# FHWA's changes to road signs and marking in the USA



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Some other items that I would LOVE to see the USA adopt include:

-The regulatory sign logic used in most of the rest of the World - 'red circle (with or without slash as necessary) = mandatory prohibitions or maximum limits (ie, the 'red circle' speed and dimensional limits signs)/'green circle' = allowed but not mandatory actions/'blue disk with white legend' = mandatory actions or minimum limits.

-The 'blue disk' KEEP RIGHT/LEFT signs used in Europe and most of the rest of the World - the USA's version is very 'busy' and somewhat unclear to me.

-The graphical HIGH WINDS (windsock) and WATCH FOR CONGESTED/STOPPED TRAFFIC warning sign images used in Europe and most of the rest of the World.

-Remove the words from YIELD and DO NOT ENTER signs. Their shapes alone convey the meaning and the driving public knows them well.

Otherwise I do like the upgrades - especially getting rid of more text warning signs and the new standards for STOP and YIELD signs - LOTS of local governments use them as traffic calming things, robbing them of their 'punch' where they are installed for sound engineering reasons.

Also, there is a bit in the new revision where all new corner street name signs will have to use mixed upper and lower-case text and can only be green, black, blue or brown with white lettering and be of a certain minimum size.

(Mods, could you make a reference to 'in the USA' for this thread title? Thanx!)

Mike


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

RawLee said:


> You didnt have sign for "overtaking not allowed"?


The old sign was a text 'DO NOT PASS', which is being retained (for now) as an option. I am expecting it to disappear in the next one or two revisions. I am also expecting a green circle style graphic 'overtaking allowed' sign to appear in the next one or two revisions to replace the text 'PASS WITH CARE' signs that appear at the beginning of legal passing zones in many states (curiously, not used here in Wisconsin). Also, in most USA states, the lines painted on the roads carry the same legal force as do the signs with regards to passing zones.

The USA also has a long-standing yellow triangle 'no passing zone' sign that is mounted on the left side of the road at the end of a legal passing zone that I like and is being retained.

Mike


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

Wow. Here's an other one which is good when the capacity is low:


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

For those interested, the WHOLE TEXT of this revision, including all of the sign images and diagrams (a couple of thousand pages in total) is available at:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/proposed_amend/index.htm

The entire current USA Federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is available for download at:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

Enjoy!

:cheers1:

Mike


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Good changes.

What I never understood though is why the signs for prohibition aren't crossed. I know the signs are prohibition by itself, but my logic tells me, if sth is prohibited, it should be crossed. Of course a crossed sign for a prohibition means an end of the prohibition, which poses another confusion.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

double


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

ABRob said:


> The new one is looking very German to me:


In Germany, the arrows are interfering with the focals on the sign. In the States, they are much more separate, which has the downside that the size of the signs will increase. On the German signs, I already feel that arrows are over-inflated without any need to. While the FWHA is reversing a position that was even worse, they are still over-inflating even more than the Germans do.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

If they implement a dotted line, they don't need those ugly Exit Only signs anymore too. The dotted line clearly separates the exit lanes from the regular lanes. Those big yellow exit only signs mess up a sign real bad.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

gannman1975 said:


> These changes look very modern and make a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the learning curve (pun intended) for a lot of drivers (and politicians) is going to very steep. Hope it comes to pass though.


We just need our own Pierre Trudeau in the USA :cheers: He would not give a damn what Joe Six-pack thinks about this and that...


----------



## Tom 958 (Apr 24, 2007)

ChrisZwolle said:


> If they implement a dotted line, they don't need those ugly Exit Only signs anymore too. The dotted line clearly separates the exit lanes from the regular lanes. Those big yellow exit only signs mess up a sign real bad.


No. Exit only signs are rarely used where a motorist would cross the dotted line to get into an exit lane-- i.e, only where the exit lane is very long, such as when it's needed to develop capacity for a two lane offramp. On wide freeways with numerous lane-drop exits, motorists need to be able to see which lanes will be dropped from signs alone without having to check the pavement markings, which will be difficult to see in heavy traffic. Plus, there are plenty of places in Atlanta (for instance) where dropped and optional lanes occur at closely-spaced exits in such a way that dotted lines would be confusing, like here, on the southbound roadway: http://www.google.com/maphp?hl=en&q=&ie=UTF8&ll=33.896459,-84.252799&spn=0.005058,0.008841&t=k&z=16


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


>


LOL, like 95% of the American population will even see these signs. :lol:


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

10ROT said:


> LOL, like 95% of the American population will even see these signs. :lol:


You'd be surprised. Bears, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, etc are very common in various parts of the USA, especially the mountain areas and forested northlands. Sort of like kangaroo crossing signs in Australia. Farm creature crossing signs of all sorts are SOP throughout the USA, too.

What about duck crossings (there is an MUTCD sign for those, BTW)?

I have also seen non-MUTCD graphic 'tank crossing' signs on public highways that go through Army bases (I think that I'd rather drive into a deer instead! :nuts: ).

Mike


----------



## go_leafs_go02 (Jan 16, 2007)

Interesting. Like almost every single example posted is already standard here in Ontario, Canada, lane markings, the no right turn sign. Standard here. Looks like they're just playing catch up.

Nothing i object to, doesn't help that I'm already used to it here


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

I'm not crazy about the optional yield on the left while heading into a roundabout. That's where my eyes will be focused- looking for traffic coming FROM the left, not the right. That yield should be a mandatory in my opinion.


----------



## TheCat (Apr 21, 2006)

^^ The problem here is that in most countries the general rule is to place the traffic sign on the driving side of the road, so in a country like the US, traffic signs generally are located on the right side. There is a reason for this rule - if you have two adjacent roadways, then in general only the signs on the ride side of the road apply to the road you're currently on, whereas the sign on the left may apply to the roadway on your left. While in this case there isn't really an ambiguity (and hence it is permitted to put the sign on the left, even though it's optional), in general traffic signs should always be located on the right side, with a "repeater" sign optionally on the left.


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

You're right, I just think they should put yields on both sides of the road- I think they're making the one optional that should be mandatory.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

I recognise roundabouts in the USA by the pattern of road signs on the approach to them. And yes, this pattern included doubling signs on the left.


----------



## Paddington (Mar 30, 2006)

These changes suck ****.

The current designs are a lot more intuitive and clear than these cluttered, confusing European signage that they plan to take on.










There's nothing wrong with this. It tells you exactly where all the lanes are going. Why fix it, if it ain't broke? :dunno:


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

You have to look closely to see which lanes go which way. If you drive at 60 mph and traffic is busy, it's not very handy IMO.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

Paddington said:


> Why fix it, if it ain't broke? :dunno:


Who says it ain't broke? You? I doubt it will be enough to convince the FHWA not to proceed with the change :cheers:


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Who says it ain't broke? You? I doubt it will be enough to convince the FHWA not to proceed with the change :cheers:


Well, that ship sailed three months ago, and they weren't listening to you if you didn't come with at least 20 peer reviewed papers backing you up.

I've got to say that I do like the big divergent arrows, but the reality is that they are a bit unwieldy and very nonintuitive. This is a step in the right direction.

I'm ready for the compromise solution when it comes to pictorial signs. Basically, if it can be done with a pictograph, it should be done with a pictograph. If it can be done much more easily and clearly with text, do it with text.

BTW, Alex, be happy you're in WA and will actually see some of these changes implemented. CA will just come out with their standard state MUTCD, which pretty much always says that the national one is null and void in CA, and that they'll keep doing what they've done since 1946.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

ADCS said:


> I'm ready for the compromise solution when it comes to pictorial signs. Basically, if it can be done with a pictograph, it should be done with a pictograph. If it can be done much more easily and clearly with text, do it with text.


