The latest MUTCD and states following it to a "T"

Started by Mergingtraffic, February 10, 2015, 01:35:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

J N Winkler

Quote from: myosh_tino on October 06, 2018, 11:38:58 AMUnderlining?  AFAIK, California does not underline anything on guide signs.

It is underlining in the special sense used in the Hurlburt paper.

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 01, 2018, 11:05:59 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 01, 2018, 06:24:27 AMI've noticed that Kentucky is dividing destinations with white lines, and sometimes mileage signs as well. Is this new in the MUTCD?

It is not.  There was a 1962 paper by the UCLA psychology professor Slade Hurlburt, one of the big names in midcentury human factors research, that found it was beneficial for driver comprehension of destination-and-direction signs.  I believe it resulted in California implementing "underlining" (use of ruled horizontal lines to group destinations according to direction) for such signs.  However, the typicals for destination-and-direction signs in Standard Highway Signs have never used grouping of this kind, and I think the MUTCD is silent about it except possibly as a mentioned option in Chapter 2D (the conventional-road guide signing chapter).  California also does not use underlining on mileage signs.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.