▲ 198 points
back
100 comments
MUTCD is great if you're in a car on a grade separated highway. But it's staggeringly awful for when you're outside of a car.
It could even be argued that the MUTCD is awful for driving in an urban area. MUTCD designs streets similarly to rural highways, and this can create conditions where people speed when they need to be driving slowly, because the design of the street doesn't reflect the speed the sign says you need to be driving.
The MUTCD needs a different approach to urban streets. One that creates an environment where making a mistake doesn't lead to death. One where the design of the street reflects the posted speed limit. It will make the experience better for everyone.
https://americawalks.org/how-the-mutcd-creates-unsafe-condit...
https://nacto.org/program/modernizing-federal-standards/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/it-s-time...
> MUTCD designs streets similarly to rural highways, and this can create conditions where people speed when they need to be driving slowly, because the design of the street doesn't reflect the speed the sign says you need to be driving.
Not Just Bikes covers this shortfall in a video on speed limits[1], and it really opened my eyes on the relationship between rules and actual behavior.
Essentially, speed limit signs affect driving speeds slightly, but the street design is important. Wide, open, straight roads naturally prompt drivers to drive to highway speeds, even in more suburb areas. It's amazing how often I check the speedometer and find that I'm driving much more than the posted speed limit when following the flow of traffic.
I agree. Not only does compliance to stuff like this create bad solutions into contexts where they don’t belong, but they make things worse by making normal maintenance activities capital
projects.
Case in point. A major avenue near me has no lines at all. There’s a small component of a turn lane, that’s it! Why don’t they just paint lines?
Well… the city has to hire an engineer for $900k to send a couple of $25/hr engineering technicians to measure stuff for a few days, then they think about it and produce one or more designs for lanes and signage. The engineers are required to accommodate ADA requirements and offer multimodal options to accommodate bikes, etc. So instead of $20k for stripes, we have a $6M capital project to replace crossings, which requires state and federal highway funds. This was delayed by COVID chip and labor shortages and, is excepted to start in August 2023. (It started in late 2018)
In the meantime, there’s a front end collision 2-3 times a month.
Meanwhile, we have another front page article (now page 2) with many posters lamenting that National Electric Code does not require a “You touch it? You have to fully upgrade it!” approach to code compliance as code evolves.
There are also other issues - for example, MUTCD doesn't allow for multiple languages on street signs.
This is an issue in New York's Chinatown for example, where old bilingual street signs that need to be replaced have to be replaced with English-only signs.
Link for the curious to an article about the New York Chinatown street signs (not much discussion in the thread): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30739996
https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/10/rewriting-our-nations-d...
Good read about how MUTCD stymies ped/bike safety improvements for everyone: "...the Manual creates sewers of constant, fast traffic that impede walkability and safety."
my dream: urban roads (and parking) underground and multimodal streets above-ground severely road-dieted, with ample trees and micromobility lanes along them all. trees provide shade, reduces the heat island effect, reduces noise pollution (a bit), reduces air pollution (a bit), preserves soil and helps it hold more water, and overall reduces stress for pedestrians. adding mixed-use everywhere, with smaller pedestrian/micromobility alleys for accessibility, means people have somewhere to walk to rather than hopping into their cars for everything.
then you don't need to rely so much on speed limits, signs, and signals, because you've segregated (most of) the cars from people.
It's a beautiful dream but we can barely manage upkeep in our existing road network, which is mostly just layers of dirt and asphalt. If we need to maintain tunnel systems I imagine the maintenance goes up by at least an order of magnitude.
there are places like you describe and they get along just fine without those underground car roads. if you're going to the enormous expense of tunneling you should get your money's worth by building high-capacity transit.
> MUTCD is great if you're in a car on a grade separated highway. But it's staggeringly awful for when you're outside of a car.
>
>It could even be argued that the MUTCD is awful for driving in an urban area. MUTCD designs streets similarly to rural highways, and this can create conditions where people speed when they need to be driving slowly, because the design of the street doesn't reflect the speed the sign says you need to be driving.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the MUTCD is for. It's mainly about traffic signs and pavement markings. Road design is covered in the AASHTO publication "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets"
No, I'm not misunderstanding. I talk with traffic engineers on a regular basis on how the MUTCD is a large barrier towards safer streets. Pavement markings, including lane widths, bike lanes, counter flow bike lanes, HAWK signals, transit lanes and crosswalks affect the street design.
My largest personal pet peeves with the MTUCD is the requirement for far side signal heads. Far side signal heads cause crosswalk encroachment. If signals were near side only like in EU, crosswalk encroachment would be impossible because you lose sight of the signal head.
https://streets.mn/2021/04/30/thinking-outside-the-pedestria...
If you check out my second link in my first comment from NACTO, near the bottom there is a table of various cities and their specific issues with the MUTCD. Mine (Madison, WI) is here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FHWA-2020-0001-0258
A pair of old HN articles on Clearview (the font):
The feds are killing off Clearview, the new highway sign font - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11039770 (29 comments) -- https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/4/10919686/clearview-highway...
America's Sudden U-Turn on Highway Fonts - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10985709 (17 comments) -- http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/01/official-united-state...
Fascinating. To my eye Clearview was, ah, clearly better. But I love the fact that they seem to have tested it. My typographic opinion literally means nothing if Clearview was not helping people drive more safely.
Digging some and I found Typeface and Font Politics on America’s Roads - https://www.lacar.com/reports/typeface-and-font-politics-on-... which also gets into the "which is better"
> Highway Gothic’s problems rested in the interstices (spaces) of its “a”, “e” and “u”, and when reading them at higher speed, these vowels would present more like an “o”. In addition, lower case letters like “i” and “l” were indistinguishable, with halation further heightened by the glare of headlights at night.
> ...
> But herein lies a mystery. In its Federal Register notice, the FHWA concluded that although Clearview worked well for white lettering on a dark background, it was ineffective on dark lettering on white background. Moreover, it determined that the “retroreflective” material used on freeway signs created more of a problem than did the font of choice when it came to nighttime readability. Finding no benefit that could be remedied by simply replacing older Highway Gothic font signage, the FHWA reversed course.
and some more digging finds that research / testing: Penn State History Lesson: The Drama Behind The ‘New’ Highway Sign Font - https://onwardstate.com/2021/08/26/penn-state-history-lesson...
Tangentially related to Clearview/"Highway Gothic": the article writes "An attempt to update the 75 year old typeface resulted in the 2003 release of a new font named Clearview" - but then it shows some scans from the 1937 manual and the font is definitely _not_ Highway Gothic (the letters look much boxier, probably because they were designed to be painted by hand). So when was "Highway Gothic" actually introduced?
Individual states also have guidelines too (probably mostly aligned w/ the federal). It reminds me of the artist who wanted to correct a misleading fwy sign, pulled the style guide, made the sign and put it up.
https://thelandmag.com/richard-ankrom-guerrilla-public-servi...
The Artist: Richard Ankrom https://ankrom.org/
The Public Service: Guerrilla Public Service 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clgl63CWOkM
From a quick search, there are now sites like [0] where you can seemingly buy road signs which adhere to MUTCD (I can only imagine it was much more difficult for Ankrom in 2001). From the customer reviews, it sounds like many are placed within personal property, such as indoor decorations or arrows directing delivery drivers.
However, I wonder how much trouble people get in practice for putting up signs on less-trafficked public roads (e.g., signs like "Slow, children at play" or pedestrian crossings). I'd like to think that a well-intentioned sign on, say, a quiet suburban street would be allowed to exist.
Given that cities have removed guerrilla crosswalks painted by locals where crosswalks already legally existed, I would guess the sign would be short-lived once the right department found out about it.
I worked as a project manager for a telco construction company years ago and learning how to set up road constructions signs and warnings and whatnot was almost like learning a programming language. There are so many rules dictating how and where to put signs depending on speed limit, number of lanes, intersection type, etc etc. Then you'd send your plans to the DoT and they'd either approve or reject it with very little information on what you did wrong. It really was the most difficult part of the job.
Smaller than the 1,509 pages in total for the UK's traffic signs manual:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-man...
That's without various design specs, such as for the Transport font used on signs:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-wor...
The UK really is the gold standard for traffic signs, road markings, road layouts - I just wish they'd implement truly segregated cycle lanes everywhere. We need a massive initiative now.