The problem with the text, in my opinion, is that it cannot be easily recognised from distance. At least, not as easy as the pictograph. Even if we disregard the argument that some people may not know English well enough to read the signs, pictographs are still better for locals too because of increased visibility. I noticed that after some time, I started recognising textual signs (e.g. "Lane ends. Merge Left") by the shape of the text before I was close enough to read them. So, I still rely on shape. Is it normal? Is it the purpose of the textual signs? I don't think so.



> BTW, Alex, be happy you're in WA and will actually see some of these changes implemented. CA will just come out with their standard state MUTCD, which pretty much always says that the national one is null and void in CA, and that they'll keep doing what they've done since 1946.


Yeah, you are absolutely right. And still, California is slowly moving toward the accepted federal standards. For instance, when I just moved to California in early 2001, they did not have numbered exits on motorways, and their exit guide signs looked somewhat different (compared to Oregon). But sometimes in 2003-2004 they started to change their standards. Still, I wish they installed mileposts on major highways.


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

I'd like examples of when pictographs DON'T work better than text. Obviously, names of towns and streets and roads must be written- but other than that? Can you give me any examples where text would be better? I can't think of any.


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> The problem with the text, in my opinion, is that it cannot be easily recognised from distance. At least, not as easy as the pictograph. Even if we disregard the argument that some people may not know English well enough to read the signs, pictographs are still better for locals too because of increased visibility. I noticed that after some time, I started recognising textual signs (e.g. "Lane ends. Merge Left") by the shape of the text before I was close enough to read them. So, I still rely on shape. Is it normal? Is it the purpose of the textual signs? I don't think so.


I'm a descriptivist when it comes to life in general. I honestly believe that for most people, they haven't changed those signs exactly for the reason you stated. People do recognize the signs by their word-shape, and I would say that's why they haven't changed text placement in 50 years.



> Yeah, you are absolutely right. And still, California is slowly moving toward the accepted federal standards. For instance, when I just moved to California in early 2001, they did not have numbered exits on motorways, and their exit guide signs looked somewhat different (compared to Oregon). But sometimes in 2003-2004 they started to change their standards. Still, I wish they installed mileposts on major highways.


California doesn't use reflective highway signs like everyone else in the civilized world, preferring to use the horribly outdated button copy signs (great for highway enthusiasts, stupid for everyone else). They also are half-assing the exit numbering. I don't understand why that given the high gas taxes in California, the highly dense, highly numerous population, that California isn't at the very forefront of signage and construction. It's almost like after the national standards were adopted, and they weren't identical to California standards, that they got all offended and said "screw you guys, we're sticking with this"


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

Billpa said:


> I'd like examples of when pictographs DON'T work better than text. Obviously, names of towns and streets and roads must be written- but other than that? Can you give me any examples where text would be better? I can't think of any.


Some backward people may argue that it takes time to memorise the pictographs if they are not obvious enough. I don't know how much time it takes to memorise a few ambiguous symbols that are present in current American standards. Personally, it took me no more than 2 days to memorise all international signs before I could pass Ukrainian theory exam. And they were ALL pictographs :nuts: Once you memorise the pictographs, there is no reason in the world why text would be better.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

Big disadvantage of text is that its not in a totally universal language. An arrow means an arrow in every language,but the word "arrow" might not be present in,lets say,chineese.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Billpa said:


> I'd like examples of when pictographs DON'T work better than text. Obviously, names of towns and streets and roads must be written- but other than that? Can you give me any examples where text would be better? I can't think of any.


Text or text inside pictorial signs in the Netherlands:

STOP sign
Fietspad sign (bicycle path)
Usual signage, though they did some experiments numbering neighborhoods instead of write them out on signs (I didn't like it). 

traffic signs which need an extra explanation like "buses/trucks only" or "except residents".


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

RawLee said:


> Big disadvantage of text is that its not in a totally universal language. An arrow means an arrow in every language,but the word "arrow" might not be present in,lets say,chineese.


In the USA, you've got to come up with a much better explanation than your liberal socialistic multicultural crap :lol:


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

America is a large area with one language that everybody understands. You can have 10 different languages within 500 miles from a lot of points in Europe. That increases the need for pictorial signs. As many Europeans, we usually only understand 2 or 3 major languages (in my case; Dutch, German, French and English).


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

ChrisZwolle said:


> traffic signs which need an extra explanation like "buses/trucks only" or "except residents".


Those are rather a rectangular supplemental plagues and usually installed underneath a main sign. I have yet to see them used alone.



ChrisZwolle said:


> America is a large area with one language that everybody understands. You can have 10 different languages within 500 miles from a lot of points in Europe. That increases the need for pictorial signs. As many Europeans, we usually only understand 2 or 3 major languages (in my case; Dutch, German, French and English).


Well, in Soviet Union everyone understood Russian, but they still used international signage system. In Latin America (except Brazil), they speak the same language, and still they use pictographs instead of the text. China is pretty big too and most people speak Mandarin, but they also use pictorial signs. Having common language is not the reason why text should be used instead of the symbols.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

You're right, they are supplemental signs places under the main traffic sign. You see those all the time. "Anlieger frei" for instance in Germany.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

ChrisZwolle said:


> America is a large area with one language that everybody understands. You can have 10 different languages within 500 miles from a lot of points in Europe. That increases the need for pictorial signs. As many Europeans, we usually only understand 2 or 3 major languages (in my case; Dutch, German, French and English).


So? What if someone cant read?


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Text or text inside pictorial signs in the Netherlands:
> 
> STOP sign
> Fietspad sign (bicycle path)
> ...



Well, I'd argue at this point the word "STOP" inside the red octagon is no more needed than the word(s) "YIELD" or "GIVE WAY" are inside the red and white inverted triangle.
I do agree that an occasional extra explanation plate can be helpful, but it should be rare.
For example, your buses/trucks only could have a bus and truck inside a green circle with a car inside a red. I'm not sure about the bike path, but there are bike pictos, even here in America, so that wouldn't be too difficult.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

In the Netherlands, the STOP sign does not only mean "yield", but you really have to stop there and then drive further. That differs the sign from the usualy yield sign where you don't necessarily have to stop. They're usual placed at intersections you really can't see in both directions unless you're stopped.


----------



## Paddington (Mar 30, 2006)

Who care about making signs that people from Mongolia can understand? In America, we speak English. I have no problem with English signs. Enough of this PC B.S.

In other countries fewer people drive. The driving age is higher, and many people are expected to get by without cars. In America everyone has to drive, including the borderline retarded high school kid from Texas. Signs need to be simple so that everyone here can understand them, not abstract to pander to foreigners.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

ChrisZwolle said:


> In the Netherlands, the STOP sign does not only mean "yield", but you really have to stop there and then drive further. That differs the sign from the usualy yield sign where you don't necessarily have to stop. They're usual placed at intersections you really can't see in both directions unless you're stopped.


Here, in the USA, STOP sign too does not mean yield. If you do not make a full stop and a policeman sees it, he will give you a citation. However, with the American practice to put STOPs at every intersection - whether your visibility is really obstructed or not - people do not stop there completely if there is no reason to stop. If they must stop and yield, they stop and yield and everything is well. If the intersection is perfectly clear and you can actually see it is clear, then very few people make a full stop. 

People tend to filter all the BS that is forced upon them by retards from the DOT and still follow the common sense. These illogical rules are only used to feed city and state budgets. But as I quoted in the beginning, the FHWA will soon allow installing YIELD signs where before only STOPs were warranted. I don't think small town politicians will be particularly happy about it.


----------



## sotonsi (Feb 6, 2007)

ChrisZwolle said:


> In the Netherlands, the STOP sign does not only mean "yield", but you really have to stop there and then drive further. That differs the sign from the usualy yield sign where you don't necessarily have to stop. They're usual placed at intersections you really can't see in both directions unless you're stopped.


