The Clearview thread

[lordsutch]

The bill probably won't pass as a stand-alone (although it could, given that it's likely not to arouse much opposition so it could make its way onto either the consent calendar or be brought up under suspension of the rules), but with Bill Schuster (PA) in charge of the House Transportation Committee it will probably get a hearing and be folded into something that does pass; that tends to be how things work these days.

[vdeane]

They've certainly been running articles in enough media outlets.  While they certainly aren't as influential as, say, a large multinational corporation, they do have at least some influence, and since few would care either way (pretty much just the representatives for the states that were enthusiastic adopters), so not as much financial/political capital would be needed.  Plus this could easily be spun as a victory for states rights against the federal bureaucracy for Republicans (it DOES increase freedom for the states), and for safety improvements for Democrats (even if we know the studies showing Clearview to be more legible are flawed, Joe Public doesn't), so many representatives might vote for it just for the symbolic victory.

[Scott5114]

I realize that this may be folly since we don't have the bill text, and I may be missing something here. But is this even constitutional?

The description says "To require the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration to issue a final rule..." Isn't that a violation of separation of powers? Can the legislative branch actually require an executive branch administrator to do anything this specific?

[J N Winkler]

The description says "To require the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration to issue a final rule..." Isn't that a violation of separation of powers? Can the legislative branch actually require an executive branch administrator to do anything this specific?

I don't think an usurpation argument would work in this context because the FHWA administrator's legal authority to compile a MUTCD and make rules relating to traffic control devices flows directly from an Act of Congress.  What Congress gives Congress can also take away, and Congress can also define the extent of the administrator's discretion in exercising his or her rulemaking authority.

A somewhat related issue is the concept of a private statute, i.e., a law that is private or local in application.  Congress and the state legislatures inherited this from the British Parliament.  The general rule of thumb is that a private law is constitutional as long as it does not confer disadvantage on a particular individual, in which case it would violate the ban on bills of attainder.  One common use of private bills in the past was to confer US citizenship on named individuals--for example, Jun Fujita, the Japanese issei news photographer who is nowadays probably best known for his pictures of corpses after the St. Valentine's Day massacre, became a US citizen through a private bill at a time when immigration law did not otherwise allow Asians to naturalize as US citizens--but in principle it can also be used as a vehicle to allow a typeface, or a family of typefaces, to be used on traffic signs.

Edit:  Another example that is perhaps more on point is the provision that allows a particular city (I think somewhere in New England) to have a centerline on its main street that is red, white, and blue instead of the usual double yellow.  It has been mentioned in past editions of the MUTCD and may still be in the current one; I think the authority for this exception comes directly from an Act of Congress.

[Thing 342]

I realize that this may be folly since we don't have the bill text, and I may be missing something here. But is this even constitutional?

The description says "To require the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration to issue a final rule..." Isn't that a violation of separation of powers? Can the legislative branch actually require an executive branch administrator to do anything this specific?

Yes? I'm not an expert on constitutional law, but congressional oversight over the federal bureaucracy is a rather important check on the executive branch.

---

While I generally despise Clearview from an aesthetics standpoint, I'm inclined to support this bill on the grounds that it grants more freedom to states, and since the general scientific consensus is that Clearview is somewhere between equal and slightly better than FHWA, there's not really much harm in letting the two fonts co-exist. (Though MIDOT claiming that Clearview has somehow reduced crashes by 25% is one of the most hilarious misuses of statistics I've ever seen)

[PurdueBill]

I realize that this may be folly since we don't have the bill text, and I may be missing something here. But is this even constitutional?

The description says "To require the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration to issue a final rule..." Isn't that a violation of separation of powers? Can the legislative branch actually require an executive branch administrator to do anything this specific?

Yes? I'm not an expert on constitutional law, but congressional oversight over the federal bureaucracy is a rather important check on the executive branch.

---

While I generally despise Clearview from an aesthetics standpoint, I'm inclined to support this bill on the grounds that it grants more freedom to states, and since the general scientific consensus is that Clearview is somewhere between equal and slightly better than FHWA, there's not really much harm in letting the two fonts co-exist. (Though MIDOT claiming that Clearview has somehow reduced crashes by 25% is one of the most hilarious misuses of statistics I've ever seen)

MUTCD has never been about offering equal alternatives, but about definite improvements.  Congress sticking its nose into MUTCD decisions is a bad precedent. 

