Reflectors on multi modal paths and bright led light bars on golf carts

[tophcfa]

What’s up with all the to do about the need for better night vision for golf carts? If people would simply replace their tinted windshields with clear ones their night vision would immediately improve dramatically. If you don’t believe that just try driving around at night with your windshield folded down. Tinted windshields are great for fleet golf carts that are designed for golf course use, with no consideration for night driving, but don’t make sense for personal transportation vehicles intended to be driven after dark. Would you wear your sunglasses while driving at night? That is essentially what one is doing with a tinted windshield.

[Topspinmo]

The led off road light bars are for OFF road. They are supposed to covered on public roads and streets, not to worry no LEO follows the law on that one. I was thinking about getting me train locomotive head light mounting it right in center where Yamaha emblem is. That way I can turn night into day even at tree tops just like off road light bars. O there no pointing them down cause the shine 160 degrees plus.

[CarlR33]

We noticed the south paths across from Sawgrass do not have reflectors either in the middle or on the side and it’s difficult to see the path at night. It would help if TV would looked at this long term. I plan to get a bottom of the bumper off-road light bar to point at the road and not blind people. BTW, my windshield is clear not tinted.

[villagetinker]

I strongly suggest getting MOTORCYCLE DOT approved driving lights, these are much easier to aim, and when properly aimed do not blind on coming drivers. The last time I checked these were around $30 for a pair and these are bright enough you only need one (1).

[frayedends]

Good point on tinted windshield. We had a Yamaha with that and couldn’t see 3 feet at night. Traded for an electric evolution and opted to keep the non tinted windshield. So much better. We wear sunglasses during the day anyhow.

[Maker]

The "off road" light bars are flood lights. Meaning they send light in a wide pattern both sideways and vertically. There is a fallacy in pointing them down because a lot of light still goes vertically - blinding oncoming carts.
The ones put on carts by village golf cars are flood lights. 100% illegal to have turned on when on a street. VGC should know better than to put them on carts they know are being operated on streets.
If you want more light, be sure to get street legal lights. They have a focused pattern of light that stops at a certain vertical angle. They focus all the light below that line.

[golfing eagles]

Good point on tinted windshield. We had a Yamaha with that and couldn’t see 3 feet at night. Traded for an electric evolution and opted to keep the non tinted windshield. So much better. We wear sunglasses during the day anyhow.

I'd be willing to bet $$$ that I could see more than 3 feet ahead through your windshield at night. (It's not covered in mud, is it?). Personally, I would suggest you not take that bet, since I have a Yamaha with tinted windshield as well, and no problem at night

[ltcdfancher]

It was District 12 that decided to spend several thousands of dollars to install raised pavement markers on MMP in that district, right? Then the Project Wide Advisory Council (?) objected. The Council’s justification was that the markers might be a tripping hazard for walkers or contribute to a biking accident. If either of those were a valid Project Wide concern, then why do we have raised pavement markers anywhere in The Villages? Put these markers in the middle of every path. Walk on the left edge facing traffic; bicyclists keep within your lane (on the right). No one stumbles. No falls from bicycles. No need for super-bright lights to see which way the path weaves up ahead.

[golfing eagles]

It was District 12 that decided to spend several thousands of dollars to install raised pavement markers on MMP in that district, right? Then the Project Wide Advisory Council (?) objected. The Council’s justification was that the markers might be a tripping hazard for walkers or contribute to a biking accident. If either of those were a valid Project Wide concern, then why do we have raised pavement markers anywhere in The Villages? Put these markers in the middle of every path. Walk on the left edge facing traffic; bicyclists keep within your lane (on the right). No one stumbles. No falls from bicycles. No need for super-bright lights to see which way the path weaves up ahead.

