The Federal Highway Administration proposed numerous amendments to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. I like the majority of them, but some seem like a step backward. I will outline the most interesting ones.

1) They introduced a bunch of new pictorial road signs, and finally dropped a number of textual ones.

Regulatory signs

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R3-27.jpg - This simple sign did not exist in official MUTCD until now

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R4-1.jpg - A major improvement, IMO. This sign has been used in Canada for ages.

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R6-5p.jpg - An equivalent of an international circular sign with blue background.

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R6-5p_yield.jpg - It will be used in conjunction with Yield sign before entering roundabout (like in Germany).

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R6-4b.jpg - This sign is used to indicate the direction within roundabout. I quite like this new colour scheme.

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R16-4.jpg - Not a new sign, de facto, but now officially recognized by the FHWA.

To be continued...

^^ Actually the first sign in your list is also used in Canada (or at least in Ontario).

Warning signs

A bunch of beasts :lol: For some reason, they indicated that all these signs are new, but I think at least half of them already existed for a long time.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/animals.jpg
____________

Curves with intersecting secondary roads. Probably, the only ones that distinguish between main and secondary roads.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/W1-10a-b.jpg
____________

Self-explanatory...
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/W6-5_6.jpg
____________

Finally they dropped some of the silly textual signs leaving only pictorial equivalents. Still a lot of textual signs to remain, but it's a good start.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/no_text.jpg


To be continued...

New highway marking

This is not a new addition, but now they specified that only dotted line (not broken) can be used to separate the deceleration lane from the main lanes.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/dotted_exit.jpg
_____________________

Before, the dotted line could not run all the way to the end of an acceleration lane. Now, it can! :banana: The FHWA now directs to use only dotted line in case of acceleration/deceleration lanes. Quite a progress if you ask me! In not so distant future, the US highways may look more like those in the rest of the world.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/dotted_merge.jpg
_____________________

Again, they permitted to use a dotted line in case of a merging entrance lane. Also, they directed to install "One Way" signs to indicate the direction of traffic.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/dotted_merge_oneway.jpg
_____________________

They finally permitted to use a dotted line to separate a left-turn lane from the main lanes. Again, inching toward the rest of the world.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/dotted_left_turn.jpg

To be continued...

Roundabout

The only addition to this design is a new black&white Chevron sign to direct the traffic inside roundabout. Also, they made Yield sign on the left-hand side optional.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/roundabout_entrance.jpg
______________________

Here is a guide sign used to indicate roundabout exits.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/roundabout_guide.jpg
______________________

Motorway guide signs

They improved the design of an exit overhead sign a little bit. Now, it looks clear and not messy.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/exit_utopia.jpg
______________________

Before, a splitting motorway sign looked like this:
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/thick_arrows.jpg
______________________

Not anymore! One of the biggest improvements in motorway signage in America, in my opinion. Now, it looks much better.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/up_arrows_guide.jpg
______________________

Also, from now on, all downward arrows should only be vertical and should be positioned over the centre of the respective lane.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/kaj_arrows.jpg
______________________

They also added a new sign for ferry terminal.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/I-9_ferry.jpg

To be continued...

Do you think those changes will happen?

Another significant change to the MUTCD is that now Yield sign can be installed at many place where before only STOP sign could be installed. Basically, Yield sign can now be installed at perpendicular intersections which was rarely the case in the past. Here is the amended text (I used green colour to highlight the points of interest):

Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Applications

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).

The use of STOP signs on the minor-street approaches should be considered if engineering judgement indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions: The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles per day;
A restricted view exists that requires road users on the minor-street approach to stop in order ton adequately observe conflicting traffic on the through street or highway; and/or
Crash records indicate that 3 or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by the installation of a STOP sign have been reported within a 12-month period, or that 5 or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road users on the minor-street approach failing to yield the right-of-way to traffic on the through street or highway.

Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications

YIELD signs may be installed: On the approaches to a through street or highway where conditions are such that a stop is not always required.
At the second crossroad of a divided highway, where the median width at the intersection is 9 m or greater. In this case, a STOP or YIELD sign may be installed at the entrance to the first roadway of a divided highway, and a YIELD sign may be installed at the entrance to the second roadway.
On a channelized turn lane that is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by an island, even if the adjacent lanes at the intersection are controlled by a highway traffic control signal or by a STOP sign.
At an intersection where a special problem exists and where engineering judgment indicates the problem to be susceptible to correction by the use of the YIELD sign.
Facing the entering roadway for a merge-type movement if engineering judgment indicates that control is needed because acceleration geometry and/or sight distance is not adequate for merging traffic operation.

I hope that now they will stop this silly practice of putting STOP signs on quite residential streets 50 metres apart from one another. For God's sake, those streets barely have AADT of 1000! The stop is not warranted there at all, but police uses it as an easy money generator :ohno:

Here is a link to the FHWA proposed amendments:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/proposed_amend/

Please let me know what you think of this new stuff.

Do you think those changes will happen?
I hope so. These changes certainly make a lot of sense, and even the most stubborn conservatives will have a hard time presenting their case. Thankfully, this area does not draw a lot of attention from the general public, so the FHWA can quietly implement those changes.

Why is the Yield sign listed as new? Maybe not overly common but I've always seen it!

Some good changes there, I agree. :) Still a bit too much text but hey it's an improvement. One interesting thing though is that I've seen some very different exit signs, I think CA has really different ones? Howcome they're allowed? (Or are they really old ones before this current version -- which looks the same as this new version to me to be honest?) I agree that the motorway splitting sign is much better now.

A lot of good changes! Especially the road markings near exits.

Why is the Yield sign listed as new? Maybe not overly common but I've always seen it!
I did not list it as new. I listed the "circular motion" sign as new, and it will be installed underneath the Yield sign. This is a single picture:

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R6-5p_yield.jpg

You didnt have sign for "overtaking not allowed"?

Odd that the new green sign examples don't use Clearview...

I remember when directional signs were introduced as The Next Big Thing. Now they're obsolete. I feel so old. :ohno:

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.

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R3-27.jpg

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.

It is used with the red circle. It means one-way(I have never seen arrows crossed)...or "obligatory moving direction",depending on the shape of the sign.

Those changes look pretty good! Hopefully they will happen :)

Also, from now on, all downward arrows should only be vertical and should be positioned over the centre of the respective lane.


did they look at least a little bit into my german/hessian signage on american highways-thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=476626) :D?

So, you'r changing from text-signs to pictorial signs!? This would be a good decision.


Before, a splitting motorway sign looked like this:
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/thick_arrows.jpg
______________________

Not anymore! One of the biggest improvements in motorway signage in America, in my opinion. Now, it looks much better.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/up_arrows_guide.jpgThe new one is looking very German to me:
http://rippachtal.de/10/A10-2-84-16-30.jpg

;)

Can anyone post some of the signs being replaced, just so I have an idea? I don't remember. :P

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.

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

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

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

http://www.mkfe.hu/images/tehergepkocsival_eloznitilos.gif

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

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.

double

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.

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.

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...

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

http://home.comcast.net/%7Ealmikul/images/signs/usdot/animals.jpg



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

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

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 :P

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.

^^ 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.

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.

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.

These changes suck cock.

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

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/thick_arrows.jpg

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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".

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:

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/speak_english.jpg

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
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?

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.

http://www.scvresources.com/highways/10e_east-la-sign.jpg

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

http://www.interstate-guide.com/images101/i-110_ca_ant_12.jpg

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.

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.

http://www.scvresources.com/highways/10e_east-la-sign.jpg

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

http://www.interstate-guide.com/images101/i-110_ca_ant_12.jpg

What's so special about that? They have this everywhere.

That's why I posted this on page 1 of this thread:
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?
Dude, what you proposed is the good old YIELD sign that is used all over the world. Sotonsi alredy commented on this. The only difference between STOP sign and YIELD sign is that the earlier one requires a full stop regardless of any condition and the latter one requires stopping only if there is traffic on the main road.

Could you collaborate on how your new sign would be different from already existing YIELD?

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.

http://www.scvresources.com/highways/10e_east-la-sign.jpg
The new MUTCD mandates that from now on directional lane arrows must be vertical and each arrow must be positioned over the centre of the respective lane. It doesn't cancel or replaces the sign depicted on your picture. Revisit the first page and see what sign would be replaced.

Dude, what you proposed is the good old YIELD sign that is used all over the world. Sotonsi alredy commented on this. The only difference between STOP sign and YIELD sign is that the earlier one requires a full stop regardless of any condition and the latter one requires stopping only if there is traffic on the main road.

