Read on Twitter
My opinions so far on the proposed MUTCD revision:
This first change is bad, because it removes standing from anyone with out an engineering license to complain about traffic control devices. https://twitter.com/ncutcd/status/1338520815055192064
This first change is bad, because it removes standing from anyone with out an engineering license to complain about traffic control devices. https://twitter.com/ncutcd/status/1338520815055192064
This change is bad because it removes any responsibility for traffic control devices to attempt to create a safe environment for anyone who is not strictly following the law.
It is good to have a standard sign for the case where a pedestrian pushbutton is there only for accessible/audio purposes instead of being required to cross, if for no other reason than to remind agencies that this is an option and that they don't have to require actuation
OK, yes, obviously, street signs should have the name on both sides so pedestrians walking the other way can see them. Thank you.
A marked crosswalk alone, with no other crossing protection, is no longer allowed where the speed limit is 40 mph or higher. That seems probably good.
Also seems good to require that the crosswalk markings meet the curb ramps
Good that bike signals become part of the standard
Pedestrian signal definition changes seem harmless but not an improvement. No support here for entering intersections during the countdown.
Speeding drivers "should not" intentionally be given red lights, which is a shame
They make it harder to justify a pedestrian signal based on vehicle count when there is a median with a pedestrian refuge, by cutting the vehicle count in half in this case. Bad.
I think this "shall" in the school crossing warrant is probably bad, because it will encourage replacing existing timed green lights that allow pedestrian crossings with actuated pedestrian signals that will only allow less frequent crossings
