Overkill in Road Sign Use

[roadfro]

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.

That wording doesn't make sense. "Left turns yield" would be more clear...

Although I agree that the sign probably isn't even necessary at all...

[vtk]

It's necessary because at offset intersections, it may not be immediately obvious that there's any oncoming traffic at all.  You see the sign, you think "yield? To whom?" Then you look around and notice to the left or right where the 'oncoming' traffic comes in, and you know you have to yield to that stream, even though they'll look more like cross traffic by the time they get to the conflict point.

[Central Avenue]

It's necessary because at offset intersections, it may not be immediately obvious that there's any oncoming traffic at all.  You see the sign, you think "yield? To whom?" Then you look around and notice to the left or right where the 'oncoming' traffic comes in, and you know you have to yield to that stream, even though they'll look more like cross traffic by the time they get to the conflict point.

Exactly. Thank you.

I'm getting tired of this attitude that because a sign states what's usually obvious, there's never an application where it's appropriate.

[vtk]

On the other hand, I can't completely disagree witht the argument that an offset intersection is itself a really stupid idea.

I'm getting tired of this attitude that because a sign states what's usually obvious, there's never an application where it's appropriate.

Does an appropriate application exist for "do not stop on tracks"?

[Alps]

It's necessary because at offset intersections, it may not be immediately obvious that there's any oncoming traffic at all.  You see the sign, you think "yield? To whom?" Then you look around and notice to the left or right where the 'oncoming' traffic comes in, and you know you have to yield to that stream, even though they'll look more like cross traffic by the time they get to the conflict point.

Exactly. Thank you.

I'm getting tired of this attitude that because a sign states what's usually obvious, there's never an application where it's appropriate.

These signs are definitely overused. Most of the applications of a flashing yellow arrow are identical to the use of a green ball, which makes me smack my head. The FYA has application to a lagging left (Dallas phasing) and little else.

[Brandon]

It's necessary because at offset intersections, it may not be immediately obvious that there's any oncoming traffic at all.  You see the sign, you think "yield? To whom?" Then you look around and notice to the left or right where the 'oncoming' traffic comes in, and you know you have to yield to that stream, even though they'll look more like cross traffic by the time they get to the conflict point.

Exactly. Thank you.

I'm getting tired of this attitude that because a sign states what's usually obvious, there's never an application where it's appropriate.

These signs are definitely overused. Most of the applications of a flashing yellow arrow are identical to the use of a green ball, which makes me smack my head. The FYA has application to a lagging left (Dallas phasing) and little else.

Much agreed.  There is little wrong with the five lamp signals (tower or doghouse) when Dallas phasing isn't used.  Locally, I've identified a grand total of one intersection where a FYA would be a good addition: US-30 and IL-59 on the south side of Plainfield for the movement from SB IL-59 to EB US-30.

[Central Avenue]

These signs are definitely overused. Most of the applications of a flashing yellow arrow are identical to the use of a green ball, which makes me smack my head. The FYA has application to a lagging left (Dallas phasing) and little else.

...You lost me. Who said anything about FYA? I thought we were talking about poorly-designed offset intersections.

On the other hand, I can't completely disagree witht the argument that an offset intersection is itself a really stupid idea.

That's a good point, though most such intersections I see are in older neighborhoods (like Franklinton) and weren't exactly designed with traffic control in mind.

[Central Avenue]

Anyway, as for overkill:


Not the gantry in the foreground, but in the background: why do they need US 23 reassurance shields on both sides of the road?

There are also a number of these "US 30 LEFT LANE" assemblies through here, which strike me as redundant because the overhead signage seems sufficient:

[Alps]

These signs are definitely overused. Most of the applications of a flashing yellow arrow are identical to the use of a green ball, which makes me smack my head. The FYA has application to a lagging left (Dallas phasing) and little else.

...You lost me. Who said anything about FYA? I thought we were talking about poorly-designed offset intersections.

I got thinking about the "LEFT TURN YIELD ON ()" signs being used at every intersection, when it's perfectly obvious a green ball means yield, and my mind skipped about five steps to FYA. Sorry, my brain does that sometimes.

[Central Avenue]

That's okay, I kinda muddled my own point as well.

What I'm really trying to say is this: Just because the rule itself is perfectly obvious doesn't necessarily mean it's obvious which rule applies in a given situation. Everyone of course knows that a green ball means to yield to oncoming traffic, but where the layout of the intersection means it's not immediately clear that there is oncoming traffic to yield to, it makes sense to give some kind of reminder.

Not to say that the signs aren't massively overused, just that in some cases they do serve a purpose.

(And yes, ideally such intersections should be designed better, but there's only so much you can do when accounting for real-world factors.)

[MASTERNC]

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bridgeville,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.356089,-80.119193&spn=0.00077,0.001206&sll=41.117935,-77.604698&sspn=4.377622,9.876709&oq=Bridgevill&t=h&hnear=Bridgeville,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.356172,-80.119118&panoid=ec-UbyXzPJSzjw5lYnhsIg&cbp=12,76.86,,0,3.2

If you rotate around, you will see four "No Turn on Red" signs.