Could you collaborate on how your new sign would be different from already existing YIELD?

I already did, in the post you quoted: "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."

I don't know about other places, but around here yield signs are used almost exclusively for right turn movements where potentially conflicting traffic comes from the left. Stop signs are used where potentially conflicting traffic comes from several directions, e.g. at intersections. I think that the reason that stop signs are used where a yield would be adequate is that a motorist could easily misinterpret a yield-controlled intersection as being one where he could proceed with a turning movement after a quick glance in one direction for oncoming traffic when in fact he'll need to look in several directions before proceeding. New standards or not, agencies are likely to continue to deliberately err on the side of excessive caution and use a stop sign rather than risk an accident due to misinterpretation of conditions by the motorist. IMO, there needs to be a sign that lets a motorist know that he needs to yield to traffic in any of several directions as he would at a stop sign, but without necessarily coming to a full stop.

Sotonsi's post (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=26759364&postcount=57) didn't address the issue, but he didn't complain about the problem without proposing a solution, either :).

I dunno, maybe this is the stupidest idea ever, but I'd rather be told so straight up than ignored.

^^ Anyone who assumes that a yield sign only means "take a quick glance to the left" should not be driving :) While it is true that in the US and Canada yield signs are almost never used as regular control devices at intersections (which, like Alex has pointed out, seems to no longer be the case now in the US), it does not affect the meaning of the sign. The meaning of the sign is and always has been "yield the right of way to traffic and/or pedestrians who are in or close to the intersection" (this is more or less the definition given in the Ontario Driver's Handbook, even though I'm not crazy about the vagueness of it).

I think that if, say, you approach an intersection with a yield sign in front of it, and you wish to go straight through or turn left, it is quite clear that you need to yield to everyone.

No offense, but California's signs may be the ugliest in the nation. They look so old.

And I think that it's pathetic that they didn't have exit numbers until recently. I know it's a big state, but come on! They should be a leader in signage, but instead end up having the crappiest ones.

Second crappiest would be Connecticut, but they are on the track of (slowly) updating their signs, but unfortunately they still have sequential exit numbering. Only three states in the Northeast (PA, NJ, ME) have mile-based exit numbering. Pathetic! :ohno:

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R3-27.jpg - This simple sign did not exist in official MUTCD until now

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R4-1.jpg - A major improvement, IMO. This sign has been used in Canada for ages.



What the hell is the first sign supposed to mean and I'd rather see the "no passing" text sign than this. I drove in Italy seeing that second sign and had no idea what it meant.


I don't think we need any changes to our highway signage in the United States.

Tom, it seems that you misunderstand the meaning of YIELD sign. Just because in the USA it is most often used for merging traffic from the right, it does not mean you cannot put it at a usual 4-leg or 3-leg perpendicular intersection.

I came to America from abroad, and I did a lot of driving outside of N. America. What I can tell you is that on the European continent YIELD is used in 95% of the time in the same settings as STOP is used here, in the USA. Outside of this continent, STOP is not used unless the visibility of main road is obstructed. Here, they put STOPs to the left and to the right without any justification whatsoever.

What is my solution? Replace most STOPs with YIELDs unless the visibility is really poor. That is my solution. Your idea with re-inventing the bicycle is inadequate to say the least ;)

These are all the YIELD signs:

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/us_yield.gif http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/UK_give_way.gif http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/yield.gif

^^ Anyone who assumes that a yield sign only means "take a quick glance to the left" should not be driving :) While it is true that in the US and Canada yield signs are almost never used as regular control devices at intersections (which, like Alex has pointed out, seems to no longer be the case now in the US), it does not affect the meaning of the sign. The meaning of the sign is and always has been "yield the right of way to traffic and/or pedestrians who are in or close to the intersection" (this is more or less the definition given in the Ontario Driver's Handbook, even though I'm not crazy about the vagueness of it).

I think that if, say, you approach an intersection with a yield sign in front of it, and you wish to go straight through or turn left, it is quite clear that you need to yield to everyone.

Thanks for reading what I wrote.:)

I don't disagree with any of what you've said, but I still think agencies will be reluctant to use yield signs as frequently as they should. It isn't really a question of how motorists would behave-- it's more a question of how agencies think motorists are likely to behave. It isn't just a matter of safety per se, either-- the potential for lawsuits must and will be considered, and with great prejudice. Plus there's the free money for the cops aspect.:ohno:

OTOH, I live in the South, which is notoriously backward when is comes to such things-- I live in a fast-growing county of 600,000 people with exactly one proper roundabout, built a few months ago. Maybe the rest of the nation is or will be more progressive. But a new sign would make the situation less ambiguous.

EDIT-- Hi, Alex. You posted while I was typing...:)

You're absolutely right about the meaning of the yield sign, and FWIW I do understand that. But the fact remains that yields are underused and stops are overused. I assert that there are reasons for that, though they aren't necessarily good reasons, and that changing the MUTCD won't do away with them. But my solution would.

I changed my tiny mind about what the new sign should look like: a red octagon like a stop sign, but with a white yield triangle inside.

I dunno, maybe this is the stupidest idea ever, but I'd rather be told so straight up than ignored.It's already been said how everywhere except the Atlanta area uses yield signs as you would want a diamond sign to be used. The idea isn't stupid, but it's been solved already by the yield/give way sign.

Alex didn't ignore you - he went to the effort of making it clear, by saying that I had already commented and then repeating my point that you were suggesting a yield sign by a different name and shape. He gave a solution - use a yield sign instead of your diamond, as that is what your diamond is doing.

America overuses stop signs IMO - there's too many of them. I can only think of one exact location in the UK where there is a stop sign - there's more, but I don't think I've been through that many. We either have traffic signals or give ways (or roundabouts, which are just give ways). I've definitely been driven through/walked past/driven through more stop signs in 10 weeks in the US than 22 years in the UK. I can't remember being driven through (most of my UK roads experience is as a passenger) a stop sign in the UK on the public highway, though I have driven through one myself when I had driving lessons.

4-way yield-to-lefts rather than 4-way stops are a good idea (if I say so myself) - infiltration of the US with mini roundabouts without having to paint circles on the ground. You don't have to stop if it's clear, you only have to look at 2 entrances, not three.

It's already been said how everywhere except the Atlanta area uses yield signs as you would want a diamond sign to be used. The idea isn't stupid, but it's been solved already by the yield/give way sign.

Alex didn't ignore you - he went to the effort of making it clear, by saying that I had already commented and then repeating my point that you were suggesting a yield sign by a different name and shape. He gave a solution - use a yield sign instead of your diamond, as that is what your diamond is doing.

America overuses stop signs IMO - there's too many of them. I can only think of one exact location in the UK where there is a stop sign - there's more, but I don't think I've been through that many. We either have traffic signals or give ways (or roundabouts, which are just give ways). I've definitely been driven through/walked past/driven through more stop signs in 10 weeks in the US than 22 years in the UK. I can't remember being driven through (most of my UK roads experience is as a passenger) a stop sign in the UK on the public highway, though I have driven through one myself when I had driving lessons.

4-way yield-to-lefts rather than 4-way stops are a good idea (if I say so myself) - infiltration of the US with mini roundabouts without having to paint circles on the ground. You don't have to stop if it's clear, you only have to look at 2 entrances, not three.

OK, I yield to the consensus opinion. :) Thanks, everyone, for your patience.

What the hell is the first sign supposed to mean and I'd rather see the "no passing" text sign than this. I drove in Italy seeing that second sign and had no idea what it meant.
You really have no idea what the first sign means? In this case you should start worrying about your cognitive abilities, man :ohno:

As for you driving abroad, I would recommend to make yourself familiar with the basic road signs. It is not OK to be proud of your ignorance when it comes to things you are not accustomed to. If you spend 5 minutes memorising the pictograph, you will find that you can recognise it from much greater distance than text. Objectively, pictographs are more efficient, whether you like or not.

I don't think we need any changes to our highway signage in the United States.
Then you better present your case to the FHWA in a scientific manner. Your "old habits die hard" argument would most likely not be accepted.

What the hell is the first sign supposed to mean and I'd rather see the "no passing" text sign than this. I drove in Italy seeing that second sign and had no idea what it meant.


I don't think we need any changes to our highway signage in the United States.

You didn't know what it meant because you never saw it before, although I personally don't see how it can be confusing. By the way, in Europe this sign is a little different, it actually shows a black car on the right and a red car on the left, without the diagonal line (which in fact means the end of the "no passing" zone, although the colour would be black).

