Debate on what FYG should mean for signs

[Pink Jazz]

I have read some drafts on the 2009 MUTCD, and originally, the plan was to recommend (though not mandate) Fluorescent Yellow-Green for pedestrian, bicycle, and playground signs over the traditional yellow.  Apparently, under this convention, the use of FYG indicates that there are potential bystanders. 

However, it appears that there was some opposition to this recommendation by some DOTs, preferring that FYG should be used exclusively for school zones.  For this reason, FYG on pedestrian/bicycle/playground signs simply became an option rather than a recommendation.

I wonder, for what reason would some DOTs prefer a more strict definition of FYG rather than the broader definition that was initially proposed?

[roadfro]

And actually, the FYG background color has been an option for schools and non-motorized warning/crossing signs since at least the 2000 MUTCD.


Some of the rationale behind the opposition to recommending the color is explained by the FHWA in the Final Rule for the 2009 MUTCD, pp. 27-28 (PDF).

Additionally, in the NPA [Notice of Proposed Amendments] the FHWA proposed to change paragraph 05 to a GUIDANCE statement to recommend, rather than merely allow, a fluorescent yellow-green background for warning signs regarding conditions associated with pedestrians, bicyclists, and playgrounds. While ATSSA supported this change, the NCUTCD [National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices] and one of its members, many State and local DOTs, and a traffic engineering consultant opposed changing the language to GUIDANCE, suggesting instead that it remain an OPTION. The commenters provided a variety of reasons, the most prominent being that some State and local DOTs reserve the use of the fluorescent yellow-green background for only school-related warning signs in order to add emphasis to those locations. A State and a local DOT, an NCUTCD member, a traffic engineering consultant, and a private citizen expressed concern about the lack of research supporting the effectiveness of the fluorescent yellow-green color that would justify elevating the provision to a recommendation, rather than an option. Some of the commenters suggested that an overuse of the fluorescent yellow-green would reduce the effectiveness of the color. In addition, some commenters said that the color fades more quickly over time, and that it is significantly more expensive than yellow. Based on the comments, the FHWA decides to retain the language as an OPTION in this final rule, allowing the use of a fluorescent yellow-green background for warning signs regarding conditions associated with pedestrians, bicyclists, and playgrounds.

The FHWA also adopts a new STANDARD statement requiring that warning signs associated with schools and school buses have a fluorescent yellow-green background, as proposed in the NPA. The FHWA also revises similar wording in other sections in Chapter 2C and in Part 7. In the intervening years since the use of fluorescent yellow-green background color was introduced as an option in the MUTCD, most highway agencies have adopted policies to use this color for school warning signs. This predominant usage is because of the enhanced conspicuity provided by fluorescent yellow-green, particularly during dawn and twilight periods. ATSSA and two local DOTs supported this change, while a State DOT, a State association of counties, and a local DOT suggested that the school bus sign should not be included in the requirement. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, a State DOT, three local DOTs, and an NCUTCD member oppose any requirement to use fluorescent yellowgreen. These commenters feel that there is not sufficient research demonstrating that the color modifies behavior and the high cost, along with the tendency to fade more quickly than yellow, does not justify requiring its use. The FHWA disagrees and notes that in-place evaluation of fluorescent yellow-green by State DOTs has identified acceptable durability and sheeting life and the FHWA also adopts this background color for school bus warning signs for consistency with the requirement for other school warning signs.

I don't remember exactly, but I seem to recall that initial testing on the implementation of the FYG color was done with school zone signage only. Indeed, school signage was where most agencies began the slow implementation of FYG.

Nevada only used the FYG color in school zones for several years after its introduction in the 2000s, before embracing its use with other non-motorized warning signs. Even still, some agencies are not consistent with using FYG for other signs. For example, 3-4 years ago, Reno installed rectangular beacons and new pedestrian crossing signs at four locations on along Virginia Street on the western border of the UNR campus, all within about a year's time frame. The first and fourth installations used fluorescent yellow signs, while the second and third installations used fluorescent yellow-green.

[TEG24601]

I for one dislike the FYG.  The Yellow is already a caution sign, there is no need to differentiate it.  The context of the sign should be all that is needed.

[jakeroot]

I for one dislike the FYG.  The Yellow is already a caution sign, there is no need to differentiate it.  The context of the sign should be all that is needed.

That's true, most people should be able to figure out what is going on just by looking at the signs themselves. The issue is that, in my opinion, some people become a little numb to the yellow color, so the FYG kind of helps elevate their sense of awareness upon arriving at a sign with said color. This is why, at least in my opinion, it's better left to school zones. Too much FYG and people will become to used to it, but just the right amount will keep people engaged (if that makes any sense). 

[roadfro]

I understand the rationale. However, I kind of like the distinction that they were trying to make between warnings for road alignment and motorized traffic (standard yellow) versus pedestrian/non-motorized warning situations (FYG). These really are different situations--a winding road sign and a trail crossing are different animals.

[Brian556]

I think that FYG should be for school signs only.

That was the who reason for implementing it; to give school signs their own color.

I hate inconsistency. It's stupid to make some pedestrian signs yellow, but others FYG.

The City of Arlington, TX uses FYG incorrectly for other types of signs, including LANE ENDS.