Content deleted Content added
Coolcaesar (talk | contribs) →Enforcement: Adding example of enforcement |
the number of pages is null to describe the expansion of the MUTCD - a lot of items were on interim approval and finally added since 2012; IIJA as past tense |
||
| (39 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
Line 24:
The '''''Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways''''' (usually referred to as the '''''Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices''''', abbreviated '''MUTCD''') is a document issued by the [[Federal Highway Administration]] (FHWA) of the [[United States Department of Transportation]] (USDOT) to specify the standards by which [[traffic sign]]s, [[road surface marking]]s, and [[traffic light|signals]] are designed, installed, and used. Federal law requires compliance by all traffic control signs and surface markings on roads "open to public travel", including state, local, and privately owned roads (but not parking lots or gated communities).<ref name="FAQ">[https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_general.htm Frequently Asked Questions - General Questions on the MUTCD]</ref> While some state agencies have developed their own sets of standards, including their own MUTCDs, these must substantially conform to the federal MUTCD.
The MUTCD defines the content and placement of traffic signs, while design specifications are detailed in a companion volume, '''''Standard Highway Signs and Markings'''''. This manual defines the specific dimensions, colors, and fonts of each sign and road marking. The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) advises
The United States is among the countries that have not ratified the [[Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals]]. The first edition of the MUTCD was published in 1935, 33 years before the Vienna Convention was signed in 1968, and 4 years before [[World War II]] started in 1939. The MUTCD differs significantly from the European-influenced Vienna Convention, and an attempt to adopt several of the Vienna Convention's standards during the 1970s led to confusion among many US drivers.
Line 32:
Government action to begin resolving the wide variety of signage that had cropped up did not occur until the late 1910s and early 1920s when groups from Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin began surveying existing road signs in order to develop road signage standards. They reported their findings to the Mississippi Valley Association of Highway Departments, which adopted their suggestions in 1922 for the shapes to be used for road signs. These suggestions included the familiar circular railroad crossing sign and octagonal stop sign.<ref name="Johnson">{{cite magazine |last1 = Johnson |first1 = A.E. |editor1-last = Johnson |editor1-first = A.E. |title = A Story of Road Signing |magazine = American Association of State Highway Officials: A Story of the Beginning, Purposes, Growth, Activities, and Achievements of AASHO |date = 1965 |pages = 129–138 |publisher = American Association of State Highway Officials |___location = Washington, DC }}</ref>
In January 1925, [[Thomas Harris MacDonald]], chief of the federal [[Bureau of Public Roads]], published an article in which he argued that developing highway transportation in the United States to the "highest degree" would require five major innovations. Among them were "uniform markings and signs" and a "uniform [[color code]]".<ref name="MacDonald">{{cite journal |last1=MacDonald |first1=Thomas H. |title=The Urgent Necessity for Uniform Traffic Laws and Public Safety Devices |journal=American Highways |date=January 1925 |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=5–7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z933iSTZIUUC&pg=RA7-PA7}} (At p. 7.)</ref> MacDonald argued that "drastic enforcement of uniform rules" as to "all those matters of law, regulation and safety devices which involve the human attributes in the operation of the vehicle" would improve safety on American highways, because in emergency situations, a driver and his vehicle must react as one on the basis of "reflex" and there is no time to think.<ref name="MacDonald" />
In January 1927, the [[American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials|American Association of State Highway Officials]] (AASHO) published the ''Manual and Specifications for the Manufacture, Display, and Erection of U.S. Standard Road Markers and Signs'' to set standards for traffic control devices used on rural roads.<ref name="NCHRPReport484">{{cite book |last1 = Hawkins |first1 = H. Gene |last2 = Parham |first2 = Angelia H. |last3 = Womack |first3 = Katie N. |title = NCHRP Report 484: Feasibility Study for an All-White Pavement Marking System |date = 2002 |publisher = Transportation Research Board |___location = Washington, DC |pages = A-1—A-7 |url = http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_484.pdf |access-date = August 10, 2020 |chapter = Appendix A: Evolution of U.S. Pavement Marking System }}</ref> Despite the title, this manual did not have any guidance on pavement markings.<ref name="NCHRPReport484"/> In the archaic [[American English]] of the 1920s, the term "road marker" was sometimes used to describe traffic control devices which modern speakers would now call "signs."<ref name="NCHRPReport484" /> In 1930, the National Conference on Street and Highway Safety (NCSHS) published the ''Manual on Street Traffic Signs, Signals, and Markings'', which set similar standards for urban settings, but also added specific guidance on traffic signals, pavement markings, and safety zones.<ref name="NCHRPReport484" /> Although the two manuals were quite similar, both organizations immediately recognized that the existence of two slightly different manuals was unnecessarily awkward, and in 1931 AASHO and NCSHS formed a Joint Committee to develop a uniform standard for both urban streets and rural roads. This standard was the MUTCD.<ref name="Johnson" />
[[File:Mutcd cover 1935.jpg|thumb|150px|Cover of the 1937 typeset reprint of the first edition of the MUTCD published in 1935]]
The original edition of the ''Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways'' was published in 1935.<ref name="Johnson" /><ref
Since that time, subsequent editions of the manual have been published with numerous minor updates occurring between, each taking into consideration changes in usage and size of the nation's system of roads as well as improvements in technology.
