MUTCD gripes

[Duke87]

Your idea for #2 has the potential to be mistaken for exit only panels. I'd just go with the "left" to the left of "exit" in a left-aligned tab--this puts the yellow in a better position to be interpreted at a glance as a left exit instead of an exit only situation.

Hmm... interesting point. I'd never make that mistake since there is a clear difference to me between one patch of yellow and yellow stretching all the way across the bottom. But other drivers might not be so sharp.

Speaking of mistaking for exit only, somebody tell PennDOT to stop putting "THIS LANE" or whatever text other than "EXIT ONLY" into full width yellow on the bottom of the sign. It's confusing.

[OracleUsr]

The new black-on-yellow "LEFT" above the "EXIT xxx" requirement is, IMHO, not only asinine, but wasteful.

Wife and I took a trip into downtown Chicago on I-290, where all the signage from I-88 to I-90/94 is Clearview and using the newest specs (although I can't recall if there are the arrow-per-lane diagrammatics).

For the left exits of IL-43/Harlem Ave and Austin Avenue, the addition of the "LEFT" above the "EXIT xxx" results in a huge amount of open green space on the right-hand side of the sign. Not only that, but for whatever reason, they couldn't make the IL-43 BGS tall enough, resulting in the route shield, the "Harlem Ave" text, and the "x MILE" test are all compressed vertically together. It looks bad - very bad. The Austin Ave BGS isn't as bad, but is about twice as tall as it needs to be.

I have other gripes - but they are more I think against how IDOT (or whoever is contracted) does the signs and not the MUTCD spec.

NC loves to forget that little thing about the highlighted LEFT part.  It makes the sign look top heavy and serves no purpose.

In Greensboro, approaching the split of Business I-85 South from I-40 West (Exit 219), the big tab isn't even on the left side of the sign until you get to the actual junction.  Don't get me started on the barely-wider-than-the-wording tab sizes you see in Death Valley (I-40 between the US 29's). Especially when you consider the signs had been renumbered just a year prior to the upgrade, AND the shields on the advance guide sign for Exit 219 aren't even reflective. 

[Brandon]

since I am used to driving on the coasts, I tend to assume that if I am getting yellow, then opposite traffic is likely getting yellow as well... and therefore are flooring the shit out of it.  east and west coast drivers have never met a yellow light they didn't want to roar through at twice the speed limit.

The coasts aren't the only places like that.  The Midwest is as well.  Now, Michigan will commonly (but not always) have a green arrow to clear out the left turn lane after the through lanes have turned to red.  The opposite of most signals in Illinois that have the left turn before the through lanes go.

[roadfro]

If you have a lagging left trap, then IMO permissive left-turn signals shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise someone may pull into the intersection and think that both approaches are getting a red signal when it is only their approach getting the red.

It has been suggested to FHWA that configurations which allow the lagging left trap should be banned.  I believe I may even have called for it myself at some point.  But FHWA has said that, no, it is not going to take that flexibility away from signal designers.

It's for this reason why MUTCD went to FYA instead of the 5-section PPLT displays, as the FYA keeps the arrow flashing as the opposing through approach still has a green light.

Lead-lag PPLT would indeed take away flexibility from signal designers. The lagging left is a very crucial component to increasing bandwidth for two-way progression on arterials.

[averill]

My biggest problem with the MUTCD is twofold:
1 is not allowing the use of a single solid yellow line dividing traffic in opposite directions.  I have put in more than one request to the FHWA for official changes on this subject.  Especially on secondary streets both rural and urban, the use of a double yellow line is nothing but a waste of marking material.  I live on a street that gets less than 200 AADT, but have a double yellow line on it.  Many of my Canadian friends who live on the same types of street or rural highways have the single solid line with the same results.  Canada even reverts to single yellow from double when a major highway goes from a rural to more built-up setting.  Canada even uses single yellow solid dividing lines on their urban multi-lane major streets.

