This Lane MUST Turn Right/Left signs

[codyg1985]

A thought occurred to me while I was out to lunch today. Why is the "This lane MUST turn right/left" sign a regulatory sign? It is essentially warning you of a similar condition as a "merge left"
or "right lane ends" sign where you have to merge into the adjacent lane if you haven't done so already.  I could see it being so if the lane continued straight after the point at which you are supposed to turn right, but most of the time that isn't the case.

Also, I was thinking of a graphical depiction of this sign. Maybe two lanes separated by dashed lines with one straight up arrow in one and an arrow that turns for the lane that is turning right or left?

[DaBigE]

Also, I was thinking of a graphical depiction of this sign. Maybe two lanes separated by dashed lines with one straight up arrow in one and an arrow that turns for the lane that is turning right or left?

They already do...see the R3-8 series of signs (page 60 of the 2009 MUTCD). Some places use these signs interchangeably when a "Must Turn" (R3-7) sign could also be used.

[codyg1985]

Also, I was thinking of a graphical depiction of this sign. Maybe two lanes separated by dashed lines with one straight up arrow in one and an arrow that turns for the lane that is turning right or left?

They already do...see the R3-8 series of signs (page 60 of the 2009 MUTCD). Some places use these signs interchangeably when a "Must Turn" (R3-7) sign could also be used.

It would be nice if R3-8 would be used more since it allows you to recognize quicker which lane drops instead of having to read the sign more carefully. I haven't seen it used much at all.

[Brian556]

This gets into the area of the MUTCD that I think needs a major overhaul.

The "THRU TRAFFIC MERGE LEFT" (Or RIGHT) is a yellow diamond that is sometimes used when a thru lane becomes a turn lane. I think that the MUTCD needs to be changed to make this sign mandatory.

My logic is as follows: When a lane ends, a yellow warning sign is used. When a lane becames a turn lane, it is also ending, and therefore should also get a yellow warning sign.

I also don't like that the RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT (or LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT ) signs can be used for thru lanes becoming turn lanes or for turn bays.

I think that the MUTCD needs to clamp down on inconsistant signage of bays.
I think short to normal-length bays should have no signage at all.
I think that if a turn lane (usually at a major intersection) is very long, it should be signed with a new type of graphic turn only sign that shows that it is a bay.

I think that the multi-lane diagram signs should have to indicate if one of the lanes depicted is a bay by showing the edge of the bay.

[Milepost61]

I like the idea of the R3-20 signs (new as of the 2009 MUTCD) that can be put at the turn lane tapers. There should be wording in the MUTCD that those and should be used and not the R3-7 when there is a distinct turn bay.

I'm not convinced the R3-7 is even a good sign to begin with, it's too wordy and you can't usually tell whether it's saying left or right until you're passing it.

[Scott5114]

Why is the standard DEAD END sign a warning diamond? It is normally not really a dangerous condition, more of a "If you go down this street you are not going to be able to continue, so don't come down here unless your destination is down here." NO OUTLET is even more of a "convenience info, but not really a warning" sign.

[NE2]

Why is REDUCE(D) SPEED AHEAD white but the equivalent symbol yellow?

Why do we drive through parkways on driveways?

[codyg1985]

This gets into the area of the MUTCD that I think needs a major overhaul.

The "THRU TRAFFIC MERGE LEFT" (Or RIGHT) is a yellow diamond that is sometimes used when a thru lane becomes a turn lane. I think that the MUTCD needs to be changed to make this sign mandatory.

My logic is as follows: When a lane ends, a yellow warning sign is used. When a lane becames a turn lane, it is also ending, and therefore should also get a yellow warning sign.

That's my question; why is one regulatory while the other is a warning? It is essentially the same condition. Either make them both yellow warning signs or both regulatory signs. I think both would fit better as regulatory signs, IMO.

I like the idea of the R3-20 signs (new as of the 2009 MUTCD) that can be put at the turn lane tapers. There should be wording in the MUTCD that those and should be used and not the R3-7 when there is a distinct turn bay.