In 1942, the Joint Committee was expanded to include the [[Institute of Transportation Engineers]], then known as the Institute of Traffic Engineers.<ref name="Johnson" /> During World War II, the second edition of the MUTCD was released as ''War Emergency Edition''.▼
▲In 1942, the Joint Committee was expanded to include the [[Institute of Transportation Engineers]], then known as the Institute of Traffic Engineers.<ref name="Johnson" /> During World War II, the second edition of the MUTCD was released as a ''War Emergency Edition''. This included information on traffic control under [[Blackout (wartime)|blackout]] conditions and how to conserve materials needed for the war effort.<ref name="Hawkins" />
In 1948, three years after [[World War II]] ended, the third edition of the MUTCD was released. The single most controversial and heavily debated issue during the early years of the MUTCD was the color of center lines on roads.<ref name="NCHRPReport484" /> This edition settled the long-running debate in favor of white, and also changed the standard color of stop signs from yellow to red.<ref name="NCHRPReport484" /> However, the 1948 MUTCD also allowed for two major exceptions to white center lines: yellow was recommended but not mandatory for double center lines on multi-lane highways and for center lines in no-passing zones.<ref name="NCHRPReport484" />▼
In 1948, three years after [[World War II]] ended, the third edition of the MUTCD was released. This edition had a different format and structure than the previous editions.<ref name="Hawkins" /> Several road signs first assumed their current appearance in this edition.<ref name="Hawkins" />
In 1949, the United Nations Conference on Road and Motor Transport launched a research project to develop a worldwide uniform scheme for highway signs.<ref name="Johnson" /> In 1951, the UN conducted experiments in the U.S. to compare the effectiveness of national traffic sign standards from around the world. Signs from six countries were placed along the road for test subjects to gauge their legibility at a distance.<ref>{{cite magazine |title = Tests of Highway Signs for United Nations |first1 = Charles R. |last1 = Waters |first2 = Gilbert W. |last2 = Treble |magazine = Traffic Engineering |date = July 1951 |page = 338 }}</ref> The test strips were located along [[Ohio State Route 104]] near [[Columbus, Ohio|Columbus]],<ref>{{cite news |title = Ohioans tell Europe to keep its signs |agency = United Press |work = [[Mansfield News Journal]] |date = March 27, 1951 |page = 11 |url = https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94492201/ |via = Newspapers.com }}</ref> [[U.S. Route 250 in Virginia|U.S. Route 250]] and [[Virginia State Route 53]] near [[Charlottesville, Virginia|Charlottesville]],<ref>{{cite news |title = Foreign Highway Signs Catch Eye |first = David |last = Barnett |work = [[The Richmond News Leader]] |___location = Richmond, Virginia |date = August 21, 1951 |at = p. 1-B |url = https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94493139/ |via = Newspapers.com }}</ref> [[Minnesota State Highway 101]] near [[Minneapolis]],<ref>{{cite news |title = U.N. Highway Signs Get Test |work = [[Minneapolis Star]] |date = March 27, 1951 |page = 9 |url = https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94493204/ |via = Newspapers.com }}</ref> and other roads in New York. [[France]], [[Chile]], [[Turkey]], [[India]], and [[Southern Rhodesia]] reciprocated by installing MUTCD signs on their roads.<ref name="Air Bulletin">{{cite magazine |title = U.N. Tests New Road Signs in U.S. |magazine = Air Bulletin: World Affairs |publisher = [[United States Information Service]] |date = 1951 |pages = 4–5 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=YPGdar6V4dsC&pg=RA1-PP73 |via = Google Books }}</ref> In the U.S., the experiments attracted unexpected controversy and curious onlookers who posed a hazard.<ref>{{cite news |title = Foreign Road Sign Test Arouses Some Criticism |agency = Associated Press |work = [[The Independent (Massillon)|The Independent]] |___location = Massillon, Ohio |date = March 27, 1951 |page = 12 |url = https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94492382/ |via = Newspapers.com }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = Road Sign Test for UN Given Up |agency = Associated Press |work = [[Daily Press (Virginia)|Daily Press]] |___location = Newport News, Virginia |date = March 30, 1951 |page = 13 |url = https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94492425/ |via = Newspapers.com }}</ref> By September 1951, the experts working on the project were in favor of the American proposals for stop signs (at the time, black "STOP" text on a yellow octagon), "cross road", "left or right curve", and "intersection", but were still struggling to reach consensus on symbols for "narrow road", "bumpy or uneven surface", and "steep hill".<ref name="Hoffman">{{cite news |last1=Hoffman |first1=Michael L. |title=U.N. Nearer Accord on Traffic Signs: Standard Markers of U.S. May Serve as a Basis For World System |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1951/09/23/archives/un-nearer-accord-on-traffic-signs-standard-markers-of-us-may-serve.html |access-date=July 8, 2023 |work=The New York Times |date=September 23, 1951 |page=125}}</ref> ▼