Good point, except, while there might not be a NEED for super bright lights, we can pretty much guarantee a bunch of people will GET them anyway. (Mine is brighter than yours :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:)

[Polarlys]

Had an interesting set of circumstances recently related to this topic. We live in the northern zone near Spanish Springs and going home one dark winter night on the cart path along El Camino Real almost had a tragic accident. Cart coming head on with super bright lights + cars on El Camino with brights on and a person walking at the edge of the path all combined for a potential accident. I was coming off one of the stop signs ( and yes I mostly stop) so accelerateing at that point and I couldn't see the pedestrian until we narrowly missed them. Although the miss was a close call it still was a miss and all were safely along their way. Just mentioning a set of events where I feel the super bright lights are more a hazard then a benefit and are unnecessary. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Bill14564]

It was District 12 that decided to spend several thousands of dollars to install raised pavement markers on MMP in that district, right? Then the Project Wide Advisory Council (?) objected. The Council’s justification was that the markers might be a tripping hazard for walkers or contribute to a biking accident. If either of those were a valid Project Wide concern, then why do we have raised pavement markers anywhere in The Villages? Put these markers in the middle of every path. Walk on the left edge facing traffic; bicyclists keep within your lane (on the right). No one stumbles. No falls from bicycles. No need for super-bright lights to see which way the path weaves up ahead.

No. Many of the districts discussed the raised pavement markers (RPMs) and then brought their ideas to the PWAC meeting. The PWAC discussed the matter but was mostly ambivalent. CDD5 brought it up again and pushed for an action. The PWAC was reminded of a 2015 study which recommended against the markers. The PWAC asked for an updated study. That was April.

In late April or early May, CDD5 installed RPMs on at least some of the MMPs within their boundaries. At the most recent PWAC meeting, the updated study was presented which again recommended against RPMs. CDD12 had previously been in favor of the PWAC moving forward on RPMs but changed their position in light of the study. The PWAC decided against installing RPMs. CDD5 was called out for making their MMPs non-uniform.

One paragraph in the study read that if the main recommendation against RPMs was disregarded and MMPs were installed anyway then they should be spaced at ten feet apart. It has been reported that CDD5 has decided to spend additional funds to meet the ten-foot recommendation.

The study did recommend markers on curves and in constricted areas and that is what we have today. These markers alert drivers that they are approaching a hazard (turn, lane separator, hill) giving them time to react and enhance safety for carts. These markers pose no additional risk to cyclist or pedestrians since cyclists would not cross the center lane on a curve or a hill and cart drivers have been alerted to pay closer attention.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Good point, except, while there might not be a NEED for super bright lights, we can pretty much guarantee a bunch of people will GET them anyway. (Mine is brighter than yours :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:)
I got tired of people yelling at me for completely factory bright headlights so I put a light tint on them.
Blackout style.

[DonH57]

Had an interesting set of circumstances recently related to this topic. We live in the northern zone near Spanish Springs and going home one dark winter night on the cart path along El Camino Real almost had a tragic accident. Cart coming head on with super bright lights + cars on El Camino with brights on and a person walking at the edge of the path all combined for a potential accident. I was coming off one of the stop signs ( and yes I mostly stop) so accelerateing at that point and I couldn't see the pedestrian until we narrowly missed them. Although the miss was a close call it still was a miss and all were safely along their way. Just mentioning a set of events where I feel the super bright lights are more a hazard then a benefit and are unnecessary. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Super bright lights on the golf carts don't help the driver when they're not aimed toward the pavement like they should be. They almost hit oncoming carts because they can't tell where they are on the cart path.:grumpy:

[Topspinmo]

I'd be willing to bet $$$ that I could see more than 3 feet ahead through your windshield at night. (It's not covered in mud, is it?). Personally, I would suggest you not take that bet, since I have a Yamaha with tinted windshield as well, and no problem at night

With plexiglass windshield there is a glare problem at night and especially in early morning and late evening clean or not and especially when dirty. Walkers/bikers early morning need to be aware the golf cart driver maybe don’t see them if angle right.

[Topspinmo]

I got tired of people yelling at me for completely factory bright headlights so I put a light tint on them.
Blackout style.


Problem is those Yamaha lights don’t shine downward , no Yamaha golf cart lights shine like vehicle lights on low beam. You can adjust them down some which helps. But most don’t like that. They like lighting up trees see if any squirrels are out… I had adjusted mine down and to right. Which helps but still blinding on curves and up a grade.

