Search Safety:

Motorcyclist Advisory Council (MAC-FHWA)

Motorcycle Symbol Research for the MUTCD NPA

Presentation to the Motorcycle Advisory Council December 5, 2007

Designs for 1989 Study

In 1987, the American Motorcycle Association requested that the MUTCD be amended to include a sign to warn motorcyclists of hazardous road conditions. In 1989, the Federal Highway Administration's research laboratory conducted an evaluation of 7 versions of a sign to warn motorcyclists of grooved pavements.

Design 1	Design 2	Design 3	Design 4

These designs from 1989 study tested the best

Design 5	Design 6	Design 7

Based on the 1989 research study, Design 5, 6, and 7 were understood the best with the following correct response rate: 90%, 85%, and 85%. Designs 1 and 4 had a 55% correct response rate and Designs 2 and 3 had a 50% correct response. The most common response error was failure to perceive that the warning was directed to motorcycle riders. An example of the most frequent incorrect response was “Warning: Grooved Pavement and Motorcycles Ahead.”

Although in general, symbolic signs are preferred because they can be understood more quickly than words, in this case the word message sign performed the best and was recommended by FHWA in the final rule. Symbol Design #7 which depicts a rider being thrown from a motorcycle was clearly understood by the majority of subjects tested. However, FHWA did not believe that showing a motorcyclist flying through the air was the most appropriate symbol and further research was recommended for a better symbol design.

Note: All of the symbols showed a side view of the motorcycle.

In 1997, the FHWA issued a Final Amendment to the MUTCD that recommended State and local highway agencies use the provision in the MUTCD which allows the option of developing special word message signs to warn motorcyclists of hazardous roadway conditions. We also indicated that FHWA would conduct further research to develop an appropriate symbol.

Designs for 2007 Study

In 2003, FHWA established a pooled fund study for traffic control devices for the purpose of providing a quicker way to assess low risk new traffic control devices and applications. States that contribute money to the pooled fund get to select the research projects that will be conducted. 17 States, 3 FHWA offices, and ATSSA are members of this pooled fund study. In May 2007 the Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study selected 10 different sign categories for a symbol evaluation and the motorcycle warning symbol was one of the 10. These 4 sample motorcycle symbol designs were selected from a literature review and synthesis study of traffic signs used nationally.

The preliminary research results of the 4 motorcycle warning symbols tested in the 2007 study showed that all 4 performed well. A couple of major differences to note between the 1989 and 2007 studies are: 1) the subject pool or sample sizes were much smaller in the 1989 study (20 people) than in the 2007 study (180 people) and 2) the 2007 study evaluated motorist comprehension and legibility, while the 1989 study only evaluated motorist comprehension.

The comprehension response rates for the 4 symbols in the 2007 study were: Alternative 1 (84%), Alternative 2 (83%), Alternative 3 (87%), and Alternative 4 (75%). The legibility distances for the 4 symbols were: Alt 1 (199 ft.), Alt 2 (204 ft.), Alt 3 (187 ft.), and Alt 4 (184 ft.). The legibility distance is the point at which the sign message can be read or recognized. It is not necessarily the point at which the message is comprehended or understood. However, the sooner the sign can be read the more time available to understand the sign.

Another noticeable difference about the 2 studies is that word message signs were not included in the 2007 study. In the 1989 study, the word message sign (Design 5) was one of the best performers based on comprehension (90% rate). The word message was understood by more motorists.

An observation that may be a factor to also consider between the 2 studies is the motorist’s familiarity with motorcycle symbols today in 2007 is much more prevalent than it was in 1989. Over the past almost 20 years, motorcycles have increasingly become a regular part of our daily traffic mix. Just like with bicyclists and pedestrians, more focused attention has been given to all forms of roadway users including motorcyclists. States have installed a variety of warning symbol for motorcycles and there is much more public education explaining that we share the roadway with many different types of vehicle and non-vehicle traffic, not just cars.

Rulemaking Process

Proposed changes are based on:

• Research/Guidelines/Best Practices
• Experimentations and Interim Approvals
• Pooled Fund Studies
• National Committee
• Congressional Direction
• Public Input from Interested Parties

Since the NPA has not been published yet, I can only say that one of the 4 symbols from the 2007 research study will be proposed. I’d also like to take a little time to explain the rulemaking process in case you may not be familiar with it. Changes to the MUTCD are made through the rulemaking process. The process is designed to encourage public involvement. Any interested person organization may provide input to the rulemaking process by submitting comments to the Federal Register docket.

Proposed changes are based on the following:

• Research, policy guidelines, and/or best practice recommendations.
• The experimentation process provides a way to test and evaluate the effectiveness new traffic control devices or applications in a field setting. Requests for experimentations must be submitted to the FHWA by the jurisdiction responsible for roadway operations.
• Interim approvals provide a method for introducing new TCDs and innovative techniques between MUTCD revision cycles. IAs allow FHWA to grant authority to State and local governments to use proven successful and proven safe new devices or applications on an interim basis while the proposed device or application is pending official rulemaking action. Interim approvals are considered based on the results of successful experimentation, results of analytical or laboratory studies, and review of U.S. and non-U.S. experience. Interim approval considerations include an assessment of relative risks, benefits, and costs.
• Policy memorandums also serve as a way of getting a desired new practice into use sooner than would otherwise be possible. Policy memos are a way for FHWA to encourage consideration of specific practice or give emphasis to a particular application. Policy memos do not have the legal ramifications of a change to the MUTCD.

Process for Changes to the MUTCD

• Notice of Proposed Amendment published in the Federal Register (see link to NPA at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov)
• 6-7 month docket comment period is designed to encourage public involvement (see http://dmses.dot.gov).

Next Notice of Proposed Amendment

• Scheduled for publishing by end of 2007.
• Comment period closes in July 2008.
• FHWA reviews all comments submitted.
• Publishing the NPA provides an opportunity for FHWA to gather comments on proposed changes and make informed decisions.

In reviewing the docket comments, FHWA finds that it is very helpful when you agree with a proposed change to the MUTCD if you could reply to the docket and let us know. Same thing applies of course if you disagree with a proposed change. If you have comments for changes to things in the NPA, please suggest text or figures to support your comments. FHWA can modify proposed text, figures, and concepts included in the NPA. However, FHWA cannot add anything that is not in the NPA. For example, if one of the docket comments suggests a completely new symbol that was not included in the NPA, then it would have to wait for the next rulemaking opportunity to be considered. Another example is if FHWA proposed text that provides an option which says that a particular device may be used and say one of the docket comments suggest that this option be made a requirement for use. FHWA cannot go from an option to a requirement without publishing another NPA. Comments that have merit for consideration in a future rulemaking are classified as “hold items” for amendments to the next edition of the MUTCD.

Final Rule Published March 2009

The final rule process involves:

• analysis and summary of all comments
• develop Federal Register preamble
• develop text and figures for MUTCD
• internal (FHWA) & inter-agency (OMB) approval

FHWA analyzes each comment submitted to the docket and prepares a summary of the comments. The summary of comments is presented in the Federal Register preamble of the final rule. Although the FHWA has the ultimate responsibility for making final decisions for the MUTCD, the docket comment process ensures that decisions are not made in a vacuum. In addition to developing the text, FHWA also has to develop figures too. The figures are developed in quark files. So if possible, please send any drawings that you may have for us in this format.

The process for developing the preamble, the final text and figures takes approximately 6 months. Once this process is completed, there is an internal FHWA and interagency (OMB) review and approval process which takes about 4 months.

When the final rule is published in the Federal Register, there are 3 dates that you should be aware of: 1) the issuance date which is the date that the FHWA Administrator and OMB approve the final rule; 2) the date that the Federal Register publishes the final rule; and 3) the effective date of the final rule which is 30 days after the date it is published.

Compliance Dates

• 23 Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 655 provides States 2 years to adopt changes to the MUTCD.
• FHWA can establish longer compliance dates for some changes.

The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Register 23 CFR part 655. The CFR provides States up to 2 years from the effective date to adopt the provisions contained in the final rule. (Some States automatically adopt the MUTCD immediately upon the effective date.)

FHWA can establish compliance dates that are longer than 2 years for some changes that may have a potential economic impact if implemented immediately. An example of this would be the change in the MUTCD related to size of street name signs. This change to 6 inch letters for post mounted street name signs on streets with speeds over 25 mph was published in the January 1997 final rule with a 15 year compliance period, meaning States have until January 2012 to comply with this provision.

When submitting your docket comments, note that you can suggest for our consideration what you believe is a reasonable compliance period for States to transition to the new provisions adopted in the final rule.