AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Erroneous road signs  (Read 1387556 times)

stridentweasel

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1421
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kansas
  • Last Login: January 19, 2021, 09:39:40 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: 12523
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:25:04 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: 3239
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 08:28:43 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: 809
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Renton, Washington
  • Last Login: January 19, 2021, 07:08:14 PM
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: 10304
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: January 19, 2021, 09:42:58 PM
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: 12523
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:25:04 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

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4154
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: Today at 05:23:08 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: 12523
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:25:04 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: 10304
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: January 19, 2021, 09:42:58 PM
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: 10507
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 61
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 03:41:54 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
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

ErmineNotyours

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 809
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Renton, Washington
  • Last Login: January 19, 2021, 07:08:14 PM
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: 387
  • Location: Central North Carolina
  • Last Login: January 19, 2021, 09:37:30 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: 405
  • Location: Chapel Hill NC
  • Last Login: Today at 06:40:11 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: 8720
  • beep beep

  • Age: 47
  • Location: HSV
  • Last Login: Today at 08:43:35 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:

Logged
Photo Thread - Please don't feed the trolls.

KEK Inc.

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1859
  • Roads Roads Roads

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: January 17, 2021, 01:18:47 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: 10507
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 61
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 03:41:54 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4665 on: November 27, 2020, 04:55:37 PM »


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

The sign placement leaves a lot to be desired.
Logged
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 470
  • Last Login: Today at 01:24:05 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4666 on: November 30, 2020, 12:57:59 AM »



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

Hmmm, US federal shield and what looks like a US state highway shield, but they’re driving on the left side.  I’m stumped.
Logged

PurdueBill

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1239
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:43 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4667 on: November 30, 2020, 02:23:21 AM »



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

Hmmm, US federal shield and what looks like a US state highway shield, but they’re driving on the left side.  I’m stumped.

Has to be US Virgin Islands from the driving on the left but US-style signage (the US shield an error; the circle OK).  I found the location on St. Thomas:  https://goo.gl/maps/CmJLR5TESAyU28g1A

(If you pan around, the "Bridge to Nowhere" (actually labeled as such on the map) is interesting.  Aborted highway project, presumably?)
« Last Edit: November 30, 2020, 02:28:06 AM by PurdueBill »
Logged

ErmineNotyours

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 809
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Renton, Washington
  • Last Login: January 19, 2021, 07:08:14 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4668 on: November 30, 2020, 09:15:55 PM »



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

Hmmm, US federal shield and what looks like a US state highway shield, but they’re driving on the left side.  I’m stumped.

Has to be US Virgin Islands from the driving on the left but US-style signage (the US shield an error; the circle OK).  I found the location on St. Thomas:  https://goo.gl/maps/CmJLR5TESAyU28g1A

(If you pan around, the "Bridge to Nowhere" (actually labeled as such on the map) is interesting.  Aborted highway project, presumably?)

They drive on the left, but all the steering wheels I can see are also on the left.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12523
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:25:04 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4669 on: December 01, 2020, 01:14:13 AM »

USVI drives on the left as a hold-over from Danish rule, but because its part of North America, and particularly because it's part of the United States, RHD vehicles are extremely hard to come by. Unless you want to drive a converted car, which is probably crap, or want to drive something from the UK or Japan that's 25 years old, you're stuck with LHD and LHT. Crappy combo. I'm surprised they still drive on the left.

As to the "Bridge to Nowhere", that's now the main road. It opened a couple years ago. The US-30 shield is history.

Original story on the recent construction from 2017. The bridge was built before ROW was purchased.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2020, 01:16:58 AM by jakeroot »
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.

fwydriver405

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 250
  • UMaine - Civil Engineering and MBB Student Asst.

  • Location: Maine and southeastern NH
  • Last Login: Today at 07:28:57 PM
Logged

PurdueBill

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1239
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:43 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4671 on: December 01, 2020, 02:18:02 PM »

USVI drives on the left as a hold-over from Danish rule, but because its part of North America, and particularly because it's part of the United States, RHD vehicles are extremely hard to come by. Unless you want to drive a converted car, which is probably crap, or want to drive something from the UK or Japan that's 25 years old, you're stuck with LHD and LHT. Crappy combo. I'm surprised they still drive on the left.

As to the "Bridge to Nowhere", that's now the main road. It opened a couple years ago. The US-30 shield is history.

Original story on the recent construction from 2017. The bridge was built before ROW was purchased.

I wondered if it was like the "Bridge To Nowhere" in Newark, Delaware at 273 and 4 that eventually became used but sat for years like the one in question here, although there are enough abandoned never-completed things out there that you wonder.

One time a number of years ago our then-mailman visited the USVI and said how he was right at home somehow driving on the left in a rental car that had the wheel on the left, after driving his work postal vehicle (a Jeep, remember those?, then the current truck model) which had the wheel on the right on the right side of the road at home so much.  Somehow not being on the side of the vehicle closer to the center line "felt right" to him even though he was driving on the left instead of the right.  Sounded weird, but I got it...
Logged

jmd41280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 909
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Belle Vernon, PA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:28:58 PM
    • My Flickr page
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4672 on: December 01, 2020, 05:51:32 PM »

I wasn't able to take any photos, but the new mile markers on the recently-reconstructed stretch of I-70 in Washington, PA have US 70 shields on them instead of I-70 ones.
Logged
Calvin:  "I wonder where we go when we die."

Hobbes:  "Pittsburgh?"

Calvin:  "You mean if we're good or if we're bad?"

Caps81943

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 26
  • Location: Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 06:24:39 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4673 on: December 03, 2020, 06:13:14 PM »

I wasn't able to take any photos, but the new mile markers on the recently-reconstructed stretch of I-70 in Washington, PA have US 70 shields on them instead of I-70 ones.

Wow, that's a screw-up. About how many markers are we talking here? Like every 0.1 mile?
Logged

Dirt Roads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 387
  • Location: Central North Carolina
  • Last Login: January 19, 2021, 09:37:30 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4674 on: December 03, 2020, 07:21:51 PM »

I wasn't able to take any photos, but the new mile markers on the recently-reconstructed stretch of I-70 in Washington, PA have US 70 shields on them instead of I-70 ones.

But isn't the notion of US-70 an upgrade to any concept of I-70 in Pennsylvania?  Whether it be Town Hill or Breezewood or Speers Bridge or Little Washington, it was like I-70 was a stepchild to everything else in Pennsylvania.  My old car that got all scratched up from the tar-and-chip repairs on I-70 somewhere around Belle Vernon in the late 1980s just died in a puff of smoke a few weeks ago.
Logged

 


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.