[jakeroot]

MUTCD has never been about offering equal alternatives, but about definite improvements.  Congress sticking its nose into MUTCD decisions is a bad precedent.

Not necessarily. States like California are an example of how the MUTCD really only defines basic parameters, lettings states adjust small things as they see fit. Small things like how the exit tab is designed, to the shape of state route markers, to pavement markings, signal head placement, etc. For the longest time, the typeface for the signs was not one of those things. But that may change.

Let's be very clear here: there have been several studies on Clearview. Some show it to be superior, some show it to be virtually identical. Some show it to be marginally worse. But none show it to be substantially worse. If Clearview does make it into the MUTCD, no one should be worried (except those that are psychologically opposed to it (many of our users, I suspect)). It's still a very good typeface.

[Scott5114]

Right, my objections are less about Clearview–I don't like it but it is something I'm used to, at least–and more to the fact that Congress is not allowing the administrator of FHWA to make their own judgment drawing off the engineering data available to them.

[MNHighwayMan]

If Clearview does make it into the MUTCD, no one should be worried (except those that are psychologically opposed to it (many of our users, I suspect)). It's still a very good typeface.

To be honest, I'm not exactly a fan of Clearview, but at the same time I don't care much either way whether it ever receives final approval. I'm actually a fan of the idea of letting states decide which font to use.

But if it does ever make a comeback, there will be one thing I will always be adamantly opposed to: using it for digits on route markers. I will write some very angry, sternly-worded letters peppered with vague hints of violence towards DOT property if that were to ever happen.

(Yes I know Clearview was never used/approved for that purpose, you don't need to tell me)

[Big John]

But if it does ever make a comeback, there will be one thing I will always be adamantly opposed to: using it for digits on route markers. I will write some very angry, sternly-worded letters peppered with vague hints of violence towards DOT property if that were to ever happen.

(Yes I know Clearview was never used/approved for that purpose, you don't need to tell me)

Michigan, photo by AlpsRoads.

[Pink Jazz]

I think VDOT has also at times used Clearview for shield digits, but this was eventually corrected.

[PurdueBill]

MUTCD has never been about offering equal alternatives, but about definite improvements.  Congress sticking its nose into MUTCD decisions is a bad precedent.

Not necessarily. States like California are an example of how the MUTCD really only defines basic parameters, lettings states adjust small things as they see fit. Small things like how the exit tab is designed, to the shape of state route markers, to pavement markings, signal head placement, etc. For the longest time, the typeface for the signs was not one of those things. But that may change.

Per FHWA re the MUTCD:

FHWA Clearview FAQ
Changes to the MUTCD are made to improve traffic control devices, not to offer equivalent alternatives.

Shield shapes, exit tab designs, etc. are a whole different beast than the typeface used to present destination legend.

The micromanagement of the FHWA administrator by passing a law is troublesome.  It opens the possibility of legislators demanding other changes that they feel are appropriate, data and engineering judgement be damned.  It's like a city council passing a law that the speed limit on a street shall be 20 when engineering study shows it should be 30; why have the study and the engineers in the first place if you're going to ignore or preempt them?

[lordsutch]

The micromanagement of the FHWA administrator by passing a law is troublesome.  It opens the possibility of legislators demanding other changes that they feel are appropriate, data and engineering judgement be damned.  It's like a city council passing a law that the speed limit on a street shall be 20 when engineering study shows it should be 30; why have the study and the engineers in the first place if you're going to ignore or preempt them?

I guess the flip side to that question is what makes the FHWA administrator's judgment of the appropriate typeface any better than the judgment of the chief engineer or department head of TxDOT or GDOT or Caltrans? Essentially some bureaucrat in Washington is telling Texas, Pennsylvania, and a bunch of other states "our engineers are better than yours" even though the evidence says that, really, the decision is a wash and thus enforcing the use of FHWA series typefaces is basically just Washington imposing an arbitrary preference without any meaningful consultation beforehand. Probably the best analogy would be if FHWA suddenly decided that all enhanced location signs (tenth-mile markers with route numbers - D10-4/5) had to have green backgrounds, even though there's no evidence that the ones with blue backgrounds are worse, without any notice of proposed rulemaking beforehand.

Anyway if anyone is micromanaging here, it's FHWA micromanaging 57 state and territorial transportation agencies.

[Pink Jazz]

The micromanagement of the FHWA administrator by passing a law is troublesome.  It opens the possibility of legislators demanding other changes that they feel are appropriate, data and engineering judgement be damned.  It's like a city council passing a law that the speed limit on a street shall be 20 when engineering study shows it should be 30; why have the study and the engineers in the first place if you're going to ignore or preempt them?

