NOTE: This forum is for professional dialogue. Any sales or advertising messages will be deleted (see Terms of Service).
Original Document: Not to beat this horse more than it needs, I beg to differ with the statement that state and local laws can't differ from the MUTCD. The real question is often whether such laws are more or less restrictive than the MUTCD. For example, a state could require that all vehicles stop for at least 20 seconds at any stop sign. Since that would be more restrictive, it might be considered by the FHWA as being in substantial conformance with the MUTCD. However, a state could not allow vehicles to roll through a stop sign. That would definitely be in nonconformance. While a state could not delete a "standard" in the MUTCD without being in nonconformance, a state could delete an "option" while remaining in substantial conformance. The "substantial conformance" differences are often found in state supplements to the MUTCD. There may also be cases where a state (or, more often, a local) law is blatantly in nonconformance with the MUTCD. This would set up a conflict between state or local law and federal regulations which would certainly need to be resolved depending upon how far out of conformance it might be. (Note that I'm not going to opine about the solid white line issue.)
|
|
|
This page last updated on 09/26/2008 12:09:18 PM |
United States Department of Transportation -- Federal Highway Administration
Information accessibility is important to us. If you have any problems accessing
information on this site, please contact for assistance.
To view PDF files, you need the Acrobat® Reader®
|
|