When I see a R3-7 at a turn bay I think to myself "Of course it is supposed to turn left or right. Why is the sign there?"

I'm not convinced the R3-7 is even a good sign to begin with, it's too wordy and you can't usually tell whether it's saying left or right until you're passing it.

I completely agree. Symbols would work so much better, like with R3-8.

[kphoger]

This gets into the area of the MUTCD that I think needs a major overhaul.

The "THRU TRAFFIC MERGE LEFT" (Or RIGHT) is a yellow diamond that is sometimes used when a thru lane becomes a turn lane. I think that the MUTCD needs to be changed to make this sign mandatory.

My logic is as follows: When a lane ends, a yellow warning sign is used. When a lane becames a turn lane, it is also ending, and therefore should also get a yellow warning sign.

That's my question; why is one regulatory while the other is a warning? It is essentially the same condition. Either make them both yellow warning signs or both regulatory signs. I think both would fit better as regulatory signs, IMO.

I disagree:  I think the distinction is appropriate.  A W4 warning sign alerts a driver that, if he stays in his lane, he is likely to physically run into another vehicle or off the road (a dangerous outcome) unless he starts planning how to merge into the adjacent lane.  An R3 regulatory sign alerts a driver that, if he stays in his lane, he will be required to turn (not a dangerous outcome) unless he starts planning how to merge into the adjacent lane.  One results in a wreck, the other results in being on a different street.

My logic is as follows: When a lane ends, a yellow warning sign is used. When a lane becames a turn lane, it is also ending, and therefore should also get a yellow warning sign.

But it isn't ending, it's just turning.  As I said above, what's the worst that will happen if you can't merge out of it?  You'll just end up on a different street, maybe have to go around the block.

Why is the standard DEAD END sign a warning diamond? It is normally not really a dangerous condition, more of a "If you go down this street you are not going to be able to continue, so don't come down here unless your destination is down here." NO OUTLET is even more of a "convenience info, but not really a warning" sign.

DEAD END may very well warn of a dangerous condition.  I spent my early childhood living at a dead end.  I remember one night, a driver didn't notice the DEAD END sign and drove full-speed into our yard.  I can't remember if he hit our tree, got stuck in the mud, or both.  At any rate, it was impossible to turn around at the end of our street without using someone's driveway (trespassing?).  Go fast enough, in fact, and you might end up in a creek.  Now, the MUTCD also allows DEAD END to be posted in advance of a cul-de-sac, which is more of a grey area.

NO OUTLET is even more of a grey area.  Aren't they usually posted in locations where you can't actually get back out of the neighborhood without having to use someone's driveway to turn around?  I thought they weren't typically used in situations where you can simply drive around the block and get back out.  If that's true, then it's just more of an advance warning than DEAD END.  However, the MUTCD doesn't specify it to that extent; it just says 'a road or road network from which there is no other exit'.  Either way, I still think of it more as a warning than I do R3-7 and -8–which basically just channelize traffic in the same way R3-5, -6, and -9 do.

Why is REDUCE(D) SPEED AHEAD white but the equivalent symbol yellow?

Haven't we had this discussion before?  The only reasoning that makes sense to me is that the advance warning sign is to warn you of a condition that has warranted a regulatory speed reduction–which is to say, it's not actually warning you about the lower speed limit, but rather the condition (whatever it may be) that necessitates it.

Why do we drive through parkways on driveways?

Oh, heck, I know we've had this discussion before.  Because parkways typically/historically have landscaped medians (parks); and driveways are how one drives to the building from the main road–the distance between which may range from a few feet to a good mile, depending on the location.

[J N Winkler]

At any rate, it was impossible to turn around at the end of our street without using someone's driveway (trespassing?).

I don't think that is actually true, at least in residential subdivisions in Wichita.  The grassy strip between the sidewalk and the curb is considered part of the public right-of-way (this is the reason you are not allowed to post campaign signs there), as is the sidewalk itself.  I don't know if this is actually done through public ownership of the land or through a public easement on your private property that begins at the back of the curb, but for purposes of public travel the distinction is immaterial.  A person who uses your driveway to turn around is not trespassing on your property unless he or she goes beyond the houseward side of the sidewalk cut-out.  Similarly, a person who uses the sidewalk to cross your property is not trespassing.  When I leave the sidewalk for the street to avoid people who are doing stuff in their front yard, it is because I don't want to risk invading their personal space bubbles, not because I am in doubt as to my legal position.