I think you've misinterpreted BillPA - he used two examples. The first being the Red Hexagon, which has "STOP" written in it (unless in Quebec, were it has "Arret" - I don't know of other places in the world that don't use the English - even the French do), where you do have to stop. The second being the upside down red outlined white triangle with either yield or give way in. Both signs have a unique shape, and the words aren't necessary (though I see no problem with putting them on - you know what it says but it makes that meaning crystal clear). The Stop sign, after all, is designed to be discernible when covered in snow, obscuring the sign face.

While popularity doesn't mean better, it is the case that the US is the only country not to use lots of pictagrams - most countries find them awkward - I mean we've heard as a defence that people have memorised the layout of the words to see what a sign says - they are seeing a shape that, having taken lots of practise, tells them - have intuitive pictograms and they don't need to take years, but days or even hours, to know what all the signs they might ever come across mean instantly, and when they come across one on the road, they know what it says without having to read, even if they haven't learnt.


----------



## Tom 958 (Apr 24, 2007)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Here, in the USA, STOP sign too does not mean yield. If you do not make a full stop and a policeman sees it, he will give you a citation. However, with the American practice to put STOPs at every intersection - whether your visibility is really obstructed or not - people do not stop there completely if there is no reason to stop. If they must stop and yield, they stop and yield and everything is well. If the intersection is perfectly clear and you can actually see it is clear, then very few people make a full stop.


That's why I posted this on page 1 of this thread:


Tom 958 said:


> I've long believed that a new type of yield sign was needed, one that was like a stop sign operationally except that a full stop isn't required. Maybe a diamond, white with a thick red band around the edge. IMO an octagon would be more philosophically correct, but a diamond would be easier to distinguish from a stop sign, and the diamond shape means caution, which would be appropriate.
> 
> Such a new sign would save fuel at lightly-traveled intersections and hopefully induce motorists to take real stop signs more seriously.


Many people see a problem with the current use of stop signs, but only one person proposes a solution, and nobody even comments on it. WTF?


----------



## philip (Jan 13, 2005)

The Freeway/ Highway signs in Los Angeles are among the best ones I've seen. This picture shows the Freeway 10 East bound aproaching 5North, 10East, 60East, and 5South. Almost every lane is going to go in a different direction. This sign is good because I only need to know where my lane is going, I don't really need the sign to show how they "curve" or "turn" to different direction.










Here is another example, Freeway 110 North approaching interchange 110North, 101 North, 5 South, and 10 East


----------



## sotonsi (Feb 6, 2007)

Tom 958 said:


> Many people see a problem with the current use of stop signs, but only one person proposes a solution, and nobody even comments on it. WTF?


Isn't what you are proposing a yield sign by a different name? A stop sign where you don't have to stop, just be cautious sounds just like "give way" to my UK ears.

For 4-way/3-way stops, perhaps mini roundabouts (yield to left) are the solution. You can do it without painting road markings - just have yield signs rather than stop and call it a 4-way yield, or more clearly have "To Left" on the "4-way" plates.


----------



## Tom 958 (Apr 24, 2007)

Gil said:


> I think the reasoning why North America hasn't adopted the European-style blue signage is that here blue has a different significance.
> 
> *Red* signs are regulatory (stop, do not enter, etc.)
> *Orange* signs are for construction or temporary (detours)
> ...


Not exactly. Blue is for motorist services, though it's also used for hospitals as though a motorist might suddenly decide he needs one as he might need a gas station or restaurant. Very strange, actually. I've never seen a blue sign for a school.

Brown is for recreation-- parks and historic or scenic sites.

White is for regulation, red for prohibition.

One of my pet peeves: At many intersections, there are yellow diamond signs for a crossroad or traffic signal, below which is a rectangular sign with the name of the intersecting road. But the rectangular signs are yellow, as though there's some hazard associated with that particular road. :nuts: I guess they match up the colors for the sake of neatness, but the rectangular signs should be green.


----------



## Gil (Mar 11, 2005)

Tom 958 said:


> Not exactly. Blue is for motorist services, though it's also used for hospitals as though a motorist might suddenly decide he needs one as he might need a gas station or restaurant. Very strange, actually. I've never seen a blue sign for a school.


That may be an American difference. Most school signs in Canada look like this: 










The ones I've seen in the US are yellow and sometimes they're rectangular rather than the pentagonal one shown here. Other institutional signs I've noticed are Keep Quiet signs which are usually placed around seniors' homes. Museums and art galleries are also denoted with blue signs.


----------



## seawastate (Feb 25, 2008)

They also place yield signs at railroad crossings which I don't really like because it looks really redundant. After all, the railroad crossing sign means the same thing as a yield sign; stop give trains the right of way.


----------



## Dan (Jun 16, 2007)

Weird...where is that? I've driven plenty all over the west mostly and I've never seen that. Certainly not done in my former state (UT) anyway.


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

Over the past couple of years the US has been moving to a "brighter" color on its school signs as a way for them to stand out more. The idea is to make school crossings safer.

Old: -------------------- New:


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

^^It immediately draws your attention, I think it can help. In my town they also put signs like that near a school to warn for crossing pedestrians. Furthermore, they added flash lights to it, powered by a solar cell on top of each post. It works out really well, though it's not really beautiful, with those solar cells on top.


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

Timon91 said:


> they added flash lights to it, powered by a solar cell on top of each post. It works out really well, though it's not really beautiful, with those solar cells on top.


A very good idea...we have some flashing lights around schools here when the kids are walking to and from school (morning and afternoon) and I think it works very well...people slow down to the lower limit in the school zone. One of the few areas where a speed limit is usually obeyed to the letter.


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

^^We've had lots of problems over here with congestion around schools, caused by parents who drop-off their childern at school. This gives quite dangerous situations and they encouraged parents to walk or bike their children to school.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Well, the problem is that children used to live usually within 1 - 2 miles around their school, and mommy biked them to school. But these days, it is usual for women to work too, so they usually drop off their kids on the way to work - with their cars. The problem is school zones are not suited for this demographic shift, usually only like 10 parking spaces at a 400 kids school. Besides that, schools are usually not on main roads, but only on local roads within the neighborhoods.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Dan1113 said:


> Weird...where is that? I've driven plenty all over the west mostly and I've never seen that. Certainly not done in my former state (UT) anyway.


S.O.P. here in Wisconsin. ALL non-controlled railroad crossings in the state get a YIELD or STOP sign mounted in that manner. It is because so many no-brain drivers here don't respect railroad crossings like they should.

Mike


----------



## Tom 958 (Apr 24, 2007)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Well, the problem is that children used to live usually within 1 - 2 miles around their school, and mommy biked them to school. But these days, it is usual for women to work too, so they usually drop off their kids on the way to work - with their cars. The problem is school zones are not suited for this demographic shift, usually only like 10 parking spaces at a 400 kids school. Besides that, schools are usually not on main roads, but only on local roads within the neighborhoods.


Around here, many schools _are_ built on main roads, even elementary schools. I think that the idea is that when the school aged population drops the building and/or the land will be easier to sell off.Here's a new elementary school near my house-- the site is just being graded, but you can see the immense scale. Very few students can walk or bike to it, though with 1500 kids in an elementary school and low residential densities, most kids would be vehicle-dependent anyway. http://www.google.com/maphp?hl=en&q=&ie=UTF8&ll=33.925219,-84.071674&spn=0.004665,0.008883&t=h&z=16

Not too far away is this complex of schools: high school and middle school on one site, served by its own five lane road connecting two lesser through roads. An elementary school is nearby to the NW. http://www.google.com/maphp?hl=en&q=&ie=UTF8&ll=33.826148,-84.075065&spn=0.009341,0.017767&t=h&z=15

On the other side of town, I was looking for a way to get around traffic and spotted a convincing-looking 2x2 boulevard heading in the right general direction. But it ended at a high school! http://www.google.com/maphp?hl=en&q=&ie=UTF8&ll=34.102175,-84.545202&spn=0.00931,0.017767&t=h&z=15


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

In California and Washington, I haven't noticed any school-related traffic congestion problems near elementary and middle schools. The traffic intensity is naturally high during the drop-off and pick-up times (~08:00 and ~15:00, respectively), but it rarely gets so congested that it starts to significantly obstruct the traffic flow. The worst case (that is for through traffic) would be when the entrance/exit from the school is controlled by a typical American 4-way STOP intersection because it would create long lines. 

