Click for next page ( 25

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 24
21 TABLE 2 Support for the first recommendation First recommendation: The first option in 2C.06 of the millennium edition of the MUTCD should be changed to read that horizontal alignment signs may be used in advance of situations where the roadway alignment changes and should be used when the alignment change would result in an advisory speed equal to or lower than the posted speed limit. The Winding Road (W1-5) sign should be used where there is a series of turns or curves that requires driving caution and where curve or turn signs would be too numerous to be effective. Where any of the curves has an advisory speed that is (x) mph or more below that of the first curve, then a curve or turn warning sign and an advisory speed plaque should be used. Employer Overall Guideline Questions Answer national county road state highway committee commission department members (n=61) (n=66) (n=9) Do you believe the changes from yes 60.7* 74.2 55.6 may to should in the first recommendation should be adopted? no 39.3 25.8 44.4 (n=33) (n=45) (n=5) Should the changes be even more yes 12.1 6.7 0 emphatic, to shall? (i.e., be shall rather than should?) no 87.9 93.3 100 * All entries are percentages of total respondents. dents were concerned about how this would impact moun- more problems with liability, and the elimination of engi- tainous states or mountainous areas within a state--the im- neering judgment. One respondent indicated that "it would plication being that the change would have a greater impact take the `engineering' out of the traffic engineering business." in those situations. Concerns about liability, in addition to being more numer- ous, were also more extensive. Some respondents essentially Second Recommendation (Use of Advisory Speed Plaques) argued that "may" and "should" are both recommendations and that liability increases only when a sign is required, but With reference to Table 3 for text and results, support for not used. Another respondent noted that "should" had already the second recommendation--which is intended to increase been interpreted by the state attorney general's office as a uniformity in the application of advisory speed plaques--is "standard" that could result in "unlimited liability" for the also supported by respondents at about the same levels as the DOT. There were essentially two perspectives on liability first recommendation. Just under half of all respondents issues: while many thought that the changes were appropriate thought that the criterion for using speed advisories should and the "right" thing to do, many others commented that lia- be when the advisory speed would be 10 mph under the speed bility would almost assuredly be increased. It was also clear limit. Approximately two-thirds of all respondents thought that liability varied significantly from one state to another: one that the threshold speed should be 10 mph or less under the respondent noted that courts were currently very protective of speed limit. Although the sample size was small, the national the jurisdictions' actions with respect to TCD placement committee members were about twice as likely to favor a while another, as noted earlier, interpreted the word "should" lower threshold of 5 mph. Somewhat surprisingly, there were as a rule with deviation being grounds for liability. So, while only a few comments, and they were mixed--for example, the majority of respondents thought the change should be define X or options should always use "may." made (if it had not operationally been made already) and did not see severe problems with it, a minority believe they could suffer significantly increased liability. Third Recommendation (Engineering Study) Comments regarding making the language even more strin- gent ("may" to "shall") were more emphatically negative. Although the requirement for the use of an "engineering Typical comments included more problems with cost, far study" is cited in the MUTCD, the term is not adequately