Need Help from Traffic Engineer/Expert w/ MUTCD/Safety/Legal Questions

[Grendam]

Hi, this is my first post here, and I was hoping someone would be able to assist me or at least offer some constructive input, wherever your expertise/experience lies, with a problem/concern I have with an intersection and its traffic signal layout. It's actually a multi-part concern that deals with safety/technical issues as well as some legal ones. I apologize up front about how lengthy and story-tellingish it is, but I keep finding myself feeling the need to explain one thing after I explain another.

First of all, here is a picture of the intersection (Chartres St./Franklin St.) at question:



An overview of the area is as follows:


I tried to link to google maps to give the 3D street view, but I apparently didn't do it right. If anyone wants to go through the trouble of looking at the area, a good google map search to use is: 277 Chartres Street, Houston, TX

A little background:

Late last year, I was traveling northeast in the near right lane on Chartres St. when I was T-boned by a driver traveling southwest on Franklin St. (coming from under the elevated highway). I didn't see the traffic signal (I don't mean the actual light, but the set of traffic signals), and he said he had a green light coming from his direction. At the time, I couldn't figure out what had happened, but the obvious thing that stood out to me was the unusual traffic light placement.

Here is a picture of the previous intersection (I tried annotating the pictures earlier before I kind of abandoned the idea):


I should also add this is a bit distorted due to taking it from Google Earth, and the yellow line is not the division for traffic but the google tour path thing (I wasn't sure how to get rid of it and hadn't gone to Google Maps yet). This road is also four lanes one-way. Basically, if it's legible, I wanted to draw attention to the overhead lights with the two primary signal faces and the green street sign. Barely visible, is the right far-side horizontally mounted traffic signal for the Franklin St. intersection (a reddish-orange building is in the background from two blocks away).

This is a picture of the intersection of Chartres St. & Preston St. (One block before Congress St. and two before Franklin St.):


I wanted to show the same overhead traffic signals that were present at Congress St. The section preceding that intersection also consisted of four through lanes like the stretch of road leading up to the Franklin St. signals–but not the stretch leading up to Congress St. as the two left lanes became left only and straight or left, respectively. I also took this screen capture because it ironically captured a large vehicle in the same lane at the same intersection in which led up to my accident (I have yet to mention this).

Anyhow, the police came after a lengthy period, and all I was at a loss to explain what had occurred. One of the passengers of the other vehicle kept accusing me of being on the phone (I wasn't) and not paying attention (I was). I was particularly bothered by not actively recalling the traffic signal located on the far right, and I said I might have overlooked it because I had my attention down the road in anticipation of getting on the main highway and was not anticipating a change from the overhead, centrally located traffic signals (the overhead mounted lights are uniform through Chartres St. up until this point) to the oddly positioned horizontally-mounted lights. I said I remember seeing green lights moments before or at the time of the impact, but thought they were the traffic signals at the intersection of Chartres St. and Commerce St. (the next block).

Here is a picture of Chartres St. and Commerce St.:


These lights are also horizontally post-mounted lights, but they differ from the lights at Franklin St. because they are both located on the far side of the intersection and instead of signal faces being yellow, they are black. For whatever reason, I was able to pick up these traffic signals beforehand and not the ones at Franklin St. Also, keep in mind these city blocks are very short distances of 330 ft. or so through the intersections. The speed limit is also 30 mph which I failed to mention.

Back to the police, I explained I had been returning from an event in downtown Houston, and I was not aware the light configuration changed so suddenly after being so consistent because I didn't drive downtown that much–the same information I told the driver. At one point, the driver and I were talking, and I mentioned to him that I was supposed to be at a certain place at a certain time, but I didn't think that had anything to do with the accident. The driver was actually quite laid-back and cool about everything and told me there was nothing to worry about. Another passenger of his did go to the hospital as a precaution for a previous injury he had suffered, which I apologized profusely if it was my fault. The driver called me the next day to say everything and everyone was fine. The police did not issue me a citation at the scene or after the fact.

