Ron asked: Are there statutes or regulations of any kind regarding what types of materials (such as lack of permanence) should be used in the marking of courses for organized rides? I have seen many course markings that fade away rather quickly, and others that seem to last for years.
Although bike events frequently use pavement markings to define a route, they are not legal.
Any roadway markings must comply with the statute concerning uniform traffic control devices.
(3) All official traffic control signals or official traffic control devices purchased and installed in this state by any public body or official shall conform with the manual and specifications published by the Department of Transportation pursuant to subsection (2).
Clearly, such markings are intended to direct the movement of traffic (bicycles). I believe the intent of the following statute is to avoid confusion for drivers and prevent dangerous situations. That probably would not happen with the usual course markings used for cycling events.
(1) No person shall place, maintain or display upon or in view of any highway any unauthorized sign, signal, marking or device which purports to be or is an imitation of or resembles an official traffic control device or railroad sign or signal, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic, or which hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any official traffic control device or any railroad sign or signal.
I recommend checking with your local authorities or Bike/Ped Advisory Committee before placing pavement markings for the route.
I’m not sure if the widely used route markings, typically known as “Dan Henry’s” fit the context of the referenced statute.
They are painted onto the roadway surface close to the outside curb or lane lane, and are pretty much only visible to cyclists. Typically the markers consist of a circle with a short line placed through an appropriate arc of that circle in order to denote any action that cyclists should take at the upcoming intersection in order to stay on route.
Being of that consistence, they do not resemble nor purport to be nor imitate normal traffic signs nor signals, and do not obscure anything at all.
They do not attempt to control traffic flow per se, but rather are information only, and only for cyclists.
Should 316.077 apply to these, then every organized cycling event could be held in violation.
I am merely attempting to ascertain what type of marking medium is prescribed, if any.
Should the practice be considered a violation of 316.077, the point is moot.
I know what you are saying, and that is the reason I worded the post as I did. The markings you refer to are not in the MUTCD or FDOT guidelines, and are not approved for use on the roadway.
They could fall in the category of graffiti if an officer chose to pursue it. Most wouldn’t as far as my experience indicates.
I know it is commonly done, and have actually done it myself. I have also had police officers tell us we couldn’t do it because it isn’t allowed. That is why i suggested that you check with the locals.
This site is intended to discuss the laws and isn’t really a forum for types of materials.
I revised the post to include the statute about uniform traffic control devices.