To be honest, I really hate the US highway styleguide. The signage, road lettering etc they have in the UK and some of Europe is infinitely better & more clear. As well as general road layout and design. It probably goes a long way to explaining why US roads are so unbelievably dangerous.
Each state modifies this slightly but not much. Note too that the MUTCD can be your friend if you get a questionable traffic ticket. If the relevant signs don’t follow the standards that’s often grounds for dismissing the ticket. Non-standard signage can be quite common in some jurisdictions, although typically off the Interstates which are more tightly regulated.
See you in /transport/
Being in Texas and of a certain age, I really only recognize Clearview. When I went to CA and PA, I saw the standard font and thought it looked archaic in a cool, retro way, especially the "g".
I wonder if there is a concise summary of differences between the federal and various state guides.
Relevant video on why American road signs are so different than basically the rest of the world: https://youtu.be/Wzr0GYfRsKI
I'm quite surprised but how large and extensive this guide is.
As someone who learned to drive in Europe I've always been extremely confused by the signage and road layout of American roads. There is a pretty big difference in quality between state roads and federal roads. The former seem to have no coherent style, layout or identity while the latter seem pretty consistent. Given the above documents I can see there is a consistent style but the style does not seem to translate to a consistent user experience.
The three things that stand out to me are the amount of text on each sign, the lack of standardized rule about entries and exists, and the lack of road markings, specially at intersections.
The first one isn't necessarily a big problem but it's very weird to have all this text when you could have instead a very recognizable sign that you can understand from afar (the one way sign is a great example), instead of a white sign with black text that you can only read once you're close to it and only understand if you know English.
The second one makes highway layout extremely confusing and, at least for me, feel dangerous and stressful. Some Signs can tell you to take an exit with make 20m of notice and it's a 90° right turn and you also need to go from 120 kmph to 30 in that span. The reduced speed sign is only visible after you've turned so if you dont know the area you're almost always going too fast. Because it's a 90° turn with trees in the sides you can't anticipate what the traffic is like after the turn. If you know the area you probably have no problem handling this situation, but driving there for the first time feels like driving through a minefield. There are other instances of this with left exits, overtaking from both sides, turn right on red, stop sights everywhere, no priority system, and more.
The last one is incredibly frustrating when you come from Europe because over there, most intersections have redundant signage and markings. Intersections have street lights that tell you where to go, the road layout is advertised on a sign well in advance, and the paint on the road tells you how to turn and where to stop and even indicates speed limits or directions. Intersections in americas provide no such affordances. Intersections are basically a free for all between the incoming trafic, the people turning right on red and the pedestrians. I was expecting a lot more from a country which is built for cars.
It feels like roads are built for cars but not for drivers.
>Some Signs can tell you to take an exit with make 20m of notice and it's a 90° right turn and you also need to go from 120 kmph to 30 in that span.
There should be a sign for this situation, for example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6277564,-122.3289325,3a,73.1...
Also FWIW: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2c.htm#table2C...
Europe does tend to have better signage in intersections. But the concept of a national speed limit and then not marking the speed limit when it's in effect seems brain dead. How are you supposed to know what it is if say you just rented a car from the airport?
The other thing that kills me is not using a different color for separating lanes that run in the same direction vs different directions (white vs yellow in the US) How do you know at a glance if a road is one way?
> But the concept of a national speed limit and then not marking the speed limit when it's in effect seems brain dead.
Yeah. Have you driven in France? On regular roads, there's no "national speed limit". Depending on the department, it can be 80 or 90 km/h.
> How are you supposed to know what it is if say you just rented a car from the airport?
Nul ne doit ignorer la loi (no one may be ignorant of the law).
> How do you know at a glance if a road is one way?
If there are only two lanes, you look at the line on the left border of the road. If the line is continuous, both lanes go the same way. If it's dashed or there's no line (and your side doesn't have one either) you're on a two-way road.
If there are multiple lanes, there will be a double continuous line separating the ways. The double line can sometimes appear on two-lane roads, it always means the road is two-way.
Yellow markings exist, they usually mean road-work / temporary signaling.
Best rule of thumb: if you're not clearly on a highway, it's very likely a two-way road. Clearly means there's no other separate set of lanes close by. We don't have as much space as in the US where the lanes going the other way are so far away you can barely see them.