▲
▲In 1949, the United Nations Conference on Road and Motor Transport launched a research project to develop a worldwide uniform scheme for highway signs.<ref name="Johnson" /> In 1951, the UN conducted experiments in the U.S. to compare the effectiveness of national traffic sign standards from around the world. Signs from six countries were placed along the road for test subjects to gauge their legibility at a distance.<ref>{{cite magazine |title = Tests of Highway Signs for United Nations |first1 = Charles R. |last1 = Waters |first2 = Gilbert W. |last2 = Treble |magazine = Traffic Engineering |date = July 1951 |page = 338 }}</ref> The test strips were located along [[Ohio State Route 104]] near [[Columbus, Ohio|Columbus]],<ref>{{cite news |title = Ohioans tell Europe to keep its signs |agency = United Press |work = [[Mansfield News Journal]] |date = March 27, 1951 |page = 11 |url = https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94492201/ |via = Newspapers.com }}</ref> [[U.S. Route 250 in Virginia|U.S. Route 250]] and [[Virginia State Route 53]] near [[Charlottesville, Virginia|Charlottesville]],<ref>{{cite news |title = Foreign Highway Signs Catch Eye |first = David |last = Barnett |work = [[The Richmond News Leader]] |___location = Richmond, Virginia |date = August 21, 1951 |at = p. 1-B |url = https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94493139/ |via = Newspapers.com }}</ref> [[Minnesota State Highway 101]] near [[Minneapolis]],<ref>{{cite news |title = U.N. Highway Signs Get Test |work = [[Minneapolis Star]] |date = March 27, 1951 |page = 9 |url = https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94493204/ |via = Newspapers.com }}</ref> and other roads in New York. [[France]], [[Chile]], [[Turkey]], [[India]], and [[Southern Rhodesia]] reciprocated by installing MUTCD signs on their roads.<ref name="Air Bulletin">{{cite magazine |title = U.N. Tests New Road Signs in U.S. |magazine = Air Bulletin: World Affairs |volume=1 |issue=7 |publisher = [[United States Information Service]] |date = May 7, 1951 |pages = 4–5 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=YPGdar6V4dsC&pg=RA1-PP73 |via = Google Books }}</ref> In the U.S., the experiments attracted unexpected controversy and curious onlookers who posed a hazard.<ref>{{cite news |title = Foreign Road Sign Test Arouses Some Criticism |agency = Associated Press |work = [[The Independent (Massillon)|The Independent]] |___location = Massillon, Ohio |date = March 27, 1951 |page = 12 |url = https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94492382/ |via = Newspapers.com }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = Road Sign Test for UN Given Up |agency = Associated Press |work = [[Daily Press (Virginia)|Daily Press]] |___location = Newport News, Virginia |date = March 30, 1951 |page = 13 |url = https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94492425/ |via = Newspapers.com }}</ref> By September 1951, the experts working on the project were in favor of the American proposals for stop signs (at the time, black "STOP" text on a yellow octagon), "cross road", "left or right curve", and "intersection", but were still struggling to reach consensus on symbols for "narrow road", "bumpy or uneven surface", and "steep hill".<ref name="Hoffman">{{cite news |last1=Hoffman |first1=Michael L. |title=U.N. Nearer Accord on Traffic Signs: Standard Markers of U.S. May Serve as a Basis For World System |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1951/09/23/archives/un-nearer-accord-on-traffic-signs-standard-markers-of-us-may-serve.html |access-date=July 8, 2023 |work=The New York Times |date=September 23, 1951 |page=125}}</ref>
In 1953, after cooperating with the UN conference's initial experiments, the United States declined to sign or ratify the UN's then-proposed protocol for a worldwide system of uniform road signs.<ref name="Johnson" /> There were two major reasons behind this decision.<ref name="Johnson" /> First, most U.S. roads and streets were (and still are) under state jurisdiction.<ref name="Johnson" /><ref name="Air Bulletin" /> Second, the United States was developing modern [[controlled-access highway]]s at the time (culminating in the creation of the [[Interstate Highway System]] in 1956), and the novel problems presented by such new high-speed highways required rapid innovations in road signing and marking "that would definitely be impaired by adherence to any international code".<ref name="Johnson" /> Despite the Americans' withdrawal from the research project, the experiments eventually resulted in the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals of 1968.
