Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pedestrian Safety Traffic Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor removes conflicting language after MDT flags amber-light conflict with federal MUTCD
Summary
Senate Bill 471 was amended to remove language that would have required vehicles to stop for amber flashing beacons; Montana Department of Transportation said the original language conflicted with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and would have triggered a roughly $390,000 fiscal impact to retrofit or remove existing devices.
Senate Finance and Claims heard a brief informational presentation and questions on Senate Bill 471, a bill clarifying the treatment of flashing amber and red lights at pedestrian crossings. Sponsor Senator Dave Fearn (Senate District 2) said an amendment before the committee removed the problematic language and — according to department staff — eliminated the fiscal impact listed in an earlier fiscal note.
Stan Breeland (Montana Department of Transportation) told the committee the prior language would have required vehicles to stop for flashing amber beacons and thus conflicted with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the federal standard the state uses to keep traffic-control devices consistent across jurisdictions. Breeland said a flashing amber is a yield condition under the MUTCD, while a steady or flashing red requires a stop. He said the earlier text would have created a direct conflict and likely forced the department to remove or replace flashing devices statewide.
Breeland told the committee the removed language drove the prior fiscal estimate of about $390,000 to modify or replace equipment. With the conflict language addressed, Breeland said the department expects no fiscal impact to its operations from the current bill language.
Senator Fearn said he will redraft the bill language to clarify pedestrian protections without creating the federal‑conflict issue. Committee members asked technical and fiscal questions and committee staff confirmed the department’s submitted concerns had been resolved in the amended language.
No committee action was taken at the hearing. The sponsor closed by asking for support for a clarified pedestrian-safety change that, he said, protects vulnerable road users while avoiding unintended equipment and compliance costs.
