Only" messages (which could be regulatory) and other laws about leaving the roadway. I'm sure overhead signage is more commonly seen than pavement or post-mounted messages, yet black-on-white overhead regulatory messages signing a freeway exit are rare as hens teeth.

Of interest to some: one of the newest exit-only lanes in Washington State has this black-on-yellow "Right Lane Must Exit" sign. Seeing a black-on-yellow "MUST" message is extremely confusing to me.

It would seem to me that arrow-per-lane signage would be perfect applications for black-on-white "Only" messages; it would be akin to signing an overhead R3-X sign, apart from the green background behind the arrow.

After the discussion on here, I would agree that making that sign yellow just doesn't seem right.

[stevashe]

Of interest to some: one of the newest exit-only lanes in Washington State has this black-on-yellow "Right Lane Must Exit" sign. Seeing a black-on-yellow "MUST" message is extremely confusing to me.

That's definitely a mistake, it should be black on white. It's actually the exact sign that started this discussion, the R3-33.

[vdeane]

Of interest to some: one of the newest exit-only lanes in Washington State has this black-on-yellow "Right Lane Must Exit" sign. Seeing a black-on-yellow "MUST" message is extremely confusing to me.

That's definitely a mistake, it should be black on white. It's actually the exact sign that started this discussion, the R3-33.

They probably meant for that sign to stand in for overhead signs with the exit only message, but used "must exit" instead.  They probably weren't even thinking that their sign would cause a forum to dissect whether their message phrasing was more in character with regulatory or warning signage.

[jakeroot]

Of interest to some: one of the newest exit-only lanes in Washington State has this black-on-yellow "Right Lane Must Exit" sign. Seeing a black-on-yellow "MUST" message is extremely confusing to me.

That's definitely a mistake, it should be black on white. It's actually the exact sign that started this discussion, the R3-33.

They probably meant for that sign to stand in for overhead signs with the exit only message, but used "must exit" instead.  They probably weren't even thinking that their sign would cause a forum to dissect whether their message phrasing was more in character with regulatory or warning signage.

Jokes aside, that was more what I had in mind. 90% of the messaging visible to drivers at a standard "exit only" lane is black-on-yellow "warnings". So are we really surprised that they went and used yellow for that sign too?

It's further evidence, in my opinion, that current signage for dropped lanes needs work.

[Ned Weasel]

Jokes aside, that was more what I had in mind. 90% of the messaging visible to drivers at a standard "exit only" lane is black-on-yellow "warnings". So are we really surprised that they went and used yellow for that sign too?

It's further evidence, in my opinion, that current signage for dropped lanes needs work.

That isn't even the first time I've seen a black-on-yellow "Right Lane Must Exit" sign.  My home state has used them.  In fact, here's one that's still standing as of the last Street View pass: https://goo.gl/maps/NP4sS794Ln7zQaz78

[kphoger]

Jokes aside, that was more what I had in mind. 90% of the messaging visible to drivers at a standard "exit only" lane is black-on-yellow "warnings". So are we really surprised that they went and used yellow for that sign too?

It's further evidence, in my opinion, that current signage for dropped lanes needs work.

That isn't even the first time I've seen a black-on-yellow "Right Lane Must Exit" sign.  My home state has used them.  In fact, here's one that's still standing as of the last Street View pass: https://goo.gl/maps/NP4sS794Ln7zQaz78

Then I'm not crazy.  I thought I'd seen such a sign plenty of times, in more than one location.  Probably not even just Kansas I've seen them in.

[J N Winkler]

Just a few observations:

*  "Right Lane Exit Only" is already in the MUTCD as sign W9-7 (I think it was added in the 2009 edition).

*  For lane drops with option lanes where APLs are not used, a regulatory lane assignment sign (two-headed arrow in the left slot, curved arrow with "Only" in the right slot) is part of the signing treatment suggested by the MUTCD (I think this was added in 2009 as well), though W9-7 is not.

*  An example of an agency that has used "Right Lane Exit Only" or "Right Lane Must Exit" (in  black on yellow as a standalone sign) as part of a signing treatment for a lane drop with option lane is Arizona DOT (in metro Phoenix).  Other agencies use regulatory "Right Lane Must Exit" (now in the MUTCD as R3-33) for this application.  (R3-33 has a two-line format--"Right Lane"/"Must Exit"--but many agencies have traditionally used the three-line format of the R3-7 "Right Lane"/"Must"/"Turn Right" sign, with the bottom line changed to "Exit.")