The situation with high schools is drastically different due to hundreds of teenagers (starting from the age of 16) driving to school on their own. Plus, in high school it is not cool anymore to take a bus, so everyone dreams of their own car. What makes this situation even worse is that teenage driving skills are... let's just say, not up to real world standards.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Self-explanatory...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The text signs are easier to understand IMO. The pictorial ones are confusing.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

^^ Pictorial signs will not be confusing if you dedicate several minutes to memorise them. The main disadvantage of textual signs is that they are not very visible from a long distance. It's a fact.


----------



## ABRob (Feb 10, 2008)

goschio said:


> The text signs are easier to understand IMO. The pictorial ones are confusing.


And what if you can't speak englisch? If you're illiterate?


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

^^They have the text signs right now, so there must be some problems with that.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E (Oct 26, 2007)

ardmacha said:


> Is this sign being used to replace the DO NOT ENTER sign?
> This sign is used in Ireland, instead of the red circle with white band used for NO ENTRY in other parts of Europe.


I don't think I have ever seen that sign, but if it were used the meaning would be clear. However, it is not a replacement for "no entry". No entry sign, or the more common blue disk with arrows ("mandatory directions") would come before the intersection. A no entry sign is at the beginning of the prohibited lane or road at the exit of the intersection.


Alex Von Königsberg said:


> As a European, I would disagree with you, Mike  Coming across the above sign, I would immediately associate it with this European sign which means "straight or right turn only"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps nittypicking, but there could be more than three exits from an intersections, in case the prohibition and mandatory direction signs are not equivalent.


Gil said:


> I think the reasoning why North America hasn't adopted the European-style blue signage is that here blue has a different significance.
> 
> *Red* signs are regulatory (stop, do not enter, etc.)
> *Orange* signs are for construction or temporary (detours)
> ...


No, there are no blue disks in US signage as far as I know. Also the rest of the world have plenty of other meanings for blue rectangular signs.


----------



## Paddington (Mar 30, 2006)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> ^^ Pictorial signs will not be confusing if you dedicate several minutes to memorise them. The main disadvantage of textual signs is that they are not very visible from a long distance. It's a fact.


Yeah and whose going to take "several minutes" to reeducate the hundreds of millions of motorists on the roads.

Meanwhile the more practical and logical English signs which take no extra explanation are being done away with. Why? To appease folks like Von Krautburger who have a fetish for Euro style things.

I think 20 years from now civil engineers will take a look at this idiocy and say, "Gee, we're an English speaking country, we can make driving a lot simpler and intuitive for most Americans by changing these abstract picture signs into text ones!"


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

It's just hard for me to understand how someone can be so much against progress. In America, people are reluctant to accept something new, something that has proven to be better in other parts of the world. There is no logic behind this, just the irrational fear of change, however useful it may prove to be in the future. 

Modern roundabout is a good example of this stubbornness. You ask drivers' opinion before it is implement to replace a 4-way STOP intersection, and most of them will tell you that it is not a good idea. The argument? "We are used to this, and it works". Luckily, the DOT is more likely to listen to an engineer's opinion and not to that of "Joe-the-Plumber" nonsense, so they put roundabout anyway. You ask people's opinion again in a short while, and somehow 9 out of 10 drivers (the actual numbers) are actually happy with the way it has worked out. You ask them if they want to go back to 4-way STOPs, and the majority says that they don't. Same with the pictorial signs - the notion that somehow if you start using them, you will cease to be Americans and instead turn into socialistic multicultural Europeans is the idiocracy at its best. 

I am not sure if you, Paddington, have enough cognitive skills to understand simple logic, but try to comprehend this - whatever makes the roads safer, even if it means giving-up your precious American heritage, should be implemented. The FHWA is pretty slow in adopting some useful changes; nevertheless, they are inching toward the XXI century. And when everything is not going your way, what is left for you, Paddington? Wonder about international forums showing your ignorance?


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

^^Isn't that the conservative mentality? A busy 4-way stop is very unhandy, I agree. However, it shouldn't be too much, in the Netherlands and the UK there are very much roundabouts right now, and when driving a long distance on secundary roads (especially in the UK) it can get quite annoying.


----------



## J N Winkler (May 14, 2007)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> European or not, this sign is more clear and informative than those old stippled-arrow ones. In California, I saw several of them, and I should say that putting broken lines inside them doesn't make any sense because driving at 120 km/h it is impossible to count them anyway.


There isn't much in the legibility issue except where optional lanes are concerned. (BTW, very few of these signs are used on roads subject to anything like a 120 km/h speed limit.) On the other hand, there are plenty of complex interchanges with left exits, exits in rapid succession, or sharp turns in the mainline where stippled-arrow diagrammatics are helpful in giving drivers advance warning of the layout. The one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatics as proposed by FHWA do not have this advantage. The Houston-style diagrammatics can be adapted more easily to serve this function because they are not required to have the lane arrows at 12' spacing or to be overhead-mounted, but they do have the disadvantages that tall signs are difficult to mount in overhead positions while ground-mounted signs can be obscured by large trucks.

The theory of reading stippled-arrow diagrammatics actually places little emphasis on counting the spaces between stipples. Instead, you are supposed first of all to look at where the arrowheads go, and also whether the arrow shafts bend in any particular direction, because those are hints as to lane continuity and horizontal alignment. Then, if the interchange looks like a conventional split, you check for a stipple which runs up to the divide between two arrow shafts, because that indicates whether you will be dealing with an optional lane or not. Lane assignment is normally handled by other signs which have downward-pointing arrows, and also by pavement markings.

I am in favor of one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatics being used in locations where they can function better than stippled-arrow diagrammatics; this is why I argued for both to be left as options in the _MUTCD_, with the engineer being given discretion to choose between the two.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

*J N Winkler*, I am not sure how those stippled-arrow signs were used to indicate left exits or exits in rapid succession (have a sample picture?) However, on the West Coast, these signs were used only and only to indicate a splitting motorway - that is, at least two lanes going in each direction. The perfect example would be the place where I-580 splits from I-5 right before Tracy. This can be perfectly indicated by the new "European-style" signs proposed by the FHWA.


----------



## Dan (Jun 16, 2007)

You have one of those where I-15 breaks off from I-84 in northern UT going at (I do beleve) 75 mph. Try counting all the little tiny black dashed lines then, haha.


----------



## J N Winkler (May 14, 2007)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> *J N Winkler*, I am not sure how those stippled-arrow signs were used to indicate left exits or exits in rapid succession (have a sample picture?) However, on the West Coast, these signs were used only and only to indicate a splitting motorway - that is, at least two lanes going in each direction. The perfect example would be the place where I-580 splits from I-5 right before Tracy. This can be perfectly indicated by the new "European-style" signs proposed by the FHWA.


I do have plenty of pictures. Before I go on to show them, I need to point out that FHWA's proposed change would do two things: (1) eliminate the stippled-arrow diagrammatic altogether, and (2) remove the option to use diagrammatics _of either kind_ at exits and splits without optional lanes. (An optional lane is a through lane which divides into two at a split or multi-lane exit.) So I am captioning these pictures according to whether the _MUTCD_ would support usage of the signs shown if it were revised as FHWA proposes.

*Exits in rapid succession*










This sign is located along I-30 in downtown Fort Worth, Texas. Since neither of the two closely spaced exits involves an optional lane, this sign would not be supported under FHWA's proposal.

