MUTCD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2020) now available

[jeffandnicole]

Interstate highways have existed for 60 years. You're arguing about the most stupidest shit that hundreds of millions of travelers have encountered every day for 60 years.

/short rant

[kphoger]

arguing about the most stupidest shit that hundreds of millions of travelers have encountered every day for 60 years

You just described 44% of the threads on this forum.

[interstatefan990]

Perhaps maybe a black-on-yellow plaque with the speed limit as an advisory speed, on the same signpost right below the merge warning sign? Kind of like how curve advisory speeds are posted.

But, I agree, this conversation is kind of stupid. ANY sign that tells drivers how fast they *must* be going, with the sole exception of minimum speed limits, is absolutely pointless. It creates a legal gray area where in certain situations drivers may not be able follow the basic speed rule (never drive faster than appropriate for conditions) and the theoretical sign at the same time. This applies even for a general sign like "merge at the speed of traffic" or "match speed", because traffic may not always be following the law. Who should determine the safe speed for a car to be traveling at, a sheet of metal with some markings on it, or a human being? This is why advisory speeds aren't regulatory.

[JoePCool14]

Interstate highways have existed for 60 years. You're arguing about the most stupidest shit that hundreds of millions of travelers have encountered every day for 60 years.

/short rant

It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

They obviously are implied by the nature of driving.

[jakeroot]

It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

They obviously are implied by the nature of driving.

Which all seem, to me, like signs that could exist somewhere. The MUTCD tends to approach things "nanny" style, where signs will read things that are already law.

Two that come to mind are "STOP HERE ON RED" when there's nothing unusual going on, or a sign saying "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" when it's a two-way to two-way street and turning on red would be illegal anyways. There are far more examples, but I usually don't see them too often here in WA (thankfully).

[Big John]

^^ Then there is on freeways and expressways:
or
yet there is left-lane camping.

[Scott5114]

Interstate highways have existed for 60 years. You're arguing about the most stupidest shit that hundreds of millions of travelers have encountered every day for 60 years.

/short rant

It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

"NO MALTRATE LOS SEÃ'ALES"

[jeffandnicole]

It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

They obviously are implied by the nature of driving.

Which all seem, to me, like signs that could exist somewhere. The MUTCD tends to approach things "nanny" style, where signs will read things that are already law.

Two that come to mind are "STOP HERE ON RED" when there's nothing unusual going on, or a sign saying "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" when it's a two-way to two-way street and turning on red would be illegal anyways. There are far more examples, but I usually don't see them too often here in WA (thankfully).

There's some legalize behind that signage. Traditionally, a green ball allows traffic to move in any direction when safe to do so. In some states, the law may actually be vague or non-existant about a red arrow. So, the regulatory sign clarifies that you can only turn left when there's a green arrow.  While it seems like common sense to most people to not turn on a red arrow, actual laws can be picked apart to find some loopholes.

[jakeroot]

It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

They obviously are implied by the nature of driving.

Which all seem, to me, like signs that could exist somewhere. The MUTCD tends to approach things "nanny" style, where signs will read things that are already law.

Two that come to mind are "STOP HERE ON RED" when there's nothing unusual going on, or a sign saying "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" when it's a two-way to two-way street and turning on red would be illegal anyways. There are far more examples, but I usually don't see them too often here in WA (thankfully).

There's some legalize behind that signage. Traditionally, a green ball allows traffic to move in any direction when safe to do so. In some states, the law may actually be vague or non-existant about a red arrow. So, the regulatory sign clarifies that you can only turn left when there's a green arrow.  While it seems like common sense to most people to not turn on a red arrow, actual laws can be picked apart to find some loopholes.

In some states with more "liberal" left turn on red laws, you sometimes see "no turn on red" when, in most states, it would be plainly illegal to turn anyways. 1st & University is a great example in downtown Seattle (LTOR from two-way to one-way).

I'm personally not keen on "on green arrow only" signs because it fails to account for those turning on yellow; in some states (WA for instance), yellow is legally related to green (permissive yellow) rather than red (restrictive yellow), so you can still continue turning on a solid yellow arrow.

[GaryV]

arguing about the most stupidest shit that hundreds of millions of travelers have encountered every day for 60 years

You just described 44% of the threads on this forum.

I will argue that point.  It's more like 47%.

[jeffandnicole]

It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

They obviously are implied by the nature of driving.

Which all seem, to me, like signs that could exist somewhere. The MUTCD tends to approach things "nanny" style, where signs will read things that are already law.

Two that come to mind are "STOP HERE ON RED" when there's nothing unusual going on, or a sign saying "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" when it's a two-way to two-way street and turning on red would be illegal anyways. There are far more examples, but I usually don't see them too often here in WA (thankfully).

There's some legalize behind that signage. Traditionally, a green ball allows traffic to move in any direction when safe to do so. In some states, the law may actually be vague or non-existant about a red arrow. So, the regulatory sign clarifies that you can only turn left when there's a green arrow.  While it seems like common sense to most people to not turn on a red arrow, actual laws can be picked apart to find some loopholes.

In some states with more "liberal" left turn on red laws, you sometimes see "no turn on red" when, in most states, it would be plainly illegal to turn anyways. 1st & University is a great example in downtown Seattle (LTOR from two-way to one-way).

I'm personally not keen on "on green arrow only" signs because it fails to account for those turning on yellow; in some states (WA for instance), yellow is legally related to green (permissive yellow) rather than red (restrictive yellow), so you can still continue turning on a solid yellow arrow.

Permissive...but not required. It's perfectly legal to stop at a yellow arrow/light.

[RobbieL2415]

IMO we need better warning signs for merging. More specifically, we need warning signs that tell drivers that the need to use the full potential of the merge and that they need to merge at the speed limit.