I hate textual signs, and while Canada is better than the US in this regard, we still have some textual signs. For example, I remember how whenever there was a "This lane exits" sign on the right lane, I would miss it and then have to do a last-minute lane change to the left when actually noticing the arrows on the pavement - text is the most horrible way to sign anything on the road.

By the way, the first sign (the crossed arrow going straight) in Canada is usually used when one should not drive through an intersection but the restricted road is not one-way. Often this prohibition only applies at certain times of the day and week, and this information usually appears below the sign. But sometimes on busy downtown intersections the authorities may want to forbid cars from entering the street at a particular intersection just to ease traffic, even though the street is not one-way. Like someone has already mentioned, usually if a street is one-way the normal "restricted" sign (the red circle with a white bar) is used instead of that first sign.

By the way, the first sign (the crossed arrow going straight) in Canada is usually used when one should not drive through an intersection but the restricted road is not one-way. Often this prohibition only applies at certain times of the day and week, and this information usually appears below the sign. But sometimes on busy downtown intersections the authorities may want to forbid cars from entering the street at a particular intersection just to ease traffic, even though the street is not one-way. Like someone has already mentioned, usually if a street is one-way the normal "restricted" sign (the red circle with a white bar) is used instead of that first sign.

I've seen the first sign with the crossed-out straight arrow also apply to signalized intersections with oncoming one-way streets. The Do Not Enter sign is usually in place when the the intersection is not signalized.

While Canadian signs overall are pretty good pictorally (perhaps to avoid overtexting a sign in bilingual areas) there is one oddity from Québec that still bothers me:

http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/1384D7576A9B04F2E04400144F0104BD

Now who can figure that one out?














This one is far clearer: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/graphics/handbook_drivers/3-1-12.jpg Too much information in the first one, not as concise as the second one.

Here's a link to some of the Ontario road signage taken from the Driver's Handbook. (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/signs/)

@ California exit numbering: Isn't the state in the middle of converting their (at least Interstate) exit numbers from cumulative/consecutive to mileage-based? I personally prefer mileage-based exits since not only does each exit have its own unique number (as with the cumulative/consecutive), but it also tells me how far down the road I've travelled either when looking at a map or when you're actually driving. Driving the New York Thruway is frustrating when you don't know how far the next exit is.

I've seen the first sign with the crossed-out straight arrow also apply to signalized intersections with oncoming one-way streets. The Do Not Enter sign is usually in place when the the intersection is not signalized.

While Canadian signs overall are pretty good pictorally (perhaps to avoid overtexting a sign in bilingual areas) there is one oddity from Québec that still bothers me:

http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/1384D7576A9B04F2E04400144F0104BD

Now who can figure that one out?
A European would say 'Straight ahead or right turns permitted but not mandatory'. It doesn't say anything about left turns (permitted, prohibited?). A VERY unclear sign, IMHO.

This one is far clearer: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/graphics/handbook_drivers/3-1-12.jpg Too much information in the first one, not as concise as the second one.

Here's a link to some of the Ontario road signage taken from the Driver's Handbook. (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/signs/)

@ California exit numbering: Isn't the state in the middle of converting their (at least Interstate) exit numbers from cumulative/consecutive to mileage-based? I personally prefer mileage-based exits since not only does each exit have its own unique number (as with the cumulative/consecutive), but it also tells me how far down the road I've travelled either when looking at a map or when you're actually driving. Driving the New York Thruway is frustrating when you don't know how far the next exit is.
California is converting from *no interchange numbers at all* to distance-based.

Mike

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.
Oh the arrogance! How pathetic -- it has nothing to do with being PC. There is this little thing called tourism, and there's also this little thing that is very popular in the US in particular called road trips. These so-called road trips are very attractive to countless foreigners who are not there to take over but rather to PUMP MONEY into an AILING economy (just like how I, an American BTW, along with two friends, both non-American will be doing for two weeks next year). The tourism industry is quite huge in the US and anything that helps tourists should be WELCOME.

Not to mention that overall signs that use pictures isntead of text are much better anyway and should be welcome. Anything to make driving easier is better, especially given that in the US the death and accident rates are so huge (one of the worst in the developed world, with many states being even worse than poor states of certain parts of Europe).

While Canadian signs overall are pretty good pictorally (perhaps to avoid overtexting a sign in bilingual areas) there is one oddity from Québec that still bothers me:

http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/1384D7576A9B04F2E04400144F0104BD

Now who can figure that one out?



Considering the Dutch sign that looks like this, this sign says only right and through traffic is allowed.

While Canadian signs overall are pretty good pictorally (perhaps to avoid overtexting a sign in bilingual areas) there is one oddity from Québec that still bothers me:

http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/1384D7576A9B04F2E04400144F0104BD

Now who can figure that one out?
A European would say 'Straight ahead or right turns permitted but not mandatory'. It doesn't say anything about left turns (permitted, prohibited?). A VERY unclear sign, IMHO.
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"

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/euro/B57_small.jpg

Of course, this blue sign makes sense only if "no left turn" (bottom) sign isn't used at all which is the case with Germany, former Soviet Union, and several others:

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/euro/B28_small.jpg

As for Canada, I am pretty sure that it DOES prohibit a left turn. Another question is why the hell they would also use "No left turn" sign? But apparently they really use both signs.

Considering the Dutch sign that looks like this, this sign says only right and through traffic is allowed.

You really have a Dutch sign that looks like that? Wouldn't the European equivalent be white arrows on a solid blue background?:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Zeichen_214.svg/120px-Zeichen_214.svg.png

Or have I misunderstood what the sign means? Personally I admit I have no idea what a white sign with a green outline means.

^^ The Dutch sign is like the one your posted (slightly different arrows). In basics, it's the same as the Canadian one, only the colors are different and the green circle.

^^ The Dutch sign is like the one your posted (slightly different arrows). In basics, it's the same as the Canadian one, only the colors are different and the green circle.

There is apparently a difference between Canadian white signs with green outlines and our blue ones:

According to the link, a black bicycle on a white background with a green outline
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/graphics/handbook_drivers/3-1-5.jpg

means "This road is an official bicycle route. Watch for cyclists and be prepared to share the road with them. "

Here, and I assume in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe, a white bicycle on a blue background means "bicycles only"

Canadians do not clearly state what green circle really means. Generally, it is said that green circle gives permission to perform an indicated manoeuvre. However, in case of the sign below, it is different.

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/green_cirlce_1.jpg
This sign reads "Truck should take this route" (in this case it is mandatory). Go figure...

As for Canada, I am pretty sure that it DOES prohibit a left turn. Another question is why the hell they would also use "No left turn" sign? But apparently they really use both signs.

I believe that the green circle sign is only used in Quebec (and therefore I wonder whether they also use the "left turn prohibited" sign or not). It is not in the Ontario Driver's Handbook, and I've never seen it here.

Such obligatory signs in Ontario are only used to describe where each lane on a multi-lane road may turn, and it looks like this:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/graphics/handbook_drivers/3-1-26.jpg

I'm pretty sure that this one is used throughout North America though.

As for Canada, I am pretty sure that it DOES prohibit a left turn. Another question is why the hell they would also use "No left turn" sign? But apparently they really use both signs.We also use both of them. I never understood why.

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/green_cirlce_1.jpg


People with red/green color blindness (at least mild one - with strong one they are not allows to drive anyway) could have some problems in certain circumstances. This is also why, that mostly red/blue combination is used, when dividing prohibitions or allowances.

In this page you can compare traffic signals (European and American)

http://www.sitographics.com/enciclog/trafico/entrada.html

I believe that the green circle sign is only used in Quebec (and therefore I wonder whether they also use the "left turn prohibited" sign or not). It is not in the Ontario Driver's Handbook, and I've never seen it here.
Green circle is also used in British Columbia, I saw it myself and quite liked it. For instance, before intersection with one-way street, they used green circle with straight and left/right arrow, and not the red crossed circle prohibition sign used throughout the USA. Very similar concept to the Russian and Ukrainian signs, but in former USSR they don't use turn prohibitions at all (except "no U-turn").

As for people with colour blindness, they can distinguish mandatory and prohibition signs in that the first ones are not slashed while the others are.

I still think that international circular signs with blue background catch your attention quicker than green outer circles.