[Topspinmo]

Good point, except, while there might not be a NEED for super bright lights, we can pretty much guarantee a bunch of people will GET them anyway. (Mine is brighter than yours :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:)

I added mine so I can blind them back :beer3. :gc:

[tophcfa]

I'd be willing to bet $$$ that I could see more than 3 feet ahead through your windshield at night. (It's not covered in mud, is it?). Personally, I would suggest you not take that bet, since I have a Yamaha with tinted windshield as well, and no problem at night

I’m very fortunate to have great vision and was able to drive the old Yamaha no problem for many years with a tinted windshield at night (that being said I rarely have the windshield flipped up unless my wife is riding along or it’s raining). Then I got the new Quiet Tech, equipped with a clear windshield, and instantly noticed the difference, especially when raining. After learning how much easier it is night driving with a clear windshield, I ordered a clear replacement on-line for the old Yamaha also. It only cost about $150, took about 15 minutes to install, and the old one quickly disappeared from the driveway when I put it out with the trash. After searching long and hard, I couldn’t find a clear replacement windshield with vents, so I had to settle for ventless.

[shut the front door]

It was District 12 that decided to spend several thousands of dollars to install raised pavement markers on MMP in that district, right? Then the Project Wide Advisory Council (?) objected. The Council’s justification was that the markers might be a tripping hazard for walkers or contribute to a biking accident. If either of those were a valid Project Wide concern, then why do we have raised pavement markers anywhere in The Villages? Put these markers in the middle of every path. Walk on the left edge facing traffic; bicyclists keep within your lane (on the right). No one stumbles. No falls from bicycles. No need for super-bright lights to see which way the path weaves up ahead.

The problem is, the "rogue" reflectors were put down AFTER a study was done that showed they were a danger. Now that the study results are public, some nimrod is going to trip over them or fall off their bicycle and sue the CDD.

[ltcdfancher]

https://www.**************.com/2025/05/12/pwac-members-unhappy-with-rogue-reflectors-on-multi-modal-paths/

I found the tripping hazard and bicycle risks in this report.

[Number 10 GI]

If a cart is approaching you with extremely bright lights, slow down, pull off onto the grass and stop. Don't complain about the overly bright lights, there is nothing you can do to change it. You can however protect your life and limb by doing what I said. Leave the ego at home.

[Topspinmo]

It was District 12 that decided to spend several thousands of dollars to install raised pavement markers on MMP in that district, right? Then the Project Wide Advisory Council (?) objected. The Council’s justification was that the markers might be a tripping hazard for walkers or contribute to a biking accident. If either of those were a valid Project Wide concern, then why do we have raised pavement markers anywhere in The Villages? Put these markers in the middle of every path. Walk on the left edge facing traffic; bicyclists keep within your lane (on the right). No one stumbles. No falls from bicycles. No need for super-bright lights to see which way the path weaves up ahead.

Majority of walkers are NOT going to walk on edge facing traffic especially it walking in group

Just paint center line with reflective paint like the do on roads. But, I sure there some waddler that will blunder onto paint claim they slipped. :oops:

[Mrmean58]

Had an interesting set of circumstances recently related to this topic. We live in the northern zone near Spanish Springs and going home one dark winter night on the cart path along El Camino Real almost had a tragic accident. Cart coming head on with super bright lights + cars on El Camino with brights on and a person walking at the edge of the path all combined for a potential accident. I was coming off one of the stop signs ( and yes I mostly stop) so accelerateing at that point and I couldn't see the pedestrian until we narrowly missed them. Although the miss was a close call it still was a miss and all were safely along their way. Just mentioning a set of events where I feel the super bright lights are more a hazard then a benefit and are unnecessary. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

If I were to venture a guess, the pedestrian was wearing dark clothing at night . We see this so often.