Even text warning signs that say "Follow lane to end", "Must merge at speed limit" or some verbiage like that.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when drivers just bumble on at 40mph and THEN speed up once they're on the freeway. The on-ramp and the merge area, assuming they're properly designed, are designed to allow you to be up to the speed limit BEFORE you enter the thru lane. And if you're going to bumble on at 40mph, then you need to use the full potential of the merge to allow traffic enough time to either slow down or change lanes.

So, where I merge onto Kellogg here this afternoon, and traffic in the right lane is going 40 mph with their brake lights on (probably due to weaving traffic at this interchange, I should still just go ahead and merge in at 60 mph?  And ram into the first car I come to?  Sorry, but I prefer to actually match the speed of traffic, NOT a number on a sign.  Which means that I usually aim for 10 mph under the speed limit.

You would approach at the speed of traffic and merge using the entire merge area, i.e. a zipper merge.

That's my point.  The speed of traffic is lower than the speed limit more often than not in the location I posted.  So don't erect a sign telling people to merge at the speed limit.

Oh hey, look...

Speed limit = 60 mph

I merged in at around 42 mph, and I still had to step on the brakes.  Good thing there weren't any signs on the ramp encouraging me to merge at the speed limit.

Then it should hypothetically say "at speed limit or speed of traffic."

[RobbieL2415]

^^ Then there is on freeways and expressways:
or
yet there is left-lane camping.

Why don't they use more imperative language?

"Slow traffic MUST keep right"
"Left lane ONLY for passing"
"DO NOT merge slower than traffic"
"<-MUST begin merge here"

[jakeroot]

Why don't they use more imperative language?
...
"Left lane ONLY for passing"

I believe Texas uses this exact phrasing.

I think it does depend on state law.

[stevashe]

It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

They obviously are implied by the nature of driving.

Which all seem, to me, like signs that could exist somewhere. The MUTCD tends to approach things "nanny" style, where signs will read things that are already law.

Two that come to mind are "STOP HERE ON RED" when there's nothing unusual going on, or a sign saying "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" when it's a two-way to two-way street and turning on red would be illegal anyways. There are far more examples, but I usually don't see them too often here in WA (thankfully).

You say that Jake, but I recently found this gem in Bothell, WA...

[CoreySamson]

"Left lane ONLY for passing"

I believe Texas uses this exact phrasing.

Almost. The exact phrasing is "Left Lane For Passing Only"
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.1750212,-95.453025,3a,22.8y,21.17h,89.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLnODfydRSE8AVu5oUI3SYA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[JoePCool14]

You say that Jake, but I recently found this gem in Bothell, WA...

Which sign do I have to comply with though? And what if I don't comply with the sign that says to comply?

[Mr. Matté]

You say that Jake, but I recently found this gem in Bothell, WA...

Which sign do I have to comply with though? And what if I don't comply with the sign that says to comply?

[kphoger]

Interstate highways have existed for 60 years. You're arguing about the most stupidest shit that hundreds of millions of travelers have encountered every day for 60 years.

/short rant

It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

"NO MALTRATE LOS SEÃ'ALES"

Funny you should mention Mexico.  The current manual states that such signs must be removed by the highway authority.  That doesn't mean the signs aren't still standing, of course, but at least the SCT officially recognizes the pointlessness of them.

I.  Generalidades del señalamiento

I.6.5. Señales no necesarias

Las señales que no cumplan el propósito de trasmitir claramente un mensaje relevante para el usuario de las carreteras y vialidades urbanas, o no sean necesarios para la correcta operación del flujo vehicular por ubicarse inadecuadamente, ser de un tipo no requerido o que su uso sea inapropiado, tienen que ser retiradas. En la Figura I-3. se muestran señales restrictivas y preventivas que por costumbre se han instalado en la
red carretera aun cuando son innecesarias, ya que su uso indica claramente que sólo se colocan cuando la altura libre vertical sea menor de 5.00 m.

Únicamente la autoridad responsable de la carretera o vialidad urbana puede remover las señales innecesarias, cuando así lo juzgue conveniente

My translation of the above "unnecessary recommendation informative signs":

Do not leave rocks on pavement
Respect signs
Do not pass on shoulder
Do not drive drowsy
Keep your distance
Dim headlights
Choose appropriate lane
Obey signs
Close [muffler bypass] valve
Keep right
Not a high-speed road
Do not damage signs
Do not drive drunk
Muffler required
Do not throw trash
Trucks entering and exiting __ meters
Right lane for passing only

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

Do not damage signs

You gotta be kidding me... that sign is just begging for vandalism! Lol

[Scott5114]

"Maltrate" also translates to "mistreat" or "abuse", according to Google Translate. Which would certainly be a funnier, if not as accurate, translation.

[interstatefan990]

"Maltrate" also translates to "mistreat" or "abuse", according to Google Translate. Which would certainly be a funnier, if not as accurate, translation.

Always make sure to feed your sign, play with it, and take it for walks! 

[jakeroot]

You say that Jake, but I recently found this gem in Bothell, WA...

That is the most nanny thing I think I've ever seen in WA. Certainly one of the most bizarre things, too.

[CtrlAltDel]

My translation of the above "unnecessary recommendation informative signs":

Do not leave rocks on pavement
Respect signs
Do not pass on shoulder
Do not drive drowsy
Keep your distance
Dim headlights
Choose appropriate lane
Obey signs
Close [muffler bypass] valve
Keep right
Not a high-speed road
Do not damage signs
Do not drive drunk
Muffler required
Do not throw trash
Trucks entering and exiting __ meters
Right lane for passing only

Is this last one right?

[Scott5114]

I think he meant "left". "Derecho" is "right", if I'm remembering correctly.