Here is how a completely colour blind person sees the Canadian signs (two left ones) and a European sign that conveys the same message as the middle sign:

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/grey/no_right_turn.jpg http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/grey/straight_or_left_ca.jpg http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/grey/B56_small.jpg

If you were colour blind, I bet you would prefer the European format given that the size is the same ;)

^ They're the same to me.

Green circle is also used in British Columbia, I saw it myself and quite liked it. For instance, before intersection with one-way street, they used green circle with straight and left/right arrow, and not the red crossed circle prohibition sign used throughout the USA. Very similar concept to the Russian and Ukrainian signs, but in former USSR they don't use turn prohibitions at all (except "no U-turn").

Interesting, I only know about Ontario, since it's the only province I've driven in (well, I've driven in Quebec a little too, but not much). But does BC also use the prohibition sign? In any case, Ontario doesn't use it (i.e. the green one), so I guess this ambiguity doesn't exist here. In fact, I remember that the green-circled sign caught my attention too when I visited Montreal a few years ago. Another strange thing in Montreal was that their traffic lights seem to be programmed in a very simplistic way, so when your lights turn red, the perpendicular direction gets a green immediately, with no delay :) But that's a topic for another thread.

Oh the arrogance! How pathetic -- it has nothing to do with being PC. There is this little thing called tourism, and there's also this little thing that is very popular in the US in particular called road trips. These so-called road trips are very attractive to countless foreigners...(snip)

Not to mention that overall signs that use pictures isntead of text are much better anyway and should be welcome. Anything to make driving easier is better, especially given that in the US the death and accident rates are so huge (one of the worst in the developed world, with many states being even worse than poor states of certain parts of Europe).

The tourism argument is ridiculous, especially in this case. English is used by tourists all over the world as a lingua franca to communicate in foreign countries. Every educated person in the world has at least a basic command of the English language - more than enough to understand simple road signs. Illiterate, poor, or uneducated foreigners, as harsh as it may sound, hardly have the financial means to make US road trips. In fact, most of them would probably have an even harder time entering the US legally. And how many of those would make a road trip all by themselves? I think the few text-only road signs left today would be the least of their worries.
And I also think you're way overestimating the number of foreign tourists who don't speak any English and drive around the US. Oh, and their economical impact... that's hilarious.

If you're planning on driving in a foreign country, it's only common sense to familiarize yourself with the peculiarities and the traffic code of that country - and learn a few useful words in that language. I would consider it arrogant not to do so!


So, besides the language argument, why are pictorial signs so much better? As this discussion has shown sometimes their meaning is not quite as obvious as many would like to believe. The no passing zone sign would actually mean the exact opposite in Europe. Ergo, the public would still have to learn the exact meaning of some of the new signs, while a text-only sign means exactly what is says. All the really critical signs such as stop, yield, do not enter, etc. are universally understood anyhow.

I really don't see what actual problems the proposed changes would solve or try to solve. Just because it looks more modern (why?) or more European is not a good enough reason imho.
Wouldn't it suck if roads looked exactly the same all over the world? I find it charming that every state or country has its own little quirks when it comes to signage, numbering, etc.


cheers,
snowman

English is used by tourists all over the world as a lingua franca to communicate in foreign countries.trueEvery educated person in the world has at least a basic command of the English language - more than enough to understand simple road signs.not true - I've met many people who are at University and really struggle with basic English, before being taught it at university in England as preparation for their course - international students who have degrees and doing post-grad in England. As for specifics of road signs, my first language is English and I struggle to understand some US text-based road signs - I have to think about what they mean. It's because they don't use basic English (or even English), but use slang and jargon that's specifically used only in the US wrt roads. It's not English it's American sign-speak. The grammar on these signs is awful, the text rather difficult to get the meaning of the first time.If you're planning on driving in a foreign country, it's only common sense to familiarize yourself with the peculiarities and the traffic code of that country - and learn a few useful words in that language. I would consider it arrogant not to do so!I would consider it arrogant that when driving the US authorities seem to be trying their hardest to make it difficult. Given that not all American adults can read, given that English isn't the official language by law just by practice, given that Spanish is the first language of a significant minority (and not long before it's a majority) of residents, it is highly arrogant to expect people to have to read blocks of psudo-English text while travelling at high speed, especially given that they are the only country in the world to do so.

By all means, this familiarisation happens, however the US makes it harder than it needs to be. Ireland, for instance uses a different pictogram system to the rest of Europe, yet I don't think it's that arrogant (it was blatantly done to be different to the UK, though) as it's easy to pick up as it's the same kind of system as elsewhere.So, besides the language argument, why are pictorial signs so much better?As we've learnt, many Americans know what the text signs are from the shape of the words - a tourist wouldn't be able to do that - and anyway, they are effectively working by shapes, not letters - they work pictorially. Research has proven, in a great many countries, that while driving pictorial signs are safer than text-based ones. Tourists aren't what matter here, it's normal American drivers - I'm not saying change it (there's the cost involved, though the FHWA seems to be doing the change gradually, which negates that), however American roads would be safer if they went for pictorial signs.As this discussion has shown sometimes their meaning is not quite as obvious as many would like to believe. The no passing zone sign would actually mean the exact opposite in Europe.no it wouldn't - you're arrogant enough not to bother to learn what signs would mean in Europe. There are some unintuitive signs, but America doesn't have to adopt them. Red outlined circle = prohibition, blue circle = mandatory, red outlined triangle = warning. This covers most signs - the one you mention has a red outlined circle (saying that this is a "don't do") and the picture is clearly a car passing another on it's right that's red (so that's the thing you don't do) and has a line through it (making it doubly clear that that is what's being prohibited) - no overtaking is it's meaning that's obvious to a European, and really not that hard for an American to get rather quickly the first time, and then instantly afterwards.Ergo, the public would still have to learn the exact meaning of some of the new signs, while a text-only sign means exactly what is says.There is the thing that American drivers have to learn a new system, however they had to learn the old one. Fight through the jargon and understand the exact meaning of the text and even once they did they take longer to know what sign it is, as they have to read it, rather than just glance at the picture, or learn a further thing - the shape of the text on the sign.All the really critical signs such as stop, yield, do not enter, etc. are universally understood anyhow.and note that they are ALL pictorial - stop signs and yield signs have their shape, hence why they are universally understood and no entry signs have the same design. They have words on, but these words are just reminders - their shape means that you don't need to read the words. And why not make other signs universally understood? It doesn't have to be exactly the same, but if it's on the same principles it wouldn't be hard for people to understand.

So, besides the language argument, why are pictorial signs so much better?



It's actually pretty simple- when you're driving and paying attention to driving your brain responds much better to simple visual stimulation than to words. It's for that reason that when you're driving down a simple two lane road with a gentle curve ahead they put up (in N.Am.) a yellow diamond sign with an arrow bending in the same direction as the curve. It doesn't say "ALL TRAFFIC MUST TURN SLIGHTLY TO THE LEFT AHEAD".
This has nothing at all to do with tourists or political correctness.

This covers most signs - the one you mention has a red outlined circle (saying that this is a "don't do") and the picture is clearly a car passing another on it's right that's red (so that's the thing you don't do) and has a line through it (making it doubly clear that that is what's being prohibited)

Not true; it means the end of the prohibition, so after this sign you can overtake again. Can be confusing.

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R4-1.jpg
^^ So what does this sign mean in Canada, and what would it mean in the US, if adopted? Overtaking prohibited or the end of the prohibition = overtaking allowed again?

In Europe it's like that:

http://www.signaco.si/znaki/prepoved/prepoved32s.jpg - overtaking prohibited

http://www.signaco.si/znaki/obvestila/obvest34s.jpg - the end of the prohibition = overtaking allowed again

I'm pretty sure it would mean NO PASSING. In North America, just having a red circle isn't enough for something to be prohibited, it will always have the slash as well. A green circle around the same symbol would likely be the equivalent for allowing for passing once again.

Not true; it means the end of the prohibition, so after this sign you can overtake again. Can be confusing.err a Red slash wouldn't - it's not really used over here, though in the UK it's being brought in on signs like no cycling as people ignore the red circle. No left/right turn has always had it to make extra sure the wrong end of the stick isn't got. A greyed out sign with no slash would mean "overtaking allowed again", as you showed in your second post.

Blame the UK for the fact that we don't have many slashes on signs - we didn't put slashes on signs as they got in the way of the picture (Denmark puts slashes behind the picture) and Europe followed our lead.

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R4-1.jpg
^^ So what does this sign mean in Canada, and what would it mean in the US, if adopted? Overtaking prohibited or the end of the prohibition = overtaking allowed again?