The 1954 revision of the 1948 MUTCD changed the standard color of stop signs from yellow to red.<ref name="Hawkins" />
In 1960, the National Joint Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices was again reorganized to include representatives of the [[National Association of Counties]] and the [[National League of Cities]], then known as the American Municipal Association.<ref name="Johnson" /> In 1961, the MUTCD was again revised to make yellow center lines mandatory for the two exceptions where they had previously been recommended.<ref name="NCHRPReport484" /> The 1961 edition was the first edition to provide for uniform signs and barricades to direct traffic around [[Roadworks|road construction]] and maintenance operations.<ref name="Johnson" />▼
▲In 1960, the National Joint Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices was again reorganized to include representatives of the [[National Association of Counties]] and the [[National League of Cities]], then known as the American Municipal Association.<ref name="Johnson" /> In 1961, the MUTCD was again revised to make yellow center lines mandatory for the two exceptions where they had previously been recommended.<ref name="NCHRPReport484" /> The 1961 edition was the first edition to provide for uniform signs and barricades to direct traffic around [[Roadworks|road construction]] and maintenance operations.<ref name="Johnson" /><ref name="Hawkins" />
During the 1960s, one of the most energetic traffic safety advocates in the United States was Connecticut politician [[Abraham Ribicoff]], who had previously served as governor of his state and then went on to represent his state in the [[United States Senate]].<ref name="RibicoffObituary">{{cite news |title=Ribicoff of Connecticut Dies; Governor and Senator Was 87 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/23/nyregion/ribicoff-of-connecticut-dies-governor-and-senator-was-87.html |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=February 23, 1998 |page=A1}}</ref> In an essay published in the July 1965 edition of ''[[The Atlantic|The Atlantic Monthly]]'', Senator Ribicoff sarcastically mocked a variety of idiotic traffic rules, signs, and markings in order to persuade Americans why all these things must be made uniform across the land.<ref name="Ribicoff">{{cite news |last1=Ribicoff |first1=Abraham |title=Harmony on the Highways |url=https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1965/07/216-1/132561816.pdf |work=The Atlantic Monthly |date=July 1965 |pages=80–83}}</ref> For example, two of the worst deviations from the majority rule that no passing should be marked with a solid center line were Pennsylvania, which marked no-passing zones only with signs and not center lines, and Georgia, which marked them only with a yellow line on the shoulder.<ref name="Ribicoff" /> Like MacDonald several decades earlier, Ribicoff's point was that uniformity saves lives by leaving no ambiguity in traffic situations where drivers' split-second decisions often mean the difference between life or death.<ref name="Ribicoff" />
In 1966, Congress passed the [[National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act|Highway Safety Act]], {{USPL|89|564}}, {{USStat|72|885}}, which is now codified at {{UnitedStatesCode|23|401}} ''et seq.'' It required all states to create a highway safety program by December 31, 1968, and to adhere to uniform standards promulgated by the U.S. Department of Transportation as a condition of receiving federal highway-aid funds.<ref>{{cite book |first = Edward C. |last = Fisher |title = Vehicle Traffic Law |___location = Evanston, Illinois |publisher = Traffic Institute, Northwestern University |year = 1961 |edition = 1967 supp. |page = 11 }}</ref> The penalty for non-compliance was a 10% reduction in funding. In turn, taking advantage of broad rulemaking powers granted in {{UnitedStatesCode|23|402}}, the Department simply adopted the entire MUTCD by reference at {{CodeFedReg|23|655|603}}. ({{UnitedStatesCode|5|552}}(a)(1), also enacted in 1966, authorizes federal agencies to incorporate by reference technical standards published elsewhere, which means the agency may merely cite the standard and need not republish its entire text as part of the appropriate regulation.) Thus, what was formerly a quasi-official project became an official one. States are allowed to supplement the MUTCD but must remain in "substantial conformance" with the national MUTCD and adopt changes within two years after they are adopted by FHWA.
