Attn MUTCD experts: Best cite for sign color requirements?

[hbelkins]

What is the best citation to give someone when discussing sign color requirements? Would Table 2A-5 from http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2a.pdf be the best cite, or should I refer them to a different section?

Back story: A portion of state highway is closed in my home county due to flood damage. The officially signed detour, sanctioned by KYTC, uses other state routes. However, the closest detour is a small, narrow, crooked county road that bypasses the damaged and closed portion of state route. It's unsuitable for large trucks or commercial vehicles, yet some are using the road. The county posted "No Commercial Trucks" signs on the route, but they are black-on-orange (construction/warning) and not black-on-white (regulatory).

The fiscal court (the name Kentucky gives to its county governing bodies) is meeting Monday to discuss the road and give final passage to an ordinance banning these large vehicles. The county attorney has asked if I can provide the documentation that will allow the county to post signs banning large vehicles. I want to be able to give him the link to the appropriate part of the MUTCD that spells out why the signs need to be black instead of orange or yellow.

[NE2]

Orange should be OK given that the need for the signs is only temporary until construction on the state highway is done.

[Revive 755]

I would stick with Table 2A-5, though looking at the table it appears the signs could be white on red instead of just black on white.

As for the section regarding temporary traffic control:

The colors for regulatory signs shall follow the Standards for regulatory signs in Table 2A-5 and Chapter 2B.

[admtrap]

Just thinking about this a bit removed, the unofficial detour isn't suitable for commercial vehicles - and that unsuitability won't change when the state highway reopens.  So the ban on commercial vehicles wouldn't be temporary anyway.  So black on white makes sense just on that ground alone - it's not a temporary ban at all.

[roadfro]

You're dealing with a selective exclusion sign here, so referring to similar signage in Section 2B.39 would be prudent (although there aren't specific design guidelines referenced in terms of color.

This application would seem as though a standard "no trucks" symbol sign (R5-2) or "no commercial vehicles" text sign (R5-4) would be sufficient, without having to design a sign from scratch. An arrow plaque or similar supplementary sign could be used for emphasis/clarity.

[dfwmapper]

Probably should be "No thru trucks" though, not just "no trucks". Wouldn't want some cop trying to meet a quota by writing tickets for deliveries to people who actually live on that road.

[NE2]

Probably should be "No thru trucks" though, not just "no trucks". Wouldn't want some cop trying to meet a quota by writing tickets for deliveries to people who actually live on that road.

Isn't that what 'no trucks' almost always means?

[dfwmapper]

Probably should be "No thru trucks" though, not just "no trucks". Wouldn't want some cop trying to meet a quota by writing tickets for deliveries to people who actually live on that road.

Isn't that what 'no trucks' almost always means?

Yes, but this is rural Kentucky we're talking about. I'm not inclined to assume that the local law enforcement can make such a logical leap.

[jeffandnicole]

Just thinking about this a bit removed, the unofficial detour isn't suitable for commercial vehicles - and that unsuitability won't change when the state highway reopens.  So the ban on commercial vehicles wouldn't be temporary anyway.  So black on white makes sense just on that ground alone - it's not a temporary ban at all.

Of the opinions presented, this is what I would go with.  After the road is rebuilt, there's no necessary need to take the 'No Trucks' signs down. 

"No Trucks" on an orange construction sign doesn't hold much water, just like the officially signed detour on orange signage isn't a mandatory detour motorists must use.