A recently released publication issued by the Federal Highway Administration pertaining to the content of messages appearing on traffic signs and marquees has drawn the ire of two Congressmen.
The FHWA publication, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, states that there should be a uniformity in the design of all highway signs that shall include “shape, dimensions, legends, letter style, border, and illumination or retro reflectivity.”
But the publication also discourages the use of any popular or humorous references on such signs, which it defines as having “obscure” or “secondary meanings.”
Such signs, says the publication, “might be misunderstood or understood only by a limited segment of road users and require greater time to process and understand.”
“Similarly,” the publication continues, “slogan-type messages and the display of statistical information should not be used.”
In a letter jointly written by Representatives Greg Stanton or Arizona and Thomas Kean, Jr., of New Jersey, the Congressmen remark: “While safety is our highest priority for our constituents traveling on our roadways, we have concerns about this guidance.”
The Representatives continue: “We agree that clear, concise signage is important; however, we believe this can be done with humor while keeping the attention of drivers on the road.”
The letter to Shailen Bhatt, Administrator of the FHWA, particularly points out that the Arizona Department of Transportation annually conducts a competition for the funniest freeway sign messages, with one of last year’s winners announcing: “I’m Just a Sign Asking a Driver to Use Turn Signals.”
The Congressmen also contend that the suggestions stated in the FHWA publication “leave no room for state-by-state discretion.”
“The expertise and oversight of the FHWA is important for highway safety,” Stanton and Kean continue. “But our States’ Department of Transportation create state-specific communications that ensure our local residents know what is happening and stay safe.”
The Congressmen have further called upon Bhatt to explain the analysis that went into the new sign guidance, and what, if any “crash or fatality data” was used.
There has, so far, been no response from Bhatt.
By Garry Boulard
