MUTCD for vehicles

[UCFKnights]

Has it ever been considered to add to the manual official/traffic control related vehicle designs/colors/etc to the MUTCD? I've always felt that police cars directing traffic, construction vehicles blocking lanes and working in the road, and emergency vehicles blocking lanes to give themselves a safe space to work should have more standardized designs so people can recognize them more quickly and to keep the safety of first responders and construction workers a top priority.

I'd like to see all of the police, fire, ambulance, and construction vehicles substantially covered in retroreflective tape, with a stripe pattern standardized and the color determined by what class they are in, alternating with fluorescent yellow-green (FYG). So for police blue/FYG, for fire red/FYG, construction yellow/FYG. The UK seems to do this a bit, and to copy their last set of colors, ambulance green/FYG.


For those not familir with UK emergency vehicles, here's a picture of a bunch of them https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/blues-twos-britains-wildest-new-police-cars-revealed/

It seems this would be an easy way to protect some of their lives... the black and white police cars blend it with the road itself and are fully dependent on their flashing lights to alert people to where they are. And many areas don't even follow that scheme, my area has dark green police cars (and uniforms) that blend right in with the foliage, and police here have been killed on multiple occasions being hit by cars, that I think could have easily been avoided if they were more visible.

[roadfro]

In short, no.

The MUTCD is specifically for traffic control devices. A vehicle is not a traffic control device. An element that is rightly regulated in the MUTCD, is that workers in highway right of way, including first responders (and especially traffic control officers) are required to wear high visibility gear.

The FHWA, in rule making processes of the last MUTCD or two, removed references to flood lights used in construction zones, reflectors or signs to locate fire hydrants, and similar items have either been removed from the manual or consciously not included. The thought process being that these things, while commonly found in the road environment, are not meant to regulate or otherwise interact directly with all road users do are therefore not traffic control devices.

[jakeroot]

The MUTCD is specifically for traffic control devices. A vehicle is not a traffic control device. An element that is rightly regulated in the MUTCD, is that workers in highway right of way, including first responders (and especially traffic control officers) are required to wear high visibility gear.

I think you took his question too literally. I think what he meant was that, because the US does not have a single national corporation that runs emergency services (on the level of the NHS ambulance services in the UK, or the RCMP in Canada), a manual-type device would be required to regulate emergency vehicle designs. I'm not sure how much federal funding there is of emergency services, but a federal agency could threaten to withhold funding if markings weren't to the standard.

I would very much like to see this. I think it would prove helpful over time, as people would be accustomed to certain designs that represent that particular service. This would aid in distant recognition, which is particularly helpful when an emergency vehicle is attempting to weave through traffic. It might even help someone spot and wave down an ambulance.

At the very least, I would love to see ambulances painted a bright fluorescent yellow-green with Battenburg markings on the side, much like the UK design. Most ambulances I see are completely white with some very basic designs on the side (word "AMBULANCE" and a few MS Paint shapes and some randomly-colored stripes), that do not stand out in the least. You need more than flashing lights. Someone should be able to very quickly spot you in their mirrors, even without lights.

[UCFKnights]

In short, no.

The MUTCD is specifically for traffic control devices. A vehicle is not a traffic control device. An element that is rightly regulated in the MUTCD, is that workers in highway right of way, including first responders (and especially traffic control officers) are required to wear high visibility gear.

The FHWA, in rule making processes of the last MUTCD or two, removed references to flood lights used in construction zones, reflectors or signs to locate fire hydrants, and similar items have either been removed from the manual or consciously not included. The thought process being that these things, while commonly found in the road environment, are not meant to regulate or otherwise interact directly with all road users do are therefore not traffic control devices.

But with laws on the books in most (not sure how many exactly?) that the lane next to a stopped emergency vehicle, is considered closed, and many of these workers are also trained to stop their vehicles in the roadway to use them as a safety protection device no different than cones and barricades, which kind of makes them a de facto traffic control device. We did standardize the color of school buses as well some time ago, even though they aren't traffic control devices themselves (although IMO as part of this, they could use a design upgrade as well to make them more visible, perhaps reserve school bus yellow/FYG alternating pattern for them).

[roadfro]

I think you took his question too literally. I think what he meant was that, because the US does not have a single national corporation that runs emergency services (on the level of the NHS ambulance services in the UK, or the RCMP in Canada), a manual-type device would be required to regulate emergency vehicle designs. I'm not sure how much federal funding there is of emergency services, but a federal agency could threaten to withhold funding if markings weren't to the standard.

