Overkill in Road Sign Use

[roadman65]

Recently someone submitted a photo to another thread that was noticed by another user as having a record in number of sign panels in one place.

That gave me the idea of how I see a lot of places where there are just too many road signs for the driver to comprehend and yet are placed in places.

Example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/5043752272/in/photostream/
This is on the infamous Ross Clark Circle, a 13 mile at grade beltway, around Dothan, AL that carries all three US Route designations in its complete loop to bypass its city center.  Then you have the old routes through town and its business routes added more shields as well as supplementary signage as well.

Anyone have photos or would like to share cases of where you might think one intersection or place has just too many signs whether needed or not needed?

[Central Avenue]

Not quite as extreme, but this strikes me as something of an information overload.



(OH 73 was moved onto a bypass after the photo was taken, so those might be gone now, but I can't imagine much else has changed.)

[Takumi]

No, seriously, left turn must yield on green ball. VA 144 at I-95.

[cpzilliacus]

I-66 eastbound in Fairfax County, Virginia, between Va. 243 (Nutley Street) and I-495 qualifies.

Mostly because of the HOV restrictions that apply to all traffic east of I-495, with more signs recently added for the I-495 Express Toll Lanes.

[Central Avenue]

No, seriously, left turn must yield on green ball. VA 144 at I-95.

On a similar note: Tired of people ignoring your first sign? Just put up 3 more!



(OH 16 in Columbus, Ohio)

[Alps]

Context intentionally deleted; provided on this page.

[Central Avenue]

If I had to guess the context without clicking through to the page, I would guess that an idiot used curve warning signs in place of chevrons.

[vtk]

So is this basically a new Sine Salad thread?

Here's one I encountered recently: Sine Salad in Rushville, IN.  It seemed worse when I drove through the other day.

Here's one from Columbus that could reasonably be helped by employing Sign Spreading: Too Many Guide Signs in Columbus

[Central Avenue]

Here's one from Columbus that could reasonably be helped by employing Sign Spreading: Too Many Guide Signs in Columbus

The thing that annoyed me most about this (though I assume it will be or already has been changed) was that exit 5C suddenly became exit 5B further on.

[vtk]

Well right now it's 5C which becomes an unnumbered exit.  When they open the new I-670 EB flyover, they'll have to rearrange that display, so it will probably match the actual exit – which I suspect will just be exit 5.

[Alps]

So is this basically a new Sine Salad thread?

Not hardly. Sine Salads may have a number of signs, but usually they're all necessary for route directions (let's pardon GA's overlap routes for this, shall we?). This is for superfluous repetition.

[vtk]

Thanks for the clarification.

[1995hoo]

I think the signs have been revised, but I always thought the overhead huge BGS pull-throughs on the southbound Delaware Turnpike were massive overkill. Not because they provided too much info or were unclear–they weren't. They were very easy to follow. They just had way too many of them!

cpzilliacus is dead-on about all the signs on I-66. Out-of-area drivers are known to become bewildered by all the black-on-white notices through there.

[roadman]

Two of my pet peeves regarding sign "clutter" and overuse:

New signs are almost always placed on separate posts, even if they could be mounted with existing signs (for example, no parking signs with speed limit signs - or street name signs with stop signs).

Mounting of signs that aren't applicable to the situation.  I often see "Left Turn Yield On Green (ball)" signs mounted with three section signals where there isn't a protected/permissive left turn phase - and in some cases, not even a dedicated left turn lane.  One case near my house has been in place since the signal was installed ten years ago.

[Scott5114]

Wait, if I'm not misunderstanding, that is applicable–if there's not a dedicated left turn lane, or a protected phase, then by definition it's always a permissive left...which (unless you live in FYA-land) is signaled with...a green ball. So the sign applies. The only case it wouldn't be is if there was a FYA (in which case the sign should be switched to "Left Turn Yield On Flashing (<-)") or if there was a protected left with no possibility of a permissive cycle (in which case it should be a "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" sign or "(left arrow) ONLY").

[codyg1985]

Alabama is notorious for this. Here is a sign assembly in Hamilton, AL involving three US routes (one of which no longer goes through the intersection anymore) and two state routes (one is hidden at this intersection).

Here is another in Natural Bridge, AL at the northern terminus of AL 5.

[roadman]

Wait, if I'm not misunderstanding, that is applicable–if there's not a dedicated left turn lane, or a protected phase, then by definition it's always a permissive left...which (unless you live in FYA-land) is signaled with...a green ball. So the sign applies. The only case it wouldn't be is if there was a FYA (in which case the sign should be switched to "Left Turn Yield On Flashing (<-)") or if there was a protected left with no possibility of a permissive cycle (in which case it should be a "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" sign or "(left arrow) ONLY").

Point taken.  However, the problem I have with this is that some drivers seeing the "Left Turn Yield on Green Ball" sign might think there is a protected phase for the left turn - even if there's only three-section heads.