I was still very bothered by the whole situation as I'm usually a very cautious driver, and I was paying attention to the road, not the radio, daydreaming, or anything else I shouldn't be doing. I spent my free-time over the next two weeks or so trying to find out what the rules/guidelines/laws were for traffic signal placement and design. In particular, it seemed at the very least a terrible idea, even at that moment, that a city or any government would have a highly visible set of lights for a long stretch of road near tourist/spectator venues (Minute Maid Park, George R. Brown Convention Center, Toyota Center, and Dynamo Stadium) and then suddenly switch to a very different set of lights in a very short distance that is followed immediately by even another variation. I was looking to what the law said about issues of "uniformity" but I ultimately found myself directed to the Texas MUTCD which is virtually identical to the standard MUTCD. In regards to uniformity, I found mostly just a bunch of "guidance" and "should" language which obviously wasn't followed here even if common sense and public safety dictated that they ought to.

While continuing to comb over the MUTCD, I found several safety issues where many of the lights (or at least this one here) met the very bare minimum requirements and would have made a world of difference if even a couple of improvements were implemented. As you chase statues and the guidance/recommendations/definitions, it seems that you often run into "engineering judgement" and the use of discretion among other things. As I wasn't injured in the car accident, I didn't want to hire an attorney or continue to slavishly devote my life to uncovering the intricacies of traffic/roadway infrastructure only to prove a point, come to the realization that politics and budgetary constraints trump public safety, or try to understand something that is undecipherable.

I should mention that at the intersection of Chartres St. and Congress St. (the one before my accident), I remembered a few days after the accident (I forgot to mention this earlier when pointed out in the Preston St. picture), there was a large vehicle or truck traveling in the near left lane some distance ahead of me as I was traveling in the near right lane (as in the photo) that I believe continued on. My recollection is fuzzy (as I paid no special significance to the truck at the time or immediately after the accident) if the truck definitely continued straight and moved into the far left lane or if it made a left turn onto Congress St. from the near left lane. I know for certain it was one of the two, but as the vehicle was getting another lane away from me, I didn't pay all that much attention. At the accident scene I didn't mention a vehicle possibly being in the far left lane because I didn't realize its relevance. By the time, we exited our vehicles, another light cycle had transpired, and I didn't think to check for the truck. No other vehicles stopped to give any witness statements. As I thought about it, if the light was green for me, the truck would have continued through and probably been hit. If it was yellow, he could ran through it. If it was green, he could have slowed down to prepare to make a left turn allowing me time to pass him before reaching the intersection and get hit by the other car. Now if it was red, he would slow down to stop at the light, and if I didn't see the light, I would get hit by the other car as presumably happened. What I didn't take into account was if the positioning of a large vehicle ahead and two lanes to the left of me could obscure my view of an unexpected traffic signal on the near-side corner camouflaged by the underpass. I've tried several times to return to the scene to try to recreate a situation similar to that, but the traffic flow patterns have made it impossible (normally this road contains heavy traffic and there is a lot of stop-and-go, but the accident occurred on a Sunday with smooth flowing travel and little traffic–there were no cars immediately in front of me in my lane or the lane to my left or right nor any traffic crossing the intersection). Also, to find a large vehicle in the right place traveling at the right speed is a task in itself. It's also hard to try to not notice a traffic signal once you already know it is there. As my vision was directed down towards the next intersection and to the left where the highway is, it may account for why I didn't see a near-side light I wasn't expecting (and really shouldn't) to be there. The absence of overhead traffic signals and no light on the left far side corner makes sense also as to why I was able to pick out the far-side post-mounted lights of the next intersection.  For anyone still reading, does this sound plausible under the circumstances?

Back to my post-analysis conclusion, I speculated on this account of not recognizing the near-side traffic signal, but I still couldn't account for how I could not have seen the far right post-mounted light other than its unexpected location. That's pretty much when I gave up.

Cont.

[Grendam]

Fast-forward to late this Spring... I get served with a lawsuit from the driver of other vehicle for about $100k for injuries and the resulting surgery required to fix his knee. Of course, he alleges all kinds of negligence on my part in the role of the accident. My insurance, dubious about his claims, provided me with an attorney for my defense. Naturally, as I already had spent so much time researching all of this for no other reason other than some peace of mind, I immediately broke open all my notes trying to look further into what I could find out.