In fairness, the first sentence of the OP's post did basically ask if this had been considered to be added to the MUTCD...

FWIW, it probably wouldn't hurt to have some US standards on this. Or at least in having some (optional) standardized reflective markings on the front/back/side of such vehicles, even if vehicle body colors aren't standardized.

But with laws on the books in most (not sure how many exactly?) that the lane next to a stopped emergency vehicle, is considered closed, and many of these workers are also trained to stop their vehicles in the roadway to use them as a safety protection device no different than cones and barricades, which kind of makes them a de facto traffic control device. We did standardize the color of school buses as well some time ago, even though they aren't traffic control devices themselves (although IMO as part of this, they could use a design upgrade as well to make them more visible, perhaps reserve school bus yellow/FYG alternating pattern for them).

Even with that line of thinking, I still think it's a stretch to think of an emergency vehicle as a traffic device... Would a DOT maintenance truck be a traffic control device?

According to the Wikipedia "School bus yellow"  article, the color was one of several standards for school bus manufacturing developed at a conference of manufacturers and transportation officials in the 1930s, and is now specified by what is now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (under the US Department of Commerce). However, there does not appear to be a federal mandate that requires the use of the color (but pretty much all bus manufacturers use it regardless), unless that NIST standard is codified somewhere that I'm not aware of.

Another twist on the point: The actual traffic control functions of a school bus, the stop sign and red (and yellow, in some areas) flashing lights, are not even regulated by the MUTCD.

[DaBigE]

The NFPA covers a fair amount of what the OP is looking for. It has standards for emergency vehicle lighting and amount/location of retroreflectivity on fire apparatus. Google NFPA 1901 for more details. In-short, those standards are the reason why you see chevrons on the back of most of your newer fire apparatus.

In any case, emergency services in the US carry a lot of baggage...err tradition. There are ongoing debates on whether a fire truck should be florescent yellow (aka "slime") or traditional red. Each has their own scientific and psychological benefits. The boys in blue aren't much easier. Michigan State Police come to mind. You also have some states which dictate emergency vehicle lighting (e.g., by Wisconsin state statute, police cars can only have blue emergency lights on the passenger side of the vehicle and red on the driver's side; fire and EMS vehicles can only use red and white; green indicates incident command; yellow is tow and maintenance). Switching to the metric system may be easier than attempting to have emergency vehicle uniformity.

In reality, I don't think mass standardization will make a lick of difference. People are just too damned distracted behind the wheel that it doesn't matter what's in front of them. There's still a number of folks every year who end up crashing through barricades and getting stuck in wet cement... how many years haven't barricades been designed uniformly?

[Brian556]

I say police cars should be required to have a light bar on top. Its more visible than window lights.

Concerning all vehicles: All vehicles should be required to have amber rear turn signals. Red is unsafe, especially when flashers are used. Red flashers are over 50% less detectable to drivers at night than amber

[SP Cook]

I do not think that the MUTCD is the device for accomplishing this, but I do get the point that certain emergency and police vehicle standardization is needed.  Things that should be, IMHO:

- All fire trucks should be either red or the "slime" color, personally I like red.  I have seen some small towns with fire trucks that are the colors of a local college or HS. 

- Ambulances should be clearly marked as such on all four sides.

- Police cars with the power to stop a motorist should be marked "POLICE" on all four sides and have a roof mounted light BAR.  The use of unmarked and "semi-marked" cars for traffic "work" is very dangerous and should be banned. 

[jeffandnicole]

Concerning all vehicles: All vehicles should be required to have amber rear turn signals. Red is unsafe, especially when flashers are used. Red flashers are over 50% less detectable to drivers at night than amber

And they need to be a standard size, especially in comparison to other lights.  Automakers are either making them look cute or smallish, both of which takes away from their visibility.

[jakeroot]

Concerning all vehicles: All vehicles should be required to have amber rear turn signals. Red is unsafe, especially when flashers are used. Red flashers are over 50% less detectable to drivers at night than amber

And they need to be a standard size, especially in comparison to other lights.  Automakers are either making them look cute or smallish, both of which takes away from their visibility.

They aren't "cute or smallish" in this country. North America already has pretty tight restrictions on turning lamp sizes (or at least the initial blink). It's the rest of the world that lacks this restriction.

