Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

410:

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. 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." Conner was active in the Joint Committee and also represented the United States at international meetings on road traffic safety. 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. Most of the repainting to the 1971 standard was done between 1971 and 1974, with a deadline of 1978 for the changeover of both the markings and signage.

443:

situations where drivers were about to run out of road and needed to merge into another lane immediately. American highway safety experts ridiculed it as the "Rain Ahead" sign. 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. (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. 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).

29: 428: 729: 482:. 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. RRFBs were previously on interim approval by the FHWA since March 20, 2018. 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 447: 2814: 527: 720: 240:, then known as the Institute of Traffic Engineers. The single most controversial and heavily debated issue during the early years of the MUTCD was the color of center lines on roads. The 1948 version of the MUTCD settled the debate in favor of white, and also changed the standard color of stop signs from yellow to red. 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. 554: 386:(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. 419: 390: 217:, which set similar standards for urban settings, but also added specific guidance on traffic signals, pavement markings, and safety zones. 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. 221: 160:, all traffic control devices must legally conform to these standards. The manual is used by state and local agencies as well as private construction firms to ensure that the traffic control devices they use conform to the national standard. While some state agencies have developed their own sets of standards, including their own MUTCDs, these must substantially conform to the federal MUTCD. 751:(alerting drivers of unexpected or hazardous conditions) tend to be more verbose than their Vienna Convention counterparts. 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. 176:. The first edition of the MUTCD was published in 1935, 33 years before the Vienna Convention was signed in 1968. 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. 317:, then known as the American Municipal Association. In 1961, the MUTCD was again revised to make yellow center lines mandatory for the two exceptions where they had previously been recommended. The 1961 edition was the first edition to provide for uniform signs and barricades to direct traffic around 360:

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. The penalty for non-compliance was a 10% reduction in funding. In turn, taking

192:

of private individuals, who generated revenue through club membership and increased business along cross-country routes. However, each highway had its own set of signage, usually designed to promote the highway rather than to assist in the direction and safety of travelers. In fact, conflicts between

458:

containing a proposal for a new edition of the MUTCD, and published the draft content of this new edition on the MUTCD website for public review and comment. Comments were accepted until the end of July 2008. The new edition was published in 2009. Revisions to the 2009 edition were then published in

405:

by requiring all center lines dividing opposing traffic on two-way roads to be always painted in yellow (instead of white, which was to always demarcate lanes moving in the same direction), and also required that all highway guide signs (not just those on Interstate Highways) contain white text on a

243:

In 1949, the United Nations Conference on Road and Motor Transport launched a research project to develop a worldwide uniform scheme for highway signs. 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

494:

Proposed additions and revisions to the MUTCD are recommended to FHWA by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD), a private, non-profit organization. The NCUTCD also recommends interpretations of the MUTCD to other agencies that use the MUTCD, such as state departments of

473:

On May 15, 2023, despite provisions in the IIJA, the FHWA failed to release a new update to the MUTCD. The FHWA cited the volume of comments as a reason for the delay. The 11th edition of the MUTCD was released on December 19, 2023. The 11th edition allows painted red bus lanes, rules allowing more

292:

reciprocated by installing MUTCD signs on their roads. In the U.S., the experiments attracted unexpected controversy and curious onlookers who posed a hazard. 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

1059:

and are based on both the MUTCD and the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals. Chile signed the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals on November 8, 1968, and ratified it on December 27, 1974, making it the only country in the Americas to ratify this convention. In Chile, both types of

296:

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. There were two major reasons behind this decision. First, most U.S. roads and streets were (and still

196:

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

409:

Another major change, inspired by the Vienna Convention, 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." During what was then expected to be a transition period, the

1237:

similar to those used in other nations but much of it resembles road signage systems used in South American countries with certain differences, such as using a blue circle instead of a red-bordered white circle to indicate mandatory actions. As a result, Thailand road signage generally have many

744:

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 FHWA MUTCD differs significantly from the Vienna Convention. Apart from the 1971 effort to adopt

305:

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". Despite the Americans' withdrawal from the research project, the experiments eventually

442:

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

737:

Under the MUTCD, the standard speed limit sign (left) used only in the United States includes the words "speed limit" above the number (which is in mph), while the standard one under the Vienna Convention (right) only requires the number which is used in most countries (which is mostly in

1104:

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. However, most of current signs found in Guyana, are non-compliant with MUTCD standards.