[roadfro]

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bridgeville,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.356089,-80.119193&spn=0.00077,0.001206&sll=41.117935,-77.604698&sspn=4.377622,9.876709&oq=Bridgevill&t=h&hnear=Bridgeville,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.356172,-80.119118&panoid=ec-UbyXzPJSzjw5lYnhsIg&cbp=12,76.86,,0,3.2

If you rotate around, you will see four "No Turn on Red" signs.

In this particular case, are the two "right turn signal" signs really needed? The signals are beyond the channelized turn, it seems obvious that these would apply to the right turn...although I suppose if they use the circular red then it *might* be more necessary.

[Central Avenue]

I'm not sure if this would strictly be "overkill", but...



There's not actually that much information on the sign, but the way it's laid out gives me feelings of "information overload" before I even read it.

[Alex]

One of six overheads for Exit 6 / Delaware 4/9 on Interstate 95 south in Wilmington. I grew up thinking sign overkill like this was the norm throughout the country, but later realized it was just a DelDOT thing...



There are five signs in a row for Exit 7 on northbound for Delaware 52, including a favorite of mine, this "reassurance" panel over the ramp itself.

[Central Avenue]

My favorite part has got to be where they have

RIGHT LANE
MUST EXIT

Where a simple "EXIT ONLY" would have sufficed.

[hbelkins]

Like that California example posted elsewhere, there's that use of Junction as a control city again!

[ctsignguy]

I'm not sure if this would strictly be "overkill", but...



There's not actually that much information on the sign, but the way it's laid out gives me feelings of "information overload" before I even read it.

A perfect sign for your bathroom!

[roadman65]

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Wilmington,+NC&hl=en&ll=34.234051,-77.96731&spn=0.009101,0.021136&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=wil&t=m&hnear=Wilmington,+New+Hanover,+North+Carolina&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.23405,-77.967027&panoid=gtqg4DGT8-ZVHiNJ_LyN-Q&cbp=12,97.01,,0,0

I also pasted this one on another topic.  Its taken along the US 17, 74, and 76 concurrency approaching the US 421 interchange from the west.  Because of US 40 and I-140 it has two more routes in addition to the junctioning US 421 and US 17 Business.  I would say the panel on the right that carries straight through US 17 & 74 has way too much for a driver to comprehend.

[vtk]

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.234051,-77.96731&spn=0.009101,0.021136&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=wil&t=m&hnear=Wilmington,+New+Hanover,+North+Carolina&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.23405,-77.967027&panoid=gtqg4DGT8-ZVHiNJ_LyN-Q&cbp=12,97.01,,0,0

FTFY. (Removed search-query string, which on many mobile devices will generate a search operation whose result overrides the specific location & view you meant to link to.)

[PurdueBill]

Anyway, as for overkill:

Not the gantry in the foreground, but in the background: why do they need US 23 reassurance shields on both sides of the road?

Driving through that very stretch following US 30 frequently myself, I believe I recall that the US 23 shields are junk left over from work done north of there, I think signage about a width restriction. The shields were posted to clarify that the restriction was on 23, not 30.  When they took down the construction signs, they left the shields.  They are oddballs with being mounted lower than usual ODOT reassurances and they lack directional banners--not that ODOT _always_ uses them everywhere, but other more permanent signage in the area all does.

Also, the TO I-75 straight-ahead sign is fine for going to 75 NB, but would lead way, way out of the way heading toward 75 SB where one would want to use US 30.

[Brandon]

Department of Redundancy Department.



Southbound on Houbolt / Hollywood Road, Joliet, IL.

[roadfro]

^ This is likely a temporary situation due to sign replacement.

This is a common occurrence with wholesale road sign replacement projects, especially if old signs are on now non-spec posts or mounting hardware. New signs are installed (left, in this case) before old signs (right) are removed, to avoid having a period of missing critical signage.

[Brandon]

^ This is likely a temporary situation due to sign replacement.

This is a common occurrence with wholesale road sign replacement projects, especially if old signs are on now non-spec posts or mounting hardware. New signs are installed (left, in this case) before old signs (right) are removed, to avoid having a period of missing critical signage.

It's been there for months now.  I think someone forgot there is a second Speed Limit 40 sign at the location.  Usually around here for sign replacement, they remove the old sign on the same day.

[Takumi]

^ This is likely a temporary situation due to sign replacement.

This is a common occurrence with wholesale road sign replacement projects, especially if old signs are on now non-spec posts or mounting hardware. New signs are installed (left, in this case) before old signs (right) are removed, to avoid having a period of missing critical signage.

So it's sort of like this.

[Michael]

I posted the following in the "Signs With Design Errors" thread before this thread existed, but it fits here better:

I saw this on Imgur a few days ago.  It isn't a "true" design error, but I didn't think it warranted its own thread:

Original Page: http://imgur.com/IumtE

IMO, the "design error" is the fact that the sign replacement crew didn't remove the old sign.  Based on the different shades of yellow, I'm thinking that it was replaced to meet the new retroreflectivity standards in the 2009 MUTCD.

I got a few replies from people who thought that posting multiple signs was to ensure that there was at least one sign in place.  Click the quote to go to the thread and scroll down to see the replies.