Of interest to me was that one of the statutes I was being sued under has a sub-clause that states:

A provision of this subtitle requiring an official traffic-control device may not be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation the device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to an ordinarily observant person...

I know that leaves a lot of legal room on how that gets interpreted, but among one of the more blatant violations or areas where this traffic signal seems to be, if I'm not mistaken, non-compliant is listed under Section 4D.13 line 02:

If both of the minimum of two primary signal faces required for the through movement (of the major turning movement if there is no through movement) on the approach are post-mounted, they shall both be on the far side of the intersection, one on the right and one on the left of the approach lane(s).

From the picture of the intersection of Chartres St. and Franklin St., the traffic signals here fail the "shall" component as the left nearside is located... well, not on the far side.

I don't know what significance this bears legally, if any, as I know unsafe fixtures have been grandfathered in for the lifetime of the device (even though other areas say that traffic safety analysis should occur if the environment in which the device was originally installed has changed and a device being in good working condition should not prohibit its removal or replacement), but at what point do things like that start to bear weight? I also particularly want to know if anyone has knowledge of when the requirement of both post-mounted signal faces to be located on the far side was instituted and why? I know this has been effect since at least 1988, although if I remember correctly, this requirement may not have been in effect for roads under 45 mph until rather recently.

I also was wondering how Section 4D.13 line 01 applies:

At least one and preferably both of the minimum of two primary signal faces required for the through movement (or the major turning movement if there is no through movement) on the approach shall be located between two lines intersecting with the center of the approach at a point 10 feet behind the stop line, one making an angle of approximately 20 degrees to the right of center of the approach extended, and the other making an angle of approximately 20 degrees to the left of the center of the approach extended. The signal face that satisfies this requirement shall simultaneously satisfy the longitudinal placement requirement described in Section 4D.14 (see Figure 4D-4).

Figure 4D-4:


If I'm not mistaken, the near side traffic signal would not meet the requirements so the right far side signal would need to cover an area of 40 degrees for the four lanes? Is anyone able to tell if that is the case at the intersection of Chartres St. and Franklin St.?

I also, was wondering if anyone notices anything else out of place other than a lot of "should" recommendations like supplemental faces, overhead faces for better driver visibility? I especially find the lack of black faceplates to enhance contrast galling. Does anyone else notice how the pictures of the far side traffic signal make it hard to distinguish with the backdrop of reddish-orangish brick building in the background? I plan to travel to the site sometime soon to take pictures because I feel that could explain the difficulty of picking up a light in an unexpected location if you have a yellow traffic signal face displaying yellow or red upon a reddish brick background.

Additionally, it's very frustrating when reading things like the http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/fhwasa09027/resources/intersection%20safety%20issue%20brief%206.pdf or http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/redlight/cameras/rlr_report/chap3.cfm which seem to serve as an antithesis of what is presented here.

Based on all this information, I requested crash data from the city for several intersections located along Chartres St. for the last five years. Chartres St. and Franklin St. topped the list for the 5 year total and by a significant margin if only the last 3 years are counted. Many of the other intersections with high accident totals were undergoing significant construction during years with a spike of accidents while the intersection of Chartres. St. and Franklin St. has remained consistently high without such factors.

In looking for more detailed reports available to the public, I came across a mobility study that analyzed crash data along a number of intersections below:


Almost 40% of the accidents at Chartres & Franklin were caused by "Disregard Stop Sign or Light" (And there are no stop signs) and while I don't have data for all the same intersections, the crashes at Franklin versus Congress from 2011 to early-mid April 2013 are 45 to 24.