745:

several Vienna Convention-inspired symbol signs (as explained above), achieving worldwide uniformity in traffic control devices was never a priority for AASHTO because the number of motorists driving regularly on multiple continents was relatively small during the 20th century.

804:

for use by Canadian jurisdictions. Although it serves a similar role to the FHWA MUTCD, it has been independently developed and has a number of key differences with its US counterpart, most notably the inclusion of bilingual (English/French) signage for jurisdictions such as

1204:

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

232:

was published in 1935. 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.

2846: 2283: 577:(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. The 1181:

A number of Asian and Oceanian countries use road signages based on the MUTCD. The most notable is Australia, which has a road signage system that is directly based on the MUTCD. Others use a mixture of MUTCD and international standards.

197:

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.

758:

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

169:. 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 FHWA on additions, revisions, and changes to the MUTCD. 212:

of the 1920s, the term "road marker" was sometimes used to describe traffic control devices which modern speakers would now call "signs." In 1930, the National Conference on Street and Highway Safety (NCSHS) published the

3076: 653: 3064: 3052: 3028: 641: 629: 605: 3040: 617: 495:

transportation. NCUTCD develops public and professional awareness of the principles of safe traffic control devices and practices and provides a forum for qualified individuals to exchange professional information.

3115: 689: 3127: 701: 2853: 293:

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".

1208:

Australian temporary warning signs are rectangular, following the United Kingdom practice, but they differ from the British temporary warning signs by having a yellow, or an orange background instead.

436:

The draw bridge warning sign (left) is one of the several signs under the MUTCD that remain text-only, while its equivalent under the Vienna Convention (right) displays a symbol of an open draw bridge

1200:, and it serves as a similar role to the FHWA MUTCD. As a result, road signs in Australia closely follow those used in U.S., but some sign designs closely follow the ones used in the United Kingdom. 2292: 2900: 1866: 511: 797: 557:

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

2717: 964:, which use European-style road signs, including triangular warning signs with a red border and a white background as in Europe. Of all the countries in South America, only four countries— 466:

containing a proposal for an 11th edition of the MUTCD, publishing the draft content of this new edition online for public review and comment until March 15, 2021. The adoption of the

2134: 201: 4172: 3845: 2730:"Manual Venezolano de Dispositivos Uniformes para el Control del Tránsito (MVDUCT) – Gaceta Oficial N° 39.590 del 10-01-2011 – Instituto Nacional de Transporte Terrestre (INTT)" 2970: 2940: 2111: 836:(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.). 2990: 2839: 2296: 1706: 1060:

mandatory signs are used: European-style signs with white symbols on a blue background and a white border, signs with black symbols on a white background and a red border.

766:

The MUTCD has become widely influential outside the United States; for example, the use of yellow stripes to divide opposing traffic has been widely adopted throughout the

2960: 2945: 2554: 4187: 1262: 3089: 3011: 2985: 665: 2678: 3071: 2995: 2975: 3083: 3059: 3047: 3023: 2980: 2950: 2935: 2925: 2920: 2910: 2895: 2729: 2873:

This template lists only US states that have adopted the 2009 edition of MUTCD with their own supplements and states that have adopted their own versions of MUTCD

1962: 3911: 3035: 2890: 1153:. As a result, road signs in Peru are similar in design to those used in the United States on one side and in neighbouring Chile and Colombia on the other side. 879:). The signs share many similarities with those used in the United States and Canada. Like Canada but unlike the United States, Mexico has a heavier reliance on 208:

to set standards for traffic control devices used on rural roads. Despite the title, this manual did not have any guidance on pavement markings. In the archaic

