33
votes
Humorous messages on electronic signs discouraged by new guidelines from US Federal Highway Administration
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- No joke: Feds are banning humorous electronic messages on highways
- Published
- Jan 14 2024
- Word count
- 349 words
The MUTCD is not legally binding. It is an engineer's guidebook on how a highway ought to be designed. States and contractors can choose to ignore its recommendations if they wish, as they already often do.
In practice, this may result in fewer funny signs on the highway. Engineers do listen to the MUTCD. But the government has specifically chosen not to legislate this, just to recommend it.
Thank you! This is very important information that wasn't clear from the article.
It's an understandable mistake considering states are legally required to adopt the MUTCD itself or their own modified versions of it as design guidelines, but engineers technically don't have to abide by guidelines in such a document when they have a good reason. Subjectivity is built-in, which is why the document and others like it distinguish between Standards (rules) and Guidance (implementation suggestions and examples). There are lots of situations where a particular interpretation of a federal or state standard fails in an edge case. So no one will be sent to prison for non-compliance with a guideline, it just irritates the Federal Highway Administration.
The FHWA has this weird two-sided relationship with the MUTCD. When they want to get their way, they talk about how states legally need to have regulations for highways and imply that the MUTCD specifically is that legal regulation. When they dislike a project that isn't in compliance (mostly pedestrian safety infrastructure), they will use this reasoning to withhold funding. But when criticized for its insanely outdated safety regulations (even after its most recent revision), they admit that the MUTCD is not a law, just a guidebook, and engineers can do whatever is appropriate!
BTW, the vague text from the MUTCD's 11th Edition in question (Part 1):
They are very carefully couching their language to avoid devaluing the power of the document while also admitting that, indeed, "other resources" can be consulted and that "judgment" is a legitimate action in some circumstances. The second quote refers to roads and not devices, but the FHWA's roadway design guides are also more squishy than they claim to be.
Additionally, from the executive summary on the Federal Register:
In theory, a sign on the highway is strictly a traffic control device, but in practice, you can argue that literally anything is related to "surrounding land use" and "the design and character of communities," including road signs that contain phrasing which is arguably humorous in nature. For this reason, there are tons of roadways around the country that aren't in keeping with what the MUTCD implies is necessary, like defining speed limits by the 85th-percentile (which is unsafe and therefore summarily ignored by younger engineers). Non-compliant traffic control devices also exist; they are uncommon, mostly because it's expensive to maintain non-standard equipment, but the idea that all municipalities are in strict compliance with every regulation's supplemental guidance ever issued (or that regulators care) is a joke. Still, you can see how this wording tends to keep engineers compliant.
The language this article refers to is full of "shoulds" and not "musts" or "shalls." It's in Section 2L. The sections that describe humor are specifically labeled "Guidance" and do not carry the same weight as other parts of the chapter (labeled as "Standards"). For example, the MUTCD suggests that messages not be displayed which "could adversely affect respect for the sign" (whatever that means), but this is just guidance. Here is the exact language (2L.07.04):
The actual Standard does not mention humor. It says: "Traffic control messages shall have priority over traffic safety campaign messages." i.e. a traffic safety campaign message is a secondary use of a CMS; so any use of the CMS for a safety campaign can't adversely affect traffic control. Notice that this is not specific. It is meant to be interpreted by engineers using "judgment" and "other resources." The text I quoted is marked as "guidance" and is full of "shoulds." They do this in part because this guidance is effectively unenforcable. The definition of humor extraordinarily vague and inherently undefinable.
In any case, states can choose to adopt broadly similar but slightly different versions of the MUTCD which satisfies any legal requirement. These rules can vary slightly. A case in which variation would be permissible is the removal of guidance disapproving of the inclusion of humor in a road sign that exists as part of a traffic safety campaign. From the CFR 655.603(b)(1) (Code of Federal Regulations) which defines what "substantial conformance" means:
In other words, anything that is marked as "guidance" can be completely ignored by states if they choose.