At this point, I was in contact with the attorney provided by my insurance company and relayed this information and much much more to her. She told me in my first conversation with her that the only thing that mattered was if the light worked. I stressed the visibility issue, the sub-clause of the one statute, and the concern I have not only how it affects me currently but the overall risk to public safety. I especially wondered if they were aware of these issues and deliberately chose to not make even minimum safety enhancements (like backplates). If that be the case, do they not have actual or constructive notice to do at least something to reduce collisions? Privately, I also wondered if they purposely were not making any safety upgrades because that somehow obligated them to completely replace the light so it was up to "standard" as that might qualify as a "reconstruction." Additionally, I figure at some point, even if a traffic control device is technically legal through a number of grandfathered clauses, don't enough safety issues add up to a point that the entity administrating these devices has some kind of moral or legal culpability? In other words, I wondered how, I, in good faith, could fail to recognize a traffic signal because of the lack of commonplace safety measures not implemented by the overseeing government organization which is likely well aware of the problem and the remedies, yet I would be held accountable for negligence and the city bears no responsibility? Annoyed, my attorney told me to go ahead and send her whatever it was I had, emphasizing she was more interested in the plaintiff's medical claims. I know I'm veering off into something that sounds like a separate issue, but regardless of any legal action, what responsibility do cities and states have to actually promote safety over safeguarding their budget? I keep reading government material by overseeing organizations whose sole purpose is public safety, but I've unpleasantly found that convenience and budgets rule the day.

The attorney never really got back to me and went on a nearly month long vacation and dumped me on paralegals that only spoke to me when they needed one thing or another and had no information about any traffic signal issues. I was going to call her directly this past week to see if she at least looked over the information, consulted a traffic engineer/transportation consultant, or sought any safety analysis reports, or at least give me some well-explained explanation that while my points and concerns may be valid, but they would be difficult to apply legally for reasons x, y, and z. Before I got around to calling her, I got a packet of the full discovery along with her initial analysis (I'm assuming this is what she sent her employers and insurance company).

In her analysis of liability, she goes to state, regardless of what I may contend, the traffic lights are legally installed and to assert they are not legally in place or up 'to Code' would fail. She lists no reason why, but she goes on to say how legible the traffic signals are citing the very location (that is non-compliant with Section 4D.13 line 02) for their legibility. She makes no mentions of the effects of the possible obstructions or background obfuscation I expressed and what additional measures there, if any, would make them legible under such a scenario. She defines the legal definition of 'negligence' and because there was no inclement weather issue (she makes no mention of the possibilities of sun glare or the like) that a 'reasonably prudent person' would have noticed the traffic signals, and absent any traffic signals, would have slowed down upon the approach of an intersection anyway (I don't think I ever said I didn't, but I digress). Then she says that I told the plaintiff at the scene of the accident I was "in a rush" which is unequivocally false and because of this, it strengthens plaintiff's argument that I was "in a rush" as to be distracted and not paying as much attention to my surroundings as I otherwise should have. Then she says my 'excuse' (her quotes) that I was not overly familiar with the area only hurts me because a 'reasonable prudent person' (her quotes) would have paid even more careful attention to his surroundings. Finally, she says there's no evidence of any malfunction of the stoplight, so therefore, I am at fault. She goes on to talk about contributory negligence and his medical claims being chronic and questionable, but hard to prove they weren't exacerbated by the accident. In conclusion, they should settle.

In other words, I don't think she took my concerns over the traffic signals seriously and thinks I ran a red light because I was in a rush and not paying attention. As the amount of effort I have spent looking into this, and at the very least, the length of this post, I'm very miffed about all of this. It would be far easier to accept if I had been completely spacing out, talking on the phone, or something other than what I should have done. If anyone, especially those with any expertise, can give me their opinion on this traffic intersection and the various design elements in play, I would appreciate it. Most of the people I've spoken to with much of the above information tell me I have a legitimate beef and think the same thing could have happened to them just as easily.

At the same time, this attorney is being provided to me, so it's hard to be keen on paying for my own attorney. I don't like anyone finding me negligent, at least not in the terms she describes it, even if the insurance company pays the settlement. Like I said, I have an extremely safe driving record, pride myself on driving safely, and above all, it bothers me to have discovered how the government can preach public safety yet fail to enact the simplest measures to ensure it. I figure any input I can gather before calling up this attorney to get to the bottom of this can only help. I apologize for the lengthy post and thank all of those who took the time to read even part of it. 

