Because it has the power to do so, the federal government frequently writes detailed rules and requirements for states, counties and cities to follow, often backing up those rules with the threat of withholding federal money from those who do not comply. What the federal government almost never does is provide new money to go with new requirements. Nor does it often back off once a rule is in the works. This week, it did the latter, proposing to abandon a rule that would have forced many cities to put up new street signs. It’s a sensible decision.

In the name of safety — a new type of sign is supposed to be easier to read at night — but at the cost of untold millions of dollars, the federal government had required that many street signs be replaced with a new, more-reflective sign by 2018. Allowing governments to replace signs as needed, rather than all at once, will parcel out the expense and, more importantly, avoid spending money needlessly. Of course, some fret that failing to install all-new signs will compromise safety, the theory being that better signs will mean fewer distracted drivers having accidents while trying to see signs. Beyond the reality that very few serious accidents are caused by street sign reading, the safety benefits of the sign law ignore a couple of much more obvious ways to improve safety. If distraction is an issue, how about banning billboards, especially lighted and animated billboards, which pose a serious threat of distraction? Or, if we really want safety on the roads, how about reducing speed limits? The force involved in a collision increase with speed, as does the likelihood of driver error. In other words, there are many potential ways to make driving safer, the installation of millions of dollars worth of slightly improved signs being one of the less useful options.

This week’s rare display of wisdom from federal rule-makers was a welcome one, and one we can only hope will be repeated.