2955: 2930: 2885: 1023:. Thus, road signs used in Bolivia generally have many similarities to road signs used in the United States, Central America, Colombia and neighboring Chile. 832:(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 3110: 2905: 474:

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

3122: 3098: 3016: 2915: 2120: 593: 574: 2718:

https://repositorio.pucp.edu.pe/index/bitstream/handle/123456789/173103/elementos%20de%20la%20teor%C3%ADa%20del%20tr%C3%A1fico%20vehicular.pdf?sequence=1

2605: 4208: 1536: 1211:

Australian regulatory signs are similar to those used in America, except (at least since 1974) the speed limit signs which bear the red circle legend.

2097: 1842: 1803: 2039: 1748: 904:, a Central American equivalent to the US MUTCD. Of the SICA countries, only Costa Rica has signed the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals. 4155: 2257: 1937: 1138: 980:—have signed the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals. Chile is also the only country in South America that has ratified this convention. 1804:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; National Joint Committee on Traffic Control Devices (2003). "Introduction".

3103: 677: 1987:

RIN 2125-AF85 National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision

470:(IIJA) in November 2021 also directed the USDOT to update the MUTCD by no later than May 15, 2023, and at least every four years thereafter. 325: 856: 4182: 1257: 2353: 4129: 3770: 3700: 3297: 1245: 371: 173: 2050: 1789:

American Association of State Highway Officials; National Joint Committee on Traffic Control Devices (1978). "Section 2A-13, Symbols".

929: 244:

six countries were placed along the road for test subjects to gauge their legibility at a distance. The test strips were located along

141: 2429: 1867:"National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision" 1788: 1680: 1651: 1603: 1576: 1339:

American Association of State Highway Officials: A Story of the Beginning, Purposes, Growth, Activities, and Achievements of AASHO

498:

The NCUTCD is supported by twenty-one sponsoring organizations, including transportation and engineering industry groups (such as

3335: 3171: 2472: 588: 309:

In 1960, the National Joint Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices was again reorganized to include representatives of the

1963:"FHWA Releases New Traffic Control Device Manual with Updates to Improve Safety for Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and All Road Users" 1843:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; National Joint Committee on Traffic Control Devices (2012).

1631: 3984: 3562: 648: 467: 193:

these automobile clubs frequently led to multiple sets of signs—sometimes as many as eleven—being erected on the same highway.

2706: 163:

The MUTCD defines the content and placement of traffic signs, while design specifications are detailed in a companion volume,

3979: 829: 660: 636: 624: 600: 237: 2517: 3615: 612: 2317: 3952: 895: 570: 503: 2137:. Scott Air Force Base, Illinois: Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command Transportation Engineering Agency 1367:

Hawkins, H. Gene; Parham, Angelia H.; Womack, Katie N. (2002). "Appendix A: Evolution of U.S. Pavement Marking System".

684: 362: 350: 2831: 4177: 4124: 4116: 3582: 1481: 696: 672: 475: 379: 2583: 3785: 3635: 2260:[Official Mexican Standard NOM-034-SCT2/SEDATU-2022, Signage and Traffic Devices for Streets and Highways] 2113:

Department of Defense Supplement to the National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways

1096:

Ecuador signed the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals on November 8, 1968 but has yet to fully ratify it.

1016: 957: 886:

Mexico signed the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals on November 8, 1968, but has yet to fully ratify it.

446: 310: 3833: 3140: 2460: 2216:(2006 consolidated ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. pp. 41, 91 1267: 578: 515: 342: 28: 2407: 3947: 137: 66: 45: 2529: 2258:"NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-034-SCT2/SEDATU-2022, Señalización y dispositivos viales para calles y carreteras" 3790: 3725: 3720: 3517: 2630: 2026: 1652:

American Association of State Highway Officials; National Joint Committee on Traffic Control Devices (1971).