Rob   

PS - I don't think it matters, but the whole reason for that light is because it was once two lanes going each way. The picture below still shows the signal head giving traffic signals for the other direction.

[NE2]

I read it. It certainly took me a little while to notice Waldo in the first photo.

Sounds like the effects of Texan baggertarianism: cut funding to replace signals and rely on after-the-fact lawsuits. (But also cut court funding.)

[realjd]

tl;dr - you ran hard to see signals, got T-boned, right?

[J N Winkler]

Having received criticism in the past for making long posts on here, I am very unwilling to turn around and criticize somebody else for the same thing, but I see a real need to distill the story down to the essentials--not just for presentation to this group, but also for the lawyer and other involved parties.  If I understand correctly, they are:

*  A right-angle collision occurred at a US 59 frontage road intersection in Houston where the signal layout (1) is unusual, (2) differs from that of the other intersections on the same frontage road, (3) appears not to comply with the 2009 MUTCD or the current edition of the TxMUTCD, and (4) may not have complied with either the national MUTCD or the prevailing edition of the TxMUTCD at the time of original installation.

*  The accident has given rise to a personal-injury lawsuit alleging negligence.

*  Under statute, improper design that renders a traffic control device not visible or otherwise usable to a "reasonably observant person" is enough to remove criminal liability.  It is, however, not clear whether this also prevents a finding of civil liability, given the differing standard of proof in civil cases.

As I see it, there are two layers to the problem:  (1) traffic engineering and (2) the law.

In regard to (1), we can agree that the signal installation in question is unsatisfactory and leads to problems with driver expectancy.  It is, however, much more difficult to establish that it is noncompliant.  (I would not like to try to address that question because my main area of MUTCD familiarity is with guide signs, not traffic signals.)

In regard to (2), I suspect the lawyer is working for the insurance company, not the OP, notwithstanding the relationship being framed as the insurer appointing the lawyer to represent the OP.  If this is correct, then the lawyer is probably working on an assembly line of similar cases and is not interested in holding this one up to have the traffic engineering issues explored in a court hearing, even if that would lead to dismissal of the suit with a notionally more favorable financial outcome.  Since the insurance company will presumably be on the hook for a settlement, then the OP's legal interests should be adequately served by allowing the lawyer to conclude a settlement agreement that does not require the OP to admit liability.

From the vantage point of the insurance company, going to court on the traffic engineering issues is a gamble with little to win and a quite severe downside, whereas a settlement eliminates the risk.

In order to take the signal installation to court, it would be necessary to bring in evidence as to its state at the time of the accident, plus expert testimony as to whether it complies with applicable engineering standards.  I would expect this to cost several thousand dollars.  A $1,000-a-week signal expert can expect to spend at least one day studying the installation and researching its design, construction, and maintenance history, and then several additional days putting his findings in a format suitable for presentation to a court and preparing to testify as a witness.  Plus a judge, lawyers, and support staff would have to be present for a court hearing, and their time would also have to be paid for (at quite high marginal rates).

This would be money well spent in a criminal trial, but I doubt it would be in a civil case, because the plaintiff would be presenting a duty-of-care argument which would probably survive defects in the signal installation.

For the insurance company, the likely disposition of fees in a court case would be a factor in considering whether to pursue a negotiated settlement.  Typically, fees are either split or paid by the losing party.  If the insurance company chooses to contest the suit and wins, it might be stuck with a portion of the fees, but if it loses, it will definitely be stuck with the fees for both sides plus the damage award.  The latter will be close to the amount specified in the initial filing if the plaintiffs are asking only for actual damages.  On the other hand, a negotiated settlement would likely require the plaintiffs to settle for a fraction of what they ask for, in exchange for quick disposition and early payment.  I can envisage the settlement amount being only a little more than the total fees if the case were taken to court.

