WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL PROVES HAZARDOUS FOR TRUCKER--SETTLEMENT AT TRIAL

The details are described of how the accident occurred and of the traffic control mechanisms in operation at the time. There was dispute over which of two Pennsylvania DOT traffic control publications should have been adhered to in lieu of the contract TCP. The analysis of the accident by the plaintiff's expert demonstrated that the reported traffic control used for the temporary work did not meet any requirements of the Penn DOT, the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices), or the TCP. Because the approach to the site was a downgrade on a curve, extended stopping distances were mandatory, especially for large trucks. The natural obstuctions to sight should have been evaluated. No drivers, especially truckers, should be "surprised" by stopped traffic on a freeway. While there are national requirements for stopping sight distances on horizontal curves for automobiles, no such standards have been formulated for trucks, which require substantially longer distances such as those that prevailed on I81 when the accident occurred.

• Corporate Authors:

  TranSafety Incorporated

  2020 K Street, NW, Suite 350
  Washington, DC  United States  20006
• Publication Date: 1986-5

Media Info

• Pagination: p. 1-2
• Serial:
  • Transafety
  • Volume: 4
  • Issue Number: 5
  • Publisher: TranSafety Incorporated

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Courts; Hazards; Stopping distances; Stopping sight distance; Traffic crashes; Truck drivers; Trucks; Work zone traffic control
• Identifier Terms: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
• Subject Areas: Highways; Law; Motor Carriers; Operations and Traffic Management; Safety and Human Factors; I73: Traffic Control;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 00457778
• Record Type: Publication
• Files: TRIS
• Created Date: Aug 31 1986 12:00AM