I guess the flip side to that question is what makes the FHWA administrator's judgment of the appropriate typeface any better than the judgment of the chief engineer or department head of TxDOT or GDOT or Caltrans? Essentially some bureaucrat in Washington is telling Texas, Pennsylvania, and a bunch of other states "our engineers are better than yours" even though the evidence says that, really, the decision is a wash and thus enforcing the use of FHWA series typefaces is basically just Washington imposing an arbitrary preference without any meaningful consultation beforehand. Probably the best analogy would be if FHWA suddenly decided that all enhanced location signs (tenth-mile markers with route numbers - D10-4/5) had to have green backgrounds, even though there's no evidence that the ones with blue backgrounds are worse, without any notice of proposed rulemaking beforehand.

Anyway if anyone is micromanaging here, it's FHWA micromanaging 57 state and territorial transportation agencies.

As for blue vs. green backgrounds, keep in mind that the human eye is more sensitive to green than it is to blue.  However, this hasn't stopped the FHWA from approving blue backgrounds for street blades along with brown and white backgrounds as alternatives to green.

[Scott5114]

I guess the flip side to that question is what makes the FHWA administrator's judgment of the appropriate typeface any better than the judgment of the chief engineer or department head of TxDOT or GDOT or Caltrans? Essentially some bureaucrat in Washington is telling Texas, Pennsylvania, and a bunch of other states "our engineers are better than yours" even though the evidence says that, really, the decision is a wash and thus enforcing the use of FHWA series typefaces is basically just Washington imposing an arbitrary preference without any meaningful consultation beforehand. Probably the best analogy would be if FHWA suddenly decided that all enhanced location signs (tenth-mile markers with route numbers - D10-4/5) had to have green backgrounds, even though there's no evidence that the ones with blue backgrounds are worse, without any notice of proposed rulemaking beforehand.

Anyway if anyone is micromanaging here, it's FHWA micromanaging 57 state and territorial transportation agencies.

It's not a wash. There's been three studies on Clearview. Two of them were flawed and those were the two that came out in favor of Clearview. The one that came out in favor of FHWA Series and was the only one that placed the two fonts on equal footing (same size text with the same sheeting on real-life signs). That was the one that FHWA used to make their decision.

Even if it were a wash, the whole point of the MUTCD is standardization. Making warning signs yellow instead of red is an equally arbitrary decision. There is nothing about octagons that intrinsically means "stop". But it's been decided that having some degree of consistency throughout the country is more important that making state-level administrators feel good about all the freedom they have.

Just remember, every freedom your state DOT is extended gets extended to OkDOT too. That should scare the shit out of anyone.

[jakeroot]

It's not a wash. There's been three studies on Clearview. Two of them were flawed and those were the two that came out in favor of Clearview. The one that came out in favor of FHWA Series and was the only one that placed the two fonts on equal footing (same size text with the same sheeting on real-life signs). That was the one that FHWA used to make their decision.

I know one of the flawed studies compared old and new signs, which intrinsically made Clearview easier to read. But what was the other one?

I've gotten the impression over the last several years that there have been far more than three studies on Clearview. If there were in fact just three, that's not enough. The fact that the FHWA (apparently) made their decision based on a single study is/was an abhorrent decision on their part, and any fallout from that decision is probably well deserved. Maybe it's just that I'm from the Seattle area, where everything is studied ten times before a decision is reached. But tossing hundreds of millions of dollars on research away because one study showed the two fonts to be on equal footing is pretty damn insulting to the DOTs who adopted it on their own dime (IA or otherwise, it's still money lost).

[machias]

It's not a wash. There's been three studies on Clearview. Two of them were flawed and those were the two that came out in favor of Clearview. The one that came out in favor of FHWA Series and was the only one that placed the two fonts on equal footing (same size text with the same sheeting on real-life signs). That was the one that FHWA used to make their decision.

I know one of the flawed studies compared old and new signs, which intrinsically made Clearview easier to read. But what was the other one?

I've gotten the impression over the last several years that there have been far more than three studies on Clearview. If there were in fact just three, that's not enough. The fact that the FHWA (apparently) made their decision based on a single study is/was an abhorrent decision on their part, and any fallout from that decision is probably well deserved. Maybe it's just that I'm from the Seattle area, where everything is studied ten times before a decision is reached. But tossing hundreds of millions of dollars on research away because one study showed the two fonts to be on equal footing is pretty damn insulting to the DOTs who adopted it on their own dime (IA or otherwise, it's still money lost).