1604:

American Association of State Highway Officials; National Joint Committee on Traffic Control Devices (1971).

1577:

American Association of State Highway Officials; National Joint Committee on Traffic Control Devices (1971).

206:

Manual and Specifications for the Manufacture, Display, and Erection of U.S. Standard Road Markers and Signs

2156: 2000:"Interim Approval 21 – Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons at Crosswalks - Interim Approvals Issued by FHWA" 3164: 1500: 265: 2555:"Reglamento Técnico Ecuatoriano. RTE INEN 004-1:2011. Señalización vial. Parte 1: Señalización Vertical" 912:

In Belize, road signs generally follow MUTCD standards. However, there are road signs unique to Belize.

4065: 3557: 3522: 3384: 2378: 1999: 329: 253: 2776: 2182: 3883: 3838: 3532: 2965: 1537:"U.N. Nearer Accord on Traffic Signs: Standard Markers of U.S. May Serve as a Basis For World System" 397:

The 1971 edition of the MUTCD included several significant standards. The MUTCD imposed a consistent

314: 302: 298: 261: 2208: 3904: 3715: 3600: 3567: 3542: 3487: 3482: 3420: 3415: 3349: 3315: 1436: 2493: 1566:(1967 supp. ed.). Evanston, Illinois: Traffic Institute, Northwestern University. p. 11. 1524:. Newport News, Virginia. Associated Press. March 30, 1951. p. 13 – via Newspapers.com. 920:

Road signs in South America and Caribbean are generally based on the MUTCD, with the exception of

3899: 3878: 3705: 3537: 3527: 3462: 3435: 3374: 3325: 3238: 2656: 1474: 1395:

Waters, Charles R.; Treble, Gilbert W. (July 1951). "Tests of Highway Signs for United Nations".

1191: 989: 507: 257: 189: 518:. Each sponsoring organization promotes members to serve as voting delegates within the NCUTCD. 3926: 3740: 3620: 3547: 3512: 3502: 3497: 3425: 3389: 3369: 3157: 1986: 1829: 1520: 1415: 1368: 1228: 1069: 868: 1844: 1578: 4055: 3931: 3823: 3780: 3745: 3685: 3680: 3675: 3665: 3660: 3650: 3645: 3640: 3625: 3610: 3605: 3595: 3590: 3572: 3452: 3410: 3379: 3267: 3249: 2088: 1653: 1605: 1080: 949: 483: 2825: 1845:"Change List for Revision Numbers 1 and 2, Dated May 2012, to the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD" 1724:

Hebert, Ray (January 30, 1972). "New Traffic Signs Bloom as California Goes International".

4095: 4025: 4020: 3916: 3828: 3813: 3775: 3765: 3755: 3750: 3735: 3730: 3695: 3670: 3655: 3630: 3552: 3472: 3447: 3394: 3364: 3214: 3194: 2707:

https://cdn.www.gob.pe/uploads/document/file/1014949/Manual-Senalizacion-Turistica-Peru.pdf

1504:. Massillon, Ohio. Associated Press. March 27, 1951. p. 12 – via Newspapers.com. 1032: 845: 791: 402: 245: 149: 8: 4050: 3921: 3795: 3760: 3710: 3690: 3507: 3477: 3457: 3440: 3430: 3209: 2518:

https://dspace.utpl.edu.ec/bitstream/123456789/11467/1/Carpio%20Reyes%20Henrry%20Omar.pdf

2285:

Manual de Señalización y Dispositivos para el Control del Tránsito en Calles y Carreteras

1050: 921: 2751: 1805: 873:

Manual de Señalización y Dispositivos para el Control de Tránsito en Calles y Carreteras

728: 374: 4010: 3818: 3492: 3467: 2861: 2813: 1196:

For road signs in Australia, this is covered by AS 1742 which is unofficially known as

767: 479: 450:

The left guide sign is from the 2003 MUTCD, and the right sign is from the 2009 MUTCD.

