AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Erroneous road signs  (Read 1374060 times)

stridentweasel

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1343
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 01:51:41 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4650 on: October 21, 2020, 06:57:23 AM »

If I'm not mistaken, advanced intersection lane control signs (R3-8 series) can exclude lanes not on the side of the road that they are posted on.

For example, a one-way street with several lanes, but the sign only shows a right turn and an optional right/through movement.

According to MUTCD Chapter 2B, it would seem that lane control signs can be omitted when option lanes are not used; as long as dedicated turn bays are provided, they can be omitted. This could alternatively be implying that roads where a through lane becomes a turn lane do require them. I'm not sure what qualifies as a turn bay: any dedicated turn lane? Only those lanes where there is a "jog" to enter them?

I might have had the false assumption that if you sign one of the dedicated through lanes, then you have to sign all of them, but to be honest, that's one of those sections of the MUTCD that I have to keep looking up because it's too much for me to commit to memory.
Logged
"Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs," and I kind of like them.

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12281
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: November 26, 2020, 01:30:57 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4651 on: October 21, 2020, 02:04:45 PM »

If I'm not mistaken, advanced intersection lane control signs (R3-8 series) can exclude lanes not on the side of the road that they are posted on.

For example, a one-way street with several lanes, but the sign only shows a right turn and an optional right/through movement.

According to MUTCD Chapter 2B, it would seem that lane control signs can be omitted when option lanes are not used; as long as dedicated turn bays are provided, they can be omitted. This could alternatively be implying that roads where a through lane becomes a turn lane do require them. I'm not sure what qualifies as a turn bay: any dedicated turn lane? Only those lanes where there is a "jog" to enter them?

I might have had the false assumption that if you sign one of the dedicated through lanes, then you have to sign all of them, but to be honest, that's one of those sections of the MUTCD that I have to keep looking up because it's too much for me to commit to memory.

Oh, don't worry, I had to Google it myself. I only thought to look up the actual rules because I recall a lot of partial versions in my area, especially for when there is an option lane. Good example here for a double left turn. I think it's pretty normal to sign all through lanes if one is shown, but they are often excluded if one of the through lanes is shown purely to indicate that turns are also allowed from that lane (such as in my first example).

It seems more than fair to think all lanes could be included. It wouldn't take up that much extra space. Still, it doesn't seem to be a requirement, even if it is the common practice.
Logged
Check out my Flickr  |  Comments which I make here do not reflect positions of the University of Washington ("UW"), anyone employed by UW, nor any other students of UW. All comments are my own, and reflect my own ridiculous opinions.

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3167
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: November 26, 2020, 09:08:54 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4652 on: October 21, 2020, 04:32:36 PM »

If I'm not mistaken, advanced intersection lane control signs (R3-8 series) can exclude lanes not on the side of the road that they are posted on.

For example, a one-way street with several lanes, but the sign only shows a right turn and an optional right/through movement.

According to MUTCD Chapter 2B, it would seem that lane control signs can be omitted when option lanes are not used; as long as dedicated turn bays are provided, they can be omitted. This could alternatively be implying that roads where a through lane becomes a turn lane do require them. I'm not sure what qualifies as a turn bay: any dedicated turn lane? Only those lanes where there is a "jog" to enter them?

I might have had the false assumption that if you sign one of the dedicated through lanes, then you have to sign all of them, but to be honest, that's one of those sections of the MUTCD that I have to keep looking up because it's too much for me to commit to memory.

Oh, don't worry, I had to Google it myself. I only thought to look up the actual rules because I recall a lot of partial versions in my area, especially for when there is an option lane. Good example here for a double left turn. I think it's pretty normal to sign all through lanes if one is shown, but they are often excluded if one of the through lanes is shown purely to indicate that turns are also allowed from that lane (such as in my first example).

It seems more than fair to think all lanes could be included. It wouldn't take up that much extra space. Still, it doesn't seem to be a requirement, even if it is the common practice.

This seems to be correct, and IMO a good practice.  If you are denoting turn lanes (including option lanes) only include the lanes that turn.  If you see right turn and an optional right/through movement that sign is meant to denote only the rightmost lanes from the curb, not all of the lanes for the street.  The presumption is that a right turn sign that denotes right turning is only showing the lanes closest to the curb.  Ditto for left turning signs only showing the lanes from the median (or left curb for a one-way street).  The signs do not need to show what every lane is doing, especially if they follow the general convention, which is that all lanes can go straight, right most lane may go straight or right, left most lane may go straight or left.  An exception to that are the left turn pockets, which actually used to feature in some places left lane must turn left signs, but are so common that signage is no longer necessary (but arrows still should be painted to denote a left turn only lane).