*Left exits*










This is the classic left-exit diagrammatic. Under FHWA's proposal, designers would have the option just of using a yellow (text-only) "LEFT EXIT" panel to indicate a left-exit condition without optional lane. (On this sign, "LEFT" on the exit tab appears on a yellow background. Drivers are also supposed to understand that the positioning of the exit tab on the left side of the sign means that the upcoming exit is on the left, but there is evidence that this convention is not widely understood because there are still many signs from the 1960's and 1970's with center-mounted exit tabs.)










This sign indicates a left exit which is also a lane drop without optional lane. Because there is no optional lane, no diagrammatic would be used in this location under FHWA's proposed rule. Note the use of a solid line running up to the split of the two arrow shafts, to emphasize the lane drop condition.










This sign indicates a multi-lane exit on the left which has an optional lane and an auxiliary lane which opens on the left immediately before the exit. Because this exit has an optional lane, a one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatic could be used under FHWA's proposal. But FHWA's design does not have the flexibility of indicating an auxiliary lane which opens to the left. This creates the risk of driver confusion since the number of lanes at the exit won't match the lanes shown on the sign. (This use of chamfering on the stippled-arrow diagrammatic to indicate an auxiliary lane is far from unique; other locations in Michigan have similar diagrammatics.)










There is no optional lane on this sign, so no diagrammatic would be used under FHWA's proposal. But notice how the curvature of the arrows gives drivers advance warning that the mainline curves after the exit.

*Unusual geometry (or geometry which violates driver expectancy) through or immediately after the exit*










Here the mainline curves to the left while the exit ramp goes straight ahead. Under FHWA's proposal this situation would qualify for a one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatic, but mainly because the exit has an optional lane.










The situation is similar to that shown in the preceding picture, but without optional lane--meaning no sign under the proposed rule.

*"Standard" splits*










This is the stereotypical split diagrammatic, with optional lane. I am generally sympathetic to the argument that signs of this kind should be replaced with one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatics which clearly show the optional lane with a double-headed arrow, particularly since the interchange has no unusual geometric characteristics which could not be communicated equally well with lane arrows.

Moving on to your examples, there are actually examples of stippled-arrow diagrammatics which are used for left exits on the West Coast. I believe I-84 approaching the Multnomah Falls exit from the east has one.

The I-5/I-580 split near Tracy is in Caltrans District 10. Its neighbor to the north, Caltrans District 3, does use one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatics. (I think it is the only Caltrans district which does.) However, its splits are well-behaved in terms both of geometry and exit frequency.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

Left exit? You mean you have multiple lane motorways where lanes branch off from the inner lane?


----------



## J N Winkler (May 14, 2007)

RawLee said:


> Left exit? You mean you have multiple lane motorways where lanes branch off from the inner lane?


Yup! We also have freeways which curve sharply in the middle of interchanges.

As a general rule, when two motorways cross, most drivers expect the through lanes of the crossing motorways either to remain straight or to have no more curvature than would be expected based on the terrain away from the interchange. This convention has been observed more consistently in Europe because European highway agencies have historically had a much sharper focus on building rural motorway networks.

In the US, on the other hand, there has been a very heavy secondary focus on bringing freeways into cities, to get more use out of rural freeway mileage and also to develop car-commuting infrastructure within densely populated urban areas. This has resulted in a lot of interchanges being built with left exits and sharp mainline curves partly to minimize demolition and save money on bridge construction. Left exits are now heavily discouraged in current design guidance, but there are still plenty of interchanges which have them and they will need effective signing until they are reconstructed.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

J N Winkler said:


> Yup! We also have freeways which curve sharply in the middle of interchanges.


Safety wasnt an issue back then? What if a slow driver wants to get off at left exit,through faster traffic in the left lane? Or a truck?


----------



## J N Winkler (May 14, 2007)

RawLee said:


> Safety wasn't an issue back then? What if a slow driver wants to get off at left exit, through faster traffic in the left lane? Or a truck?


The safety consequences were not well understood until later. The implicit assumption behind these interchange designs was also that traffic volumes would remain low enough that it would be relatively easy for slower traffic to move left to make the required maneuvers. Operational considerations now receive much higher priority and so left exits are very rare in new construction.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

RawLee said:


> Left exit? You mean you have multiple lane motorways where lanes branch off from the inner lane?


It happens sporadic in Europe too.


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

^^AFAIK there's only one in the Netherlands, on the A2 near Eindhoven.

-edit- It's over here. It doesn't look like a real exit, more like an on and off ramp leading to a roundabout.


----------



## Paddington (Mar 30, 2006)

Yay! Toledo. :banana:


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

Late Saturday afternoon in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. Traffic was all but stopped as America "resets" after the Thanksgiving holiday- traditionally one of the busiest travel days all year long in the US....AND we see that I-81 curves to the right while a left exit gets you to I-78 which begins at this junction...the fact that 81 makes a turn to the right is not on display with this sign for some reason.


----------



## He Named Thor (Feb 15, 2008)

Gil said:


> I think the reasoning why North America hasn't adopted the European-style blue signage is that here blue has a different significance.
> 
> *Red* signs are regulatory (stop, do not enter, etc.)
> *Orange* signs are for construction or temporary (detours)
> ...


As stated, the BLUE signs give the info, gas, business stuff, at least here in WI. Brown is reserved for parks/historical/recreation. 










Anywho, I like most of the changes, but do we really need one way signs at the end of a FREEWAY ONRAMP?! This seems like a redundant waste. It's not like these onramps encourage anyone to turn into oncoming traffic. 

They are putting YIELD signs at the end of freeway onramps on US-41 now, which is good because technically you're required to yield.


One last note, I haven't seen a DIVIDED HIGHWAY text sign in forever. They've all gone to picture signs here.


----------



## Tom 958 (Apr 24, 2007)

Shark's teeth have come to my neighborhood, at the only proper roundabout we have. It'll be interesting to see if they start appearing at other places as well.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

If they just started replacing wasteful STOPs with efficient YIELDs, then we would see shark teeth everywhere.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

RawLee said:


> Left exit? You mean you have multiple lane motorways where lanes branch off from the inner lane?


Is it really an exit, or it's a junction? If it's a junction, I don't see a problem here. Even an exit wouldn't be a safety issue, just not handy.


----------



## Robosteve (Nov 6, 2008)

ChrisZwolle said:


> :nuts:


That looks like it could be quite dangerous. Look at the short distance over which entering traffic from I-290 has to merge across I-90 traffic wanting the first of those exits.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2008)

Actually, the photo is taken from a very high view (probably from a helicopter). Traffic coming from the Eisenhower has its own lane that's not exit only. But for Traffic on the Kennedy, there's still plenty of time to switch over one lane before the exit.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2008)

Moderator, can you delete the "proposed" in the thread title?


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

^^ What, they already approved these changes? AFAIK, they did not enact them yet because they are still reviewing the public comments. So, the title stays.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

Penn's Woods said:


> But sitting in a country where you're either an immigrant, a permanent resident, or a long-term visitor, insisting that things like Interstate shields that the vast majority of people you're sharing the roads with are used to be changed *for no better reason than that you're used to something different* is arguably in itself ignorant....


What, you try to argue my point by implying that I am less of a US citizen than you are? Is that all you could come up with in this discussion?

When you can think of any other argument than "we're used to it, so it shouldn't be changed", please let me know.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

nerdly_dood said:


> ???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It seems that you do not understand the core difference between these two signs. The bottom sign "Don Not Enter" is internationally used to indicate that you cannot enter *because the street is one way* (i.e., wrong way for you). The first sign simply means that you cannot drive straight for whatever reason - the street closed to traffic, you cannot drive through the intersection, etc.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

JuanPaulo said:


> ^^ An "All Way" stop sign means that everybody in the intersection has a stop sign. Just like any other stop sign, you must come to a complete stop before proceeding. If two cars in different roads make it to the intersection at the same time, the car on the left always has the right of way after both cars come to a complete stop.