As an aside, calling this grassy strip "parking" is unique to Wichita.  This finding comes from a sociolinguistics study which was carried out in the late 1960's by one of my mother's teaching colleagues at Wichita State University.

NO OUTLET is even more of a grey area.  Aren't they usually posted in locations where you can't actually get back out of the neighborhood without having to use someone's driveway to turn around?  I thought they weren't typically used in situations where you can simply drive around the block and get back out.

"NO OUTLET" means there is no exit from the subdivision other than by the road you used to enter.  It does not necessarily mean that exit is impossible without doing a driveway turn-around; you could equally well do a three-point turn (which keeps you within the street and thus on the part of the right-of-way that is actually in public ownership, but is more likely to obstruct traffic), use a turning circle at the end of a cul-de-sac (ditto, except you are less likely to be an obstruction), or you can circle a block within the subdivision.  The elasticity in usage comes from how subdivision is defined (I believe the MUTCD leaves it undefined).  In my experience in Wichita, it is more likely to be used in one of two contexts:  as advance warning of a "DEAD END" condition further down the road, or at the turnoff from an arterial road into a post-1980 subdivision which has no other connection to the arterial road network.

[theline]

As an aside, calling this grassy strip "parking" is unique to Wichita.  This finding comes from a sociolinguistics study which was carried out in the late 1960's by one of my mother's teaching colleagues at Wichita State University..

The grassy strip between the sidewalk and street is called "tree lawn" in Indiana, I suppose because the propensity to plant trees there.

"NO OUTLET" means there is no exit from the subdivision other than by the road you used to enter.  It does not necessarily mean that exit is impossible without doing a driveway turn-around; you could equally well do a three-point turn (which keeps you within the street and thus on the part of the right-of-way that is actually in public ownership, but is more likely to obstruct traffic), use a turning circle at the end of a cul-de-sac (ditto, except you are less likely to be an obstruction), or you can circle a block within the subdivision.  The elasticity in usage comes from how subdivision is defined (I believe the MUTCD leaves it undefined).  In my experience in Wichita, it is more likely to be used in one of two contexts:  as advance warning of a "DEAD END" condition further down the road, or at the turnoff from an arterial road into a post-1980 subdivision which has no other connection to the arterial road network.

This description of "NO OUTLET" conforms perfectly with what I've observed, and often quite different from "DEAD END." The latter means the street is ending, usually within a block and without easy opportunity to turn around.

[MVHighways]

Why do we drive through parkways on driveways?

Wondering that too. We park on driveways, drive on parkways. "Parkways" for driving CAN be a suitable name when they become parking lots during rush hour.

[NE2]

Sigh. Parkways/driveways is a cliche, not an actual discussion point.

[Alps]

Sigh. Parkways/driveways is a cliche, not an actual discussion point.

And it's easily answerable. Parkway is so named because it goes through a park. Driveway is so named because it's the only part of the property you can drive on.

[NE2]

Yes, and in old times a parkway was a linear park, and the part of the parkway that you could drive on was a driveway.

[Alps]

Yes, and in old times a parkway was a linear park, and the part of the parkway that you could drive on was a driveway.

Harlem River Driveway is about the only remnant name left, at least the only one I know of. Are there any Parkways left that are linear parks?

[NE2]

Are there any Parkways left that are linear parks?

Portland's Reed College Parkway is apparently the median of Reed College Place.

[edit]DC has Beach Parkway along Penwick Branch (of Rock Creek), bounded by West Beach Drive and East Beach Drive. Other candidates in DC include Shepherd Parkway, Glover Parkway, Whitehaven Parkway, and Potomac Palisades Parkway.

Incidentally, there are 'no parking on pavement or parkway' signs on some Orlando roads. Parkway there refers to the grassy shoulder.