Honestly, I've always thought that our restrictions were too tight. There have been massive improvements in automotive lighting in Europe, but very little of it can be tested here because of our restrictions on silly things like the size of the initial blink. There's more to visibility than just the size of the lamp.

I think you took his question too literally. I think what he meant was that, because the US does not have a single national corporation that runs emergency services (on the level of the NHS ambulance services in the UK, or the RCMP in Canada), a manual-type device would be required to regulate emergency vehicle designs. I'm not sure how much federal funding there is of emergency services, but a federal agency could threaten to withhold funding if markings weren't to the standard.

In fairness, the first sentence of the OP's post did basically ask if this had been considered to be added to the MUTCD...

Ah, yes it did. Guess I'm the one not reading very well!

[roadfro]

Concerning all vehicles: All vehicles should be required to have amber rear turn signals. Red is unsafe, especially when flashers are used. Red flashers are over 50% less detectable to drivers at night than amber

And they need to be a standard size, especially in comparison to other lights.  Automakers are either making them look cute or smallish, both of which takes away from their visibility.

I somewhat concur along these lines. I don't care so much that the rear turn signal be amber (though I do prefer that). I just extremely dislike when a brake light is also used for the turn signal. How is it that non-US car manufacturers seem to do this better...?

[UCFKnights]

I think you took his question too literally. I think what he meant was that, because the US does not have a single national corporation that runs emergency services (on the level of the NHS ambulance services in the UK, or the RCMP in Canada), a manual-type device would be required to regulate emergency vehicle designs. I'm not sure how much federal funding there is of emergency services, but a federal agency could threaten to withhold funding if markings weren't to the standard.

In fairness, the first sentence of the OP's post did basically ask if this had been considered to be added to the MUTCD...

FWIW, it probably wouldn't hurt to have some US standards on this. Or at least in having some (optional) standardized reflective markings on the front/back/side of such vehicles, even if vehicle body colors aren't standardized.

But with laws on the books in most (not sure how many exactly?) that the lane next to a stopped emergency vehicle, is considered closed, and many of these workers are also trained to stop their vehicles in the roadway to use them as a safety protection device no different than cones and barricades, which kind of makes them a de facto traffic control device. We did standardize the color of school buses as well some time ago, even though they aren't traffic control devices themselves (although IMO as part of this, they could use a design upgrade as well to make them more visible, perhaps reserve school bus yellow/FYG alternating pattern for them).

Even with that line of thinking, I still think it's a stretch to think of an emergency vehicle as a traffic device... Would a DOT maintenance truck be a traffic control device?

According to the Wikipedia "School bus yellow"  article, the color was one of several standards for school bus manufacturing developed at a conference of manufacturers and transportation officials in the 1930s, and is now specified by what is now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (under the US Department of Commerce). However, there does not appear to be a federal mandate that requires the use of the color (but pretty much all bus manufacturers use it regardless), unless that NIST standard is codified somewhere that I'm not aware of.

Another twist on the point: The actual traffic control functions of a school bus, the stop sign and red (and yellow, in some areas) flashing lights, are not even regulated by the MUTCD.

I would say yes, the DOT maintenance truck would be a traffic control device, it very well could be closing a lane of the roadway and we generally aren't supposed to drive in the lane next to it when stopped, or drastically reduce our speed.

The NFPA covers a fair amount of what the OP is looking for. It has standards for emergency vehicle lighting and amount/location of retroreflectivity on fire apparatus. Google NFPA 1901 for more details. In-short, those standards are the reason why you see chevrons on the back of most of your newer fire apparatus.

In any case, emergency services in the US carry a lot of baggage...err tradition. There are ongoing debates on whether a fire truck should be florescent yellow (aka "slime") or traditional red. Each has their own scientific and psychological benefits. The boys in blue aren't much easier. Michigan State Police come to mind. You also have some states which dictate emergency vehicle lighting (e.g., by Wisconsin state statute, police cars can only have blue emergency lights on the passenger side of the vehicle and red on the driver's side; fire and EMS vehicles can only use red and white; green indicates incident command; yellow is tow and maintenance). Switching to the metric system may be easier than attempting to have emergency vehicle uniformity.

In reality, I don't think mass standardization will make a lick of difference. People are just too damned distracted behind the wheel that it doesn't matter what's in front of them. There's still a number of folks every year who end up crashing through barricades and getting stuck in wet cement... how many years haven't barricades been designed uniformly?