When both stop at the same time, the vehicle on the RIGHT has priority.

Also, I wonder when we'll see the words being removed from 'YIELD' and 'DO NOT ENTER' signs....

Mike


----------



## brewerfan386 (Apr 24, 2009)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> The first sign simply means that you cannot drive straight for whatever reason - *the street closed to traffic*, you cannot drive through the intersection, etc.


um, ok we already have signs for that purpose.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

mgk920 said:


> Also, I wonder when we'll see the words being removed from 'YIELD' and 'DO NOT ENTER' signs....


No, Mike, those signs without words would seem _foreign and unnecessary_ to some people on this forum :lol:


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

brewerfan386 said:


> um, ok we already have signs for that purpose.


Brewer fan, is there a sign that indicates that you cannot drive straight without specifying the reason? Not to my knowledge. Next time, you can at least post only relevant pictures to save some space and our time.


----------



## brewerfan386 (Apr 24, 2009)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> No, Mike, those signs without words would seem _foreign and unnecessary_ to some people on this forum :lol:





Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Brewer fan, is there a sign that indicates that you cannot drive straight without specifying the reason? Not to my knowledge. Next time, you can at least post only relevant pictures to save some space and our time.


Everyone here is entitled to there *own* *opinions*. (I wasn't insulting you, I was only talking about the signs) :chill:


----------



## engenx4 (Jul 2, 2010)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> It seems that you do not understand the core difference between these two signs. The bottom sign "Don Not Enter" is internationally used to indicate that you cannot enter *because the street is one way* (i.e., wrong way for you). The first sign simply means that you cannot drive straight for whatever reason - the street closed to traffic, you cannot drive through the intersection, etc.


the first is better


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

The Europeans also have a sign that means 'no entry' - it is a red circle with nothing but blank white inside. It appears to be most often used on roads that have long-term closures.

Mike


----------



## Tom 958 (Apr 24, 2007)

I just got back from a trip to St. George Island, FL, and... what a mess!

As previously noted, in the US there's been a trend toward using two different yellows for warning signs: the traditional golden/orangey yellow for roadway and vehicular hazards and a bright limey-greenish yellow for hazards involving pedestrians:









I guess a pedestrian must've been killed on St. George because now there are yield signs-- including advance warning signs-- for just about every crosswalk in the 'downtown" area. Worse, they all use the old color, so you can't tell whether you need to be on alert for vehicles or pedestrians. There are even shark's teeth painted on the opposite side of intersections from where the crosswalks are. And, to make matters even worse, there's a bicycle/pedestrian path adjacent to the main east-west road that uses full-size, standard signs. It's hard to tell wtf's going on, and I'd bet a lot of the new signs are ignored or disobeyed out of confusion. hno:


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> What, you try to argue my point by implying that I am less of a US citizen than you are? Is that all you could come up with in this discussion?
> 
> When you can think of any other argument than "we're used to it, so it shouldn't be changed", please let me know.


That's not what I was saying, and I didn't know whether you were a citizen or not. What I AM saying is that it is YOUR argument that seems to boil down to assuming that the European way is better. Forgive the hell out of me for saying that "we do it that way in Europe" is not sufficient reason for changing things and for finding that actually rather condescending.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Next time, you can at least post only relevant pictures to save some space and our time.


Another example of condescension....


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

Penn's Woods said:


> That's not what I was saying, and I didn't know whether you were a citizen or not. What I AM saying is that it is YOUR argument that seems to boil down to assuming that the European way is better. Forgive the hell out of me for saying that "we do it that way in Europe" is not sufficient reason for changing things and for finding that actually rather condescending.


Nowhere did I say that the European way is better because it is European. In all the years that I have been on this board, I have argued over and over again for standardisation of the US traffic rules to bring them closer to what is widely considered 'international' version. I drove extensively in Europe and in the USA, so I think I have an edge over those who were exposed only to one road system (whether American or European). I have long been against textual signs in the USA, and I clearly explained why. I am also against putting STOP signs at every intersection instead of YIELD signs, and I also explained why. Metric system notwithstanding, international signage would make far more sense than what we have here now. So far the proponents of American traffic signage did not provide any arguments except the well-known "We are used to it" and "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".


----------



## brewerfan386 (Apr 24, 2009)

Since we are talking about the new signs in general here is one. 









*Is there a list of all the new or significantly redone signs in the 2009 MUTCD?*


----------



## xd_1771 (May 22, 2010)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Not anymore! One of the biggest improvements in motorway signage in America, in my opinion. Now, it looks much better.


Road signs with up arrows just like that have been used in British Columbia, Canada for ages now :lol:



> At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Sections 2B.08 and 2B.09).


They've been doing that in Alberta for some time too :lol:

IMO they should add a warning sign for those situations where you have a "short merge" on a freeway.


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

mgk920 said:


> The Europeans also have a sign that means 'no entry' - it is a red circle with nothing but blank white inside. It appears to be most often used on roads that have long-term closures.
> 
> Mike


It also means that no vehicles will come out of the road, it's closed


----------



## EricIsHim (Jun 16, 2003)

>


This sign does exist and are used in operation, although it is not common.

One situation is if there is a four-legged intersection, similar to the on and off ramp (diamond interchange) intersection as shown in the below picture. If the off ramp only allows left and right turn, or right turn only, so that the on-ramp side can be uninterrupted, straight movement can be prohibited on the off ramp approach, and this sign would be posted at the off ramp approach to restrict the movement.

The "DO NOT ENTER" sign means the travel direction opposes to the direction the drivers are looking at (i.e. traffic is coming at you.) When the straight sign with a cross over it, it means traffic can be travel away from you or coming at you, but simply you can't be going straight across the intersection.



>


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

My solution to that would be:
A) to put a physical barrier in the center of the road that the ramp is crossing, forcing people to turn right, and then farther on to the right, put a place to make a U turn, or

B) to put a physical barrier in the center of the road allowing left and right-hand turns, but making it particularly difficult to go straight across.


----------



## EricIsHim (Jun 16, 2003)

nerdly_dood said:


> My solution to that would be:
> A) to put a physical barrier in the center of the road that the ramp is crossing, forcing people to turn right, and then farther on to the right, put a place to make a U turn, or
> 
> B) to put a physical barrier in the center of the road allowing left and right-hand turns, but making it particularly difficult to go straight across.


You are exactly correct, and more often if the situation is in the Case B when left turn is permitted (crossing traffic) but not going through. Barrier does it job at the scene, but not in advance reminding drivers that straight through is prohibited, even if left turn is allowed. It emphasize the no straight through rule, and a safety concern.


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

Duplicate. :no:


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

I think it would be also nice to put an arrow like this on the pavement, or a sign underneath the stop sign or on the stop light or whatever signal there is.


----------



## riiga (Nov 2, 2009)

You could also do it the European way, and make it a teardrop interchange. 

Like this:


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

nerdly_dood said:


> I think it would be also nice to put an arrow like this on the pavement, or a sign underneath the stop sign or on the stop light or whatever signal there is.


Painting this arrow marking on the pavement would be a good idea as a supplemental measure; however, putting a traffic sign would be the first thing to do. In America, there is a sign "road closed", but it is the type of sign that physically barricades the road:










There might be some situations where you need to close the road to the general traffic but leave the road open for authorised vehicles. That is why it would be necessary to install an overhead sign before the intersection prohibiting from driving straight. As far as I know, there was no such sign in the USA until 2008. In Europe, such sign exists:










The above sign would be equivalent to a sign that has been used in Canada for quite a while and that has recently been approved by the FHWA:










Changing the geometry of the intersection as to block the straight path by an advancing safety island would surely prevent motorists from driving straight, but... wait to see what will happen at night if you do not install a corresponding traffic sign before the intersection :lol:


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Painting this arrow marking on the pavement would be a good idea as a supplemental measure; however, putting a traffic sign would be the first thing to do. In America, there is a sign "road closed", but it is the type of sign that physically barricades the road:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's another thing that I'd love to see the USA adopt - the 'blue disk' to denote mandatory actions. Also, the blue disk with the 45 degree down-pointing arrow, mounted fairly low, for 'keep right/left' ('drive on this side of the sign'). The 'keep right/left' signs now used in Canada and the USA are way too 'busy', IMHO.