[[File:Mutcd warning signs 1971.jpg|thumb|left|170px|Warning signs introduced in the 1971 edition, combining both symbols and words]]
The 1971 edition of the MUTCD included several significant standards. The MUTCD imposed a consistent
Another major change, inspired by the Vienna Convention,<ref>{{cite news |title = Symbols to Replace Words on U.S. Traffic Signs |url = https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/31/archives/symbols-to-replace-words-on-us-traffic-signs.html |work = The New York Times |date = May 31, 1970 |page = 58 }}</ref> was that the 1971 MUTCD expressed a preference for a transition to adoption of symbols on signs in lieu of words "as rapidly as public acceptance and other considerations permit."<ref name="Section 2A-13">{{cite book |last1 = American Association of State Highway Officials |last2 = National Joint Committee on Traffic Control Devices |title = Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways |date = 1971 |publisher = Federal Highway Administration |___location = Washington, DC |page = 16 |chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=gL9_gp8TUuMC&pg=PA16 |access-date = July 21, 2020 |chapter = Section 2A-13, Symbols }}</ref> During what was then expected to be a transition period, the MUTCD allowed state highway departments to use optional explanatory word plaques with symbol signs and to continue using the previous standard word message signs in certain cases.<ref name="Section 2A-13" /> Robert Conner, the chief of the traffic control systems division of the Federal Highway Administration during the 1970s, believed that symbol signs were "usually more effective than words in situations where reaction time and comprehension are important."<ref name="Lindsey">{{cite news |last1 = Lindsey |first1 = Robert |title = Signs of Progress: Road Symbols Guiding Traffic |url = https://www.nytimes.com/1972/04/23/archives/signs-of-progress-road-symbols-guiding-traffic.html |access-date = August 19, 2020 |work = The New York Times |date = April 23, 1972 |page = S22 }}</ref> Conner was active in the Joint Committee and also represented the United States at international meetings on road traffic safety.<ref name="ConnerObituary">{{cite news |title = Robert Conner, Ex-FHA Official, Dies of Cancer |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1984/12/01/robert-conner-ex-fha-official-dies-of-cancer/944fa379-9484-4f5d-9aa6-dbd7ef53f6b3/ |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = December 1, 1984 }}</ref> However, several American traffic safety experts were concerned that American drivers would not understand the Vienna Convention's unintuitive symbols, which is why the MUTCD allowed for explanatory word plaques.<ref name="Hebert">{{cite news |last1=Hebert |first1=Ray |title=New Traffic Signs Bloom as California Goes International |work=Los Angeles Times |date=January 30, 1972 |page=1}}
{{multiple image
Line 64 ⟶ 74:
| footer = The draw bridge warning sign (left) is one of the several signs under the MUTCD that remain{{when|date=January 2024}} text-only, while its equivalent under the Vienna Convention (right) displays a symbol of an open draw bridge.
}}
The U.S. adoption of several Vienna Convention-inspired symbol signs during the 1970s was a failure. For example, the lane drop symbol sign was criticized as baffling to U.S. drivers—who saw a "big milk bottle"—and therefore quite dangerous, since by definition it was supposed to be used in situations where drivers were about to run out of road and needed to merge into another lane immediately.<ref name="Conniff">{{cite news |last1 = Conniff |first1 = James C.G. |title = Danger: Signs Ahead |url = https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/30/archives/danger-signs-ahead-misleading-highway-signs-raise-blood-pressure.html |access-date = August 19, 2020 |work = The New York Times |date = March 30, 1975 |page = 183 }}</ref> American highway safety experts ridiculed it as the "Rain Ahead" sign.<ref name="Conniff" /> Many American motorists were bewildered by the Vienna Convention's symbol sign with two children on it, requiring it to be supplemented with a "School Xing" plaque.<ref name="Hazlett">{{cite news |last1 = Hazlett |first1 = Bill |title = Some Confusing: Wordless Traffic Signs Popping Up |work = Los Angeles Times |date = March 23, 1972 |page = E1 }}</ref> (The American "School Xing" symbol was later redesigned to depict an adult crossing together with a child.)
The 1971 MUTCD's preference for a rapid transition to symbols over words quietly disappeared in the 1978 MUTCD.<ref>{{cite book |last1 = American Association of State Highway Officials |last2 = National Joint Committee on Traffic Control Devices |title = Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways |date = 1978 |publisher = Federal Highway Administration |___location = Washington, DC |page = 2A-6 |chapter = Section 2A-13, Symbols }}</ref>
The 2000 and 2003 MUTCDs each eliminated a symbol sign that had long been intended to replace a word message sign: "Pavement Ends" (in 2000) and "Narrow Bridge" (in 2003).<ref name="2003Rev1Intro">{{cite book |last1 = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials |last2 = National Joint Committee on Traffic Control Devices |title = Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways |date = 2003 |publisher = Federal Highway Administration |___location = Washington, DC |url = https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/intro/intro.htm |access-date = August 26, 2020 |chapter = Introduction }}</ref>
[[File:Difference between 2003 MUTCD and 2009 MUTCD Advance Guide Signs.png|thumb|The left guide sign is from the 2003 MUTCD, and the right sign is from the 2009 MUTCD.]]