[hbelkins]

There's a reason that insurance companies state that you should not discuss the incident with anyone other than the police, and to limit your contact with the other party in the accident to exchanging insurance information. Your casual conversation with the other driver and passenger about you needing to be somewhere at a certain time, and your apology for any injuries if it was your fault, certainly gave them ammunition to give to the ambulance-chasing lawyer they hired to file the suit.

You may have to get your own attorney to represent your own interests. Your insurance company's lawyer is representing their interests, not yours. There's a reason that so many winnable lawsuits are settled. The insurance companies just don't want to deal with the hassle of a court case. I've heard "I wanted to fight it but they made me settle" more than a few times in my life.

[Grendam]

realjd,

Yes, I was hit more towards the front end of my car–think front half of driver's door/side mirror. He was coming from below the underpass from a complete stop at different intersection that was about 400 feet away.

J N Winkler,

Thank you for taking the time to read my post and giving your input. I think your assessment sounds reasonable and similar to what my impressions and motivations for the likely outcome.

I originally went into my initial research last year hoping to get some clarifications about proper traffic signals and legality, but I came away scratching my head with even more questions. I think it really left a bad taste in mouth after reading the appointed insurance company's initial analysis of the situation. With that analysis even, her estimation for a settlement is 30k-50k and 30-65k for a trial by jury. This also factors in an injury claim for surgery (that also fixed existing issues) in which he had been already seeking medical attention for the entire 2012 and already had similar surgery for his other knee prior. The attorney representing him is the type who sued Walmart on behalf of his client slipping on a french fry from a McDonald's located within it and a host of other dubious cases he lost. I get the impression this may be another example of the guy (older [late 50s] life-long construction worker) seeing an opportunity to get a chronic knee injured fixed with little cost to himself, but I don't like how I may shoulder being labeled "negligent" when I don't really believe that accurately describes the situation. I guess I'll get my opportunity to explain myself in my deposition at any rate.

I did forget to mention a couple more points yesterday, but as I can see I'm venturing into overly verbose territory already, I'll refrain. I still would like to know if anyone can answer the question I had about the requirement to have one post-mounted signal on the left and one on the right of the far side of the intersection. Does anyone know exactly when this became the standard and if there were significant visibility and safety concerns that led to this becoming so?
Also, I'm still confused exactly how to interpret the rule from Section 4D.13 line 01 and how it would exactly play out, technically, at the intersection of my concern. I'll post both of those pics again for convenience:

Also, if anyone with any kind of experience can give their impressions of the near side, left traffic signal, in light of the previous intersections containing overhead signals, I would appreciate it. Since the accident, I still look for a similar traffic lay-out (near side primary face) to the one here, but I've yet to personally find one that is not a supplemental face.

At the very least, I think I will be writing the City of Houston Public Works and Engineering Department and the Mayor's Office about this intersection. I suspect the traffic signal still exists because there have no been fatalities (not surprising considering the relatively low speed limit), and the primary concern in this area seems more about how improvements impact traffic flow (with its proximity to major venues) rather than public safety. Hopefully, this will put them on notice and that will change.     

[Grendam]

hbelkins,

Thanks for your input. I realize that now. While waiting for the police, took them over 45 minutes to arrive, I guess I was thinking a bit out loud and didn't really consider this outcome as the driver seemed really pleasant and not hurt at all. Lesson learned.

Yeah, this attorney thing bothers me just as much as not more. They are supposed to be representing my interests, but they really aren't. They don't even like it when I ask them about legal concepts and anything else that isn't specifically what they want to talk about. I still don't want to make a huge legal stink if it's ultimately fruitless or even harmful.

[oscar]

There's a reason that insurance companies state that you should not discuss the incident with anyone other than the police, and to limit your contact with the other party in the accident to exchanging insurance information. Your casual conversation with the other driver and passenger about you needing to be somewhere at a certain time, and your apology for any injuries if it was your fault, certainly gave them ammunition to give to the ambulance-chasing lawyer they hired to file the suit.