[sdeikenberry]

We noticed the south paths across from Sawgrass do not have reflectors either in the middle or on the side and it’s difficult to see the path at night. It would help if TV would looked at this long term. I plan to get a bottom of the bumper off-road light bar to point at the road and not blind people. BTW, my windshield is clear not tinted.

LED bar lights ARE NOT directional. Pointing them downward does little to zero good for oncoming traffic. Those lights are for OFF ROAD use and are designed to scatter the light in all directions, including up. So any oncoming traffic is literally blinded by those lights. This info is included in the product description when making a purchase, so its only an inconsiderate A-hole that knows this and still puts them on their cart IMHO.

[SaucyJim]

Mine are aimed downward. I’ve asked several others and they are not offensive. When you aim them, have them turned on so you can see the distance. Some repeatedly assert this does not help. They are mistaken. It helps.

[Miboater]

I'm curious, are these light bars wired with a dedicated on/off switch or are they turned on/off with the headlights? Luckily I have no night vision issues and the only problem I have is when I get blinded by an oncoming carts with these light bars and often in well-lighted areas.

I have thought about installing one with a switch so if someone is coming towards me I can flash my light bar to have them turn their's off.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

tinted windshields and cataracts - - ->>>> floodlights or surgery. .

take your pick. . .

[Topspinmo]

tinted windshields and cataracts - - ->>>> floodlights or surgery. .

take your pick. . .

I pick to stay home after dark if I can’t see. :boom:

[Topspinmo]

I'm curious, are these light bars wired with a dedicated on/off switch or are they turned on/off with the headlights? Luckily I have no night vision issues and the only problem I have is when I get blinded by an oncoming carts with these light bars and often in well-lighted areas.

I have thought about installing one with a switch so if someone is coming towards me I can flash my light bar to have them turn their's off.

Depends on how installer wires them. I ran separate fused line with on and off switch separate for lighting wiring.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

I pick to stay home after dark if I can’t see. :boom:

That would be the road less travelled. .
however, that's not the main highway in the villages. .

[TomSpasm]

I noticed last night coming home that there are new reflectors on the path parelleling 466 between Laurel Manor and the Village of Bridgeport at Laurel Valley. Hopefully they'll continue that on down to Morse.

[JMintzer]

Mine are aimed downward. I’ve asked several others and they are not offensive. When you aim them, have them turned on so you can see the distance. Some repeatedly assert this does not help. They are mistaken. It helps.

Same here. My old cart had the cyclops light bar at the bottom of the front bumper.

I asked several neighbors if the light was distracting or if it interfered with their ability to see and they all agreed that they did not cause them any issues...

Oh, and mine came on with the regular driving lights but had a "kill switch" if I wanted to turn them off...

[Rocksnap]

We all live in The Villages. This is supposed to be a layer back lifestyle. As such, why are we all trying to tell each other how we should live here in TV. Many good thoughts here. But I give credit to the developers on what they do. We all here are just being an armchair quarterback. If you need to change something for yourself, by all means to that. But I’m happy with the status quo. Keep this simple.

[kcrazorbackfan]

What’s up with all the to do about the need for better night vision for golf carts? If people would simply replace their tinted windshields with clear ones their night vision would immediately improve dramatically. If you don’t believe that just try driving around at night with your windshield folded down. Tinted windshields are great for fleet golf carts that are designed for golf course use, with no consideration for night driving, but don’t make sense for personal transportation vehicles intended to be driven after dark. Would you wear your sunglasses while driving at night? That is essentially what one is doing with a tinted windshield.

Tell the people that walk the MMP’s to start wearing light colored clothing with reflection and/or start carrying a light and I’ll leave the light bar off. And no, I don’t have a tinted windshield.

