Most absurd VMS messages

[bzakharin]

Seen on the New Jersey side of the Betsy Ross Bridge this past Sunday: "IF YOU'RE TEXTING, WHO'S DRIVING?" That's pretty clever, I think.

[PColumbus73]

With Taylor Swift's tour coming to Minneapolis this weekend, MnDOT is using puns from her songs:

          CUT OFF?
DON'T GET BAD BLOOD
       SHAKE IT OFF

Theoretical question: If a VMS is displaying a non-compliant message, and a driver gets into an accident and they claim to have been distracted by reading that non-compliant message, could the state DOT be liable for damages?

[steviep24]

NYSDOT has these this week in the Rochester, NY area.

                               EYES UP
                           PHONE DOWN
                             DON'T TEXT
                             AND DRIVE


                             DON'T TEST
                             AND DRIVE
                                ARRIVE
                                 ALIVE

The sign actually had that typo.

Also, there are messages about move over law.

[ElishaGOtis]

As some of you may be aware, the Vegas Golden Knights are currently vying for the NHL Stanley Cup.

In that spirit, the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada posted on Instagram a few days ago images from traffic cams showing three separate VMS safety messages that they recently displayed along Las Vegas area freeways:

THE GOAL IS
ZERO FATALITIES
GO KNIGHTS GO

SAFE DRIVERS
SAVE LIVES
DAY AND KNIGHT

CROSS CHECK
YOUR SEATBELT
DRIVE SAFE

NYSDOT has these this week in the Rochester, NY area.

                               EYES UP
                           PHONE DOWN
                             DON'T TEXT
                             AND DRIVE


                             DON'T TEST
                             AND DRIVE
                                ARRIVE
                                 ALIVE

The sign actually had that typo.

Also, there are messages about move over law.

I saw a set of messages in Orlando similar in nature to these two examples. This was around the end of June 2023, and some CFX message boards on FL-408 and FL-417 near UCF said something along the lines of:

PHONES DOWN, FLAGS UP
GO KNIGHTS
CHARGE ON

I can't remember exactly what it said but this was what I recall. For reference, the mascot of UCF (University of Central Florida) is also the Knights.

Florida is also slowly rolling out messages about the changed move-over law, but it seems to be varying by district.

[wanderer2575]

On several Toledo OH-area VMSs in the wee hours this morning:

              OHIO AGAINST
               THE WORLD
          AND DRUNK DRIVING

WTF?  Is there some college sports scandal down there too?

[Big John]

On several Toledo OH-area VMSs in the wee hours this morning:

              OHIO AGAINST
               THE WORLD
          AND DRUNK DRIVING

WTF?  Is there some college sports scandal down there too?

With the Bobcats?

(It didn't say "Ohio State" who play Michigan)

[SSR_317]

On several Toledo OH-area VMSs in the wee hours this morning:

              OHIO AGAINST
               THE WORLD
          AND DRUNK DRIVING

WTF?  Is there some college sports scandal down there too?

With the Bobcats?

(It didn't say "Ohio State" who play Michigan)

Probably because there wasn't room to add the pretentious "THE" in front of OHIO STATE, which seems to be required in that state (and hated everywhere else).

[thenetwork]

We've gotten more pith about speeding since the New Year.

I'm calling it now: If the Saints win the Super Bowl, we'll get VMS messages urging us to "BE A SAINT" or "DRIVE LIKE A CHAMPION" followed by something about reducing speed, driving sober, not texting while driving, etc.

Instead, you get this (and it's correct, too):

Now if that is near a toll plaza, imagine non-football fans thinking it was referring to an actual robbery.and they report it to 911.  Much in the same vein as a city bus displaying a CALL 911 on the outside LED signs if there is/was trouble on the bus..

[SectorZ]

And soon apparently the party ends...

https://thehill.com/homenews/4408440-no-joke-feds-banning-humorous-electronic-messages-on-highways/

Apparently this is an MUTCD update banning by 2026 any VMS that has "obscure meanings, references to pop culture or those intended to be funny."

[Rothman]

And soon apparently the party ends...

https://thehill.com/homenews/4408440-no-joke-feds-banning-humorous-electronic-messages-on-highways/

Apparently this is an MUTCD update banning by 2026 any VMS that has "obscure meanings, references to pop culture or those intended to be funny."