> The other thing that kills me is not using a different color for separating lanes that run in the same direction vs different directions (white vs yellow in the US) How do you know at a glance if a road is one way?
I agree completely, I've lived with it all my life and I don't understand it either. How you know? You don't, always. When in doubt, keep right.
50 years ago my dad had an accident precisely on account of this. He got confused about what stretch of road he was on, changed lanes into oncoming traffic, and hit a truck head on.
Good thing he was driving a Volvo. He bruised his knee.
I've always seen national speed limit signs at the exit of airports, similar to the signs you see at national borders. Here's the one at the exit of Schiphol: https://goo.gl/maps/PD6jvvpsDgV3Rwq97
>But the concept of a national speed limit and then not marking the speed limit when it's in effect seems brain dead. How are you supposed to know what it is if say you just rented a car from the airport?
By learning the traffic rules before you rent a car, how else would you know what else is different than what you are used to?
Not marking the national default speed limit is done to limit the amount of signs
> https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6277564,-122.3289325,3a,73.1...
I wonder if the MUTCD has a section on keeping the graffiti consistent nationally as well.
Turning right on red is the one thing I'll defend here. You can only turn right on red after coming to a complete stop, and you have to yield to any traffic (including pedestrian traffic) before you make the turn. Given those restrictions, it's strictly an improvement as far as traffic flow is concerned.
Totally agree with you on exits though, especially left exits. Since moving to Texas I've become a big fan of frontage roads, but not everyplace has the room for that.
I'd be happy if people even stopped at STOP signs - the number of idiots who think the law doesn't apply to them at the STOP signs around our way is stunning. A kid was killed a year or so back because some teenager blew through the intersection without checking.
As for right-on-red, I think (as a Brit) it's awesome, but I don't think I've ever seen a single person come to a complete stop before going right, in the 20 years I've lived here. At best, it's slow-down-while-I-check.
Those are some of the most routinely and carelessly broken of all driving rules, which is really saying something. Being a pedestrian in a large city that allows right on red is scary as shit, I've had more close calls that way than everything else combined. The only thing that comes close is uncontrolled crosswalks across four lanes. Which also should not exist.
I love the style, from the diversity of (car) plates to the individual signs. The cartoonish style really works, makes it look like a scene from a movie.
The intro so nice they had to show it twice
I think many US highway signs are too wordy. Seems that European signs are more iconic. They are faster to recognize and more pleasant to look at but maybe take a bit more education to understand. US driver education is woeful by most other first-world standards, so maybe that's part of why we seem to need so many signs that explain things in words.
It's probably more that the U.S. is mostly monolingual, but in Europe you can drive a few hours and the main language can change multiple times.
Do you have examples of wordy US signs that are only symbolic in the EU system? All of the ones I see on the article are either city names or pedestrian signs with complex instructions that I don't think could be conveyed effectively in only symbolic form.
The ones I can think of that are words only that might have a better symbolic notation are Dead End, No Outlet, and No Passing Zone.
I'm not sure what US driver education has to do with it, or on what basis you consider it "woeful".
But I've driven in both the US and Europe, and while a lot of the European signs are easy to figure out, a lot of them seem not only non-intuitive but also inconsistent, as well as difficult to read.
For example, "no stopping" is a red circle with a blue background and an X, while "no parking" is the same red circle with the same blue background and a slash, or half the X. Not only is all of this totally arbitrary, but there's almost zero contrast between the red and blue, so the opposite of being fast to recognize, or pleasant.
And then a slash in some cases means "end of" (end of no passing zone) but in other cases it means "no" (no left turn). So it essentially means both "allowed" and "not allowed", but I guess it's based on the color or orientation or something of the slash, or multiple thin slashes vs one big thick one?
I find myself very much preferring the help of "wordiness" in this case. The top priority while driving is clarity in messaging, not economy of space. What the US does, which is actually to combine symbols in many cases with text, gives both quick recognition and unambiguous information.
Driving across America, you will encounter a wide variety of cultures, landscapes, people and animals. But the one consistent thing that will stay the same from Maine to California are the signs you pass on the highway. That is because America’s roads and highways have a big, fat style guide.