Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 810.210 (2026)

Placement and control of traffic control devices

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

810.210 Placement and control of traffic control devices. (1) The Oregon Transportation Commission is vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the installation at railroad-highway grade crossings of signs, signals, gates, protective devices or any other device to warn or protect the public at a railroad-highway crossing. The commission is granted exclusive authority under this subsection to determine the character or type of device to be used.

(2) Each road authority shall place, maintain and control traffic control devices used upon its own highway as the road authority considers necessary for the safe and expeditious control of traffic, necessary to carry out the provisions of the vehicle code or local traffic ordinances or necessary to regulate, warn or guide traffic. The commission shall act as road authority under this section in lieu of the Department of Transportation. The authority granted under this subsection is subject to all of the following:

(a) All traffic control devices erected and used under this subsection shall conform to the state manual and specifications established under ORS 810.200.

(b) The commission has general supervision with respect to the placing, construction and operation of traffic control devices under this subsection for the purpose of obtaining, so far as practicable, uniformity as to type and location of traffic control devices throughout the state.

(c) Only the commission has authority over a state highway whether or not the state highway is within the jurisdiction of another road authority. No traffic control device shall be erected, maintained or operated upon any state highway under this subsection by any authority other than the commission, except with the written approval of the commission.

(d) When the governing body of a city makes a determination that placement or construction of a traffic control device on a highway within the city selected as a state highway under ORS 373.010 is necessary to carry out the provisions of the vehicle code or to regulate, warn or guide traffic, the city governing body shall submit written findings and recommendations to the Director of Transportation in support of placing or constructing the traffic control device on the state highway. If the director approves the findings and recommendations, the director shall notify the city governing body in writing and proceed to place or construct the traffic control device in accordance with the findings and recommendations. If the director does not notify the governing body of disapproval within 90 days after receipt of the findings and recommendations, the findings and recommendations shall be considered approved and the director shall proceed to place or construct the traffic control device in accordance with the findings and recommendations.

(e) The commission is authorized to classify, designate and mark both interstate and intrastate highways within the boundaries of this state. [1983 c.338 §165; 1985 c.16 §54; 1993 c.522 §3; 1993 c.741 §84; 1995 c.733 §88]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1992–2008 · leading case: Murrell v. Union Pac. R.R., 544 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (D. Or. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Murrell v. Union Pac. R.R., 544 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (D. Or. 2008). · cites it 3× “Defendants contend that ORS 810.210 and 824.202 stand as "independent authority for preemption, unequivocally vesting the exclusive authority over the placement and adequacy of crossing signalization in ODOT, usurping any common law duty that the railroad may have had before the…”

State v. Morton, 951 P.2d 179 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “” After issuing the citation to the driver, Roberts moved to the passenger side of the vehicle and approached defendant, intending to cite him for failing to wear his safety belt, in violation of ORS 810.210. Roberts testified as to what transpired next: “When I addressed the…”

Stokes v. Lundeen, 7 P.3d 586 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “200 and posted under authority granted by ORS 810.210 and: “(A) Children are present; or “(B) A flashing light used as a traffic control device and operated under ORS 811.”

State v. Potter, 57 P.3d 944 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “2 A traffic control device includes “[a]ny sign, signal, marking or device placed, operated or erected by authority under ORS 810.210 for the purposes of guiding, directing, warning or regulating traffic.”

Fielding v. Heiderich, 832 P.2d 1244 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “180 to ORS 810.210. The jury found that Heiderieh was not negligent.”

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.