810.200
Uniform standards for traffic control devices; uniform system of marking and
signing highways.
(1) The Oregon Transportation Commission may exercise the following authority
with respect to the marking, signing and use of traffic control devices in this
state:
(a) The
commission shall adopt a manual and specifications of uniform standards for
traffic control devices consistent with the provisions of the vehicle code for
use upon highways in this state.
(b) The
commission is authorized to provide a uniform system of marking and signing
highways within the boundaries of this state.
(c) The
commission is authorized to determine the character or type of traffic control
devices to be used in this state.
(2) The authority
granted under this section is subject to all of the following:
(a) The system of
marking and signing established under this section shall correlate with and, as
far as possible, conform to the system adopted in other states. The commission
may include in the system signs and signals that show internationally recognized
and approved symbols.
(b) So far as
practicable, all traffic control devices in this state shall be uniform as to
type and location.
(c) All traffic
control devices placed or operated in this state shall conform to
specifications approved by the commission.
(d) Stop signs
and yield signs shall be illuminated at night or so placed as to be illuminated
by the headlights of approaching vehicles or by street lights. [1983 c.338 §164;
1985 c.16 §53; 1993 c.522 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1986–2002 · leading case:
Hall v. Dotter, 879 P.2d 236 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
Hall v. Dotter, 879 P.2d 236 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “The Manual was adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) pursuant to ORS 810.200(1)(a) [3] to specify uniform standards for traffic control devices.”
State v. Smith, 55 P.3d 553 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“ruction or reconstruction of a street or highway are exempt from the provisions of the vehicle code specified in subsection (3) of this section if: “(a) They are within the immediate construction project as described in the governmental agency contract, if there is a contract;…”
Olson v. Coats, 717 P.2d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“3 Repealed, by Or Laws 1983, ch 338 § 978 and replaced by Or Laws 1983, ch 338 § 164 (now ORS 810.200); as amended by Or Laws 1985, ch 16 § 53, effective January 1, 1986.”
Stokes v. Lundeen, 7 P.3d 586 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
““(c) Twenty miles per hour when passing school grounds or a school crosswalk if notice of the grounds or crosswalk is indicated plainly by traffic control devices conforming to the requirements established under ORS 810.200 and posted under authority granted by ORS 810.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 810.200(1)(a) — 1 case
Hall v. Dotter, 879 P.2d 236 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“The Manual was adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) pursuant to ORS 810.200(1)(a) [3] to specify uniform standards for traffic control devices.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 810.200(l)(a) — 1 case
Hall v. Dotter, 879 P.2d 236 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“The Manual was adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) pursuant to ORS 810.200(1)(a) [3] to specify uniform standards for traffic control devices.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.