Mike


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Changing the geometry of the intersection as to block the straight path by an advancing safety island would surely prevent motorists from driving straight, but... wait to see what will happen at night if you do not install a corresponding traffic sign before the intersection :lol:


That's what guardrails with lots of reflective yellow stripes are for, and/or those little tiny dashed lines on the pavement that tell where turning lanes in big intersections go, along the path of the green and pink lines in my picture. (Reflective of course)

Other options:
- Just go ahead and allow people to go straight across
- Use a roundabout
- Don't even bother driving and just walk


----------



## Barciur (Dec 6, 2009)

DanielFigFoz said:


> It also means that no vehicles will come out of the road, it's closed


that's not true, at least not in Poland.


This sign means that you can't enter from one direction but there is oncoming traffic from the other









However, this one means there is no movement of motor vehicles allowed behind the sign, no matter the direction:


----------



## urbanlover (Feb 14, 2005)

First this excellent summary for all the new changes http://www.ite.org/bookstore/MUTCDoutreach.pdf

These changes don't just effect drivers, but bikers and pedestrians here are some of the bigger ones IMO:

Pedestrian Countdown Displays Are Now Required – Pedestrian countdown
displays, which have previously been optional, are now required for all new
installations of pedestrian signals, except where the duration of the pedestrian change
interval is 7 seconds or less.


New Pedestrian Pushbutton Symbol and Signs – Based upon successful
application in Canada, a new symbol for use on pedestrian pushbutton signs has been
adopted and many pushbutton signs have been revised to incorporate the symbol.












Revised Pedestrian Signal Timing Provisions – As a result of research that has
demonstrated the need to use lower walking speeds to accommodate a larger
percentage of the walking public, the recommended walking speed for calculating the
pedestrian clearance time has been reduced from 4 feet per second to 3.5 feet per
second, except where extended pushbutton presses or passive pedestrian detection has
been installed for slower pedestrians to obtain additional crossing time.



New Bicycle Guide Signs – New bicycle guide signs that show destinations and/or
distances along bicycle routes have been added for optional use to provide flexibility
and potentially reduce the costs for signing bicycle routes in urban areas where
multiple routes intersect or overlap.













Bike Lanes Designated with Pavement Markings Only – The use of bicycle lane
regulatory signs and plaques are no longer required where marked bicycle lanes are
present. This change provides flexibility for jurisdictions that do not desire to use the
bicycle lane signs, without restricting the ability of jurisdictions that prefer to use the
signs to continue to do so.


New Shared Lane Pavement Marking and New Bikes MAY USE FULL LANE
Sign – A new shared lane pavement marking to assist bicyclists in determining the
appropriate line of travel and a new Bikes MAY USE FULL LANE sign have been
added for use at locations where it is important to inform road users that the travel
lanes are too narrow for bicyclists and motor vehicles to operate side by side and to
remind motorists to pass with sufficient clearance. These optional devices may be
used in conjunction with one another or independently of each other.


----------



## TheCat (Apr 21, 2006)

LMB said:


> Another one
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This one is a little interesting, in my opinion. It is not really ambiguous because unlike most regular textual signs (especially ones used in the US, since in Canada we don't rely on text as much), this one is quite special in both its design and placement (always under a stop sign), that its meaning is clear. It is actually not important what it says ("all way", "4 way", etc.). Just the sign of the small red/white panel underneath a stop sign is enough to know that it is an "all way stop".

HOWEVER, I find this sign very dangerous, because as most of you know, the behaviour at all-way stops (mainly an exclusively North American concept) is very different from the behaviour at regular stops. A common dangerous situation is when a driver encounters several all-way stops in a row followed by a regular stop. It is easy to get into the habit of "whoever arrives/stops first, goes first" and cause a nasty collision by not properly yielding at the regular stop. There are also those less dangerous but annoying situations of all-way stops NOT having that little indication underneath (as I've seen numerous times at large mall parking lots here in Toronto). In this case it is not immediately clear who has the right of way.

This is why, in theory, I think that ideally there should be a different, clearly distinct sign to mean "all way stop". Whether one agrees with the concept of an all-way stop is a different story altogether, but I think this would increase safety.



nerdly_dood said:


> ???


As several people have already explained, this sign simply means that you may not drive straight through the intersection, but the road is not closed (which would be the case if the "Do Not Enter" sign was there).

The reason for its placement is irrelevant - in Toronto this sign is often placed to simply restrict the entrance of traffic to a street through an intersection at certain hours of the day (for example, to a small street during rush hour). In that case times of day/days of week are posted underneath. In this particular case it makes a bit more sense than a European "mandatory directions" blue sign. As was also mentioned, however, this sign is indeed rare.



mgk920 said:


> Also, I wonder when we'll see the words being removed from 'YIELD' and 'DO NOT ENTER' signs....


Heh, luckily we in Canada (at least here in Ontario) do not use these words in the signs (though occasionally they may appear, but that's rare). I don't understand why they are needed - the shapes/colours of these signs are unique.



xd_1771 said:


> IMO they should add a warning sign for those situations where you have a "short merge" on a freeway.


Yes! There is a particular road in Toronto that's almost a death trap. The merge between the westbound 401 and northbound Allen. It comes absolutely WITHOUT any warning at all. I've had trucks getting off the 401 having to drive on the shoulder before almost slamming into me (driving on that ramp) several times, and I myself once was unpleasantly surprised by that particular situation when getting off the 401. There should be a very clear warning there.



mgk920 said:


> That's another thing that I'd love to see the USA adopt - the 'blue disk' to denote mandatory actions. Also, the blue disk with the 45 degree down-pointing arrow, mounted fairly low, for 'keep right/left' ('drive on this side of the sign'). The 'keep right/left' signs now used in Canada and the USA are way too 'busy', IMHO.
> 
> Mike


Technically we do have mandatory directions, indicated using white arrows on black rectangles (I believe the US uses the same thing), though I do agree that they aren't very common and are usually used at large intersections with many lanes, and often where there is more than one lane turning either right or left. In Montreal there are similar signs that use black arrows inside a green circle, though I haven't seen them anywhere else.

And I agree 100% about the "keep right/left" signs.


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

TheCat said:


> As several people have already explained, this sign simply means that you may not drive straight through the intersection, but the road is not closed (which would be the case if the "Do Not Enter" sign was there).
> 
> The reason for its placement is irrelevant - in Toronto this sign is often placed to simply restrict the entrance of traffic to a street through an intersection at certain hours of the day (for example, to a small street during rush hour). In that case times of day/days of week are posted underneath. In this particular case it makes a bit more sense than a European "mandatory directions" blue sign. As was also mentioned, however, this sign is indeed rare.


I got that when other people told me on the previous page. I also proposed an alternative to using that sign using physical barriers with reflective stripes, and later on, I mentioned a supplemental sign or pavement marking.


----------



## LMB (May 5, 2008)

Barciur said:


> This sign means that you can't enter from one direction but there is oncoming traffic from the other
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True, but the latter is less restrictive then the earlier. The red one allows no exception (maybe only for bicycles), while the white with red border allows certain types of disabled drivers, and a bunch of other priviledged vehicles, to enter the area.