[Bwanajim]

It would be nice if they offered highbeams of the golf carts that you could use when there's no carts coming. The trail from Brownwood to DeLuna with all the curves, it's pretty dark at night.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

consulting report interpretation:

RPMs (Reflective Pavement Markers) bad idea due to low weight individual impacts, walking or biking, at the expense of high weight impacts and multiple people injuries where the damage is much more expensive.. .

and maybe, just maybe, only the center line markers are needed for the separation between ongoing carts/bikes. most edges are grass with few if any major mountains cliffs to avoid if one drifts to the right off the road.

but then again, looks like a bit of non safety expense saving behavior because the developer's growth rate is zero to negative during this large scale southern development. .

for-profit operations hate safety and maintenance expenses, because there is no immediate/ measurable/visible financial return measurements, and when there is an accident, insurance is expected to pickup the cost. . so win/win unless the insurance doesn't work due to sheer size and then very low probability bankruptcy may happen. . .

why i dislike business leaders in public affairs. .

[Bill14564]

consulting report interpretation:

RPMs (Reflective Pavement Markers) bad idea due to low weight individual impacts, walking or biking, at the expense of high weight impacts and multiple people injuries where the damage is much more expensive.. .

and maybe, just maybe, only the center line markers are needed for the separation between ongoing carts/bikes. most edges are grass with few if any major mountains cliffs to avoid if one drifts to the right off the road.

but then again, looks like a bit of non safety expense saving behavior because the developer's growth rate is zero to negative during this large scale southern development. .

for-profit operations hate safety and maintenance expenses, because there is no immediate/ measurable/visible financial return measurements, and when there is an accident, insurance is expected to pickup the cost. . so win/win unless the insurance doesn't work due to sheer size and then very low probability bankruptcy may happen. . .

why i dislike business leaders in public affairs. .

Poor interpretation in my opinion.

Note (and this is a big one) installation of these RPMs would have ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on the Developer. The Developer was not consulted, the Developer is not in the decision process, and the Developer would not be paying to install the RPMs and the Developer would not be liable for any accident blamed on the absence or presence of these RPMs.

The MMPs are now owned by the individual Districts. The individual Districts make the decision to install RPMs or not. The individual Districts would pay for the RPMs out of the annual maintenance fee.

Since the MMPs are a common feature throughout the Villages they fall under the purview of the Project Wide Advisory Committee (PWAC). Project-wide uniformity is a goal of the PWAC and the member Districts have agreed to this. However, the individual Districts can choose to deviate from the agreed upon uniformity as evidenced by CDD5's decision to install RPMs in spite of the PWAC's decision to the contrary.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Poor interpretation in my opinion.

Note (and this is a big one) installation of these RPMs would have ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on the Developer. The Developer was not consulted, the Developer is not in the decision process, and the Developer would not be paying to install the RPMs and the Developer would not be liable for any accident blamed on the absence or presence of these RPMs.

The MMPs are now owned by the individual Districts. The individual Districts make the decision to install RPMs or not. The individual Districts would pay for the RPMs out of the annual maintenance fee.

Since the MMPs are a common feature throughout the Villages they fall under the purview of the Project Wide Advisory Committee (PWAC). Project-wide uniformity is a goal of the PWAC and the member Districts have agreed to this. However, the individual Districts can choose to deviate from the agreed upon uniformity as evidenced by CDD5's decision to install RPMs in spite of the PWAC's decision to the contrary.

Who built the paths prior to turning them over to the individual districts?
And the RPMs can be installed at the time of construction, as the carts drive through unbuilt sections of TV, particularly in the newer sections. . so that when turned over to the CDD, they are in a completed, safe condition.

Here's the issue with PWAC and other CDD type of committees, and governing bodies in general, they all prefer stability and want to avoid change which is considered disruption. . . If you notice through history, economic or political, humans prefer predictability, and conformity. however, history and economics are not static, the world is always changing, as comes along with additional humans, the larger the gaggle of humans, the harder it is to make everyone happy. . . and the harder the gaggle is to control. .

So the easiest way to govern the gaggle is to avoid changes, but that's when maintenance and safety falls behind, until the pressure of accidents and examples gets too big to ignore. .. . . same pattern, different location. . lots of examples in history of avoiding safety best practices from the beginning and then having to make bigger investments in the infrastructure later. . if you think humans all do it right the first time, you haven't read enough history

[Bill14564]

Who built the paths prior to turning them over to the individual districts?
And the RPMs can be installed at the time of construction, as the carts drive through unbuilt sections of TV, particularly in the newer sections. . so that when turned over to the CDD, they are in a completed, safe condition.