Is it a should or shall?

[Big John]

And soon apparently the party ends...

https://thehill.com/homenews/4408440-no-joke-feds-banning-humorous-electronic-messages-on-highways/

Apparently this is an MUTCD update banning by 2026 any VMS that has "obscure meanings, references to pop culture or those intended to be funny."

Is it a should or shall?

from the article:

The agency, which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, said signs should be "simple, direct, brief, legible and clear" and only be used for important information such as warning drivers of crashes ahead, adverse weather conditions and traffic delays. Seatbelt reminders and warnings about the dangers of speeding or driving impaired are also allowed.

[Rothman]

And soon apparently the party ends...

https://thehill.com/homenews/4408440-no-joke-feds-banning-humorous-electronic-messages-on-highways/

Apparently this is an MUTCD update banning by 2026 any VMS that has "obscure meanings, references to pop culture or those intended to be funny."

Is it a should or shall?

from the article:

The agency, which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, said signs should be "simple, direct, brief, legible and clear" and only be used for important information such as warning drivers of crashes ahead, adverse weather conditions and traffic delays. Seatbelt reminders and warnings about the dangers of speeding or driving impaired are also allowed.

Article language doesn't matter.  MUTCD language does.

[SectorZ]

From page 510 MUTCD (550 in PDF)

CHAPTER 2L. CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGNS

04 CMS messaging can be subject to habituation, a phenomenon by which repeated exposure to a stimulus results
in diminished response. CMS habituation can occur through repeated exposure to messages, especially those
messages that might not be perceived as having relevance to the road user, resulting in diminished responsiveness
of the road user to that message. Because messages can be changed or extinguished, the effectiveness of CMS is
tied more to the messages displayed thereon, the frequency of displayed messages, and the relevance to the road
user, rather than to the installation of the signs themselves.
Guidance:
05 Changeable message signs should be used judiciously to avoid habituation and preserve their effectiveness
during the display of real-time messages about traffic conditions or traffic advisories.

[MikeTheActuary]

This seems to be where the story got started: https://www.thedrive.com/news/feds-want-states-to-cut-the-jokes-on-highway-signs

From there, it seems to have migrated to a couple of TV channels, and then it blossomed into an AP newswire item.

I'm not seeing where the FHWA directive or the 2026 enforcement date is coming from, however.  While the OP links it to the new MUTCD...neither the "shall" nor the 2026 date are present, and I didn't see a separate announcement on the FHWA website.

I did see this memorandum from 2021: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_09_174.htm

Clear and simple messages are easy to read and comprehend with only short glances away from the roadway, resulting in minimal visual and cognitive distraction from the driving task.  The use of witticisms, colloquialisms, and popular culture references that target or are comprehended only by a limited segment of the population is not consistent with a clear, simple meaning for all.  Instead, these messages rely on hidden meanings or targeted cultural knowledge to understand the message.  Similarly, the use of newly coined terms (neologisms), words combining the meanings of two words or blending of sounds (portmanteaus), metadata tags ("hashtags"), electronic shorthand ("Internet slang"), and other forms that do not use conventional syntax do not convey a clear, simple meaning to many road users.

...so I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of official party-pooping is in the process of being released.

Of course, considering how many fans there are of the fun messages, I also wouldn't be surprised if political pressure is applied to reverse a new ruling...if one exists.

[PColumbus73]

...so I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of official party-pooping is in the process of being released.

Of course, considering how many fans there are of the fun messages, I also wouldn't be surprised if political pressure is applied to reverse a new ruling...if one exists.

I would argue that it's not the government's job to entertain people.

If the FHWA is ruling that these non-compliant signs create an unsafe or distracting environment for drivers, and a state or agency chooses to ignore the ruling, I think it opens the door for those states or agencies for liability if it can be proven (or successfully argued) that a non-compliant message was the cause of a crash.

[kphoger]

If the FHWA is ruling that these non-compliant signs create an unsafe or distracting environment for drivers, and a state or agency chooses to ignore the ruling, I think it opens the door for those states or agencies for liability if it can be proven (or successfully argued) that a non-compliant message was the cause of a crash.