My user-namesake had a black ambulance that had terrible visibility, and another town I lived in had navy blue ambulances (school color) and dark green grass-colored police cars (to indicate they were a green, environmentally town, **cough** to try to hide better even if they deny that), and if they didn't have their lights on and they're on the side of the road, you flat out couldn't see them at many times of the day/night, and that just doesn't seem safe. And a recent point that made me bring this up is when I was certain states, CT comes to mind, the police cars were seemingly just gray cars with a light bar, no visibility at all and nothing to make them stand out when they're on the side of the road, and that just seems terrible for officer safety. I have no doubt that improving visibility will improve compliance with the move over laws and result in a decrease in accidents with their vehicles.

I did notice the chevron strip starting to appear on the back of fire trucks, but that definetely seems like way too little. The UK does this right, high visibility patterns in your face. Does anyone have stats on accidents with emergency vehicles there vs here?

[jakeroot]

Concerning all vehicles: All vehicles should be required to have amber rear turn signals. Red is unsafe, especially when flashers are used. Red flashers are over 50% less detectable to drivers at night than amber

And they need to be a standard size, especially in comparison to other lights.  Automakers are either making them look cute or smallish, both of which takes away from their visibility.

I somewhat concur along these lines. I don't care so much that the rear turn signal be amber (though I do prefer that). I just extremely dislike when a brake light is also used for the turn signal. How is it that non-US car manufacturers seem to do this better...?

To expand on Baloo's reply, American manufacturers aren't good about using amber rear turn signals because it's not a design required from the outset, like in Europe. Lately, some American vehicles such as the Ram trucks and F150 have started using amber rear turn signals, because they have started being shipped out of country, and it's something that doesn't have to be modified later on. There's plenty of other reasons, of course, but that's a biggie. Volvo recently started re-using amber rear signals, after having not used them for a while. They said it was a conscious choice to use red in the US and Canada, as they thought it was aesthetically preferable given the option.

To expand on my previous reply, the design of the left turn lamp is far more important than size. IMO, this means using some form of amber signals to distinguish them from brake lights, and using a form of sequential animation, most famously used on the Mustang, and now Audi.

[roadfro]

I think you took his question too literally. I think what he meant was that, because the US does not have a single national corporation that runs emergency services (on the level of the NHS ambulance services in the UK, or the RCMP in Canada), a manual-type device would be required to regulate emergency vehicle designs. I'm not sure how much federal funding there is of emergency services, but a federal agency could threaten to withhold funding if markings weren't to the standard.

In fairness, the first sentence of the OP's post did basically ask if this had been considered to be added to the MUTCD...

FWIW, it probably wouldn't hurt to have some US standards on this. Or at least in having some (optional) standardized reflective markings on the front/back/side of such vehicles, even if vehicle body colors aren't standardized.

But with laws on the books in most (not sure how many exactly?) that the lane next to a stopped emergency vehicle, is considered closed, and many of these workers are also trained to stop their vehicles in the roadway to use them as a safety protection device no different than cones and barricades, which kind of makes them a de facto traffic control device. We did standardize the color of school buses as well some time ago, even though they aren't traffic control devices themselves (although IMO as part of this, they could use a design upgrade as well to make them more visible, perhaps reserve school bus yellow/FYG alternating pattern for them).

Even with that line of thinking, I still think it's a stretch to think of an emergency vehicle as a traffic device... Would a DOT maintenance truck be a traffic control device?

I would say yes, the DOT maintenance truck would be a traffic control device, it very well could be closing a lane of the roadway and we generally aren't supposed to drive in the lane next to it when stopped, or drastically reduce our speed.

I'm still going to disagree. A vehicle can't be a traffic control device...

The sticking point, I think, is the "move over" requirement that many states have for police/fire/DOT vehicles stopped on the side of the road in performance of official duties. It's not the presence of the vehicle itself that compels you to change lanes, it's the corresponding law that tells you what to do in that situation.

[formulanone]

...brake lights, and using a form of sequential animation, most famously used on the Mustang, and now Audi.

I think 2010-current Mustang owners are actually proud enough of this feature that they like to use them. It seems almost rare that a recent Mustang doesn't use them.

Noticed it on an Audi last week, and I figured maybe the idea rubbed off on that most signal-lacking segment of of motorists...

[jakeroot]

...brake lights, and using a form of sequential animation, most famously used on the Mustang, and now Audi.

