Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pedestrian Crossings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Bill 471 seeks rules for pedestrian-activated crossing devices; engineers warn of national design standard conflict
Summary
Senator Dave Fern said SB 471 would define driver duties and fines for activated pedestrian devices (RRFBs) and make drivers financially liable for device damage. MDT engineers flagged a potential conflict with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which the sponsor amended to resolve; committee left the fiscal note at zero and closed the hearing.
Senator Dave Fern opened the hearing on Senate Bill 471, saying the bill aims to clarify how drivers should behave when encountering pedestrian-activated devices commonly called rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFBs). He described two primary changes: clarifying yield/stop behavior when the device is activated and making a driver liable for repair or replacement costs if they damage a device.
Sponsor’s text and reasoning: Fern told the committee the bill places heightened responsibility on drivers when a pedestrian-activated device is engaged and reads in part: "When the operator of a vehicle is approaching a flashing pedestrian actuated device at a crosswalk and a pedestrian is present, the operator shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if necessary, remain stopped until the pedestrian has crossed the roadway." He also read language that would make a driver who damages a device liable for replacement or repair costs.
Technical concern — MUTCD alignment: Committee members asked whether the bill’s language conflicted with national traffic-control guidance. Stan Brelin, an MDT traffic operations engineer, explained the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices treats flashing yellow indications as a yield condition and that requiring a stop while displaying a flashing yellow would conflict with that manual. Brelin told the committee the original draft had language that would have required stops and red lights; the sponsor amended the bill to align with the MUTCD and the fiscal note was revised downward.
Criminal classification question: Representative Staffman asked whether the bill elevates violations to a misdemeanor rather than a traffic infraction. The chair explained testimony that "all violations of Montana Code Annotated are misdemeanors" in the state’s current statutory scheme for moving violations; the sponsor confirmed the intent was a heightened classification for the activated-device situation but agreed to committee discussion and clarification.
Fiscal and next steps: Senator Fern said an earlier fiscal note that included red-light changes produced a monetary estimate but that after modifying the language to conform with the MUTCD the fiscal note is zero. The committee closed the hearing on SB 471; no executive-action vote on SB 471 occurred during the same meeting.