That goes double for discussing your case online, unless you've run it by your insurance company's lawyer (who I expect will be rather unhappy when he finds out about the OP -- in the rare case where my role was client rather than lawyer, the lawyer on my side reminded me to zip it, which I of course did).  It's standard practice for opposing counsel to look up defendants' Facebook posts, or insist that you disclose them in pretrial discovery even if they were never visible to the general public, or if removed from the public record (which can create much bigger problems).  That probably also applies to other social media postings, such as on this forum, especially if they are picked up in Google and other search engines. 

[Grendam]

oscar,

I understand where you're coming from, but the whole reason I've turned to ask for help is because I don't feel like I'm getting that from my attorney. She gets upset if she knows I'm reading anything legal or technical or ask questions, so I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't frown on it. I'm basically trying to get some technical questions answered that I cannot find on my own (attorney didn't want to bother) and whether people who know about these things (legal or otherwise) think I have a legitimate gripe and should obtain counsel that will at least address my interests (even if they think presenting those arguments legally is unwise). Even if the case is settled, I would still want to know the answers to the questions. I was trying to figure out all of this before I even knew this was going to become an issue.

[oscar]

oscar,

I understand where you're coming from, but the whole reason I've turned to ask for help is because I don't feel like I'm getting that from my attorney. She gets upset if she knows I'm reading anything legal or technical or ask questions, so I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't frown on it. I'm basically trying to get some technical questions answered that I cannot find on my own (attorney didn't want to bother) and whether people who know about these things (legal or otherwise) think I have a legitimate gripe and should obtain counsel that will at least address my interests (even if they think presenting those arguments legally is unwise). Even if the case is settled, I would still want to know the answers to the questions. I was trying to figure out all of this before I even knew this was going to become an issue.

If you had stuck strictly to the traffic engineering issues in the abstract, with zero discussion of your own experience with that intersection or the accident, probably no harm, no fowl.  But the lawyer's reaction to your interest in the traffic engineering issues (which lines up with other discussion above) should tell you something about how little it will matter to your case. 

If you're being sued for more than the policy limits, you should explore getting your own lawyer, just in case the insurance company settles for the policy limit and leaves you potentially on the hook for the rest.  Otherwise, this really is just your insurance company's problem, and you should follow the company's lawyer's advice.  Doctors sued for malpractice often complain loudly about their malpractice carriers settling their cases rather than fighting to disprove the malpractice allegations, but as H.B. reminds, there's not a whole lot they can do about it. 

[hbelkins]

I was thinking more of a case that happened here in my hometown, instead of a malpractice claim. Some marijuana turned up missing from an evidence room and the state police launched an investigation. The local police chief was a suspect in the case and the state police said so publicly. The city moved to fire him and he filed suit. The city's insurance carrier settled rather than fight the case in court, although the mayor said he preferred to let the litigation go to trial.

[oscar]

I was thinking more of a case that happened here in my hometown, instead of a malpractice claim. Some marijuana turned up missing from an evidence room and the state police launched an investigation. The local police chief was a suspect in the case and the state police said so publicly. The city moved to fire him and he filed suit. The city's insurance carrier settled rather than fight the case in court, although the mayor said he preferred to let the litigation go to trial.

Same principle, though.  As you pointed out upthread, the insurance company's lawyers are looking out for the company rather than the policyholder, since they're getting paid by the company, and follow the general rule "whose bread I eat, his song I sing".  If there's a divergence of interests (such as if the policy doesn't cover all the potential liabilities, or the policyholder is otherwise unhappy with a settlement), the policyholder is on his or her own. 

[Brian556]

I am not I licensed engineer, but i have read traffic engineering textbooks, and have a some knowledge and common sense on the issue.

I do believe that had there been a normal overhead signal installation, the accident would not have happened. I do think this installation is crappy for two reasons:

1. Lack of consistency with other signals encountered previously on this street and just in general. Consistency is very important to safety and functionality in terms of traffic and life in general. Having a side signal setup when most others are overhead is like posting a yellow stop sign in modern times. Most people would overlook it because they expect stop signs to be red.