I think 2010-current Mustang owners are actually proud enough of this feature that they like to use them. It seems almost rare that a recent Mustang doesn't use them.

Noticed it on an Audi last week, and I figured maybe the idea rubbed off on that most signal-lacking segment of of motorists...

Certainly possible! I know the Golfs sold outside of the US and Canada use sequential turn signals, and that if I wanted to, I could install them on my own car. I have very seriously considered doing so, because I love the look of it so much, but it does require some extra wiring, and I'm not so good at that.

[UCFKnights]

I think you took his question too literally. I think what he meant was that, because the US does not have a single national corporation that runs emergency services (on the level of the NHS ambulance services in the UK, or the RCMP in Canada), a manual-type device would be required to regulate emergency vehicle designs. I'm not sure how much federal funding there is of emergency services, but a federal agency could threaten to withhold funding if markings weren't to the standard.

In fairness, the first sentence of the OP's post did basically ask if this had been considered to be added to the MUTCD...

FWIW, it probably wouldn't hurt to have some US standards on this. Or at least in having some (optional) standardized reflective markings on the front/back/side of such vehicles, even if vehicle body colors aren't standardized.

But with laws on the books in most (not sure how many exactly?) that the lane next to a stopped emergency vehicle, is considered closed, and many of these workers are also trained to stop their vehicles in the roadway to use them as a safety protection device no different than cones and barricades, which kind of makes them a de facto traffic control device. We did standardize the color of school buses as well some time ago, even though they aren't traffic control devices themselves (although IMO as part of this, they could use a design upgrade as well to make them more visible, perhaps reserve school bus yellow/FYG alternating pattern for them).

Even with that line of thinking, I still think it's a stretch to think of an emergency vehicle as a traffic device... Would a DOT maintenance truck be a traffic control device?

I would say yes, the DOT maintenance truck would be a traffic control device, it very well could be closing a lane of the roadway and we generally aren't supposed to drive in the lane next to it when stopped, or drastically reduce our speed.

I'm still going to disagree. A vehicle can't be a traffic control device...

The sticking point, I think, is the "move over" requirement that many states have for police/fire/DOT vehicles stopped on the side of the road in performance of official duties. It's not the presence of the vehicle itself that compels you to change lanes, it's the corresponding law that tells you what to do in that situation.

I hate to be dense, and I know I am being somewhat dense, and I apologize for that, but couldn't the same be said for all of the traffic control devices? If there is a speed limit sign, and no law behind it that compels you to follow it and set fines for going different speeds over it, nobody would follow it, and it wouldn't really be a traffic control device. The laws tell us that we cannot go through a red light and not simply the presence of a signal. The purpose of the MUTCD is to give us a standardized way to know the different laws in the area and what that compels us to do. Vehicles telling us we need to move over (or even pull over) seem no different then a sign, especially a portable barricade that may block off a road or a lane, or have flashing lights telling us we need to get out of a lane. I'm compelled to change lanes because when I see the vehicle, I'm required to move over so i don't risk a ticket for violating the law, just like when I see an arrow board, I'm compelled to do the same for the same reason

[DaBigE]

I could understand a few standardizations/requirements, but I don't see how getting too detailed (e.g., ambulances must have x and be y colored, fire trucks must be z color...) will help matters much, if at all. If the vehicle has emergency lights flashing and has reflective markings, it shouldn't matter what or how they look or what the vehicle's purpose is. I think how some agencies are creative with their markings while also being reflective keeps things interesting and unique. Personally, I don't like the uniformity of European emergency vehicles (don't get me started on how their sirens sound). In any case, the reaction should be the same: reduce your speed, give them room, and approach with caution. Ultimately, does it matter if you're approaching a police car on the side of the road or a tow truck? If it does and you're not a first responder, chances are you're part of the problem (e.g., gawking). Soapbox aside, below is what I would suggest, allowing for creativity and flexibility in implementation (colors, overall design, etc.):

• A vehicle must have agency identifying markings on at least the sides and rear of the vehicle, which could be in the form of the agency's logo or their name spelled out in text form
• Each side of the vehicle must have xx% reflective marking and said markings should easily identify the ends of the vehicle (similar to the reflective markings being put on the sides of railroad rolling stock). The latter potion could be satisfied by a certain thickness stripe that runs the length of the vehicle body.
• Emergency lights must be located in standard locations, with a limit to how much lighting is allowed (I think the more lights that are installed actually has the opposite or "moth" effect). Just because technology allows you to put them in every nook and cranny doesn't mean you should.