*  For decades there has been a debate about whether it should be generally permitted to sign simple lane drops (i.e., no option lane) with ground-mounted signs only, with the advance guide and exit direction signs having "Right Lane Must Exit" or "Right Lane Exit Only" in black on a bottom yellow panel.  The MUTCD requires overhead signs with downward-pointing arrows to provide positive guidance; nevertheless, a few states have isolated examples of lane drops with ground-mounted signing only.  (I think there is one in Kansas, but the location escapes me at present.)

[kphoger]

Just a few observations:

*  "Right Lane Exit Only" is already in the MUTCD as sign W9-7 (I think it was added in the 2009 edition).

*  For lane drops with option lanes where APLs are not used, a regulatory lane assignment sign (two-headed arrow in the left slot, curved arrow with "Only" in the right slot) is part of the signing treatment suggested by the MUTCD (I think this was added in 2009 as well), though W9-7 is not.

*  An example of an agency that has used "Right Lane Exit Only" or "Right Lane Must Exit" (in  black on yellow as a standalone sign) as part of a signing treatment for a lane drop with option lane is Arizona DOT (in metro Phoenix).  Other agencies use regulatory "Right Lane Must Exit" (now in the MUTCD as R3-33) for this application.  (R3-33 has a two-line format--"Right Lane"/"Must Exit"--but many agencies have traditionally used the three-line format of the R3-7 "Right Lane"/"Must"/"Turn Right" sign, with the bottom line changed to "Exit.")

*  For decades there has been a debate about whether it should be generally permitted to sign simple lane drops (i.e., no option lane) with ground-mounted signs only, with the advance guide and exit direction signs having "Right Lane Must Exit" or "Right Lane Exit Only" in black on a bottom yellow panel.  The MUTCD requires overhead signs with downward-pointing arrows to provide positive guidance; nevertheless, a few states have isolated examples of lane drops with ground-mounted signing only.  (I think there is one in Kansas, but the location escapes me at present.)

For those playing along at home...


MUTCD W9-7

Section 2C.43 – RIGHT (LEFT) LANE EXIT ONLY AHEAD Sign (W9-7)

Option:
  01 The RIGHT (LEFT) LANE EXIT ONLY AHEAD (W9-7) sign (see Figure 2C-8) may be used to provide advance warning to road users that traffic in the right-hand (left-hand) lane of a roadway that is approaching a grade-separated interchange will be required to depart the roadway on an exit ramp at the next interchange.

Standard:
  02 The W9-7 sign shall be a horizontal rectangle with a black legend and border on a yellow background.

Guidance:
  03 If used, the W9-7 sign should be installed upstream from the first overhead guide sign that contains an EXIT ONLY sign panel or upstream from the first RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT (R3-33) regulatory sign, whichever is farther upstream from the exit.

MUTCD W3-33

Section 2B.23 – RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT Sign (R3-33)

Option:
  01 A RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT (R3-33) sign (see Figure 2B-4) may be used to supplement an overhead EXIT ONLY guide sign to inform road users that traffic in the right-hand (left-hand) lane of a roadway that is approaching a grade-separated interchange is required to depart the roadway on the exit ramp at the next interchange.

[stevashe]

If you read the sections kphoger quoted in the previous reply, it should become clear what the purposes of the two signs are. One is an advance warning, the other denotes that an exit movement is required from the lane. Kind of like a warning sign for a reduced speed limit ahead vs. the speed limit sign itself.

Some of our confusion seems to stem from the notion that all signs related to law/required action are displayed on white regulatory signs, but we forgot that some warning signs provide advance notice of regulation (stop ahead, speed limit ahead, etc.).

[kphoger]

If you read the sections kphoger quoted in the previous reply, it should become clear what the purposes of the two signs are. One is an advance warning, the other denotes that an exit movement is required from the lane. Kind of like a warning sign for a reduced speed limit ahead vs. the speed limit sign itself.

Some of our confusion seems to stem from the notion that all signs related to law/required action are displayed on white regulatory signs, but we forgot that some warning signs provide advance notice of regulation (stop ahead, speed limit ahead, etc.).

Of course, that brings us back to the fact that yellow is used at the gore point itself.

For example, why is the [EXIT ONLY] plaque at the gore point shown below yellow instead of white?  The previous two signs could be considered warnings, but what about the final one?



I'd argue that it's still a warning sign, and not regulatory in nature.  As long as a driver hasn't actually passed the gore point (that is, there's still only a single white line between his lane and the through lanes), then he's perfectly free to change out of that lane.  He's not actually required to exit.  Only after the lanes actually diverge must a driver in that lane actually exit–and that is by virtue of the lane lines, not by virtue of signage.