After 1971, FHWA formally assumed responsibility for publishing the MUTCD. The 1971 MUTCD was revised eight times. In 1978, the MUTCD physical format was changed to a [[ring binder]] whose revisions were published as replacement pages (i.e., an interfiled [[looseleaf service]]).<ref name="Hawkins" /> The 1978 MUTCD was subject to four revisions, and the subsequent 1988 MUTCD was subject to seven revisions.<ref name="Hawkins" />
The tenth edition of the MUTCD was published in 2009, with revisions in 2012.<ref name="2012revisions">{{cite web |last1 = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials |last2 = National Joint Committee on Traffic Control Devices |title = Change List for Revision Numbers 1 and 2, Dated May 2012, to the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD |year = 2012 |publisher = Federal Highway Administration |___location = Washington, DC |url = https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/mutcd2009r1r2cl.htm |access-date = May 9, 2021 }}</ref> The [[Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act]] of 2021 requires the USDOT to update the MUTCD quadrennially,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/mutcd11status.htm |title=Status of Rulemaking for the Eleventh Edition of the MUTCD |date=March 2, 2022 |access-date=March 2, 2023 |publisher=Federal Highway Administration}}</ref> and the eleventh edition was released in 2023.<ref name="Woodhouse">{{cite news |last1=Woodhouse |first1=Skylar |title=Rules of the Road Get a Long-Awaited Update in the US |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-19/us-roadbuilding-bible-gets-update-as-pedestrian-deaths-rise |access-date=December 20, 2023 |work=Bloomberg |date=December 19, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |url=https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/fhwa-releases-new-traffic-control-device-manual-updates-improve-safety-pedestrians |title=FHWA Releases New Traffic Control Device Manual with Updates to Improve Safety for Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and All Road Users |date=December 19, 2023 |access-date=December 27, 2023 |publisher=U.S. Department of Transportation}}</ref> This edition allows painted red bus lanes, rules allowing more crosswalks and traffic signals, new rules for determining speed limits, signage for shoulders that are used part-time as traffic lanes, and new signage for [[electric vehicle charging station]]s and [[autonomous vehicle]]s.<ref name="2023_revision_final" /> It also adds painted green bike lanes, bike boxes, and bike-specific traffic lights. Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) were also added to the MUTCD; a pedestrian beacon for uncontrolled intersections consisting of two rectangular lights, side-by-side, which alternate flashing, under a yellow diamond with a walking person on it, above an arrow pointing out the crosswalk.<ref name="2023_revision_final">[https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-27178.pdf RIN 2125-AF85 National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision], III. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question</ref> RRFBs were previously on interim approval by the FHWA since March 20, 2018.<ref>{{cite web |access-date=January 12, 2024 |title=Interim Approval 21 – Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons at Crosswalks - Interim Approvals Issued by FHWA |url=https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia21/index.htm |website=MUTCD |publisher=Federal Highway Administration |date=March 20, 2018}}</ref> Transportation safety advocates criticized the changes as not going far enough to deal with a substantial spike in pedestrian fatalities, especially guidance setting speed limits [[85th percentile speed|based on the 85th percentile of actual driving speeds]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/12/31/1222174861/road-street-design-traffic-mutcd |title=The rules of the road are changing, but not fast enough for everyone |date=December 31, 2023 |author=Joel Rose}}</ref><ref>[https://t4america.org/2023/12/20/press-statement-newly-updated-mutcd-doesnt-go-far-enough-to-protect-pedestrians/ Press statement: Newly updated MUTCD doesn’t go far enough to protect pedestrians]</ref><ref>[https://usa.streetsblog.org/2023/12/19/feds-advocates-talk-about-whats-in-the-new-mutcd-and-what-isnt Feds, Advocates Talk About What’s In The New MUTCD (And What Isn’t)!]</ref>▼
The 2000 MUTCD was the first to use headings, to be published on [[Letter (paper size)|letter-size paper]], to be available on the internet, and to use metric units.<ref name="Hawkins" /> Due to a number of significant flaws, it was quickly superseded by the 2003 MUTCD.<ref name="Hawkins" />
The tenth edition of the MUTCD was published in 2009, with revisions in 2012.<ref name="2012revisions">{{cite web |last1 = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials |last2 = National Joint Committee on Traffic Control Devices |title = Change List for Revision Numbers 1 and 2, Dated May 2012, to the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD |year = 2012 |publisher = Federal Highway Administration |___location = Washington, DC |url = https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/mutcd2009r1r2cl.htm |access-date = May 9, 2021 }}</ref> This was the first editing to feature numbering of individual paragraphs and to cover traffic control devices on private property.<ref name="Hawkins" />
▲
== Development ==
Line 79 ⟶ 99:
{{legend|#7570b3|Adopted state-specific MUTCD}}]]
[[File:Entering Nevada At Crystal Bay.jpg|thumb|An example of state-by-state variations: California (foreground) paints a black line to help drivers see a double yellow line demarcating opposing traffic, while Nevada (background) does not]]