Since these are road signs on public highways funded by the government, the governmental agencies designing and installing the signs shouldn't have to pay a private company for the right to use the "font". Engineering studies aside, as long as Clearview has a licensing fee per workstation cost associated with it, I will vehemently oppose any use of Clearview and make my feelings known to any DOT or other agency that adopts it.  Highway funding can be used for something better than licensing fonts.  If Meeker and Associates really wanted to improve road sign legibility and believed in that cause, they would have put Clearview out there for free.

[jakeroot]

It's not a wash. There's been three studies on Clearview. Two of them were flawed and those were the two that came out in favor of Clearview. The one that came out in favor of FHWA Series and was the only one that placed the two fonts on equal footing (same size text with the same sheeting on real-life signs). That was the one that FHWA used to make their decision.

I know one of the flawed studies compared old and new signs, which intrinsically made Clearview easier to read. But what was the other one?

I've gotten the impression over the last several years that there have been far more than three studies on Clearview. If there were in fact just three, that's not enough. The fact that the FHWA (apparently) made their decision based on a single study is/was an abhorrent decision on their part, and any fallout from that decision is probably well deserved. Maybe it's just that I'm from the Seattle area, where everything is studied ten times before a decision is reached. But tossing hundreds of millions of dollars on research away because one study showed the two fonts to be on equal footing is pretty damn insulting to the DOTs who adopted it on their own dime (IA or otherwise, it's still money lost).

Since these are road signs on public highways funded by the government, the governmental agencies designing and installing the signs shouldn't have to pay a private company for the right to use the "font". Engineering studies aside, as long as Clearview has a licensing fee per workstation cost associated with it, I will vehemently oppose any use of Clearview and make my feelings known to any DOT or other agency that adopts it.  Highway funding can be used for something better than licensing fonts.  If Meeker and Associates really wanted to improve road sign legibility and believed in that cause, they would have put Clearview out there for free.

Not even Clearview supporters would disagree with you. I think Clearview should be in the public domain if it were added to the MUTCD. As a matter of principal, I don't think the FHWA should be (effectively) advertising a typeface in the manual. But the cost per workstation is not very much. Twenty workstations would come in at less than $20k. Sounds like a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to everything else that an agency has to spend money on.

[cl94]

It's not a wash. There's been three studies on Clearview. Two of them were flawed and those were the two that came out in favor of Clearview. The one that came out in favor of FHWA Series and was the only one that placed the two fonts on equal footing (same size text with the same sheeting on real-life signs). That was the one that FHWA used to make their decision.

I know one of the flawed studies compared old and new signs, which intrinsically made Clearview easier to read. But what was the other one?

I've gotten the impression over the last several years that there have been far more than three studies on Clearview. If there were in fact just three, that's not enough. The fact that the FHWA (apparently) made their decision based on a single study is/was an abhorrent decision on their part, and any fallout from that decision is probably well deserved. Maybe it's just that I'm from the Seattle area, where everything is studied ten times before a decision is reached. But tossing hundreds of millions of dollars on research away because one study showed the two fonts to be on equal footing is pretty damn insulting to the DOTs who adopted it on their own dime (IA or otherwise, it's still money lost).

There have been far more than 3 studies. That being said, the research either way has been inconclusive. When the main argument presented by the big proponents right now is "it looks prettier", I have to shoot it down as a researcher. That's subjective and not enough evidence. Most (if not all) of the supportive research has come out of PA or TX, which funded the damn font, so it's hardly impartial.

Look, I'm completely open to adopting Clearview - IF we can get a decent amount of impartial studies showing it is better. We haven't yet.

[PurdueBill]

Anyway if anyone is micromanaging here, it's FHWA micromanaging 57 state and territorial transportation agencies.

If some agency wants to do what it feels like, it can feel free to not take any federal money.  Otherwise they ought to put up with the strings that are attached.  That's part of following the national MUTCD--going by what it says and following the rules it has.

Clearview might have gotten through unscathed if it weren't for agencies doing all sorts of crap with it.  The FHWA FAQ I linked has all the example photos that people are familiar with--negative contrast, all-caps, route shields, negative contrast route shields, etc. that weren't a problem before Clearview.  Agencies showed that they largely can't handle doing it right, so FHWA finally gave up and took the toys away. 