From what I'm reading, the main argument against them is that they lead people to simply ignore the signs altogether—thereby making them ignorant of actual incidents when they occur.

And really, if you spend so many messages being silly, then can you blame people for starting to see the signs as just something silly?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

MnDOT is already downplaying this "edict" and saying it won't affect their ability to produce "creative" messeges.

[Rothman]

MnDOT is already downplaying this "edict" and saying it won't affect their ability to produce "creative" messeges.

Same with NYSDOT.  It is being read as a recommendation ("should"), rather than a ban.

[Scott5114]

From what I'm reading, the main argument against them is that they lead people to simply ignore the signs altogether—thereby making them ignorant of actual incidents when they occur.

And really, if you spend so many messages being silly, then can you blame people for starting to see the signs as just something silly?

On the other hand, if someone normally finds the message entertaining, they might be more likely to look at the sign when there's something important up there.

Oklahoma usually doesn't put anything interesting on theirs, so if I don't catch a VMS message for some reason, I feel like I'm not missing much—I assume it was just an Amber alert, travel times, "SIGN UNDER TEST", or something like that.

[fwydriver405]

I'm not seeing where the FHWA directive or the 2026 enforcement date is coming from, however.  While the OP links it to the new MUTCD...neither the "shall" nor the 2026 date are present, and I didn't see a separate announcement on the FHWA website.

Yeah, I couldn't figure out where 2026 came from until I saw this on the FHWA MUTCD homepage, could this where 2026 compliance is coming from? Since the effective date is January 18, 2024, that means states must comply by January 18, 2026?

On December 19, 2023, a Final Rule adopting the 11th Edition of the MUTCD was published in the Federal Register with an effective date of January 18, 2024. States must adopt the 11th Edition of the National MUTCD as their legal State standard for traffic control devices within two years from the effective date. The Federal Register notice, which provides detailed discussion of the final dispositions of major changes from the 2009 edition, can be viewed at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-27178.

[SectorZ]

MnDOT is already downplaying this "edict" and saying it won't affect their ability to produce "creative" messeges.

Same with NYSDOT.  It is being read as a recommendation ("should"), rather than a ban.

I can't imagine this being the hill for states to die on. It's like NH with their hatred of standardizing exit numbers to the rest of the USA.

[GaryV]

So similar to the athlete at the press conference answering everything with, "I just don't want a fine."

Now VMS can say, "We want to say something clever, but MUTCD won't let us". (I know, it wouldn't fit.)

[hbelkins]

On December 19, 2023, a Final Rule adopting the 11th Edition of the MUTCD was published in the Federal Register with an effective date of January 18, 2024. States must adopt the 11th Edition of the National MUTCD as their legal State standard for traffic control devices within two years from the effective date. The Federal Register notice, which provides detailed discussion of the final dispositions of major changes from the 2009 edition, can be viewed at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-27178.

[/quote]

No room for the adoption of a state version of the federal document, which states could previously do? If so, then say goodbye to California's cutout US route markers.

[Rothman]

On December 19, 2023, a Final Rule adopting the 11th Edition of the MUTCD was published in the Federal Register with an effective date of January 18, 2024. States must adopt the 11th Edition of the National MUTCD as their legal State standard for traffic control devices within two years from the effective date. The Federal Register notice, which provides detailed discussion of the final dispositions of major changes from the 2009 edition, can be viewed at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-27178.

No room for the adoption of a state version of the federal document, which states could previously do? If so, then say goodbye to California's cutout US route markers.
[/quote]

Nah.  NY is starting an update to its supplement.  Feds first, states second.

[ran4sh]

On December 19, 2023, a Final Rule adopting the 11th Edition of the MUTCD was published in the Federal Register with an effective date of January 18, 2024. States must adopt the 11th Edition of the National MUTCD as their legal State standard for traffic control devices within two years from the effective date. The Federal Register notice, which provides detailed discussion of the final dispositions of major changes from the 2009 edition, can be viewed at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-27178.

No room for the adoption of a state version of the federal document, which states could previously do? If so, then say goodbye to California's cutout US route markers.
[/quote]

In any case, state MUTCDs were/are required to be compliant with the federal MUTCD anyway, so having a state MUTCD wasn't really meant as a way to be able to do different things than federal.