Eighteen states have adopted the national MUTCD as is. Twenty-two states, the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]], [[Puerto Rico]], and the [[United States Department of Defense]] through the [[Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command]] (SDDC) have all adopted supplements to the MUTCD. Ten states have adopted their own editions of the MUTCD "in substantial conformance to" an edition of the national MUTCD, annotated throughout with state-specific modifications and clarifications.<ref>{{cite web |title = MUTCDs & Traffic Control Devices Information by State |work = Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices |publisher = Federal Highway Administration |date = July 14, 2020 |access-date = July 12, 2021 |url = https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/state_info/ }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title = Manual de Rotulación para las Vías Públicas en Puerto Rico |publisher = [[Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority]] |___location = San Juan, Puerto Rico |date = 2020 |url = https://act.dtop.pr.gov/pdf/transito/Manual_Rotulacion.pdf |language = es }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title = Department of Defense Supplement to the National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways |publisher = [[Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command]] |___location = Scott Air Force Base, Illinois |date = 2015 |url = https://www.sddc.army.mil/sites/TEA/Functions/SpecialAssistant/TrafficEngineeringBranch/Documents/MUTCD_DOD_Supplement_Revision_20150601.pdf |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20161023035355/https://www.sddc.army.mil/sites/TEA/Functions/SpecialAssistant/TrafficEngineeringBranch/Documents/MUTCD_DOD_Supplement_Revision_20150601.pdf |url-status = dead |archive-date = October 23, 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title = MUTCD |publisher = Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command Transportation Engineering Agency |___location = Scott Air Force Base, Illinois |accessdate = November 30, 2021 |url = https://www.sddc.army.mil/sites/TEA/Functions/SpecialAssistant/TrafficEngineeringBranch/BMTE/calcSigns/SignsAndMarkingsTurtorials/Pages/default.aspx |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150630040802/http://www.sddc.army.mil/sites/TEA/Functions/SpecialAssistant/TrafficEngineeringBranch/BMTE/calcSigns/SignsAndMarkingsTurtorials/Pages/default.aspx |url-status = dead |archive-date = June 30, 2015 }}</ref> The [[Guam Department of Public Works]] has also adopted the MUTCD in some form.<ref>{{cite web |title = List of Approved Requests for Interim Approval |work = Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices |publisher = Federal Highway Administration |date = May 15, 2020 |access-date = January 11, 2021 |url = https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ialistreq.htm#ia10 }}</ref>
The following state-specific MUTCD editions are currently in effect:
Line 95 ⟶ 115:
== Enforcement ==
Federal funding is tied to compliance and serves as an enforcement mechanism for state and local governments.<ref>{{USCode|23|109}}(d)</ref><ref name="FAQ" /> For private property owners,
From 2014 to 2018, New York placed over 500 non-compliant "[[I Love New York]]" tourism destination signs along its highways and expressways to
== Other jurisdictions ==
Line 110 ⟶ 130:
}}
The United States is among the majority of countries around the world that have not ratified the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals (based primarily on European signage traditions), and the
[[Warning sign]]s (alerting drivers of unexpected or hazardous conditions) tend to be more verbose than their Vienna Convention counterparts.<ref name="Johnson" /> On the other hand, MUTCD guide signs (directing or informing road users of their ___location or of destinations) tend to be less verbose, since they are optimized for reading at high speeds on freeways and expressways.<ref name="Johnson" />
The MUTCD lacks a [[Mandatory sign|mandatory sign group]] like the Vienna Convention does, a separate category for those signs like "Right Turn Only" and "Keep Right" that tell traffic what it must do instead of what it must not do. Instead, the MUTCD primarily classifies them with the other [[regulatory sign]]s that inform drivers of traffic regulations.<ref>{{
===Canada===
{{Main|Road signs in Canada}}
For road signs in Canada, the [[Transportation Association of Canada]] (TAC) publishes its own ''Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada'' for use by Canadian jurisdictions.<ref>{{cite web |access-date = July 14, 2021 |title = Transportation Association of Canada |date = December 6, 2019 |url = https://www.tac-atc.ca/en |publisher = Transportation Association of Canada }}</ref> Although it serves a similar role to the
The [[Ministry of Transportation of Ontario]] (MTO) also has historically used its own MUTCD which bore many similarities to the TAC MUTCDC. However, as of approximately 2000, MTO has been developing the ''Ontario Traffic Manual'' (OTM), a series of smaller volumes each covering different aspects of traffic control (e.g., regulatory signs, warning signs, sign design principles, traffic signals, etc.).
Line 131 ⟶ 149:
===Central America===
{{Main articles|Road signs in Central America}}
For road signs in Central American countries, the [[Central American Integration System]] (SICA) publishes its own {{lang|es|Manual Centroamericano de Dispositivos Uniformes para el Control del Transito}}, a Central American equivalent to the US MUTCD.<ref name="SIECA">{{cite web |url=https://irp.cdn-website.com/6813ed2d/files/uploaded/SIECA%202014.pdf |title=
==== Belize ====
Line 142 ⟶ 161:
{{Main article|Road signs in Argentina}}
==== Bolivia ====
Road signs in [[Bolivia]] are regulated by the ''Manuales Técnicos para el Diseño de Carreteras'' standard which is based on the United States's MUTCD (FHWA), Central America's ''Manuales Técnicos para el Diseño de Carreteras'' (SICA), Colombia's ''Manual de Señalización Vial'' ([[Ministry of Transport (Colombia)|Ministry of Transport]]), and Chile's ''Manual de Carreteras''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Manuales Técnicos para el Diseño de Carreteras |url=http://www.abc.gob.bo/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/manual_de_dispositivo_de_control_de_transito.pdf |website=www.abc.gob.bo |language=es}}</ref> Thus, road signs used in Bolivia generally have many similarities to road signs used in the United States, Central America, Colombia and neighboring Chile.