The press release showed that the sponsors of the bill believe the story from the Clearview purveyors, and that they are either ignorant of or do not believe the research that does not support Clearview. 

The agencies adopting it on their own dime was a risk they agreed to take when it was under an interim approval.  There was never a guarantee that Clearview would be approved forever.  Saying "but we paid for this!" is not a reason to keep Clearview at all.  If anything, agencies should have said they'd try it if it were cheaper or free--but we know that would not have been approved by the makers.  It should be public domain if adopted permanently.

[hbelkins]

Someone with more patience than me will need to go back and find it, but I think I predicted that someone would try to legalize Clearview by statute. And several others laughed at me and said it would never happen.

[lordsutch]

Well, from a legal perspective the creators of Clearview can't stop people from tracing the font and making a pattern-accurate clone of it, as long as they don't copy the underlying "code" of the font itself. So there's nothing stopping FHWA or anyone else from producing a typeface that duplicates the appearance of Clearview (or Transport or Times New Roman, for that matter). In any event, design shops pay (directly or indirectly) a typeface foundry for their digital version of the FHWA series fonts too, since they're not going to the trouble of tracing the character glyphs from the MUTCD.

In any event, FHWA rescinded the IA. A significant number of states and members of Congress have told FHWA that decision was a mistake and, that falling on deaf ears under waning days of the previous administration, have moved to the legislative process. FHWA can either hope that the states and Congress go away, get overruled in the next transportation bill, or decide discretion is the better part of valor and issue an NPM to permanently authorize Clearview or reissue the IA. My guess is they'll pick door #3 once a permanent administrator is in place who's empowered to make such decisions, since in general bureaucratic agencies don't pick fights with powerful members of Congress over low-stakes issues because in the end they normally lose.

[jakeroot]

Agencies showed that they largely can't handle doing it right, so FHWA finally gave up and took the toys away.

Yes, yes. They've decided to punish the states for not playing right.

This isn't primary school, Bill. The FHWA doesn't take the "toys away" for not following along. They simply ask for states to do better next time. They *can* punish states in the form of redacting federal funds, but since Clearview was experimental from the beginning, I'd be very surprised to see the FHWA go that route.

If a state decided to start using blue freeway signs, I could see the FHWA pulling federal funds. But putting Clearview in a route shield? That doesn't even deserve a slap on the wrist.

[J N Winkler]

Someone with more patience than me will need to go back and find it, but I think I predicted that someone would try to legalize Clearview by statute. And several others laughed at me and said it would never happen.

That was toward the bottom of the 55th page of this thread, back in January, and the only person I see who actually responded was Rothman ("Pfft.  No.").

For what it is worth, I considered that idea a long shot, but didn't ridicule it or dismiss it out of hand, because of the potential for a large Clearview-using state DOT to mobilize its congressional delegation against the evils (real or perceived) of going back to the FHWA series after much of the guide signing has already been upgraded to Clearview.

[Scott5114]

It's not a wash. There's been three studies on Clearview. Two of them were flawed and those were the two that came out in favor of Clearview. The one that came out in favor of FHWA Series and was the only one that placed the two fonts on equal footing (same size text with the same sheeting on real-life signs). That was the one that FHWA used to make their decision.

I know one of the flawed studies compared old and new signs, which intrinsically made Clearview easier to read. But what was the other one?

The most recent study was done by MIT (IIRC) and just involved people reading text on monitors. I'm sure it goes without saying why that's not an accurate representation of actual field conditions.

I've gotten the impression over the last several years that there have been far more than three studies on Clearview. If there were in fact just three, that's not enough. The fact that the FHWA (apparently) made their decision based on a single study is/was an abhorrent decision on their part, and any fallout from that decision is probably well deserved. Maybe it's just that I'm from the Seattle area, where everything is studied ten times before a decision is reached. But tossing hundreds of millions of dollars on research away because one study showed the two fonts to be on equal footing is pretty damn insulting to the DOTs who adopted it on their own dime (IA or otherwise, it's still money lost).

No, the most thorough study showed that FHWA Series E-Modified performed slightly better than Clearview, and that Enhanced E-Modified (Series E glyphs with E(M) spacing) performed the best of all three.

If anything, blame is to be placed on the DOTs that spent millions of dollars falling for Meeker & Associates' marketing campaign when there was only one study at the time showing Clearview to be more effective when it was given advantages.