2001-03-19 Special Called Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Browse Search

I .. , , e e 122 Chap. 6 / IMPLEMENTING NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONTROLS developing the traffic management scheme itself but as a program which lays solid groundwork for defense against legal challeng~s that may ensue. Conformance to Traffic Control and Design Standards Even if the authori~y of a jurisdiction to control traffic in neighborhoods is clearly estab- lished, questions may ~se about the means by which it may do so. In particular, the types of devices or designs that can be used to control traffic may be at issue. There also may be questions about the need to follow "warrants," or established guidelines for the applica- tion of certain devices. In most states iri the United States, traffic control devices are required to some ex- tent to comply with the MUTCD or with parallel state manuals, which specify both designs for the devices and warrants for their use. There is considerable variation in the wording and intent of the legislation or r~gulations calling for such compliance; in some states com- pliance is mandatory, while in others varying Qegrees of discretion are permitted. Compliance with the MUTeD can be problematic because many of the devices com- monly used in neighborhood traffic management schemes--diagonal diverters; semi-- diverters, retrofit cul-de-sacs, speed control circles, undulations-are not addressed in the -------'--- ,----~-' -- - -,-- --------- ,-- - "MUTGD;-Particularly-in-states-where-complianceis-maIldatory;1:hereiS1:he-concernLhat;---- upon court challenge, removal of the devices may be ordered because they are not found in the MUTCD or the state manuals. There is further concern in such states that motorists involved in accidents may contend that the use of a noncomplying device amounts to a negligent act on the part of the local jurisdiction which was contributory to the accident. The most straightforward response to these issues would be for the MUTeD and parallel state traffic control manuals to be updated to include specific standards and guidelines for neighborhood traffic control devices--diverters, semidiverters, retrofit cul- de-sacs, undulations, and the like. An alternative direction is to define some of these devices as "geometric features of the road" rather than as "traffic control devices." One state which has taken this alternative action to legitimize sucQ devices is California. When statute pennits the local jurisdiction to exercise discretion in the use of traf- fic control devices and designs, the MUTCD or other manuals are generally admissible only as_ evidence of the standard of care. A study of relevant cases found that the MUTCD was Considered "as "neither an absolute standard nor as scientific truth but as illustration and explanatory material along with other evidence in the case bearing on ordinary care. "I "Other evidence" might include documentation of the need for the particular type of device or design, as well as a careful assessment of its expected performance. Tort Liability ~ Many communities hesitate to implement traffic management schemes because they fear lawsuits by drivers, passengers or passers-by who may be injured in traffic accidents in- volving (or simply near) a neighborhood traffic control. Such liability exposure can be minimized by basing the neighborhood traffic scheme on authorized traffic control devices and street geometric featuresfor which there are recognized standards of practice. For ex- ample, a traffic diverter might be created using standard curbing, median designs, direc- tional signs, and roadway markings. When a plan utilizes features not clearly covered by the MUTCD or other standard sources, the local jurisdiction (and responsible staff members) can take'steps to reduce 1 Thomas, Larry W., Liability ofS/Qt~ and Local Governments for Negligence Arising OUl of tile /nstallalion and Mainlenance of Warning Signs, Traffic Lighls. and Pavemenl Markings. NCHRP Research Results Digest No. 110. Apri11979; emphasis added.