[kphoger]

At any rate, it was impossible to turn around at the end of our street without using someone's driveway (trespassing?).

I don't think that is actually true, at least in residential subdivisions in Wichita.  The grassy strip between the sidewalk and the curb is considered part of the public right-of-way

A moot point, since this was in Will County, Illinois, and our street had no sidewalks.  I wonder what constitutes trespassing (which, when you get down to it, is really only trespassing if there are fences and signs, right?) in the absence of sidewalks.

As an aside, calling this grassy strip "parking" is unique to Wichita.  This finding comes from a sociolinguistics study which was carried out in the late 1960's by one of my mother's teaching colleagues at Wichita State University.

Interesting.  I'd never heard it called 'parking' before.  I've even had one or two discussions about what to call that strip with people from Wichita, and no one ever suggested calling it 'parking'.  Most people just say they don't know what to call it at all.  'Tree lawn' and 'boulevard strip' are some common names in various places.  I've found that most people understand what I mean by 'tree lawn', even if they've never heard the term before–especially since it's usually in context.  I imagine most people would be puzzled by calling it the 'parking', even native Wichitans.

Anywhooooooooo.........

I was thinking about this topic today, as I noticed a THIS LANE MUST TURN RIGHT sign directly across the street for a sign with two left-turn arrows (dual left-turn lanes).  While I do find the arrows easier to process at a glance, I do wish they always came with the supplemental plaques that say RIGHT LANE or LEFT 2 LANES or whatever.

[J N Winkler]

A moot point, since this was in Will County, Illinois, and our street had no sidewalks.  I wonder what constitutes trespassing (which, when you get down to it, is really only trespassing if there are fences and signs, right?) in the absence of sidewalks.

I believe that, as a general rule, the easement exists even if the sidewalks are not actually constructed.  In Wichita driveways have sidewalk cut-outs even if sidewalks are not provided.  In my subdivision some streets (like mine) have full sidewalks, while others have discontinuous sidewalks, and still others have no sidewalks at all, but every street that has finished curbs has sidewalk cut-outs and driveway aprons which are required to conform to one of three standard designs published by the City of Wichita.

In regard to trespass, it is a tort, and is actionable per se with certain exceptions (which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) for conduct considered not voluntary, intentional, or negligent.  Trespass also applies to easements:  a landowner can prevent you from walking on his property but cannot block a sidewalk which crosses that property.

A more important point in regard to driveway turnarounds is de minimis non curat lex ("the law does not bother with trivia").  A lawsuit will never be the first answer to anything, especially without the ability to claim more than actual damages.  Generally it is curative if you heed a no-trespassing sign, or leave (not having caused damage) when you are told you are trespassing and are asked to leave.

As an aside, calling this grassy strip "parking" is unique to Wichita.  This finding comes from a sociolinguistics study which was carried out in the late 1960's by one of my mother's teaching colleagues at Wichita State University.

Interesting.  I'd never heard it called 'parking' before.  I've even had one or two discussions about what to call that strip with people from Wichita, and no one ever suggested calling it 'parking'.  Most people just say they don't know what to call it at all.  'Tree lawn' and 'boulevard strip' are some common names in various places.  I've found that most people understand what I mean by 'tree lawn', even if they've never heard the term before–especially since it's usually in context.  I imagine most people would be puzzled by calling it the 'parking', even native Wichitans.

I know at least one native Wichitan of my parent's generation who calls it "the parking" without prompting.  The phrase "tree lawn" might cause difficulty in newer subdivisions because trees are much less likely to be planted there, I think because it is now the preferred location for sewer lines.  In my part of town (northwest Wichita), the only neighborhood that reliably has trees in the parking is Riverside (built 1920's)--on my side of the street I think at most one house in eight has trees there.

[NE2]

"Grassy shoulder" seems unambiguous if there's no curb.

[kphoger]

For what it's worth, here's the house I grew up in as a young whippersnapper (last house on the left):  http://goo.gl/maps/UDpUL
Ain't no hard curbs or sidewalk cut-outs there.