==== Brazil ====
{{Main article|Road signs in Brazil}}
Road signs in Brazil are regulated by ''Manual de Sinalização Rodoviária'' and are based on the MUTCD.<ref>{{Cite web| title=Os princípios da sinalização de trânsito | language=pt | trans-title=The principles of traffic signaling | url=http://www.cetsp.com.br/media/1268593/nt-274.pdf
==== Chile ====
Line 159 ⟶ 178:
==== Ecuador ====
{{Main article|Road signs in Ecuador}}
Road signs in Ecuador are regulated in ''Manual Básico de Señalización Vial''<ref>{{Cite web |title=manual de señalizacion {{!}} PDF {{!}} Semáforo {{!}} Autobús |url=https://es.scribd.com/document/433023572/manual-de-senalizacion |access-date=2023-12-22 |website=Scribd |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| title=Diseñar una propuesta de señalización horizontal y vertical para el centro de la ciudad de Loja bajo la normativa nevi-201 | language=es | trans-title=Design a horizontal and vertical signage proposal for the city center of Loja under NEVI-201 regulations | url=https://dspace.utpl.edu.ec/bitstream/123456789/11467/1/Carpio%20Reyes%20Henrry%20Omar.pdf
Ecuador signed the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals on November 8, 1968 but has yet to fully ratify it.<ref name=":0" />
Line 165 ⟶ 184:
==== Guyana ====
Road signs in Guyana generally follow the same design as those in the United States and are based on the MUTCD with the exception that some signs are reversed since the country drives on the left.<ref>{{Cite web |title=INVITATION TO TENDER Ref: GYSBI_ITT 102/102022 |url=https://www.gysbi.gy/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/GYSBI-LAND-DEVELOPMENT-2022-1.pdf |website=gysbi.gy}}</ref> However, most of current signs found in Guyana, are non-compliant with MUTCD standards.<ref>{{Cite web |last=KNews |date=2018-09-30 |title=The Infrastructure Ministry has missed the point on the East Coast road |url=https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2018/09/30/the-infrastructure-ministry-has-missed-the-point-on-the-east-coast-road/ |access-date=2023-12-30 |website=Kaieteur News |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Better traffic management required |url=https://guyanachronicle.com/2018/09/18/better-traffic-management-required/ |access-date=2023-12-30 |website=Guyana Chronicle |language=en-US |publication-date=2018-09-18}}</ref>
Metric speed limit signs in km/h are found in Guyana, while the use of such signs with speed limits in km/h in the United States are extremely rare, usually seen near the borders with Canada and Mexico, both of which use the metric system.
==== Paraguay ====
{{Main article|Road signs in Paraguay}}
Road signs in Paraguay are regulated in the ''Manual de Carreteras del Paraguay'' standard developed by the Ministry of Public Works and Communications ({{Langx|es|Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Comunicaciones}}).<ref>{{Cite web |title=MANUAL DE CARRETERAS DEL PARAGUAY – Asociación Paraguaya de Carreteras |url=https://apcarreteras.org.py/manual-de-carreteras-del-paraguay/ |access-date=2024-01-16 |language=es}}</ref>
==== Peru ====
Road signs in Peru are regulated by the ''Manual de Dispositivos de Control del Tránsito Automotor para Calles y Carreteras'',<ref>{{Cite web |author-link=Ministry of Transport and Communications (Peru) |date=2016-05-31 |title=Manual de Dispositivos de Control del Tránsito Automotor para Calles y Carreteras |url=https://carp.pe/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/MANUAL-DE-DISPOSTIVOS-DE-CONTROL-DE-TRANSITO-AUTOMOTOR-PARA-CALLES-Y-CARRETERAS-2016.pdf |access-date=2024-03-03 |website=carp.pe |publisher=Ministerio de Transportes y Comunicaciones del Perú |language=es |publication-place=Lima}}</ref> developed by the [[Ministry of Transport and Communications (Peru)|Ministry of Transport and Communications]] of Peru. This standard is based on the United States' ''Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices'' (MUTCD) developed by the Federal Highway Administration,<ref>{{Cite web| title=Manual de señalización turística Perú | language=es | trans-title=Peru Tourist Signage Manual | url=https://cdn.www.gob.pe/uploads/document/file/1014949/Manual-Senalizacion-Turistica-Peru.pdf
==== Venezuela ====
Line 181 ⟶ 203:
{{Main|Road signs in Australia}}
For road signs in Australia, this is covered by AS 1742 which is unofficially known as ''Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Australia'', and it serves as a similar role to the
* Australian warning signs have a yellow diamond with a black legend, following America's practice. Australia remains the only country that still has the text-based version of the low-clearance signage. (Most other countries now use vertical arrows in between the clearance height.)
Line 200 ⟶ 222:
* [[Comparison of traffic signs in English-speaking territories]]
* [[Road signs in the United States]]
* [[Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions]], for the UK
== References ==
| |||