2 The US MUTCD should be advisory, not mandatory.  By Congress making the MUTCD regulatory by statute not only can the Federal Government blackmail the states and others to using only that exact standard, but it is a Tort Lawyers dream in suing any municipality (and now even private property owners) for anything that even looks it might not be in compliance.  This takes away from states and other municipalities from trying out new traffic control devices, and the new design of traffic control devices.  Again, in Canada their MUTCD is "advisory".  And while most of the provinces follow the spirit of their MUTCD, you much distinction from province to province, allowing each to develop and experiment with devices which they feel best meet their local needs without fear of a law suit by some "slip and fall ambulance chaser"

[NE2]

Especially on secondary streets both rural and urban, the use of a double yellow line is nothing but a waste of marking material.  I live on a street that gets less than 200 AADT, but have a double yellow line on it.

If traffic is so low, why is a painted centerline necessary at all?

[mightyace]

but it is a Tort Lawyers dream in suing any municipality (and now even private property owners) for anything that even looks it might not be in compliance. 

Wow, I didn't know that.  I assume that it's really for properties like shopping centers, office complexes, apartments, etc.

But, does that also mean I can get sued if I put up a sign on my property for the heck of it?  Now, I'm NOT talking about putting it out by the road where it could be confused for an official sign.

[Duke87]

1 is not allowing the use of a single solid yellow line dividing traffic in opposite directions.  I have put in more than one request to the FHWA for official changes on this subject.  Especially on secondary streets both rural and urban, the use of a double yellow line is nothing but a waste of marking material.  I live on a street that gets less than 200 AADT, but have a double yellow line on it.  Many of my Canadian friends who live on the same types of street or rural highways have the single solid line with the same results.  Canada even reverts to single yellow from double when a major highway goes from a rural to more built-up setting.  Canada even uses single yellow solid dividing lines on their urban multi-lane major streets.

Many municipalities in Connecticut use single yellow lines on narrow town-maintained streets (an example).

[Scott5114]

My biggest problem with the MUTCD is twofold:
1 is not allowing the use of a single solid yellow line dividing traffic in opposite directions.  I have put in more than one request to the FHWA for official changes on this subject.  Especially on secondary streets both rural and urban, the use of a double yellow line is nothing but a waste of marking material.  I live on a street that gets less than 200 AADT, but have a double yellow line on it.  Many of my Canadian friends who live on the same types of street or rural highways have the single solid line with the same results.  Canada even reverts to single yellow from double when a major highway goes from a rural to more built-up setting.  Canada even uses single yellow solid dividing lines on their urban multi-lane major streets.

What does a single yellow line mean though? It's

2 The US MUTCD should be advisory, not mandatory.  By Congress making the MUTCD regulatory by statute not only can the Federal Government blackmail the states and others to using only that exact standard, but it is a Tort Lawyers dream in suing any municipality (and now even private property owners) for anything that even looks it might not be in compliance.  This takes away from states and other municipalities from trying out new traffic control devices, and the new design of traffic control devices.  Again, in Canada their MUTCD is "advisory".  And while most of the provinces follow the spirit of their MUTCD, you much distinction from province to province, allowing each to develop and experiment with devices which they feel best meet their local needs without fear of a law suit by some "slip and fall ambulance chaser"

If some business has a 6" nonreflective stop sign in their parking lot, I can't see it, and am crashed into and break my clavicle, why shouldn't I be able to sue them? Because the MUTCD exists, the standard signs are easily obtainable, and the business is clearly negligent.

The FHWA does have an experimental device process that can be applied for by states with ideas. It allows governments the chance to try out new things in a controlled environment, and FHWA can look on and decide whether to roll it out nationally. Without the MUTCD if my town wanted to go crazy installing "experimental" lime green hexagonal stop signs there would be nothing keeping them from doing so.

[NE2]

What does a single yellow line mean though?

I'd interpret it as "stay to the right of this unless passing". In other words, the same as a dashed yellow line, but presumably more expensive to paint.

[agentsteel53]

I had always thought single yellow was the same as double yellow.

I have seen single yellow before, but they all appear to be in low-speed residential neighborhoods, in which suicide-passing seems to be an extraordinarily dumb maneuver: accelerating to such speeds that you're unlikely to react correctly to secondary hazards like crossing pedestrians and parked cars pulling out.

