Cheryl Stacks - Comments

In all sections of the MUTCD: Recommend using the terms "driver", or "road user", instead of "motorist" where appropriate. Chapter 2: 2B.09: Support changes to encourage more appropriate use of YIELD signs, and less unnecessary use of STOP signs. 2C.51: Consider adopting the NCUTCD-recommended design for the W11-15 sign. The proposed design in the draft MUTCD did not test well and may lead to confusion by drivers and trail users. Chapter 3: 3B.07: I am supportive of the change that redefines bike lanes to be in the traveled way. 3B.14: Continue to leave the existing guidance on RPMs as is as these devices tend to be problematic for bicyclists. Chapter 4: 4B.05: The MUTCD should recommend that agencies consider the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians prior to implementing changes that affect intersection capacity. 4C.05: I am supportive of the changes to the pedestrian signal warrant. 4E.10: I am supportive of the revised walking speeds for determining pedestrian intervals. Chapter 4F: I am supportive of the pedestrian hybrid signals. Chapter 6: 6F.70: Temporary Lane Separators are not compatible with bicycle travel. Please include strong language to state that these devices should only be used in locations where bicyclists will not ride near or contact these devices. Typical Applications in Part 6: In locations calling for travel lanes less than 12 ft in width, suggest the optional use of R4-11 Bikes May Use Full Lane signs. Chapter 9: 9B.06: I am supportive of the addition of the R4-11 Bikes May Use Full Lane sign. 9B.09: I am supportive of the addition of new Selective Exclusion signs. 9B.18: Consider adopting the NCUTCD-recommended design for the W11-15 sign. The proposed design in the draft MUTCD did not test well and may lead to confusion by drivers and trail users. 9B.20: I am supportive of the addition of bicycle-focused guide and destination signs. 9B.21: I am supportive of the new M1-8a and revised M1-9 bicycle route markers. 9B.22: I am supportive of the addition of bicycle-sized route auxiliaries. 9B.24: I am supportive of the addition of bicycle-focused reference location signs (mileposts), but recommend deletion of Guidance on "zero distance". 9B.25: I am supportive of the addition of mode-specific guide signs. 9C.03: Consider deleting the words "traveling in the same direction" as it is not appropriate for pedestrian areas on shared-use paths. 9C.07: I am supportive of the shared lane markings. Table 9B-1: - Change the minimum size of the R3-17 Bike Lane sign to 24" x 18” - Change the W10-1 sign for use on paths to 18"