427: 2688:(in Spanish). Lima: Ministerio de Transportes y Comunicaciones del Perú. May 31, 2016 1774:

Hazlett, Bill (March 23, 1972). "Some Confusing: Wordless Traffic Signs Popping Up".

526: 289: 1341:. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway Officials. pp. 129–138. 4090: 4060: 3330: 2679:"Manual de Dispositivos de Control del Tránsito Automotor para Calles y Carreteras" 2449: 2062: 1456: 1238:

similarities to road signs used in the United States and Latin American countries.

1118: 814: 562: 463: 455: 338: 209: 2381:

Manual Centroamericano de Dispositivos Uniformes para el Control del Transito 2014

1215:

The typeface used for Australian road signs is the AS 1744 font which is based on

4085: 3229: 3224: 2040:

Press statement: Newly updated MUTCD doesn’t go far enough to protect pedestrians

1135:

Manual de Dispositivos de Control del Tránsito Automotor para Calles y Carreteras

1093:. Signs are, in most ways, similar in design to those used in the United States. 937: 818: 760: 553: 366: 354: 1915:"Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways: What's New" 383: 297:

are) under state jurisdiction. Second, the United States was developing modern

4080: 4040: 4005: 3320: 3310: 3287: 3259: 3199: 1892: 1216: 1007:

standard which is based on the United States' MUTCD (FHWA), Central America's

755: 249: 2461:

http://www.der.sp.gov.br/WebSite/Arquivos/manuais/MANUAL_SINALIZACAO_VOL_1.pdf

561:

Eighteen states have adopted the national MUTCD as is. Twenty-two states, the

393:

Warning signs introduced in the 1971 edition, combining both symbols and words

4202: 4070: 4045: 3974: 1288: 1234: 1166: 925: 901:

Manual Centroamericano de Dispositivos Uniformes para el Control del Transito

806: 157: 153: 4015: 1515: 1495: 1451: 1431: 1410: 1370:

NCHRP Report 484: Feasibility Study for an All-White Pavement Marking System

3305: 3276: 3244: 3180: 1989:, III. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question 748: 462:

On December 14, 2020, FHWA published a notice of proposed amendment in the

389: 145: 3234: 2606:"The Infrastructure Ministry has missed the point on the East Coast road" 953: 775: 566: 454:

On January 2, 2008, FHWA published a Notice of Proposed Amendment in the

269: 2657:"MANUAL DE CARRETERAS DEL PARAGUAY – Asociación Paraguaya de Carreteras" 1163:

Manual Venezolano de Dispositivos Uniformes para el Control del Tránsito

3282: 2564:(in Spanish). Instituto Ecuatoriano de Normalización. 2011. p. 204 1914: 1117:

standard developed by the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (

398: 346: 2027:"The rules of the road are changing, but not fast enough for everyone" 1419:. United Press. March 27, 1951. p. 11 – via Newspapers.com. 1337:

Johnson, A.E. (1965). Johnson, A.E. (ed.). "A Story of Road Signing".

1091:

Reglamento Técnico Ecuatoriano. RTE INEN 004-1:2011. Señalización vial

877:

Manual of Signage and Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways

825:

rather than text legends and metric measurements instead of imperial.

782:

and some Asian countries use many road signs influenced by the MUTCD.

306:

resulted in the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals of 1968.

4035: 3272: 3219: 3204: 1965:(Press release). U.S. Department of Transportation. December 19, 2023 977: 771: 584:

The following state-specific MUTCD editions are currently in effect:

318: 16:

National traffic control manual of the Federal Highway Administration

2051:

Feds, Advocates Talk About What’s In The New MUTCD (And What Isn’t)!

1145:(MUTCD) developed by the Federal Highway Administration, Colombia's 172:

The United States is among the countries that have not ratified the

4030: 1731: 1241: 961: 933: 220: 22: