Tucson violated the law by using red light violation lines according to FHWA

I haven't seen anything about this locally, have you?

Then again, maybe not.
Note the source of this "information".
I'd say the conclusion is a tad bit biased.

I saw something on channel 4 in Tucson related to this. I think they were saying it may cause a judge to rule that all red light tickets issued would be thrown out and any fines collected would be refunded.

Although the links clearly might have an interest that's anti-cam .. following the TheNewspaper.com link and then this one, http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2009/us-pavementmarks.pdf , it looks like an interesting and genuine USDOT/FHA reply to me.

I found this a couple weeks ago as well.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/26385

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration is the original source of the ruling...

OK, here's the thing: You can't believe everything you see posted on the net. You cannot beleive attributions to "official" agencies unless and until you go directly to them to verify EXACTLY what they did or did not say or do. PEOPLE LIE!!

It is my understanding that the agency listed above publishes a lot of guidelines, very few of which have any force of law.....AND.....they RARELY make "rulings" on anything regarding State or local laws.

My guess is that this is all a bunch of hype as the local agencies involved could probably solve the whole thing, for the future at least, by simply designating the lines as "stop lines", which are allowed.........if indeed anything needs to be done at all......since the guideline quoted is NOT a law......and the guideline is so vague that it is problably unenforceable if it was.

I agree that they didn't make a 'ruling'.. they made a judgment regarding compliance with one of their published 'guidelines'. If you followed the links to the letter, I think you'd agree that if it isn't genuine then it's a forgery that took some doing and I'd guess DOT wouldn't let that continue to be published.

But, don't kid yourself on the weight this might carry regarding State and Local laws. In many States they have accepted and written in these guidelines as to be the letter of their laws. Depending on the text of the local enactment, a change in the guidelines (or an official judgement) may change the local law.

Additionally, Federal Agencies can and are empowered to create legally binding regulations (rules by committee!) which in the end have as much weight as any legislation passed as most people expect.. by open deliberation and formal process or vote.

That's MY understanding from observation, anyway.

I used the wrong word, using ruling instead of opinion...

And I concede that the document may be a fraud

And I concede that the City of Tucson can change the location of the stop lines to bring them into compliance.

And I keep my RLSC poi file up to date when I travel outside my area.

And I don't run red lights.

And I'm very happy when I see the lights at these intersections turn red before I get to them because I know I probably won't get rear ended when I come to a stop well behind the stop line that I know is a stop line.

And I'm happy to hear at least one media outlet in Tuscon covered the story so they can investigate if it is true or not.

And I'm sorry I wrote anything more in this thread other than asking RJ if the story had been covered by local media...

And that's no lie.

So I read the letter. There is no reason to believe it is not genuine HOWEVER.......

I think some people need to read it again, carefully.
It never ceases to amaze me how different people can read the same words and come out with different meanings. Sometimes, or course, the meaning is twisted on purpose and that appears to be what is going on in this case.

IN THAT LETTER, they made no ruling on anything. They did NOT, as the title of this thread says, say that any laws were violated nor that any rules were necessarily broken.

All they said was that some interesting points were raised, that some of the actions MIGHT not be in compliance with the "rules" and they would look into it further. They seemed to be more concerned with the WAIT message in the line than the line itself.

SOOOO......my original point still stands.....and this is a really good example of how people twist the "facts" to suit their own purposes; they lie.

Those who pick up on these lies and propogate them without verification are no better than the orignial liars. Sorry if that hurts anybody's feelings. If the shoe fits........

There are a couple of issues at play in this determination by the FHWA, and yes, it is a genuine letter. First, the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices or MUTCD is just as reported, a guide to having uniform markings. Secondly, the guide doesn't necessarily apply to every street, road, or highway. I can be required for federal routes, that means the Interstates and roads with a US route designation including the business routes. The markings used in this instance must have been on a federal route for FHWA to weigh in on this matter. If they were on streets owned by the City of Tuscon, the FHWA would probably have stayed out of the fracas except to state the markings were non-uniform. From my reading of the letter, that is exactly what they did. They simply stated the markings were non-uniform. They didn't state they must be removed or additional ones couldn't be put on place. They also stated that according to federal definition the city was attempting to redefine a federal standard on the bounds of an intersection, and that was the no-no.

Before everyone gets their knickers too far twisted..
I'm still saying that

and that just because some people DO lie but other people are simply human and color their conclusions with the eyeglasses of their beliefs, they aren't propagating false info for deceitful purposes (lying);

and this Fed 'guideline' publication might have more significance than appears on the surface or out of local context.. as witnessed by this from my States Motor Vehicle code:

"§ 25-104. State Highway Administration to adopt sign manual.

The State Highway Administration shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control devices, consistent with the provisions of the Maryland Vehicle Law, for use on highways in this State. This uniform system shall correlate with and, as far as possible, conform to the system set forth in the most recent edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. "

The initial post's subject title may be a bit over the top, but the letter remains "interesting" and may still have local implications, I think.