[NE2]

   4. Q: Why can't a single solid yellow center line be used on a city street or narrow roadway?

    A: Section 3B.01 prohibits the use of this marking on a two-way roadway. Even though this specific language was first added to the MUTCD with the 2009 edition, a single solid yellow center line has never been allowed since the 1971 edition of the MUTCD. The reason is that there is no defined meaning of such a line in terms of whether passing is allowed or prohibited in one or both directions. Also, the two-line system for center line markings is well established and clearly understood by road users. Using a single yellow center line would only save 8 inches in width compared to a double line and, even on narrow roads, this savings is not considered to be significant enough to warrant compromising the well-understood double-line system.

[agentsteel53]

If some business has a 6" nonreflective stop sign in their parking lot, I can't see it, and am crashed into and break my clavicle, why shouldn't I be able to sue them? Because the MUTCD exists, the standard signs are easily obtainable, and the business is clearly negligent.

I think, in this case, a reasonable compromise would be to enforce the MUTCD more rigorously for higher-criticality applications.  STOP signs should always be standard (red octagon, 24" or larger, appropriate reflectivity, etc etc) ... but why are we preventing states from using cutout route markers with non white/black color schemes?

California seems to be doing quite well holding on to the 1961 MUTCD for its route markers, and adding a nonstandard color scheme for state routes.  Other states have colored markers as well (South Carolina's blue text on white background comes to mind) and I think it would enhance the local character to have shields and guide signs be varied to local flavor, as is done in Canada.  (yes, that includes using white/black, black/white, blue/white, etc for guide signs.)

If someone gets a bit confused between "blue US-66" and "brown US-66" (to refer to a 1950s-60s Arizona standard, as an example), then it is quite likely not nearly as much trouble as someone missing an inadequate STOP sign - in fact, it is in my opinion so little trouble that the benefits outweigh the detriments and it should be allowed.

[hbelkins]

The US MUTCD should be advisory, not mandatory.

A-MEN!!!!!

[The High Plains Traveler]

The US MUTCD should be advisory, not mandatory.

A-MEN!!!!!

Just regular font here. Y'know, one advantage to being a geezer is some experience some of you might not have had. I guess I could cite the California road stripe markings I recall from my earliest years, all white, and, like its signage, differing from virtually every other state I visited with my family. The meaning was clear but there was no consistency.

But, I also think back to reading the venerable Readers Digest in the 1960s. Most of you probably don't know that it was a rabidly conservative magazine at that time. Nothing like what it is now. But, one of its uncharacteristic viewpoints was urging a strong consistency among states in road markings and signage. I remember several articles in this regard, with examples like one state that had flashing yellow lights that meant STOP, and another with its passing/no passing zones marked on the right shoulder rather than in the middle of the road. They might have mentioned the MUTCD but I don't remember.

Now, fast-forward to today and think about how much traffic control has evolved, even you guys in your 40s, while you've been driving. Roundabouts? Flashing yellow arrows? Now, what if Colorado was trying out this new-fangled flashing arrow but no other state was, and no entity was gathering data to determine if people could actually figure out what it means.

Sorry, but there's not much in the MUTCD that I could see as best being advisory. Like any federal rulemaking, it's subject to a notice and comment period, which at least gives the experts a chance to weigh in on proposals. We can gripe about the little stuff like requiring street signs with upper and lower case letters, but that's trivial compared to the importance of having consistent traffic markings and controls as you drive across this country.

[vtk]

Does the MUTCD explicitly prohibit nonuniform scaling of the standard alphabets? If not, it should.  There's a reason the font exists in a variety of widths, after all.

[Alps]

I think, in this case, a reasonable compromise would be to enforce the MUTCD more rigorously for higher-criticality applications.  STOP signs should always be standard (red octagon, 24" or larger, appropriate reflectivity, etc etc) ... but why are we preventing states from using cutout route markers with non white/black color schemes?

In the case of US Highway shields, it's because you're talking about a Federally designated route system, so the shields need to look the same across the country. State route markers can be any design and aren't limited to white/black by any means. (It's just easy to manufacture and lasts a long time.)

(yes, that includes using white/black, black/white, blue/white, etc for guide signs.)

Expectation. If I see a green sign, it's a guide sign. If I see blue, it's services. That's really damn convenient. If it varied state by state, I'd have to scan every sign for information until I picked up what all the colors mean. State borders would have noticeably higher accident rates.

