Talk:Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

U.S. Roads Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article does not require a map.
	This article does not require a junction list.
	This article does not require a KML file.

Transport Mid‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citations needed?

It would be useful if whomever placed the 'Citations Needed' tag on this article stated where they think citations are missing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triskele Jim (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove this tag if no in-text requests for citations can be produced.Synchronism (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the TAMU history page that should be added back to the links section can be used to specifically cite the history section. Furthermore, additional documents should be cited, including Standard Highway Signs (which IIRC has the font specification). Also a bit funny that font isn't hyperlinked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FHWA_Series_fonts. Jpgs (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

I don't believe it's appropriate to throw a cite at Wikipedia:EL and start deleting external links in batches. Might be better to have some discussion first. Yes, weed out the irrelevant and spam, but don't just throw a bunch out based on your own personal opinions as to what's 'relevant'. I've reverted the deletions until some discussion can be had. RCMoeur (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its the otherway around. WP:EL states link essential to the topic only. Most of those failed that without discussion. You can argue their inclusion, but I can't see how RoadGeek fonts or the history page on the Texas A&M site would qualify. The latter could be used as reference, of course. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the removal of those links as well, and while I personally like those links, they were really only tangentially relevant to this topic, and so it was probably correct to remove them. (Even still, I like those links well enough that I posted them on my user page.) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 02:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that some of the links are only "tangentially relevant". The Texas A&M link http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/MUTCD_History.htm is all about the MUTCD and its historical development, and contains published papers that could also be used to solve the citation issue. R.C. Moeur's site http://www.trafficsign.us/ is an accessible way for the general public to access information in the MUTCD; he is a working professional and has contributed to Usenet and the Web for well over a decade. His a transportation engineer, and member of the NUTCD, which produces the MUTCD. Finally, the roeadgeek fonts http://www.triskele.com/roadgeek-fonts are well established as freely available open fonts to FHWA specification used by the MUTCD (technically specified in one of the auxiliary documents to which this article ought to refer; this article is incorrect to state that the fonts themselves are specified in the MUTCD). I do agree that Web sites of sign manufacturers and collectors are not appropriate for the links section. So, unless there is reasoned disagreement, I'm going to add these three links back. Jpgs (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 edition

The 2009 MUTCD is now out, so the article graphics should be updated to those from the '09 edition. Mapsax (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old MUTCDs online

At the bottom of this page (which is listed in the External Links section of the article), there are links to old MUTCDs either on that site or elsewhere on the web. Those could be used to flesh out the History section. Mapsax (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan

Michigan has state supplement the map is wrong

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/natl_adopt_2000_2003.htm St8fan (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

contradiction?

§ Other jurisdictions includes the sentences

Compared to the Vienna Convention, the MUTCD stresses a consistent color scheme (e.g., red always means "prohibited" or "prepare to stop") and relatively large, verbose warning signs. MUTCD guide signs tend to be less verbose than their equivalents in Vienna Convention countries, since they are optimized for reading at high speeds on freeways and expressways.

At first sight this seems to be contradictory, since there has been no previous distinction made between guide signs and warning signs. Although the difference seems clear once the reader thinks about it, explicit definitions based on or quoted from the Manual would spare the reader that unnecessary mental detour.

Thnidu (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2D-02.01 - "Guide signs are essential to direct road users along streets and highways, to inform them of intersecting routes,

to direct them to cities, towns, villages, or other important destinations, to identify nearby rivers and streams, parks, forests, and historical sites, and generally to give such information as will help them along their way in the most simple, direct manner possible.[1]

Section 2C-01.01 - "Warning signs call attention to unexpected conditions on or adjacent to a highway, street, or private roads open to public travel and to situations that might not be readily apparent to road users. Warning signs alert road users to conditions that might call for a reduction of speed or an action in the interest of safety and efficient traffic operations."[2]

This could be summarized as "Guide (or guidance) signs direct or inform road users of their location or of destinations. Warning signs alert users of unexpected or hazardous road conditions that may not be readily apparent." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had just come to this talk page to ask about that exact section as I had not noticed the guide vs warning distinction. I have rewritten the section to incorporate Floydian's summary.--Khajidha (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

The virtual presentation The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) – General Overview of Proposed Changes 3-18-21_1 says that the named should be pronounced "M-U-T-C-D" and not as a combination of letters. I would cite it but it's tough to isolate the frame that says it (there's a PDF linked but that's tough to isolate, too), so it might not be worth it for something that's probably trivia, but it's there in case it becomes an issue. Mapsax (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For people in the transportation and/or planning fields, MUTCD has always been pronounced by its initials or referenced by its full name. I don't know if it would be worthy to note as it seems common for federal programs except for cases like National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which is pronounced "NITZ-ah". – The Grid (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason why I brought this up is because the slide explicitly says not to pronounce it like your NHTSA example. If it's not an issue, though, I'm OK letting it be. Mapsax (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the removal of "funny messages"

The newsgroups reporting on this change seem to stem from The Guardian here. As much as it's a verifiable source, their news bait with the title is what isn't described in the article. They actually provide a better context about the MUTCD: Under the new guidelines, which were laid out in a new 1,100-page manual on America’s signs and other traffic-control devices, signs cannot display messages intended to be humorous or with pop culture references, or anything that could “diminish respect for the sign”.

The MUTCD never states signs cannot display messages intended to be humorous or with pop culture references and in Section 2L.02 (pages 510 and 511) mentions:

01 CMS shall display only traffic operational, regulatory, warning, and guidance information except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. Advertising or other messages not related to traffic control shall not be displayed on a CMS or on its supports or other equipment.
02 CMS may display traffic safety campaign messages (see Section 2L.07), transportation-related messages, emergency homeland security messages, and America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response (AMBER) alert messages, all as provided for in this Chapter.
03 Transportation-related messages for the purpose of improving traffic conditions, such as those providing information on alternative means of transportation, electronic toll collection, or carpooling may be displayed to remind or inform drivers of relevant options or opportunities for transportation.
04 Messages regarding broader transportation items not related to improving traffic conditions, such as reminders of driver’s license or vehicle registration renewal, vehicle recall information, and vehicle maintenance, do not meet the purpose of a transportation-related message.

It could be something the feds might look into further but it never states "banning", it's about bringing into compliance. The 2026 date comes from the standard 2 years after publishing the newest edition of MUTCD (unless the compliance date is specifically mentioned in Table 1B-1).

tldr; much ado about nothing – The Grid (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the feds "banned" funny VMS messages (other than headlines of reliable sources that I handpicked). I said that they "strongly discouraged" such messages. AlphaBeta135 talk 01:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]