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

In the US you'll also occasionally see a somewhat less restrictive sign than the red-ring-on-white sign, it's a simple white rectangle with black text reading "STREET CLOSED" - I hadn't known what exactly it had meant because it was a normal sign on a normal signpost next to a perfectly open street with cars parked on the sides. Later on it occurred to me that a better version would read "Street closed to thru traffic" because that's what it means - people had been using the street as a shortcut and overloading it, when it was only meant to be a residential side street, so if your destination is on that street then you can go there, but if you want to use it as a shortcut then you're not supposed to, but since there's no barrier, it's quite easy to do so. (But if enough people start using it that way then they'll find cops there quite often to make them stop)


----------



## snowman159 (May 16, 2008)

LMB said:


> True, but the latter is less restrictive then the earlier. The red one allows no exception (maybe only for bicycles), while the white with red border allows certain types of disabled drivers, and a bunch of other priviledged vehicles, to enter the area.


There are no exceptions with either one, unless explicitly posted.

EDIT: Of course, you're right that exceptions to the 'do not enter' sign for anyone but cyclists are extremely rare, if they exist at all, while exceptions to the road closed sign are much more frequent.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

nerdly_dood said:


> In the US you'll also occasionally see a somewhat less restrictive sign than the red-ring-on-white sign, it's a simple white rectangle with black text reading "STREET CLOSED" - I hadn't known what exactly it had meant because it was a normal sign on a normal signpost next to a perfectly open street with cars parked on the sides. Later on it occurred to me that a better version would read "Street closed to thru traffic" because that's what it means - people had been using the street as a shortcut and overloading it, when it was only meant to be a residential side street, so if your destination is on that street then you can go there, but if you want to use it as a shortcut then you're not supposed to, but since there's no barrier, it's quite easy to do so. (But if enough people start using it that way then they'll find cops there quite often to make them stop)


Here's something downright evil that Connecticut used to do. For all I know, they still do....

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n..._EgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CHQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1274,4823568


----------



## TheCat (Apr 21, 2006)

nerdly_dood said:


> I got that when other people told me on the previous page. I also proposed an alternative to using that sign using physical barriers with reflective stripes, and later on, I mentioned a supplemental sign or pavement marking.


Yes, I read your other replies. I quoted your particular post just as an example of the many others, so I apologize if there was some confusion.

However, in my post, I also mentioned that it can be used to restrict the movement of vehicles straight through an intersection regardless of the reason, in which case your physical barrier solution in no way replaces this sign. It merely applies to a particular case that was discussed (at an interchange).

In fact, as I mentioned, in Toronto it is often used similarly to what you described in your following post, by including time information under it:



nerdly_dood said:


> ... Later on it occurred to me that a better version would read "Street closed to thru traffic" because that's what it means - people had been using the street as a shortcut and overloading it, when it was only meant to be a residential side street, so if your destination is on that street then you can go there, but if you want to use it as a shortcut then you're not supposed to, but since there's no barrier, it's quite easy to do so. (But if enough people start using it that way then they'll find cops there quite often to make them stop)


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

Penn's Woods said:


> Here's something downright evil that Connecticut used to do. For all I know, they still do....
> 
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?n..._EgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CHQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1274,4823568


:bash:

The ones in Virginia that I mentioned are either extremely rare, or it's just a unique sign for a unique situation - i don't know of any others like that except for just the one next to a car wash in Roanoke, posted on a side street where it intersects Main Street (which is actually by no means a "main street", it's only "main" enough to warrant a yellow centerline)

How is this sign used?








It looks like it just tells people that you're supposta pull into the shoulder if you crash (I already knew that, as well as just about everyone else)


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

What's new about this?


----------



## urbanlover (Feb 14, 2005)

^^
The optional dotted line can now be used

The fender bender sign is just a reminder like those buckle up signs.


----------



## EricIsHim (Jun 16, 2003)

urbanlover said:


> ^^
> The optional dotted line can now be used


If I remember correctly, the "ONLY" word is now required for any turning trapping lane as well.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

urbanlover said:


> ^^
> The optional dotted line can now be used


I drove in Idaho few days ago, and I saw this optional dotted line used in all right/left turning lanes where the pavement looked still fresh. I guess it means that these changes were accepted by the Idaho department of transportation quite quickly kay: Reminded me British Columbia a bit.


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

I already see that dotted line very frequently, and not only on new roads...


----------



## Fuzzy Llama (Jan 24, 2009)

^^
This is an Israeli plate, so technically it's Asian 









About the oval identifiers - in theory they are required everywhere outside EU, but in practice in neighboring countries nobody enforces this. It would take a cop in very bad mood to fine you for a missing oval.

I drive a car with pre-EU plates without any country identifiers. I have an PL oval, but it's often obscured by rear window wiper (it was placed there by the Renault dealership ) and I've never run into any problems because of that, also in Switzerland.


----------



## snowman159 (May 16, 2008)

Penn's Woods said:


> But is it valid outside the E.U.? Do people passing through Switzerland have to paste an oval onto their cars when they stop to buy the vignette?


In Switzerland it's definitely valid, also in Norway afaik.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

snowman159 said:


> In Switzerland it's definitely valid, also in Norway afaik.


Thanks. I reposted my question in the thread it belongs in, by the way....


----------



## snowman159 (May 16, 2008)

^^
you're welcome. good idea. 

(deleted, off topic)


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Fuzzy Llama said:


> ^^
> This is an Israeli plate, so technically it's Asian
> 
> 
> ...


Dziękuję.


----------



## brewerfan386 (Apr 24, 2009)

Rail Claimore said:


> This is probably in compliance with the 2009 MUTCD which requires that left turn signals be directly over the left turn lane and that surface roads with 45mph+ speed limits have a signal over each lane. Wisconsin will have to change its standard set-up for new installations once the MUTCD deadline is reached next year.


 Anyone have more info on this change?


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

brewerfan386 said:


> Anyone have more info on this change?


Interestingly, the City of Green Bay, WI already uses multiple signal heads on their overhead masts and - true to its being in Wisconsin - they're horizontal, not vertical.

Mike


----------



## Spikespiegel (Jul 13, 2009)

nerdly_dood said:


> ???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, the two doesn't mean the same. In Denmark we have the first sign aswell. It basically means that you cannot go through the intersection, whereas motorists from the right probably can enter the road (thus, entering isn't prohibited, as motorists from certain directions can enter it).

I cannot find an example of the exact sign, but if you go to google earth, activate street view, find the intersection Ringstedgade and Borgerdiget/Jernbanegade in Roskilde, and find the streetview for Ringstedgade, southbound just before the intersection, you will see three signs. One is "Right turn prohibited", another is "Left turn prohibited" and the last is "Through traffic only". If you then look at the crossing road (Borgerdiget/Jernbanegade), you will notice that not one of them has a "No entering" sign. Reason is that the southbound Ringstedgade before the intersection sees little traffic, while Ringstedgade Northbound sees a lot of traffic. Therefore the southbound has a very short green light period to allow the Northbound single priority in the intersection, and to make the traffic flow, only through traffic is allowed.


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

Spikespiegel said:


> Actually, the two doesn't mean the same. In Denmark we have the first sign aswell. It basically means that you cannot go through the intersection, whereas motorists from the right probably can enter the road (thus, entering isn't prohibited, as motorists from certain directions can enter it).
> 
> I cannot find an example of the exact sign, but if you go to google earth, activate street view, find the intersection Ringstedgade and Borgerdiget/Jernbanegade in Roskilde, and find the streetview for Ringstedgade, southbound just before the intersection, you will see three signs. One is "Right turn prohibited", another is "Left turn prohibited" and the last is "Through traffic only". If you then look at the crossing road (Borgerdiget/Jernbanegade), you will notice that not one of them has a "No entering" sign. Reason is that the southbound Ringstedgade before the intersection sees little traffic, while Ringstedgade Northbound sees a lot of traffic. Therefore the southbound has a very short green light period to allow the Northbound single priority in the intersection, and to make the traffic flow, only through traffic is allowed.


That subject has been beat to death, I understood it it perfectly well a few pages back.


----------