But all this is tangential to the topic of warning sign versus regulatory sign.  I maintain that a lane that actually disappears (merge) should prompt a warning sign, whereas a lane that simply makes a turn (this lane must...) should not.

[J N Winkler]

Streets like this (in my subdivision) have no clear delimitation of public and private areas:

Chip-sealed street with swales instead of finished curbs and closed drainage

I believe it is the case in Wichita that developers are no longer permitted to provide gravel roads in their subdivisions.  I suspect it is still permitted, however, in unincorporated Sedgwick County under certain circumstances, and subdivisions with gravel roads can be added to Wichita through annexation.  This street is no longer gravel but I am sure it was gravel at one point because the existing surfacing is a chip seal rather than a full structural section.

In Wichita at present, a gravel road inside a subdivision will not be paved unless a set percentage of the frontagers sign a paving petition, which obligates them to pay a share of the cost of paving which I believe is calculated on the basis of linear feet of frontage.  At present the City of Wichita puts in a full structural section (with grading, full structural pavement section, curbs, and closed drainage) when a street is paved in response to a paving petition, so I am not quite sure why this road (and certain other roads in my subdivision) received a chip seal instead--possibly chip-sealing was available for a while as a cheap option to encourage take-up of paving petitions.

[DaBigE]

This gets into the area of the MUTCD that I think needs a major overhaul.

The "THRU TRAFFIC MERGE LEFT" (Or RIGHT) is a yellow diamond that is sometimes used when a thru lane becomes a turn lane. I think that the MUTCD needs to be changed to make this sign mandatory.

My logic is as follows: When a lane ends, a yellow warning sign is used. When a lane becames a turn lane, it is also ending, and therefore should also get a yellow warning sign.

That's my question; why is one regulatory while the other is a warning? It is essentially the same condition. Either make them both yellow warning signs or both regulatory signs. I think both would fit better as regulatory signs, IMO.

I disagree:  I think the distinction is appropriate.  A W4 warning sign alerts a driver that, if he stays in his lane, he is likely to physically run into another vehicle or off the road (a dangerous outcome) unless he starts planning how to merge into the adjacent lane.  An R3 regulatory sign alerts a driver that, if he stays in his lane, he will be required to turn (not a dangerous outcome) unless he starts planning how to merge into the adjacent lane.  One results in a wreck, the other results in being on a different street.

My logic is as follows: When a lane ends, a yellow warning sign is used. When a lane becames a turn lane, it is also ending, and therefore should also get a yellow warning sign.

But it isn't ending, it's just turning.  As I said above, what's the worst that will happen if you can't merge out of it?  You'll just end up on a different street, maybe have to go around the block.

Why is the standard DEAD END sign a warning diamond? It is normally not really a dangerous condition, more of a "If you go down this street you are not going to be able to continue, so don't come down here unless your destination is down here." NO OUTLET is even more of a "convenience info, but not really a warning" sign.

DEAD END may very well warn of a dangerous condition.  I spent my early childhood living at a dead end.  I remember one night, a driver didn't notice the DEAD END sign and drove full-speed into our yard.  I can't remember if he hit our tree, got stuck in the mud, or both.  At any rate, it was impossible to turn around at the end of our street without using someone's driveway (trespassing?).  Go fast enough, in fact, and you might end up in a creek.  Now, the MUTCD also allows DEAD END to be posted in advance of a cul-de-sac, which is more of a grey area.

NO OUTLET is even more of a grey area.  Aren't they usually posted in locations where you can't actually get back out of the neighborhood without having to use someone's driveway to turn around?  I thought they weren't typically used in situations where you can simply drive around the block and get back out.  If that's true, then it's just more of an advance warning than DEAD END.  However, the MUTCD doesn't specify it to that extent; it just says 'a road or road network from which there is no other exit'.  Either way, I still think of it more as a warning than I do R3-7 and -8—which basically just channelize traffic in the same way R3-5, -6, and -9 do.

I maintain that a lane that actually disappears (merge) should prompt a warning sign, whereas a lane that simply makes a turn (this lane must...) should not.

I completely agree.