[Alps]

Does the MUTCD explicitly prohibit nonuniform scaling of the standard alphabets? If not, it should.  There's a reason the font exists in a variety of widths, after all.

You mean stretching? Yes, it does prohibit the use of any font besides the approved font. Font includes typeface, proportions, and sizes.

[agentsteel53]

you do have a good point on the mnemonic meanings of the guide sign colors.  

how bad is the problem in Europe, where every country line requires a re-learning of the colors? - and, furthermore, has color-coded guide signs for various route classifications.  Denmark, for example, uses white signs with red legend for surface streets, and green signs with white legend for freeways.

in general, while I don't think the guide sign color-coding as done in Europe is particularly useful, I wouldn't mind color-coded shields for route classifications - at least, on a very coarse level: freeways a different color from surface streets.  

I definitely remember moving out to California in 2004, running low on gas, and thinking that if I got from I-5 to state route 4, I'd find a gas station at the corner.  Whoops, 4 is a freeway as well!  All right, how about state route 99?  ... goddamn it, yet another freeway.  If all the freeways were color-coded blue (with interstates remaining blue/red) we could add value for navigation effectiveness.

[J N Winkler]

you do have a good point on the mnemonic meanings of the guide sign colors. 

how bad is the problem in Europe, where every country line requires a re-learning of the colors? - and, furthermore, has color-coded guide signs for various route classifications.  Denmark, for example, uses white signs with red legend for surface streets, and green signs with white legend for freeways.

It is not quite true to say that every border introduces a color change.  GB-F-D, for example, is all motorway blue.  Looking at high-type non-motorway route colors only, GB-F is still one block while D entails a color transition.  Danish red on white is an outlier; other countries choose from a restricted menu of color combinations for non-motorways (black on yellow, white on green, white on blue, black on white), so the element of culture shock involved is not great.  I would also bet that transnational trips in Europe tend to be more thoroughly planned (with studies of maps, vagaries of signing and highway codes in foreign countries, etc.) than trips across state borders in the US, not just because there are different signing schemes and languages to consider, but also because fuel in Europe is generally so expensive that people try not to miss opportunities at arbitraging taxes (e.g., routing through Luxembourg so they can fill up there).

[Michael]

...not allowing the use of a single solid yellow line dividing traffic in opposite directions...

Back in the 90s (1998 I believe) the NYS Driver's Manual stated that a single solid yellow line meant "pass when it's safe to do so".  The only single solid yellow line I ever encountered was on Holmes Road north of Weedsport.  I can't remember when it was changed to the proper layout, but I'd say it's been at least 10-12 years.

[billpa]

If all the freeways were color-coded blue (with interstates remaining blue/red) we could add value for navigation effectiveness.

I've always thought it would be good to color code all non-interstate freeway route markers with red over blue like an interstate sign- whether a US or state shield I think it could be done- Minnesota might be a problem.

[Brian556]

If some business has a 6" nonreflective stop sign in their parking lot, I can't see it, and am crashed into and break my clavicle, why shouldn't I be able to sue them? Because the MUTCD exists, the standard signs are easily obtainable, and the business is clearly negligent.

I wish the cities would require proper basic traffic control in business parking lots. Nearby to me, one of them paints "STOP" on the pavement, but does not post stop signs.

Another huge shopping center parking lot does not have a STOP sign where it's main driveway intersects the street at a cross intersection.

The Golden Triangle Mall in Denton replaced it's fading eg reflective stop signs with new non-reflective models. Bloomin' idiots!

These property owners do not have the knowledge nessessary to implement and maintain proper traffic control on their properties. This is why the cities should enact ordinances requiring that when these larger parking lots are first built, the traffic control be designed by a quailfied engineer, and code enforcement should enforce proper maintenance. The cities bitch everytime somebody's grass is too high, yet they allow unsafe traffic conditions on private property. They only care about looks, not safety.

[Duke87]

I dunno about this particular example. "STOP" or at least "YIELD" at the end of any driveway is pretty well implied even if it isn't explicitly posted, and it is perfectly expected behavior. The alternative is turning out onto the street without checking to see if anyone's coming first. If you do that and get your clavicle crushed, it's your own damn fault.

[Bickendan]

No metric. Yes, I went there.