Ultimately, I believe we should be focusing more energy on solving the problem of distracted driving...that appears to be the biggest problem we face...not what color the police car is.

My user-namesake had a black ambulance that had terrible visibility, and another town I lived in had navy blue ambulances (school color) and dark green grass-colored police cars (to indicate they were a green, environmentally town, **cough** to try to hide better even if they deny that), and if they didn't have their lights on and they're on the side of the road, you flat out couldn't see them at many times of the day/night, and that just doesn't seem safe. And a recent point that made me bring this up is when I was certain states, CT comes to mind, the police cars were seemingly just gray cars with a light bar, no visibility at all and nothing to make them stand out when they're on the side of the road, and that just seems terrible for officer safety. I have no doubt that improving visibility will improve compliance with the move over laws and result in a decrease in accidents with their vehicles.

I did notice the chevron strip starting to appear on the back of fire trucks, but that definetely seems like way too little. The UK does this right, high visibility patterns in your face. Does anyone have stats on accidents with emergency vehicles there vs here?

Interesting you mention that. There is an infamous fire department in my area which has historically run all-black apparatus. To the best of my knowledge, they have not had a single incident with their vehicles.

[jakeroot]

The original British research in the mid-90s sought to provide a design that was more conspicuous than before (to avoid roadside collisions), nationally recognizable, visible up to 1600 feet away, not more expensive than older designs, among other things.

The result was the Battenburg markings, and I'm guessing it was successful, judging by the widespread adoption across emergency services in the UK, and by other emergency services in other countries. Damn thing is, I can't seem to find any follow up research! I did read that more than two rows of pattern markings should be avoided, with a solid reflective color to be used across the rest of the vehicle instead. This may explain why ambulances in the UK and other countries have such a unique color.

One of my favorite aspects of the Battenburg markings is the use of retroreflective patterns, something I do not recall seeing on American emergency vehicles. This could seriously improve night time visibility.

[DaBigE]

One of my favorite aspects of the Battenburg markings is the use of retroreflective patterns, something I do not recall seeing on American emergency vehicles. This could seriously improve night time visibility.

Just playing devil's advocate here: Does the reflectiveness of the vehicle really matter given the zillions of lights the more recent US emergency vehicles are being equipped with? From what I can recall, Europeans seem to use far fewer emergency lights.

[roadman]

Concerning all vehicles: All vehicles should be required to have amber rear turn signals. Red is unsafe, especially when flashers are used. Red flashers are over 50% less detectable to drivers at night than amber

And they need to be a standard size, especially in comparison to other lights.  Automakers are either making them look cute or smallish, both of which takes away from their visibility.

US regulations dictate only a minimum size, but state nothing about placement or actual visibility.  This is why car makers are able to get away with the latest idiotic design "style" I've seen - placing red brake lights as a small "ring" around an amber turn signal.  Right up there with front DLRs that go out on one side when a person signals a turn.

And I agree with others here.  Both red turn signals and turn signals that double as brake lights should be outlawed.

[UCFKnights]

I could understand a few standardizations/requirements, but I don't see how getting too detailed (e.g., ambulances must have x and be y colored, fire trucks must be z color...) will help matters much, if at all. If the vehicle has emergency lights flashing and has reflective markings, it shouldn't matter what or how they look or what the vehicle's purpose is. I think how some agencies are creative with their markings while also being reflective keeps things interesting and unique. Personally, I don't like the uniformity of European emergency vehicles (don't get me started on how their sirens sound). In any case, the reaction should be the same: reduce your speed, give them room, and approach with caution. Ultimately, does it matter if you're approaching a police car on the side of the road or a tow truck? If it does and you're not a first responder, chances are you're part of the problem (e.g., gawking). Soapbox aside, below is what I would suggest, allowing for creativity and flexibility in implementation (colors, overall design, etc.):

• A vehicle must have agency identifying markings on at least the sides and rear of the vehicle, which could be in the form of the agency's logo or their name spelled out in text form
• Each side of the vehicle must have xx% reflective marking and said markings should easily identify the ends of the vehicle (similar to the reflective markings being put on the sides of railroad rolling stock). The latter potion could be satisfied by a certain thickness stripe that runs the length of the vehicle body.
• Emergency lights must be located in standard locations, with a limit to how much lighting is allowed (I think the more lights that are installed actually has the opposite or "moth" effect). Just because technology allows you to put them in every nook and cranny doesn't mean you should.

