Your a better person than I. I have not read the MUTCD from cover to cover and probably many of my co workers have not either and we use it every day. Maybe I just haven't had trouble falling asleep lately. --
"Go for a Metric America" Howard Ressel Project Design Engineer, Region 4 (585) 272-3372 >>> On 6/11/2010 at 2:49 PM, in message <[email protected]>, "John M. Steele" <[email protected]> wrote: > I mostly use Google, and sort the wheat from the chaff the hard way.. > However, in this case I was familiar with the documents and just needed links > to the latest edition. I won't pretend I have memorized them, but I have > read MUTCD and SHSM cover to cover (fairly dull and dry, if you want to > know). If I recall correctly, I started a thread previously on the 2009 > MUTCD but it didn't draw much interest; perhaps I didn't spell out the > significance well enough. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, June 11, 2010 12:28:55 PM > Subject: [USMA:47713] RE: Are metric speed limit and/or distance signs > permitted by US Federal law or regulation? > > > John, > > I continue to admire the thoroughness of your research on various questions > related to metrication. > > We can depend on you to dig out relevant, reliable, and often official > sources. What search engines do you use? > > Gene. > > ---- Original message ---- >>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 03:28:00 -0700 (PDT) >>From: "John M. Steele" <[email protected]> >>Subject: [USMA:47695] RE: Are metric speed limit and/or distance signs > permitted by US Federal law or regulation? >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >>Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >> >> I am not sure if that currently is or will continue >> to be true. It has been true in the past. >> >> The Feds publish the Manual of Uniform Traffic >> Control Devices (MUTCD) and Standard Highway Signs & >> Markers (SHSM). In many cases, a choice is offered, >> and the States may choose which of the allowable >> choices they will use, and usually have their own >> laws uniformly applying that choice to the State. >> (The above are available online as pdf files). >> There is a process for the Feds to "bless" choices >> not in the book, but it is a PITA. It is used >> mostly to test new sign ideas. If they are good >> ideas, they make it into a later edition. >> >> Past editions came in metric and english versions >> (these refer to sign dimensions, both books allowed >> english or metric message content). The States have >> generally opposed highway metrication and the metric >> book and metric sign content was not much used. The >> 2009 MUTCD was issued with ALL metric content moved >> to an appendix. In my view, it would be VERY >> difficult to determine what in the appendix applies >> to what sign and to design metric highway marking >> from the poor direction given therein. (Easiest way >> would be to work from a past edition and check for >> changes). The companion SHSM is usually a year >> later and has not been issued yet. I suspect the >> next edition of MUTCD will remove the metric >> appendix and we will never see a new sign with >> either metric dimensions or content unless we drive >> to Canada or Mexico. >> >> It appears to be unconditional surrender of the FHWA >> to the "forces of evil" re metrication. Status of >> metric has gone from "fully approved by the Feds if >> the State chooses it", to "difficult and debatable", >> and will probably become "not a choice." If it goes >> to the latter, a State could still appeal for >> "special approval" but I see that in the set >> {snowball, hell}. >>...
BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Ressel, Howard TEL;WORK:585-272-3372 ORG:;403-Design EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:[email protected] N:Ressel;Howard ADR;DOM;WORK;PARCEL;POSTAL:;403;1530 Jefferson Road;Rochester;;14623 LABEL;DOM;WORK;PARCEL;POSTAL;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:Ressel, Howard=0A= 403=0A= 1530 Jefferson Road=0A= Rochester 14623 END:VCARD