Here's the issue with PWAC and other CDD type of committees, and governing bodies in general, they all prefer stability and want to avoid change which is considered disruption. . . If you notice through history, economic or political, humans prefer predictability, and conformity. however, history and economics are not static, the world is always changing, as comes along with additional humans, the larger the gaggle of humans, the harder it is to make everyone happy. . . and the harder the gaggle is to control. .

So the easiest way to govern the gaggle is to avoid changes, but that's when maintenance and safety falls behind, until the pressure of accidents and examples gets too big to ignore. .. . . same pattern, different location. . lots of examples in history of avoiding safety best practices from the beginning and then having to make bigger investments in the infrastructure later. . if you think humans all do it right the first time, you haven't read enough history

Nice essay but doesn't resemble the discussions concerning the RPMs. Many of the CDDs were leaning towards installing them but were concerned due to a 2015 recommendation against it. They asked for an updated opinion prior to proceeding and the result was the current study that echoed the 2015 recommendations. The decision against RPMs was not a desire to avoid changes, the decision was a reversal of their original opinion.

I don't know which subcontractor built the paths and I don't know why that matters. The paths were likely built to a specification and that specification appears to be consistent with Federal guidelines.

The paths are safe today with RPMs only in curves, hills, and constricted spaces. The path down Marsh Bend would benefit by some reflectors in the sharp corners, and hopefully those will be installed soon, but District 15 is not part of the PWAC.

[Topspinmo]

Poor interpretation in my opinion.

Note (and this is a big one) installation of these RPMs would have ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on the Developer. The Developer was not consulted, the Developer is not in the decision process, and the Developer would not be paying to install the RPMs and the Developer would not be liable for any accident blamed on the absence or presence of these RPMs.

The MMPs are now owned by the individual Districts. The individual Districts make the decision to install RPMs or not. The individual Districts would pay for the RPMs out of the annual maintenance fee.

Since the MMPs are a common feature throughout the Villages they fall under the purview of the Project Wide Advisory Committee (PWAC). Project-wide uniformity is a goal of the PWAC and the member Districts have agreed to this. However, the individual Districts can choose to deviate from the agreed upon uniformity as evidenced by CDD5's decision to install RPMs in spite of the PWAC's decision to the contrary.

You do know Morgan and Morgan right off CR44 Down street from brownwood ready to pounce….. :beer3:

[Bill14564]

You do know Morgan and Morgan right off CR44 Down street from brownwood ready to pounce….. :beer3:

Haha, so funny, so clever.


Pounce on what? In the 20+ years of the Villages has there been a rash of accidents attributable to the lack of reflectors on straight stretches of the MMP?

[tophcfa]

Poor interpretation in my opinion.

Note (and this is a big one) installation of these RPMs would have ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on the Developer. The Developer was not consulted, the Developer is not in the decision process, and the Developer would not be paying to install the RPMs and the Developer would not be liable for any accident blamed on the absence or presence of these RPMs.

The MMPs are now owned by the individual Districts. The individual Districts make the decision to install RPMs or not. The individual Districts would pay for the RPMs out of the annual maintenance fee.

Since the MMPs are a common feature throughout the Villages they fall under the purview of the Project Wide Advisory Committee (PWAC). Project-wide uniformity is a goal of the PWAC and the member Districts have agreed to this. However, the individual Districts can choose to deviate from the agreed upon uniformity as evidenced by CDD5's decision to install RPMs in spite of the PWAC's decision to the contrary.

One correction and one huge assumption. Correction, the MMP’s fall under the purview of BOTH the PWAC and the AAC. Huge assumption is that the CCD’s are truly independent of the developer.

[Bill14564]

One correction and one huge assumption. Correction, the MMP’s fall under the purview of BOTH the PWAC and the AAC. Huge assumption is that the CCD’s are truly independent of the developer.