In Europe it's like that:

http://www.signaco.si/znaki/prepoved/prepoved32s.jpg - overtaking prohibited

http://www.signaco.si/znaki/obvestila/obvest34s.jpg - the end of the prohibition = overtaking allowed again

Hmm I don't see the confusion - as far as I know, in Europe (and most of the world) the "end of prohibition" signs are all black, they don't have a red circle - exactly like in the sign you just showed.

In Canada, the top sign means that overtaking is prohibited.

And regarding textual signs - as I said already, in my opinion they are horrible. Even though English is not my first language, I am fluent in it, and yet I often miss textual signs (my brain filters them out). Luckily, that's not a big problem, since Canada doesn't use many textual signs that are of big importance.

My brain is used to textual signs providing information such as direction, street names, and even random things like advertisements, so a sign conveying important legal information in the form of text would usually be filtered out if I just glance at it, whereas a pictorial sign wouldn't be.

I don't even like our North American speed limit signs, since they don't quite catch attention. I often find that I am not sure what the exact speed limit is on a particular unfamiliar road, since they're quite easy to miss.

A big problem with the signs here is that they aren't quite standardized. While there are a few classes of signs (e.g. the yellow warning signs, which I actually like quite a lot, and the direction signs), some classes aren't consistent in their shape, colour, and form. Another problem is that it seems that anyone can introduce random signs whenever they see fit, even if the signs do not actually exist in any official highway code or law (since certain guidelines, like the FHWA, seem to be more like recommendations than binding legislation). I still cannot get over the sentence in the Ontario Driver's Handbook, "This chapter shows you what many of those signs, lights and markings look like and explains what they mean to drivers." - this implies that it does not cover all of them, but just "gives you the general idea" :) And I have encountered signs in the past that I've never seen before in any theory books.

When I think about it, it isn't that confusing, it's not like any sign suggests overtaking is mandatory. You just use some logic, if you aren't sure, whether a sign prohibits sth, or ends a prohibition (which you should've noticed before).

When I think about it, it isn't that confusing, it's not like any sign suggests overtaking is mandatory. You just use some logic, if you aren't sure, whether a sign prohibits sth, or ends a prohibition (which you should've notice before).

Yeah, to tell you the truth, I don't think I've ever actually seen the "no overtaking" sign here in Ontario. I think it exists mostly because apparently (and the theory book doesn't even make this completely clear) in Ontario the lane marking (solid/broken) is only advisory - in other words, if you overtake by crossing a solid middle divider and it is safe, then you cannot be fined (although probably if you cause an accident this fact will be used against you). Of course, it is rarely a good idea to overtake where there is a solid line, since the line would be solid on sections where overtaking is not safe, like in Europe. So I think this sign exists to provide an absolute prohibition on overtaking, but I don't think it is common - as I said before, I've never seen it yet in Southern Ontario.

^^ The pictorial "No overtaking" sign is up and doing well in British Columbia because I have seen it numerous times on 2x1 roads (Fraser Highway and Sea-to-Sky Highway to name a few). You get used to it rather quickly and recognise it instantly afterwards.

I took several pictures of two T-shaped perpendicular intersections with YIELD signs. It is certainly an oddity in the USA as of today.

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/WSU_yield1.jpg

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/WSU_yield2.jpg

I hope because of the new MUTCD we will see more intersections like this.

I prefer to see this:

http://www.soundandvision.be/rijbewijs/voorrangwet/afbeeldingen/voorrangwet46.JPG

^^ What about it? The road marking? It is used occasionally in the USA too, but I prefer to see a broken line instead of triangles.

Yeah the road marking. It makes the right-of-way situation much more clear. You easily can miss a roadsign (sometimes there are too much of them, or obscured by trees or weed), and you usually don't miss the pavement. It also clearly markes the intersection exactly. Regular lines are too standard.

I agree about marking. I wish it was used more often over here.

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/usdot/yield_marking.jpg

Those so called "shark teeth" are quite handy if you want to know whether you have to stop or not. This can also give tricky situations. In my town a pedestrian path and a bike path cross a road next to each other. Cars have to stop for pedestrians, but bikes have to stop for cars. Sometimes, drivers don't know what to do as well. I cross the road there by bike very much, and I always stop for approaching cars. However, mostly the cars stop for me. Very nice of the drivers, but the drivers also get fooled by the tricky situation and think that bikes go first. Conclusion: shark teeth are handy, when applied in a handy way.

When added in a proper and consistent way, shark teeth should not lead to confusion at all.

^^Well, they're not added in a proper way on that crossing in my town :crazy:

Salt Lake City doesn't have too many yield signs but I don't think I'd call them rare; I've seen several.

Ireland, for instance uses a different pictogram system to the rest of Europe, yet I don't think it's that arrogant (it was blatantly done to be different to the UK, though) as it's easy to pick up as it's the same kind of system as elsewhere.

Irish signage was designed in the 1950s before the European practice was fully harmonised. It was different from the UK, not to be different, but to be better. The UK themselves dumped most of their signage a few years later, but blatantly made their new signs different than those in Ireland.

UK signage not copied in Ireland
http://www.igg.org.uk/gansg/00-app1/signs.jpg

About the give way lines i prefer the Brtish version:

http://www.delhitrafficpolice.nic.in/images/give-way-line.jpg

About the give way lines i prefer the Brtish version:

http://www.delhitrafficpolice.nic.in/images/give-way-line.jpg
I also prefer broken lines and a big triangle in advance, but I would be happy with whatever marking they put here as long as they use YIELDs and not stupid unnecessary STOPs.

I like the sharks teeth.

^^Me too. They give a clear indication which side goes first and which side has to wait.

^^Me too. They give a clear indication which side goes first and which side has to wait.

And they differ from the full stop line which accompany the "STOP" sign, making road marking and signs work together.

Yield sign frequency in the US varies greatly from state to state. My home state of Alabama uses them almost universally as intersection control signs in residential neighborhoods (and has done so for a long time), whereas here in Illinois, everything is a stop sign.

I have to constantly remember to stop (and look for cops) at intersections before proceeding, whereas in Alabama, I'd just slow down, look both ways, and then cruise on through.

I don't think cops around here enforce that law.

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)
Yellow signs are cautionary
Green signs are for information
Blue signs are institutional (schools, hospitals, etc.)
Brown signs are touristic (information, gas stations, restaurants, hotels, etc.)
Black and white signs are obligatory (speed limit, one way, etc.)

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)
Yellow signs are cautionary
Green signs are for information
Blue signs are institutional (schools, hospitals, etc.)
Brown signs are touristic (information, gas stations, restaurants, hotels, etc.)
Black and white signs are obligatory (speed limit, one way, etc.)

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.

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:

http://guelph.ca/uploads/ET_Group/Transportation/Traffic/School%20zone.jpg

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.

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.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2275/2314505897_be4dc2a876_m.jpg

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.

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:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2983247915_2618c5be69_o.jpg

^^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.

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.

^^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.

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.

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

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

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.

Self-explanatory...
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/W6-5_6.jpg
____________

Finally they dropped some of the silly textual signs leaving only pictorial equivalents. Still a lot of textual signs to remain, but it's a good start.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/no_text.jpg


To be continued...

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

^^ 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.

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?

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

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R3-27.jpg

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.
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"

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/euro/B57_small.jpg

Of course, this blue sign makes sense only if "no left turn" (bottom) sign isn't used at all which is the case with Germany, former Soviet Union, and several others:

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/euro/B28_small.jpg

As for Canada, I am pretty sure that it DOES prohibit a left turn. Another question is why the hell they would also use "No left turn" sign? But apparently they really use both signs.
Perhaps nittypicking, but there could be more than three exits from an intersections, in case the prohibition and mandatory direction signs are not equivalent.
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)
Yellow signs are cautionary
Green signs are for information
Blue signs are institutional (schools, hospitals, etc.)
Brown signs are touristic (information, gas stations, restaurants, hotels, etc.)
Black and white signs are obligatory (speed limit, one way, etc.)
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.

^^ 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!"

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?

^^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.

And 4-way stops wouldn't be annoying?

Yeah and whose going to take "several minutes" to reeducate the hundreds of millions of motorists on the roads.those who can see the benefit of less lives lost on the road, less time to learn in the future, no need to spend a lot more time to learn what signs mean when going elsewhere in the world, the benefit of not relying on people being literate.
Meanwhile the more practical and logical English signs which take no extra explanation are being done away with.They aren't more practical, or more logical - if they were, Europe wouldn't have changed over in the 60s. They do need extra explanation, simply as they are written in awful English, with lots of jargon, that requires thinking about what it actually means.I think 20 years from now civil engineers will take a look at this idiocy and say, "Gee, we're an English speaking countryThe US has no official language. Rather a lot of people speak Spanish as a first language (and often English as a second language). This will be exacerbated in future years. Parts of the South West/Texas are already Spanish majority areas, these will just grow.

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!"

Do you actually read NO ENTRY when you come across that sign, or you don't need to, b/c you can recognize it from afar by its look? (be careful how you reply, you don't wanna turn out a fool)

Paddington, do you think we should replace the yellow diamond warning signs that show a curve to the left with one that spells it out: "ALL TRAFFIC MUST TURN SLIGHTLY TO THE LEFT JUST AHEAD"?

Or, how about a yellow diamond that shows a road entering from the right with:

"ATTENTION. THERE IS A STREET ENTERING FROM THE RIGHT 100 YARDS AHEAD".

No offense, but California's signs may be the ugliest in the nation. They look so old.

And I think that it's pathetic that they didn't have exit numbers until recently. I know it's a big state, but come on! They should be a leader in signage, but instead end up having the crappiest ones.

Second crappiest would be Connecticut, but they are on the track of (slowly) updating their signs, but unfortunately they still have sequential exit numbering. Only three states in the Northeast (PA, NJ, ME) have mile-based exit numbering. Pathetic! :ohno:
Not really 10ROT. Think of I95 in CT. The junctions are too close together to use a mileage based exit numbering system. Same with I91 and I84 in the Hartford area. the exits/entrances are simply too close together to use the mileage system of numbering

Not really 10ROT. Think of I95 in CT. The junctions are too close together to use a mileage based exit numbering system. Same with I91 and I84 in the Hartford area. the exits/entrances are simply too close together to use the mileage system of numbering
What's wrong with using letters (i.e. Exit 21A, 21B, etc) if several exits fall within the same mile interval? That's how they do it in most of metropolitan areas, and it works just fine. Plus, I don't think it is possible to build more than 3 exits in the same mile, so it is not as if you will ever run out of letters :lol:

^^ A Chicago exit has J added to the exit number. That means there are 10 exits within the mile!

Probably not. An exit every 160 meters? Be serious.

Check it out: :)

http://i35.tinypic.com/333lj5c.jpg

Holy shit, I guess you don't have to make a big detour if you miss your exit :lol:

Motorway guide signs

Before, a splitting motorway sign looked like this:

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/thick_arrows.jpg
______________________

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

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/up_arrows_guide.jpg

I wrote to FHWA during the public comment period to disagree with this change. FHWA's proposed revision to the MUTCD would have removed the option of using stippled-arrow diagrammatics even in situations where they had been shown to be useful (left exits, changes of route number on the through route, unusual geometry through the interchange, exits in rapid succession, etc.).

Meanwhile, the proposed replacement is specialized to address the optional lane problem and does not have the flexibility to handle unusual geometry or exits in rapid succession. The requirement to have arrows centered over each lane also means that a one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatic can be very large compared to a stippled-arrow diagrammatic conveying the same information.

Some other concerns I had included the following:

* The stippled-arrow diagrammatic was extensively field-tested in the 1970's, with specimen signs installed in about 20 states. This experimentation allowed design rules to be refined. Nothing comparable to this research effort has been done for one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatics. There is systematic use of such diagrammatics in a few locations (e.g., TxDOT's Houston district) as well as a few isolated installations in about four states, but there is little evidence of design optimization in the literature and also substantial variations in design in the field.

* Stippled-arrow diagrammatics also have better glance legibility from longer distances than one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatics, simply because the arrows are larger. Detailed lane assignment information can be, and normally is, conveyed by other signs.

* There are other possible approaches to the optional-lane problem which use the downward-pointing arrow.

The full text of all responses to the MUTCD rulemaking, including mine, are online. I have not surveyed the state DOT responses to get an idea of whether a majority are opposed to eliminating the stippled-arrow diagrammatic. However, with considerable help from regular readers of Usenet newsgroup misc.transport.road, I did a survey of current usage and discovered that stippled-arrow diagrammatics are used in over 40 states. Given that the stippled-arrow diagrammatic has a more secure basis in research, and the much smaller number and much greater diversity in design of one-arrow-per-lane signs, my guess is that most state DOTs that expressed an opinion on the change disagreed with it.

My personal position, which some state DOTs may or may not agree with, is that the stippled-arrow diagrammatic should be retained in the MUTCD while the one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatic should be added as an option to deal with difficult optional-lane cases.

This is not the first time FHWA has tried to introduce a one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatic. The last major revision of the MUTCD appeared in 2003, and was preceded by a lengthy rulemaking exercise in 2002 during which FHWA suggested that one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatics, as shown in the Older Drivers Handbook, should be added to the MUTCD. A lot of commenters, including several state DOTs and myself, objected that there was no secure basis in research and no evidence of design optimization, and the proposal did not make it into the 2003 MUTCD.

Between 2003 and 2008 the major piece of additional work on the one-arrow-per-lane concept has been a tachistoscope study by Katz and Golembiewski. That was basically a proof of the overall concept rather than an investigation of design detail and possible adaptations of the concept to meet difficult situations. There has been no field work, and precious little evidence of state DOTs putting these signs in construction plans.

My guess and hope is that FHWA will acknowledge that the case for adding one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatics to the MUTCD is marginal at best, and the stippled-arrow diagrammatics will be saved. But we shall see.

In response to the use of present tense indicative, rather than subjunctive, in the OP and some of the replies, I have to stress that these are just proposals which have been advanced as part of the rulemaking process. Quite a few of these proposals will probably fall by the wayside before the new MUTCD appears in 2009 or 2010.

^^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.

In Norway, the 80s was the first true roundabout decade. Now, roundabouts are built when all sorts of roads intersect, and things have gotten seriously out of hand: The new E6 under construction at Stjørdal, for instance: 4 lanes, dubbed "motorway" by the public, but with 3 roundabouts - 2 of those when the E6 meet local traffic... The proposed new 100 kph 4-lane motorway bridge across lake Mjøsa will - just as the current 2-lane expressway - meet the rv 4 in a roundabout. All three roads have an AADT close to or above 10,000, and at least the E6 is proposed as a full motorway further north as well...

I wrote to FHWA during the public comment period to disagree with this change. FHWA's proposed revision to the MUTCD would have removed the option of using stippled-arrow diagrammatics even in situations where they had been shown to be useful (left exits, changes of route number on the through route, unusual geometry through the interchange, exits in rapid succession, etc.).

Meanwhile, the proposed replacement is specialized to address the optional lane problem and does not have the flexibility to handle unusual geometry or exits in rapid succession. The requirement to have arrows centered over each lane also means that a one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatic can be very large compared to a stippled-arrow diagrammatic conveying the same information.

Some other concerns I had included the following:

* The stippled-arrow diagrammatic was extensively field-tested in the 1970's, with specimen signs installed in about 20 states. This experimentation allowed design rules to be refined. Nothing comparable to this research effort has been done for one-arrow-per-lane diagrammatics. There is systematic use of such diagrammatics in a few locations (e.g., TxDOT's Houston district) as well as a few isolated installations in about four states, but there is little evidence of design optimization in the literature and also substantial variations in design in the field.
.


http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9247/i045nbexit060b02nh1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/i045nbexit060b02nh1.jpg/1/w600.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img135/i045nbexit060b02nh1.jpg/1/)

This is an example from the Houston district of what he's talking about, and I think it does an effective job of indicating exits in rapid succession. Admittedly, it is a very Euro-style sign, then again, this is extremely close to the airport, which is supportive of an international style.

Cool sign!

It's fun to see this new signage appearing :cheers:

Much better than others I remember from back in UT.

Check it out: :)

http://i35.tinypic.com/333lj5c.jpg

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/me%202/inter10.jpg

:nuts:

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9247/i045nbexit060b02nh1.jpg

This is an example from the Houston district of what he's talking about, and I think it does an effective job of indicating exits in rapid succession. Admittedly, it is a very Euro-style sign, then again, this is extremely close to the airport, which is supportive of an international style.
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.

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.

I'd agree. Being from Houston, I never saw the big arrow signs growing up, and the only one on I-45 (in a rural area) was replaced about 10 years ago. Not a huge loss.

They're the only ones you see in Utah, hope to see them go away in the near future.

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.

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.

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, 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

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/5785/stippledarrowdiagrammatdj5.png

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

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/927/stippledarrowdiagrammatpi9.png

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.)

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/5185/stippledarrowdiagrammatbz0.png

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.

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/4658/stippledarrowdiagrammatdi1.png

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.)

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/3631/stippledarrowdiagrammatkm7.png

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

http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/4755/stippledarrowdiagrammatph7.png

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.

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/7932/stippledarrowdiagrammatib9.png

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

"Standard" splits

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/6449/stippledarrowdiagrammatvb4.png

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

It happens sporadic in Europe too.

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

-edit- It's over here (http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&ie=UTF8&ll=51.446545,5.43407&spn=0.018696,0.038452&t=h&z=15). It doesn't look like a real exit, more like an on and off ramp leading to a roundabout.

Yay! Toledo. :banana:

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.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3055/3069503750_475f24b929_b.jpg

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)
Yellow signs are cautionary
Green signs are for information
Blue signs are institutional (schools, hospitals, etc.)
Brown signs are touristic (information, gas stations, restaurants, hotels, etc.)
Black and white signs are obligatory (speed limit, one way, etc.)

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

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/kingriffleteh1st/DSCF0696.jpg

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.
http://www.absolutvision.com/gallery/gallery/th/2M4189.preview.jpg

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/usdot/yield_marking.jpg

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.

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

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.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/me%202/inter10.jpg

: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.

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.

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

^^ 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.

I'm not sure if it was officially approved, but I would assume so. New signage and sharks teeth have been popping up; why would they be if it wasn't approved?

I'm not sure if it was officially approved, but I would assume so. New signage and sharks teeth have been popping up; why would they be if it wasn't approved?

Shark's teeth were added to the MUTCD in 2003. (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part3/part3b2.htm) Where the 2008 proposed revisions are concerned, you are better off going to the presentation PDFs to see the suggested changes, because the PDFs containing the proposed text and figures actually include all of the material proposed for inclusion in the revised MUTCD, including material that is being left unchanged.

It is also quite common for new traffic control devices to be used in advance of their inclusion in the MUTCD. FHWA's Interim Approvals process provides one legal mechanism for this, and of course many state DOTs and local agencies ignore the rules for experimentation.

My first post here, because I just had to say "bravo" to this! Thought I was the only person who cared about things like being able to tell what state or country you're in by things like the route markers.



If you're planning on driving in a foreign country, it's only common sense to familiarize yourself with the peculiarities and the traffic code of that country - and learn a few useful words in that language. I would consider it arrogant not to do so!
....
Wouldn't it suck if roads looked exactly the same all over the world? I find it charming that every state or country has its own little quirks when it comes to signage, numbering, etc.


cheers,
snowman

So.... I'm a bit of a road geek, and a fairly international person (I love foreign languages and respect linguistic diversity...) who doesn't get to travel as often as I like. And I enjoy driving for its own sake. Not a daily commute - mine's a five-block walk - but every weekend I'm wandering around the Middle Atlantic.

I discovered this forum - forget how - a couple of weeks ago and have been rolling my eyes at those who think the US should convert to alpha-numeric route numbering (no - just no - you touch the Pennsylvania keystone over my dead body); or adopt the metric system (not that our system's better, but we're used to it, and, like Snowman said, visitors can get to know it just like I make a point of learning at least how to say hello, please and thank you in the local language, and speak French when I'm in Quebec or France); or adopt European signage conventions because they make more sense (uh, is three different colors of background depending on the type of road, plus way too many destinations to read at European speeds, really more logical?) Just like I've been rolling my eyes for years at the European Union's trying to standardize license plates in the name of road safety (Has any American or Canadian here ever seen a suggestion that different states and provinces using different colors is dangerous?)

Okay, end of lecture. I'm sure I'll have more to say in the same vein, and in other veins, in days, months and years to come. Cheers....

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?

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....

http://home.comcast.net/%7Ealmikul/images/signs/usdot/R3-27.jpg

Good god I hate this sign! To me the first three thoughts that pop up when I see it are: turnaround, dead end, or can't move forward/ road closed.:nuts:

As for textual signs, I also dislike them. They take too much time to understand. When one drives, one uses brain differently than when one reads, and being forced to switch between those irritates me when I'm tired.

Somebody mentioned US signs being idiomatic, using words clear only to locals - I must say I also find them confusing, and I guess some must be completely opaque to beginners in English.

See this:
http://www.sitographics.com/enciclog/trafic/limitevelo/image/t_0011.jpg
First association: lost of white powder ahead of me:lol:. But seriously though, is there a speed limit ahead, a closed area where speed limit applies, or what?


Another:
http://www.sitographics.com/enciclog/trafic/alineac/image/r4-1.jpg
It may be perfectly clear to US drivers, but think about it, language-wise it's not logical. Does it mean "do not overtake"?


Another one
http://www.sitographics.com/enciclog/trafic/paso/image/t_0003.jpg
Do I bring my girlfriend to this area, or what? Seriously, what does that mean?

I'm not into "ours are better than yours" type of discussion, but text signs IMHO should be reserved to unusual occurances, e.g. "bison ahead", or "deep holes in the pavement", accompanied with a speed limit. Everything else that occurs more or less regularly, that is those which are easy to remember, should be represented as pictograms.

See this:
http://www.sitographics.com/enciclog/trafic/limitevelo/image/t_0011.jpg
First association: lost of white powder ahead of me. But seriously though, is there a speed limit ahead, a closed area where speed limit applies, or what?

It generally means a reduced speed limit ahead for a set distance. (through a village/ town or hazardous area where a lower speed limit is needed but not for a long duration.) Usually you will see a "END SPEED ZONE" sign as well.

Another:
http://www.sitographics.com/enciclog/trafic/alineac/image/r4-1.jpg
It may be perfectly clear to US drivers, but think about it, language-wise it's not logical. Does it mean "do not overtake"?

It means don't pass or "overtake" another motor vehicle.

Another one
http://www.sitographics.com/enciclog/trafic/paso/image/t_0003.jpg
Do I bring my girlfriend to this area, or what? Seriously, what does that mean?

An all way stop, must be mounted directly below a stop sign.
MUTCD: The ALL WAY plaque shall only be used if all intersection approaches are controlled by STOP signs.

Hopefully that helps
:cheers1:

As for textual signs, I also dislike them. They take too much time to understand. When one drives, one uses brain differently than when one drives, and being forced to switch between those irritates me when I'm tired.

Somebody mentioned US signs being idiomatic, using words clear only to locals - I must say I also find them confusing, and I guess some must be completely opaque to beginners in English.

See this:
http://www.sitographics.com/enciclog/trafic/limitevelo/image/t_0011.jpg
First association: lost of white powder ahead of me:lol:. But seriously though, is there a speed limit ahead, a closed area where speed limit applies, or what?


Another:
http://www.sitographics.com/enciclog/trafic/alineac/image/r4-1.jpg
It may be perfectly clear to US drivers, but think about it, language-wise it's not logical. Does it mean "do not overtake"?


Another one
http://www.sitographics.com/enciclog/trafic/paso/image/t_0003.jpg
Do I bring my girlfriend to this area, or what? Seriously, what does that mean?

I'm not into "ours are better than yours" type of discussion, but text signs IMHO should be reserved to unusual occurances, e.g. "bison ahead", or "deep holes in the pavement", accompanied with a speed limit. Everything else that occurs more or less regularly, that is those which are easy to remember, should be represented as pictograms.

I must take exception to that "language-wise it's not logical" about the "Do Not Pass" sign. "Overtake" is British (Australian, New Zealand...) English. Americans say "pass." Unless you're going to say that any American usage that differs from British English is illogical....

The rest of your post, and your overall point, I don't feel strongly about one way or the other. (Although "all way" - which I assume is in conjunction with a stop sign? - is no less understandable to the rare non-English-speaking driver in the U.S. than "toutes directions" is to the less-rare non-French-speaking driver in France. And "bison ahead" is easy: just show a picture of one....)

"all way" - which I assume is in conjunction with a stop sign?

Yes, always. In my area it's more common to see "3 way" (T intersection) or "4 way" (+ intersection) instead of that one.

Yes, always. In my area it's more common to see "3 way" (T intersection) or "4 way" (+ intersection) instead of that one.

I'm wondering how they say "four-way stop" in pictorial systems - big black plus sign with little red stop signs at all of the corners?

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R3-27.jpg???

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Do_Not_Enter_sign.svg/600px-Do_Not_Enter_sign.svg.png!!!

But it doesn't mean the same!
I haven't seen the first one in Europe, but i guess it means that you cannot cross a road to go straight ahead. For example, you are on a one lane road and in front of you there is a big one-way avenue with 5 lanes. There is no traffic light, but your road continues across the avenue on the same direction. Since it's dangerous to cross 5 lanes to go to the other side, the first sign prohibits this. However, drivers on the avenue are allowed to turn (right or left) to the continuation of your road, so there is no need for a "do not enter" sign. I guess that the same situation can be signed with an "obligatory left/right turn" on the small street.

Regulatory signs

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R3-27.jpg - This simple sign did not exist in official MUTCD until now

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R4-1.jpg - A major improvement, IMO. This sign has been used in Canada for ages.
To be continued...


signal like brazilian

http://www.clicrbs.com.br/blog/fotos/269710post_foto.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2321/1524379082_92191bb1af.jpg?v=0

An all way stop, must be mounted directly below a stop sign.

Still not clear: so an N.Am. stop sign does not force one to stop? Just to yield?

^^ 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.

^^ 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.

Where is it like that?

Where I am it's the other way around. Florida Statute Section 316.123(2)(b) reads:

"At a four-way stop intersection, the driver of the first vehicle to stop at the intersection shall be the first to proceed. If two or more vehicles reach the four-way stop intersection at the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right. "

This rule is the same in maritime law which gives makes vessels yield right of way to vessels coming from the right. That's why you see the red light on the port (left) side of a vessel coming from the right, which in turn sees your starboard (green) light (meaning that he can proceed while you must yield).

^^
Give way to the right is the law in Wisconsin and Minnesota as well.

I can't say I like the new guide sign designs adopted by the feds. The huge changes in arrows look very foreign and unnecessary. IMHO :weird:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2e_06.gif

Fortunately the older design is still available for local and state governments to use.
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2e_10.gif

^^ Except that the "Exit Only" field should only be covering the right arrow of the right sign. Some states, such as mine, are really bad and lazy about such details.

^^
Give way to the right is the law in Wisconsin and Minnesota as well.

I can't say I like the new guide sign designs adopted by the feds. The huge changes in arrows look very foreign and unnecessary. IMHO :weird:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2e_06.gif


Foreign and unnecessary? IMO this is huge improvement there is no guess work to figuring out which lane goes where, unlike with the diagram signs where especially for option lanes it can difficult to see if you're in the right lane.

Also can a mod drop the proposed from the the thread title

The block marking to separate through and exit lanes is a golden solution as well, if implemented consistently. You can basically get rid of all those silly "exit only" signs.

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.

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R3-27.jpg???

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Do_Not_Enter_sign.svg/600px-Do_Not_Enter_sign.svg.png!!!

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.

^^ 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

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.
http://www.irrationalsigns.com/road-signs/lawful126.jpg

http://www.irrationalsigns.com/road-signs/lawful46.jpghttp://www.biblehelp.org/images/wrong%20way%20sign.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Road_Closed_Ahead_sign.svg/400px-Road_Closed_Ahead_sign.svg.png http://www.cksinfo.com/clipart/traffic/roadsigns/regulations/wrong-way.png

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:

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.

No, Mike, those signs without words would seem foreign and unnecessary to some people on this forum :lol:
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::)

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

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

I just got back from a trip to St. George Island, FL (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29.664115,-84.863731&spn=0.004503,0.009602&t=h&z=17), 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:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2983247915_2618c5be69_o.jpg

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. :ohno:

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.

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

Another example of condescension....

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".

Since we are talking about the new signs in general here is one. :)
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2d_16.gif

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

Not anymore! One of the biggest improvements in motorway signage in America, in my opinion. Now, it looks much better.
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/up_arrows_guide.jpg

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.

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

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R3-27.jpg

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.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2d_16.gif

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.
http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af184/doodofnerdlyness/Untitled.jpg

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.
http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af184/doodofnerdlyness/Untitled.jpg

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.

Duplicate. :no:

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.

http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af184/doodofnerdlyness/Untitled2-1.jpg

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

Like this:
http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww55/anonymson/Teardrop_Jct.png

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.

http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af184/doodofnerdlyness/Untitled2-1.jpg
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:

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/road_closed_us.jpg

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:

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/euro/left_right_euro.gif

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:

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R3-27.jpg

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:

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:

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/road_closed_us.jpg

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:

http://almikul.home.comcast.net/images/signs/euro/left_right_euro.gif

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:

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R3-27.jpg

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 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

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

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
http://rowerowytorun.com.pl/upload/Image/rozne/wloclawek1.jpg

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

http://www.przelom.pl/media/online/onl_2366.jpg

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.
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2b_26_2.gif




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.
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig9b_04_1.gif





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.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2775/4167906123_2e4b339ff1_m.jpg

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig9c_09_sm.gif

Another one
http://www.sitographics.com/enciclog/trafic/paso/image/t_0003.jpg
Do I bring my girlfriend to this area, or what? Seriously, what does that mean?


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.

http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R3-27.jpg???


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.

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.

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 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=850+Steeles+Ave+W,+Vaughan,+York+Regional+Municipality,+Ontario+L4J+6V5,+Canada&ll=43.732371,-79.448209&spn=0.001479,0.002773&t=k&z=19). 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.

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.

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.

This sign means that you can't enter from one direction but there is oncoming traffic from the other
http://rowerowytorun.com.pl/upload/Image/rozne/wloclawek1.jpg

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

http://www.przelom.pl/media/online/onl_2366.jpg

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.

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)

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.

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?nid=1915&dat=19830224&id=O_EgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CHQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1274,4823568

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:

... 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?nid=1915&dat=19830224&id=O_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?
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/R16-4.jpg
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)

What's new about this?
http://home.comcast.net/~almikul/images/signs/usdot/dotted_left_turn.jpg

^^
The optional dotted line can now be used

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

^^
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.

^^
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 :okay: Reminded me British Columbia a bit.

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

I already see that dotted line very frequently, and not only on new roads...
Western states are slow to change, I guess. I haven't seen this dotted line which would run the entire length of the turning lane before. WA, OR, NV, UT and CA still don't have it.

I never understood the need of the "only" text at the pavement and signs. Almost no other country consider this necessary to use. Usually the road markings are clear enough (dotted markings show exit or turn lanes, if not, they're through lanes, accompanied by arrows on the pavement).

Western states are slow to change, I guess. I haven't seen this dotted line which would run the entire length of the turning lane before. WA, OR, NV, UT and CA still don't have it.

For us, most turning lanes begin with a dotted line that changes to a solid line. On divided highways, the exit ramp starts with a dotted line that changes to a dashed line, then a solid line.

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

I've never seen it Michigan it's probably only new the national mutcd while some states where already using it beforehand.

I never understood the need of the "only" text at the pavement and signs. Almost no other country consider this necessary to use. Usually the road markings are clear enough (dotted markings show exit or turn lanes, if not, they're through lanes, accompanied by arrows on the pavement).

It just there to reinforce arrows

Did someone mention Pennsylvania Avenue?
White center lines. How deviant.
http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af184/doodofnerdlyness/foe_toez/DSC00056.jpg

http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af184/doodofnerdlyness/foe_toez/DSC00013.jpg

You know why right? It's technically divided so one couldn't get confused by not having it yellow.

i love the yellow center lines

You know why right? It's technically divided so one couldn't get confused by not having it yellow.

Yeah, there are bike lanes in the middle. Not surprisingly, there are no bikes in the bike lanes - I'd be terrified to ride a bike in the middle of THAT.

For us, most turning lanes begin with a dotted line that changes to a solid line. On divided highways, the exit ramp starts with a dotted line that changes to a dashed line, then a solid line.

In Connecticut, dotted lines are not used in turning lane, unless there is an extended taper or the through lane shifts left or right for the turn lane.

And dotted lines are also not used on expressway for on or off ramp, but the normal dash is used which can confuse a lot of people a acceleration/deceleration lane is an actual through lane.

Signs in Israel:
Israel on the right, US on the left, EU in the center.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/תמרורים_בישראל

There is instead of a round about sign + yield sign only a yield sign with a round about inside it.
http://www.tamrur.co.il/admin/pics/13.jpg
Instead of no straight you usually have a blue arrow in the way available ONLY + do not enter on the side you can not enter.
http://www.tamrur.co.il/admin/pics/65.jpg