Are you certain about this? I'm not an expert, but am genuinely curious. From a quick reading of https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_general.htm#state I see:
(Note: All emphasis is mine)
I read this answer to mean that any time a federal MUTCD is issued or changed, states have 2 years to either implement the federal one whole cloth, or submit their own version that is in substantial conformance
That term, substantial conformance, is the key part. The very next question addresses it:
From a reading of this FAQ, if the federal MUTCD provisions prohibiting funny road signs are written as "Transportation Agency shall disallow funny road signs" or "Agency shall use road signs for srs bzns only" or some such, then it is reasonable to read this as a federal mandate prohibiting funny road signs.
I guess it remains to be seen if states which pass laws allowing for humor in their road signs meet the definition of substantial conformance.
*edit: For those who might not know, the use of the term "shall" in legal circles means "you must do this." It provides no leeway or option. Failing to follow the terms of a "shall" provision means that you're in violation of the law. Whereas the world "should" or "may" allows you to use your discretion when determining if you want to follow the text of the law.
I just addressed this in my other comment, which we were writing concurrently.
The distinction is that the so-called "rule" banning humor is actually marked as "guidance" (using "should"), not a "standard" (using "shall"), and CFR 605.633(b)(1) is clear that states can ignore guidance in their own applications of the MUTCD if they have a good reason:
"Engineering judgment" is the subjective opinion of a group of engineers and does not have a specific technical basis. This is supposed to be a catch-all to prevent obviously immoral but technically compliant philosophical dilemmas from manifesting in reality, but can be extended subjectively.
Edit: also, guidance is just guidance, not a binding standard, so even if the language discouraging humor in traffic safety campaign signage appears in a state's MUTCD, engineers can disregard it as needed.
@mycketforvirrad
@cffabro
Can someone please modify the headline to reflect this fact
Suggest your preferred new headline and I'll copy/paste it in. A new headline isn't jumping out to me at the mo.
I'll switch it. (@boxer_dogs_dance)
Having a more accurate title definitely makes it seem like a pretty ridiculous thing to publish an article about (and honestly kind of disappointing to see from the AP). Picking one inconsequential thing to sensationalize out of the new guidance, and then doing it inaccurately.
s/banning/discouraging/
Feds blast brash broadcasts, recommends cutoff of clever communiques
It seems like a non-issue but I’ve seen some overly elaborate don’t drive drunk messages and they’re just distracting as all hell.
The only thing on the electronic billboards should be intel on traffic ahead.
That said, I’d love to see some regulation around highway billboards and lighting. Those LED billboards are awful. Any billboard that doesn’t relate to a destination ahead (hey there’s a restaurant at exit 1B) just seems silly—why do I see vein clinic ads, pharmaceuticals and hair plugs on the interstate? The other night I saw lighting that was just strobing away, probably a malfunctioning light but I don’t the advertising company will see repercussions for not maintaining the billboard.
I have a good billboard regulation:
All advertising billboards are banned. The only appropriate place for a small billboard is on the property where business is taking place, adjacent to the entrance of the building and/or parking lot. Only advertising for the goods/services available in that physical location.
Right now one of the towns I frequently drive through is trying to get rid of some highway billboards. They have for the last year or so had a giant notice with lengthy legalese saying they will sue anyone who tries to take it down. They are huge eyesores and I am very much on the side of the town in this case.
There's some wooden ones near me, in the middle of a beautiful marsh, that a few precise midnight chainsaw cuts would let the next 60mph storm do the rest.
I've been fantasizing about doing it since I moved in. Might take the plunge when the kids are 18.
Maine, Vermont, Alaska and Hawaii do ban all billboards. Some larger cities do as well.
I've only been to Vermont, and I gotta say its a pretty chill place. More states should take heed.
Yeah this was my thought on reading the article. I actually agree with the regulation, in technical documentation you are not supposed to make jokes because your audience may come from very different backgrounds, be insulted by different things, understand different things, etc.
But billboards are WAY worse than jokes in official signage.
The humorous ones are usually reminders about driving impaired so this feels like an overreaction. But I do see the benefit to straightforward messages as well - less ability to get confused. Fewer geniuses trying to take a photo of them while driving.