The right turn/optional right sign is so well understood in the surface street context.  It's corollary for freeways are the partial APLs, only delineating the exiting lanes (and optional exiting lanes) not every lane of the freeway.  They work well in Ontario Canada, but it is a shame that they are not replicated in more places.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7604961,-79.3960385,3a,75y,54.65h,81.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svmd4Jb-LqhQF9a_Y0sLUfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Logged

ErmineNotyours

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 777
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Renton, Washington
  • Last Login: November 26, 2020, 12:18:05 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4653 on: October 22, 2020, 12:27:04 AM »

Along those lines, these signs seem to contradict each other, until you consider that they are correct from each lane's point of view.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10183
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 11:55:12 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4654 on: October 25, 2020, 09:57:19 AM »

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/50526795356

Not erroneous in design but arrow is wrong. Turning left is into a one way road. The arrow should be consistent with WB GA 204 as that is where I-95 really is.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12281
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: November 26, 2020, 01:30:57 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4655 on: October 26, 2020, 03:35:06 PM »

Along those lines, these signs seem to contradict each other, until you consider that they are correct from each lane's point of view.

That seems pretty screwy. I'm not 100% sold on that being allowed.
Logged
Check out my Flickr  |  Comments which I make here do not reflect positions of the University of Washington ("UW"), anyone employed by UW, nor any other students of UW. All comments are my own, and reflect my own ridiculous opinions.

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4124
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: Today at 05:45:57 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4656 on: October 27, 2020, 10:40:16 PM »

Along those lines, these signs seem to contradict each other, until you consider that they are correct from each lane's point of view.

That seems pretty screwy. I'm not 100% sold on that being allowed.
Yeah, that is super screwy. The sign on the left should've been duplicated on the right, as it seems to be most accurate to the conditions.
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12281
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: November 26, 2020, 01:30:57 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4657 on: October 27, 2020, 11:34:24 PM »

Along those lines, these signs seem to contradict each other, until you consider that they are correct from each lane's point of view.

That seems pretty screwy. I'm not 100% sold on that being allowed.
Yeah, that is super screwy. The sign on the left should've been duplicated on the right, as it seems to be most accurate to the conditions.

I would agree. The pavement arrows suggest that both lanes continue "straight" at the first intersection, but the right lane then turns at the second intersection. The sign on the left is more reflective of this.
Logged
Check out my Flickr  |  Comments which I make here do not reflect positions of the University of Washington ("UW"), anyone employed by UW, nor any other students of UW. All comments are my own, and reflect my own ridiculous opinions.

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10183
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 11:55:12 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4658 on: November 09, 2020, 11:12:35 AM »

https://goo.gl/maps/RpRKmG3eYUt5Pfn78

George Washington Bridge directs you onto CR 505 rather than the PIP south in Englewood, NJ. Should be to the right as well as Fort Lee.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10334
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 05:29:39 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4659 on: November 09, 2020, 11:24:27 AM »



Business Loop 40 at Henryetta, OK
Logged
Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

ErmineNotyours

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 777
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Renton, Washington
  • Last Login: November 26, 2020, 12:18:05 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4660 on: November 09, 2020, 09:39:10 PM »

Not exactly an error in the wild, but in the MUTCD:

"The first illustration shows a horizontal rectangular sign with the words "BLUE SPRINGS" on the top line and, on the bottom line, three symbols showing a tent, gasoline pump, and trailer, ..."

Uh, that's a lighthouse.
Logged

Dirt Roads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 264
  • Location: Central North Carolina
  • Last Login: Today at 01:22:22 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4661 on: November 16, 2020, 08:15:28 PM »

Last week, I found the following at the west end of Bypass US-70 (Cornelius Street at Faucette Mill Road) in Hillsborough, North Carolina:
   
                East        East
  West    Business    Truck
  US-70    US-70     NC-86
     ^         <--           ^

Of course, Truck NC-86 is supposed to be southbound here (but the road is running almost due west).  Also not thrilled with the placement of the bannered route in the middle of the trio.  This must have gone up recently, since I go through there at least one a week.  (Sorry, but still using a flip phone).
     
Logged

dfilpus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 399
  • Location: Chapel Hill NC
  • Last Login: Today at 02:13:56 PM
    • Filpus Roadgeek
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4662 on: November 17, 2020, 10:42:56 AM »

Last week, I found the following at the west end of Bypass US-70 (Cornelius Street at Faucette Mill Road) in Hillsborough, North Carolina:
   
                East        East
  West    Business    Truck
  US-70    US-70     NC-86
     ^         <--           ^

Of course, Truck NC-86 is supposed to be southbound here (but the road is running almost due west).  Also not thrilled with the placement of the bannered route in the middle of the trio.  This must have gone up recently, since I go through there at least one a week.  (Sorry, but still using a flip phone).
     
Looking at StreetView over time, this sign complex has been there since at least 2011. However, in 2011, the banner sign for NC 86 read "TRUCKS" plural. By 2015, it was replaced with "TRUCK". The directional sign for NC 86 has been EAST all along.
Logged

formulanone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8533
  • Age: 46
  • Location: HSV
  • Last Login: Today at 05:39:28 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4663 on: November 17, 2020, 11:30:09 PM »

"US 555" marked on an overpass for South Carolina's Highway 555 over I-77:

KEK Inc.

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1855
  • Roads Roads Roads

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: November 24, 2020, 10:19:39 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4664 on: November 20, 2020, 03:58:07 AM »



This is a bit too far south for US-30.
Logged
Take the road less traveled.

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10334
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 05:29:39 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4665 on: Today at 04:55:37 PM »


This is a bit too far south for US-30.

The sign placement leaves a lot to be desired.
Logged
Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.