Now, if it was standard practice to install such signs at all signalized left turns (which defeats the purpose of the sign - to inform drivers of protected/permissive phasing), then there probably wouldn't be an issue.  However, placing such signs at locations where they're not applicable violates a basic principle of traffic control - that of expectancy.  Imagine an unfamiliar driver at such an intersection - instead of taking advantage of gaps in opposing traffic, they may sit in the lane waiting for a protected phase that will never come.  While they'd probably figure it out within two or three cycles, it still backs up traffic.

And, apparently many drivers don't have an understanding of the rules at protected/permissive intersections - which is why we now have the flashing yellow arrow.

[roadfro]

Point taken.  However, the problem I have with this is that some drivers seeing the "Left Turn Yield on Green Ball" sign might think there is a protected phase for the left turn - even if there's only three-section heads.

Now, if it was standard practice to install such signs at all signalized left turns (which defeats the purpose of the sign - to inform drivers of protected/permissive phasing), then there probably wouldn't be an issue.  However, placing such signs at locations where they're not applicable violates a basic principle of traffic control - that of expectancy.  Imagine an unfamiliar driver at such an intersection - instead of taking advantage of gaps in opposing traffic, they may sit in the lane waiting for a protected phase that will never come.  While they'd probably figure it out within two or three cycles, it still backs up traffic.

The purpose of the sign is to remind drivers of the *permissive* nature of making left turns, not to imply protected/permitted phasing. If the sign were to advise drivers of PPLT phasing, I would think the signs would be worded differently.

I think the potential misunderstanding comes from the sign being used most often in conjunction with 5-section PPLT displays. I have seen the sign used a couple of times without PPLT phasing without drivers misunderstanding the meaning.

[Scott5114]

Yeah, here it's standard practice to include a Left Turn Yield on Green Ball sign in any sort of permissive situation. These are going away in Norman, however, due to Norman's aggressive uptake of the FYA.

[DaBigE]

I think there might be a crosswalk nearby, (or two or three): 



There was public outcry in a local paper, regarding the overabundance of the Ped Xing assemblies along this reconstructed stretch of highway near Port Washington, WI. Every crosswalk along this reconstructed corridor had the Ahead/Xing assemblies, and by no means are these crossings high volume nor unexpected. I've been told that since I snapped this photo, a few have been removed. 

[Scott5114]

Having the signs makes sense, especially in WI where the pavement markings may be obscured by snow. The real problem here is that there's too many crosswalks. Distance might be compressed by the camera, but in that photo it looks like there's not even 100 feet between the first two crosswalks there.

[DaBigE]

Having the signs makes sense, especially in WI where the pavement markings may be obscured by snow. The real problem here is that there's too many crosswalks. Distance might be compressed by the camera, but in that photo it looks like there's not even 100 feet between the first two crosswalks there.

While I agree about the potential for markings to be obscured by snow, I do not agree about using this assembly for every crossing in an urban area. The AHEAD assemblies are completely unnecessary. The actual crosswalks are at intersections, which, normally, would be expected in an urban location. According to a rough GoogleMap measurement, there's about 400-ft between the downstream crosswalks.

Had these been mid-block crossings, I would have no issue, as mid-block crossings are not typically expected.

[dfnva]

Point taken.  However, the problem I have with this is that some drivers seeing the "Left Turn Yield on Green Ball" sign might think there is a protected phase for the left turn - even if there's only three-section heads.

Now, if it was standard practice to install such signs at all signalized left turns (which defeats the purpose of the sign - to inform drivers of protected/permissive phasing), then there probably wouldn't be an issue.  However, placing such signs at locations where they're not applicable violates a basic principle of traffic control - that of expectancy.  Imagine an unfamiliar driver at such an intersection - instead of taking advantage of gaps in opposing traffic, they may sit in the lane waiting for a protected phase that will never come.  While they'd probably figure it out within two or three cycles, it still backs up traffic.

The purpose of the sign is to remind drivers of the *permissive* nature of making left turns, not to imply protected/permitted phasing. If the sign were to advise drivers of PPLT phasing, I would think the signs would be worded differently.

I think the potential misunderstanding comes from the sign being used most often in conjunction with 5-section PPLT displays. I have seen the sign used a couple of times without PPLT phasing without drivers misunderstanding the meaning.

I, honestly, don't understand the need for the "Left Turn Yield on Green" auxillary sign, even with protective/permissive signals (e.g. five-light doghouse or vertical style signals). Numerous states don't use them in such cases (South Dakota comes to mind). A green arrow symbolizes a protected left turn, a green ball does not. Anybody who passes a driving test should be able to figure that out.

[Central Avenue]

In Ohio, I've seen the "left turn yield on green" used in conjunction with permissive-only signals, at least in a few cases, when it's not immediately clear that there's conflicting traffic to yield to--for example, when two streets are offset slightly but signalized as a single intersection.

Of course, the city of Columbus seems to favor a simpler "yield on left turn" sign in those situations, presumably because it's pointless to specify "on green ball" when the ball is the only green indication.

[Billy F 1988]

No. Just no. What's worse than getting punched on the driver side going left unprotected? This isn't overkill. This one's just plum stupidity far beyond overkill.