The AAC covers CDDs 1-4 while the PWAC covers 5-13 and the EMA is 14 and 15. However, the MMPs are NOT amenities so they do NOT fall under AAC. The MMPs under discussion are those in 5-13 so they DO fall under the PWAC. I mentioned the path along Marsh Bend Trail which would fall under EMA.

I have attended most of the CDD10 and PWAC meetings and can assure you that the wishes of the Developer rarely if ever are factored into the CDD10 meetings. The PWAC often tries to convince the Developer to assist with their plans and sometimes has success but I don't recall ever hearing the PWAC acquiesce to any demands of the Developer. It could happen, it probably has happened, but in the last three years I have not seen it happen.

[tophcfa]

The AAC covers CDDs 1-4 while the PWAC covers 5-13 and the EMA is 14 and 15. However, the MMPs are NOT amenities so they do NOT fall under AAC. The MMPs under discussion are those in 5-13 so they DO fall under the PWAC. I mentioned the path along Marsh Bend Trail which would fall under EMA.

I have attended most of the CDD10 and PWAC meetings and can assure you that the wishes of the Developer rarely if ever are factored into the CDD10 meetings. The PWAC often tries to convince the Developer to assist with their plans and sometimes has success but I don't recall ever hearing the PWAC acquiesce to any demands of the Developer. It could happen, it probably has happened, but in the last three years I have not seen it happen.

Well, the AAC and the PWAC have the same functions, they just represent different districts, so if the AAC is not responsible for the MMP’s neither is the PWAC. How do you figure the only MMP’s under discussion are in CDD’s 5-13? Are the MMP’s in the other districts not important? I started this thread and never mentioned it was only discussing certain districts? The thread is about how reflectors and light bars wouldn’t be necessary if people didn’t have tinted windshields on their golf carts. As far as the districts being fully independent, believe what you wish.

[Marathon Man]

Nice essay but doesn't resemble the discussions concerning the RPMs. Many of the CDDs were leaning towards installing them but were concerned due to a 2015 recommendation against it. They asked for an updated opinion prior to proceeding and the result was the current study that echoed the 2015 recommendations. The decision against RPMs was not a desire to avoid changes, the decision was a reversal of their original opinion.

I don't know which subcontractor built the paths and I don't know why that matters. The paths were likely built to a specification and that specification appears to be consistent with Federal guidelines.

The paths are safe today with RPMs only in curves, hills, and constricted spaces. The path down Marsh Bend would benefit by some reflectors in the sharp corners, and hopefully those will be installed soon, but District 15 is not part of the PWAC.

Well said.

[Bill14564]

Well, the AAC and the PWAC have the same functions, they just represent different districts, so if the AAC is not responsible for the MMP’s neither is the PWAC.
Not true. The AAC is strictly concerned with amenities while the PWAC is primarily concerned with project-wide maintenance and only advised on amenities. The MMPs are project-wide infrastructure and not amenities so they don't fall under the purview of the AAC but they do fall under the purview of the PWAC.

To be fair, I do not attend AAC meetings so I don't know if there are discussions about the MMPs. The stated responsibility of the AAC does not include the MMPs.

How do you figure the only MMP’s under discussion are in CDD’s 5-13? Are the MMP’s in the other districts not important? I started this thread and never mentioned it was only discussing certain districts? The thread is about how reflectors and light bars wouldn’t be necessary if people didn’t have tinted windshields on their golf carts. As far as the districts being fully independent, believe what you wish.
You started this thread with the question, "What's all the to do about the need for better night vision for golf carts." The "to do" was a discussion at the PWAC and in CDD5 regarding the installation of RPM's on the MMPs. Since the PWAC can only affect CDDs 5-13 I figured the only MMPs under discussion are in CDDs 5-13.

"Truly independent" and "fully independent" will come down to the precise definition of those terms, how much concern the Developer has over areas he has left, and how much influence he can exert over the care and feeding of the infrastructure in those CDDs. I attend some of these meetings and I don't recall ever hearing the words, "the Developer wants....."