I did encounter many side-only signals in downtown Leesburg, FL recently. I didn't mind these due to the low speed of downtown small town travel, and the fact that the street is narrow with only one lane in each direction. Google ST view: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.811086,-81.876721&spn=0.000019,0.012521&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.811086,-81.876721&panoid=kFPaJEAGOs5qe9ra4U3sFw&cbp=12,66.78,,0,0

In Downtown Dallas, there are side only signals on four lane one way streets:https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.780762,-96.802425&spn=0.000036,0.025041&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.78073,-96.802554&panoid=GIWVv4yDA6715xg31WKIfw&cbp=12,238.55,,0,0

2. No signal heads would be visible to center lane drivers if there were trucks in the right and left lanes.
It is interesting to note that the MUTCD says that for railroad crossings, if there cannot be one side signal per lane (undivided multi-lane roads, or divided with more than 2 lanes each direction), cantilevers are needed. Heck, often cantilvers are even used on two lane roads. I don't know what the MUTCD says about this situations concerning traffic signals, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but this appears to be a loophole that needs to be plugged.

So, in conclusion, there are unfortunately a few holes in the MUTCD that allow unsafe situations to exist.

[Scott5114]

Since you have done the research on this subject, and it may not end up being useful in the lawsuit, you might want to contact whoever administers that intersection–either TxDOT or the City of Houston's traffic division, probably the latter–and see if you can effect some positive change. It never hurts for a citizen to get involved in transportation issues; the worst they can do is brush you off.

We used to have some signals set up like that in downtown Norman but worse–they were right- and left-side signals mounted lower than these–and at some point in the mid 2000s they were upgraded to a modern mastarm configuration.

[hbelkins]

This situation sounds not dissimilar to a situation where a stop sign is obscured, or has been knocked down and not replaced, and a wreck happens.

In such instances, what (if any) liability does the agency maintaining the highway have?

[Compulov]

This situation sounds not dissimilar to a situation where a stop sign is obscured, or has been knocked down and not replaced, and a wreck happens.

In such instances, what (if any) liability does the agency maintaining the highway have?

If it's anything like damaging your vehicle because of a poorly maintained highway, none. Ask me how I know...

[Revive 755]

This situation sounds not dissimilar to a situation where a stop sign is obscured, or has been knocked down and not replaced, and a wreck happens.

In such instances, what (if any) liability does the agency maintaining the highway have?

I've heard it depends.  If the agency was not notified about the stop sign having issues, they are probably not liable for any crash.  If the agency had gotten a complaint a reasonable amount of time prior to any crash at the subject stop sign, they are probably liable.

[Tim]

Rob,

I really feel for you. I've been cited for traffic violations twice in the last few years, and both times there were extenuating circumstances as in your case.

Most recently, I was cited for "failure to yield when turning left", when in fact I not only yielded to oncoming traffic, I turned at the invitation of oncoming traffic. I was struck by a guy who drove into the gutter to avoid stopping behind the other cars that had stopped to allow me to turn left. I couldn't find a law against driving in the gutter, so I had no defense.

The other time involved not only government negligence, but outright corruption. (I'm in Georgia, considered by some to be the most corrupt state in the union.) There was this small town with a single school zone where a school zone sign was installed in clear violation of the MUTCD, and the chief of police decided to make it the cornerstone of all his policing efforts. (See http://onlineathens.com/stories/102510/new_725656259.shtml for how this was portrayed in the local paper.) The local head of the department of transportation & public works even admitted to me and the chief that the sign was not compliant but refused to make it legal. The municipal court judge knew it was illegal but enforced it anyway, thereby violating state law himself. [In Georgia, that section you quoted, "A provision of this subtitle requiring an official traffic-control device may not be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation the device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to an ordinarily observant person..." is the state law known as OCGA 40-6-20 (b).] All told, millions of $ were extorted from thousands of victims in that scheme.

As for getting good representation from an attorney, that's something I don't expect you or I will ever see. Like the medical profession, the legal profession primarily serves itself, not the public. Lawyers are loathe to blame the government because they ARE the government. The only way I can see to reduce the corrupting influence of power is to always insist on a jury trial, and to get on as many juries as possible and assume that the lawyers and judges you encounter are NOT telling you the whole truth.