Ultimately, I believe we should be focusing more energy on solving the problem of distracted driving...that appears to be the biggest problem we face...not what color the police car is.

I think this is focusing on the problem of distracted driving. Making the enforcement and emergency vehicles more obvious will get people's attention easier and reduce the likelihood they drive distracted. There isn't really too many real, working ideas of stopping distracted driving that are ready for implementation. Infact, a lot of the laws have made the problem worse, as instead of holding up their phone and having the road at least in part of their vision, the law encourages people to hide the phone, place is on the seat or somewhere that is much less visible so an officer can't look in the vehicle and see it.

Relying on the emergency vehicle to have their lights on, and the lights to be at the right angle will lead to some mistakes, the retroreflectivity requires no power or control on the part of the operator.

The MUTCD was also somewhat recently updated to recommend a retroreflective border around signals, which are supposed to always be lit, but one of the huge advantages is if the power goes out at night, the blank signals will still be visible and indicate that you need to come to a stop and check for other vehicles. The usefulness of that really showed when we were hit by Hurricane Irma and it was obvious the compliance rate at signals upgraded with the border was much better then those that were not visible at night..

[jakeroot]

One of my favorite aspects of the Battenburg markings is the use of retroreflective patterns, something I do not recall seeing on American emergency vehicles. This could seriously improve night time visibility.

Just playing devil's advocate here: Does the reflectiveness of the vehicle really matter given the zillions of lights the more recent US emergency vehicles are being equipped with? From what I can recall, Europeans seem to use far fewer emergency lights.

Retroreflective markings are only of any use during dark or murky conditions. To the best of my knowledge, emergency lights for traditional shoulder stops are kept to a minimum, both at night and day. Retroreflective markings would help draw the shape of the vehicle in someone's headlights. Compared to emergency lights, which do a better job of lighting up the surrounding environment with red and blue colors than highlighting the source vehicle, retroreflective markings help drivers in the nearby lanes spot the stopped vehicle without needlessly drawing attention from five lanes away. The two (emergency lights and retroreflective markings) would obviously be used together, but retroreflective markings could help improve visibility without more emergency lights.

[UCFKnights]

One of my favorite aspects of the Battenburg markings is the use of retroreflective patterns, something I do not recall seeing on American emergency vehicles. This could seriously improve night time visibility.

Just playing devil's advocate here: Does the reflectiveness of the vehicle really matter given the zillions of lights the more recent US emergency vehicles are being equipped with? From what I can recall, Europeans seem to use far fewer emergency lights.

Retroreflective markings are only of any use during dark or murky conditions. To the best of my knowledge, emergency lights for traditional shoulder stops are kept to a minimum, both at night and day. Retroreflective markings would help draw the shape of the vehicle in someone's headlights. Compared to emergency lights, which do a better job of lighting up the surrounding environment with red and blue colors than highlighting the source vehicle, retroreflective markings help drivers in the nearby lanes spot the stopped vehicle without needlessly drawing attention from five lanes away. The two (emergency lights and retroreflective markings) would obviously be used together, but retroreflective markings could help improve visibility without more emergency lights.

Yup, and officers also are told not to use their lights to avoid raising alarm in many situations, such as when responding to a house call and not trying to pull over a vehicle, and well, pretty much everything except for chasing a car and trying to get them to pull over. Plus better markings could help find an officer who is not responding and didn't have a chance to activate lights or sirens or other methods to help find where they are at in the event of an emergency.

[DaBigE]

One of my favorite aspects of the Battenburg markings is the use of retroreflective patterns, something I do not recall seeing on American emergency vehicles. This could seriously improve night time visibility.

Just playing devil's advocate here: Does the reflectiveness of the vehicle really matter given the zillions of lights the more recent US emergency vehicles are being equipped with? From what I can recall, Europeans seem to use far fewer emergency lights.

To the best of my knowledge, emergency lights for traditional shoulder stops are kept to a minimum, both at night and day.

Not from any of the traffic stops I've seen. They may kill most of the non-white scene lighting to the front, but from the rear, they usually have the light bar going, arrow sticks, hazards, lights buried in the taillights and reverse lights. Many of the SUV-based squads also have lights in the rear window still going as well.