The Delaware Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) contains clarifying language that the federal Manual does not and one of those areas deals with whether a traffic control device is enforceable. How is a speed limit sign, a one-way sign, or a yield sign helpful if law enforcement cannot rely upon it to issue violations? In short, it is not.
The Delaware MUTCD, underscored by the Delaware Code, makes it clear that we have to do our job if law enforcement is to do theirs. “(DE Revision) Delaware Code Title 17, Chapter 1, §147, states that “any traffic control device erected in violation of [the Delaware MUTCD], except experimental devices erected by the Department, shall be unofficial, unauthorized and unenforceable” (Delaware MUTCD, Section 1A.07, ¶11).
Unofficial, unauthorized and unenforceable – in other words, a roadside distraction and a waste of taxpayer money.
Not to put ideas in anyone’s head, but if you receive a citation in the State of Delaware for running a stop sign that is 20” and square, or not yielding to a pedestrian when the sign is only 16” square, or exceeding a 23 mph speed limit sign, you may be able to contest it in court. Now, again, stop at the stop sign, yield to the pedestrian, and follow the questionable and silly speed limit; you know, be a prudent driver. And, it should be clear that we are not trying to hand out legal advice here (we are not lawyers and we are not offering legal advice; we are just drawing your attention to what the MUTCD has to say). We’re making a point here.
Stop signs (R1-1) are octagonal and a rock bottom minimum of 30”x30” (how is that the dimension of an octagon; point taken and now, let it go); indeed, they are more typically 36”x36” (Delaware MUTCD, Sections 2B.03 and 2B.05). Yield Here to Pedestrians signs (R1-5) must be 36”x36” (Delaware MUTCD, Table 2B-1 and Section 2B.11). Speed Limit signs (R2-1) must display speed limits in multiples of 5 mph (Delaware MUTCD, Section 2B.13). So if signs are not erected in compliance with the “shall” statements of the MUTCD, enforceability erodes quickly.
Experienced law enforcement officers may have issued violations that were not supported by the courts for lack of foundation – i.e., the road agency was not following the rules so the courts cannot necessarily hold the driver responsible…or some concept to that effect. Those officers may just stop issuing violations for whole classes of traffic control devices in your jurisdiction, viewing it as a waste of time and even their credibility with the court. If so, they will hopefully tell you about the concern, but if there are issues with compliance in your jurisdiction, perhaps local law enforcement should be your first stop to collect information.
Next, you should take a close look at your traffic control devices and make corrections where needed. Consider the examples shown below and ponder whether all your traffic control devices are capable of being enforced by the courts. Do you have some signs that are washed out? Do you think that Do Not Enter sign (R5-1) is retroreflective, as required by Section 2A.07? If some drivers can’t see what the sign says at night, the courts may not enforce it. Do you think the vegetation covering the Stop (R1-1) and One-Way (R6-1) signs gives your law enforcement officers what they need to issue a citation? Similarly, when a driver cannot see the One-Way (R6-2) sign covered by the cypress boughs and they turn down the one-way street, causing a head-on collision, do you think the officer will be able to cite the driver?
Finally, look closely at the 25 mph Speed Limit sign (R2-1) to see how cracked the background is – do you think the sign is retroreflective at this advanced age? Is the sign at least 24”x30” without qualifying for a “Minimum” sizing? If not, how can law enforcement site a speeding violation if the driver assures the officer he/she couldn’t see the sign?
Exactly what the courts would decide in these instances, we don’t know. Why? Well, because for starters, we’re not lawyers. But we do our officers no favors when we do not erect signs in full compliance with the MUTCD, particularly when Section 1A.07 and the Delaware Code warned us. So, go take that close look and correct deficiencies. Once that’s done, perhaps you should reach out to local law enforcement and let them know that they can be confident in the enforceability of your devices.
The Delaware T2/LTAP Center’s Municipal Engineering Circuit Rider is intended to provide technical assistance and training to local agencies and so if you have MUTCD questions or other transportation issues, contact Matt Carter at matheu@udel.edu or (302) 831-7236.
You must be logged in to post a comment.