I like something like this (that notes 'state law' or otherwise implies that it's universal, and not limited to the street where the sign is located):

Let's see, you either live in Zimbabwe with a GDP per capita of $200, or Sao Tome and Principe with overall GDP of $311 (according to the IMF).

Individual states have until Jan 15?, 2012 to either adopt the newest MUTCD intact; or make a case for why they are not adopting certain sections and why.

California may not have yet included the BMUFL and plan to; they have been in use in San Francisco in the version Degnaw posted for some time, and can't see a reason for CALTRANS or the CA regulatory committee tasked with this stuff to refuse them.

No, I live in a country that uses a fractional reserve system such that every 1 dollar held by the banks can back 99 dollars loaned out, and so the debt-to-capital ratio is 99:1. All money is imaginary (okay, that's a given in a fiat system, but still).

My city has built more than 60 roundabouts in the last 10 years and has seen an 80% drop in accidents with injuries at these intersections. Primarily because they replaced traffic lights and stop signs, meaning that when there is an accident it occurs at much lower speeds; accidents at traffic lights and stop signs often involve someone running the light/sign and are much more dangerous.

IME, the only way they'd be that effective in Texas is if they included at least four sets of those one-way tire damagers to keep stupid and/or lazy people from going through them the wrong way.

Odd. Here in Austin (which hasn't seceded from Texas yet) they've got quite a few roundabouts around town now, and the only people who seem to ever go through them the wrong way are cyclists (and of course nobody crashes, as they've checked for traffic first.)

Sometimes drivers forget that they need to yield when entering them, but I've never heard of a car (or bike, for that matter) going through one the wrong way and causing a collision. I've never seen a car go through it the wrong way and not cause a collision -- but I've seen quite a few cyclists do this.

I liked the full lane sign it's clear. On the other signs....if you don't know the ones in your state you need to brush up or get off the road until you do....for your safety and everyone elses. If there are so many you can't read them...may be a slower speed would help. It's always possible that a new prescription is necessary.....my eye sight is not the greatest... I'd check that first if I start missing signs! Just some tips...oh and always look ahead as far as possible.....if that doesn't work...repeat previous.

But seriously, I do agree that signs should be clear and concise!

If you say it enough, enough people will believe it. Instead of signage which get ignored most of the time, how about this:

Where the white line is painted on the right shoulder (US) have it broken every 100 feet or so and a "bike symbol" painted in the void. If this was done on all roads, drives would get accoustomed to seeing the image and expect Cyclists to be near.