daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 18th, 2008, 08:20 PM   #61
Paddington
Registered User
 
Paddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Southland
Posts: 4,665
Likes (Received): 1261

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



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

What's so special about that? They have this everywhere.
Paddington no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 18th, 2008, 11:08 PM   #62
Alex Von Königsberg
Registered User
 
Alex Von Königsberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,053
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom 958 View Post
That's why I posted this on page 1 of this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom 958
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?
Alex Von Königsberg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2008, 11:15 PM   #63
Alex Von Königsberg
Registered User
 
Alex Von Königsberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,053
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by philip View Post
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.

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.
Alex Von Königsberg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2008, 04:49 AM   #64
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Von Königsberg View Post
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 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.

Last edited by Tom 958; October 19th, 2008 at 11:06 AM. Reason: fixed link
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2008, 09:46 AM   #65
TheCat
IsraCanadian :)
 
TheCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,358
Likes (Received): 6

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.
__________________
Check out my driving videos on Youtube | Please visit the Highways & Autobahns forum
TheCat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2008, 09:55 AM   #66
Xusein
 
Xusein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,176
Likes (Received): 10411

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!
Xusein no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2008, 10:33 AM   #67
FM 2258
Registered User
 
FM 2258's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,438
Likes (Received): 612

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Von Königsberg View Post

- This simple sign did not exist in official MUTCD until now

- 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.
FM 2258 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2008, 11:20 AM   #68
Alex Von Königsberg
Registered User
 
Alex Von Königsberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,053
Likes (Received): 11

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:

Alex Von Königsberg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2008, 11:32 AM   #69
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCat View Post
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.

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.

Last edited by Tom 958; October 19th, 2008 at 11:42 AM. Reason: add response to Alex
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2008, 04:10 PM   #70
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom 958 View Post
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.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2008, 05:33 PM   #71
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
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.
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2008, 11:33 PM   #72
Alex Von Königsberg
Registered User
 
Alex Von Königsberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,053
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by FM 2258 View Post
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

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.

Quote:
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.
Alex Von Königsberg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2008, 11:48 PM   #73
TheCat
IsraCanadian :)
 
TheCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,358
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by FM 2258 View Post
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.
__________________
Check out my driving videos on Youtube | Please visit the Highways & Autobahns forum
TheCat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2008, 05:01 AM   #74
Gil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,120
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCat View Post
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:



Now who can figure that one out?














This one is far clearer: 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.

@ 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.
Gil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2008, 06:02 AM   #75
mgk920
Nonhyphenated-American
 
mgk920's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Appleton, WI USA
Posts: 2,583
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil View Post
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:



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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil View Post
This one is far clearer: 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.

@ 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
mgk920 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2008, 09:23 AM   #76
Dan
Registered User
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Scotland / Ireland
Posts: 1,244
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
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).

Last edited by Dan; October 20th, 2008 at 09:30 AM.
Dan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2008, 09:29 AM   #77
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,624
Likes (Received): 19415

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil View Post

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:



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.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2008, 10:57 AM   #78
Alex Von Königsberg
Registered User
 
Alex Von Königsberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,053
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgk920 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil
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:



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"



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:



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.
Alex Von Königsberg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2008, 10:59 AM   #79
RoadUser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 200
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
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?:



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

Last edited by RoadUser; October 20th, 2008 at 11:17 AM.
RoadUser no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2008, 11:06 AM   #80
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,624
Likes (Received): 19415

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.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium