As subject title states... I understand the rules allow for loss of federal funding, but in practice what happens when a city, county, or state just decides they are going to do what they want?
I have a specific problem in mind (a city near me that put the seizure-inducing red traffic signals with the white pulsing ring around them) and would like to hear if anyone knows specific examples of problems places just chose not to resolve.
I know exactly which intersection you're talking about.
Quote from: hotdogPi on November 11, 2024, 04:01:06 PMI know exactly which intersection you're talking about.
Figured you might. There are a few that I recall in the city.
In practice, I don't think much actually happens.
When NY State had to modify the blue signs that went up along their highways, that was notable in that the FHWA actually was going to withhold funding.
But the reality is - we have several threads of bad signage and practices on these forums which are hundreds of pages long. Those threads would be much shorter if the feds withheld funds for every violation. So we ourselves here have thousands of examples that weren't resolved...and they're just the more notable ones.
Also - are people actually having seizures? According to the Epilepsy Foundation, "flashing lights most likely to trigger seizures are between the frequency of 5 to 30 flashes per second (Hertz)". If the flashing is 3 or less per second, and people aren't actually having seizures and causing crashes, then it's hard to argue that point. It's easier to just say - those signals aren't allowed. There are other proper ways to alert traffic to the red signal.
My mom asked me what the white pulsing ring meant and if it had a different meaning from just a red light.
Consequences: None and noner.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 11, 2024, 06:08:32 PMWhen NY State had to modify the blue signs that went up along their highways, that was notable in that the FHWA actually was going to withhold funding.
But the reality is - we have several threads of bad signage and practices on these forums which are hundreds of pages long. Those threads would be much shorter if the feds withheld funds for every violation. So we ourselves here have thousands of examples that weren't resolved...and they're just the more notable ones.
Also - are people actually having seizures? According to the Epilepsy Foundation, "flashing lights most likely to trigger seizures are between the frequency of 5 to 30 flashes per second (Hertz)". If the flashing is 3 or less per second, and people aren't actually having seizures and causing crashes, then it's hard to argue that point. It's easier to just say - those signals aren't allowed. There are other proper ways to alert traffic to the red signal.
NY's case was quite political and a one-off, to boot. It's a very rare instance. Other MUTCD violations are just allowed to continue.
Not to mention most violations are usually minor things, like incorrect font, wrong use of color, etc. Things that wouldn't even be noticed by the typical motorist as "wrong." If states/jurisdictions got fined every time they used Series B when it should have been Series C, or wide shields instead of standard shields, yeah, there'd be endless fines every day.
Quote from: Quillz on November 12, 2024, 06:43:52 AMNot to mention most violations are usually minor things, like incorrect font, wrong use of color, etc. Things that wouldn't even be noticed by the typical motorist as "wrong." If states/jurisdictions got fined every time they used Series B when it should have been Series C, or wide shields instead of standard shields, yeah, there'd be endless fines every day.
Plus, a lot of violations, at least down here in Alabama, are on the county/city/town level, and IDK how much federal funding those places typically get compared to agencies like ALDOT.
There are some new shared permissive-protected left turn heads (5-section doghouse or 4-section bimodal) that have been installed with a dedicated left turn lane around Massachusetts, mostly those of local installations or DCR roads, despite the Massachusetts Amendments to the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (November 2022 ed. - this does not appear in the January 2012 ed.) stating this:
QuoteSection 4D.20 Signal Indications for Protected/Permissive Mode Left-Turn Movements
Insert the following paragraph:
Standard:
Where a mandatory left-turn lane exists and the signal operates with a protected/permissive mode for left turns on that approach, a shared signal face shall not be used. A separate left-turn signal face with a flashing left-turn yellow arrow signal face per Paragraph 03 of this section shall be provided.
I'm mostly guessing this is partially because some are just replacing the heads while preserving the original controller/cabinets (which may not have FYA overlap support or simply are out of overlaps/load switches) but some of these are completely new installations with new controller equipment.
Quote from: SectorZ on November 11, 2024, 03:46:35 PMAs subject title states... I understand the rules allow for loss of federal funding, but in practice what happens when a city, county, or state just decides they are going to do what they want?
I have a specific problem in mind (a city near me that put the seizure-inducing red traffic signals with the white pulsing ring around them) and would like to hear if anyone knows specific examples of problems places just chose not to resolve.
in some cases you may be able to get out of tickets.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on November 15, 2024, 05:36:11 PMQuote from: SectorZ on November 11, 2024, 03:46:35 PMAs subject title states... I understand the rules allow for loss of federal funding, but in practice what happens when a city, county, or state just decides they are going to do what they want?
I have a specific problem in mind (a city near me that put the seizure-inducing red traffic signals with the white pulsing ring around them) and would like to hear if anyone knows specific examples of problems places just chose not to resolve.
in some cases you may be able to get out of tickets.
Over the years, I have also heard plenty of stories about non-conforming signs and regulations being legally unenforceable.
Mike
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 11, 2024, 06:08:32 PMAlso - are people actually having seizures? According to the Epilepsy Foundation, "flashing lights most likely to trigger seizures are between the frequency of 5 to 30 flashes per second (Hertz)". If the flashing is 3 or less per second, and people aren't actually having seizures and causing crashes, then it's hard to argue that point. It's easier to just say - those signals aren't allowed. There are other proper ways to alert traffic to the red signal.
I have no idea if people are having seizures but yes it does meet the criteria of that 5-30 hertz. In fact (I counted yesterday stopped at it on a bike ride), 5 flashes in one second, followed by one second off, then back on, etc, while the traffic signal is red.
Quote from: mgk920 on November 16, 2024, 09:44:38 AMQuote from: Joe The Dragon on November 15, 2024, 05:36:11 PMQuote from: SectorZ on November 11, 2024, 03:46:35 PMAs subject title states... I understand the rules allow for loss of federal funding, but in practice what happens when a city, county, or state just decides they are going to do what they want?
I have a specific problem in mind (a city near me that put the seizure-inducing red traffic signals with the white pulsing ring around them) and would like to hear if anyone knows specific examples of problems places just chose not to resolve.
in some cases you may be able to get out of tickets.
Over the years, I have also heard plenty of stories about non-conforming signs and regulations being legally unenforceable.
Mike
Stories, yep. Actually getting out of a ticket? Less likely. Certainly if the regulations don't agree with what is posted that's a definite way to get out of a ticket. But if there's a butt-ugly 25 mph sign in a residential district where the state has a statutory 25 mph law in residential zones, or an Arial- font 65 mph sign in a state where 65 mph is the max speed limit, one is less likely to get out of a ticket.
The consequence for not obeying MUTCD are the consequences for not obeying MUTCD.
Quote from: mgk920 on November 16, 2024, 09:44:38 AMQuote from: Joe The Dragon on November 15, 2024, 05:36:11 PMQuote from: SectorZ on November 11, 2024, 03:46:35 PMAs subject title states... I understand the rules allow for loss of federal funding, but in practice what happens when a city, county, or state just decides they are going to do what they want?
I have a specific problem in mind (a city near me that put the seizure-inducing red traffic signals with the white pulsing ring around them) and would like to hear if anyone knows specific examples of problems places just chose not to resolve.
in some cases you may be able to get out of tickets.
Over the years, I have also heard plenty of stories about non-conforming signs and regulations being legally unenforceable.
Mike
For years there was a stop sign in my neighborhood that was from the 1950s. The old button copy, had the pieces of the octagon outlined in white. You probably know the style I'm talking about. What's weird is my neighborhood didn't exist until the 1970s so I guess they just had that stop sign lying around somewhere.
It's gone now, but lasted until 2022! Only reason was the street got repaved and some of the signage was updated. I assume the stop sign was still legally binding, though, as it would have been a valid design just from long ago.
However, there IS a fake "right turn only" sign by a fast food joint I go to. It's the wrong font, and was clearly just made by the manager/owner of the restaurant. It's not legally binding and no one pays attention to it anyway.
I have a feeling that if someone tried to use the "it's the wrong font" defense, they'd be laughed out of court.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 19, 2024, 06:01:31 PMI have a feeling that if someone tried to use the "it's the wrong font" defense, they'd be laughed out of court.
It uses Comic Sans MS, so I do laugh at it. Granted, I'd agree, IF it was a real sign. It was a very obvious "make something in 10 minutes" kind of job. They at least got the outer margins fairly accurate, but just about everything else is wrong. Right down to putting the "do not do this" graphic through the right arrow, so the icon contradicts the text.
You get sentenced to twelve months inside a square room where each wall is an enlarged replica of the old "Craig County" sign (from before ODOT decided people had gotten enough laughs out of it), and in case you try to look up and down, it is also printed on the floor and ceiling, centered on each, to cover as much of the square as possible.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 19, 2024, 06:01:31 PMI have a feeling that if someone tried to use the "it's the wrong font" defense, they'd be laughed out of court.
Talked my way out a speeding ticket one time by pointing the 5 MPH sign was non-reflective.
I'm starting to think that maybe we just need to come to terms with the idea that the only true "shalls" in the MUTCD are the shape and color of stop signs, and the meaning of red, yellow, and green lights. Everything else is either a "may," a "should," or a "pretty please with sugar on top." Some violations of the so-called "shalls," like red and yellow up arrows, improper left turn signals, and signing two different routes for the same destination at a junction, are so commonplace that people seem to take them for granted.
Quote from: Ned Weasel on November 30, 2024, 02:15:54 PMI'm starting to think that maybe we just need to come to terms with the idea that the only true "shalls" in the MUTCD are the shape and color of stop signs, and the meaning of red, yellow, and green lights. Everything else is either a "may," a "should," or a "pretty please with sugar on top." Some violations of the so-called "shalls," like red and yellow up arrows, improper left turn signals, and signing two different routes for the same destination at a junction, are so commonplace that people seem to take them for granted.
Haven't they always been guidelines from the beginning? I don't think there's ever been real enforcement. All I can recall is Florida maybe losing gas tax revenue if they didn't use the standard US route shields.
Quote from: Quillz on November 30, 2024, 04:00:48 PMHaven't they always been guidelines from the beginning? I don't think there's ever been real enforcement. All I can recall is Florida maybe losing gas tax revenue if they didn't use the standard US route shields.
Generally, engineers are supposed to exercise "engineering judgment" when applying any of the manuals. As for anything resembling actual enforcement, I remember reading here on the forum that some sort of funding for the New Jersey Turnpike was tied to the conversion of its guide signs from the NJTP's old unique style to the MUTCD style. But I don't remember the specifics of that case.