That said I think stop signs is a terrible solution to this issue.
It's pretty sad to see people having to wait for a gap to sprint across a road, and little wonder that the situation perpetuates people driving everywhere - it's the safest and fastest way to even cross a street.
There is a main road in France I often take, in the south Paris (RN 20), that goes through a small town. There are traffic lights that are only there for the pedestrians. When there's no one there, they'll be green for cars. When there are pedestrians waiting, they can push a button that'll switch the lights.
Instead of the repurposed stop sign, this has the advantage that cars can flow through without stopping at all when there are no pedestrians, which is basically always. I've only ever stopped there a handful of times.
I used to live off of a busy roundabout in a place that makes heavy heavy use of roundabouts (almost no four-way stops). It felt dangerous as fuck honestly. The crosswalks are a little "downstream" of the true circle, where cars have already begun to exit. Frequently (saw this a few times myself) a car would stop for a pedestrian and then get rear-ended by another car focused on exiting the roundabout.
This was not the US so unfamiliarity with roundabouts can't be blamed. They were the norm there.
Just as with yield signs you should be able to stop in time when needed.
I mean, yes, they are driving too fast. Given that drivers do drive too fast, it's a bad place for a crosswalk.
Alternating two way stops (n/s at intersection one, e/w at intersection two) seems like maybe an ok way to reduce the problem by half at little to no cost?
See the city of Nantes in France (roundabout’s paradise), navigating the intersections is horrible. In a few parts of town they even have double mini roundabouts. The only reasonable explanation I found is “security by confusion” : if you have no idea how to drive through the intersection, you’re more likely to slow down. Well it doesn’t make the intersection really safer.
Basically they recommend 28m diameter if you are going to have a central island, otherwise it should be a mini-roundabout (capable of being driven over)
True for stop signs... and any other traffic control solution in existence, frankly. Yielded merges are the most obvious form of specifically unbroken traffic flow that requires the same.
> They are also designed to reduce the amount of time any given vehicle has to actually stop if there is no reason to.
So it works like a yield. That's a good thing because it reduces congestion.
> This varies based on left/right side driving countries.
There are much bigger issues resulting from switching between left- and right-side driving standards which don't have anything to do with roundabouts, so this doesn't say anything about roundabouts so much as the difference in standards.
> Lights for pedestrians might help, but then the benefit of continual traffic flow is reduced.
Comes with the territory, and is also true of every other traffic control solution in existence. The complete solution to this is to completely separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic, which is also not limited to roundabouts.
It sounds like you don't have a problem with roundabouts so much as traffic control per se, if you believe these to be reasons not to implement roundabouts.
> True for stop signs...
Not really. Stop signs make you stop first, before needing to look around, after which you continue. There's no "direction of travel" when you've stopped; you're not traveling when you've stopped. Meaning you can focus on one thing at a time, unlike with a roundabout.
I'm pretty sure "the only factor that determines intersection safety is division of attention" was not a stance I was taking (when is an event ever a function of just 1 variable in the real world?), but if you'd prefer to take a swipe at me regardless, it would be nice if you could make your response constructive and actually link to some studies that show I said something contrary to reality, if you're well-studied in traffic flow.
Hopefully my reply clarified for you what my earlier point was, even if you think the point was wrong.
"Well-studied", no, I would not claim that. I follow the zeitgeist of urban planners as they discuss topics like this on the fora in which they congregate. I read some of the studies they post and discuss, and I have picked up on some of the memes present in that community. Something that comes up again and again and again and again (and which is immediately apparent upon reading the research) is the primacy of roundabouts for intersections, because they are the safest of the popular options and less prone to congestion than stop signs, stop lights, etc. Even when they do get congested, the outcomes are better for everyone on average, since everyone waits a similar amount of time compared to the asymmetry of e.g. intersections with stoplights. One common pitfall in thinking about these things is only thinking about individual wait times in a subjective sense, and not aggregate wait times in a systemic sense. The latter perspective provides much clarity.
Here, I did your Googling for you. Where do I send the invoice?
I now live in NZ where mostly we have Yield/Give Way signs if anything, and pedestrians have no rights (also the neighbourhood speed limit is higher 30mph vs 25) - I'd love for us to have 4 way stops everywhere and slower speed limits everywhere
Plenty of stop signs here though, but it kinda depends on where you're driving though. They're rather rare in cities now, either replaced by lights or roundabouts.
And honestly, NZ road rules at a "4 way stop" confuse the crap of everyone, as they violate the general assumption of "just give way to your right".
(E.g., I'm at a 4 way stop, I'm going straight, the person to my right has the right of way... ...if he's going straight. If he's turning, then I have right of way. Far more complex.)
But there's still lots of them in the country still :)
Yes NZ has occasional pedestrian crossings, but not at the one place we most need them (roundabouts) - what we don;t have are ubiquitous ones (at every intersection)
If you’re talking about at least California, that isn’t how those work, and please never stop at one unless it’s occupied. Those of us who read the book are expecting you to proceed through an empty crosswalk because we know the flashing yellow lights are legally advisory and often keep going long after the crosswalk is empty. Some even flash permanently. Every time you stop for an empty, flashing crosswalk, you’re risking a collision that you’ll probably get away with, but that will really be your fault deep down.
This is quite simple: if a pedestrian is threatening to cross or actually crossing, whether the crosswalk is painted, flashing, not flashing because they didn’t push the button, or even merely implied by an unpainted intersection (another overlooked reason to read the book, given my pedestrian experience!), you yield. Otherwise keep moving. It’s that easy.
I absolutely can't stand beg buttons for pedestrians. Nothing indicates more to pedestrian that they are second class road users than having to push a button to ask permission for the gods of traffics to be able to cross. When driving, I always make it a point to slow down for flashing yellow signs; any small thing I can do to make the streets feel less dangerous for pedestrians. Same as crossing right on red, I'll never do it, out of principle, it's so trashy, everybody who's walked anywhere has almost been killed by a driver turning in a little too cavalier.
> but that will really be your fault deep down
Not true, it is definitely most certainly the fault of the cars behind you. It's because of the driver behind you is too aggressive or careless, and not keeping proper distance. If they can't slow down for a car in front of them, they certainly can't either when there's a true emergency, like a dog or child sprinting across the street. There's a million reasons why the car in front of you may have to slow down or come to an emergency stop, and that's why you keep proper distance from cars in front of you.
> if a pedestrian is threatening
It's just a turn of phrase, I get it, but pedestrians can never threaten a driver. They get maimed or killed if they do. It's such an insidious mindset that somehow pedestrians and drivers have equal responsibilities, when the power to inflict harm is so enormously lopsided.
We also have at least one red light that is strictly for pedestrians that I find irritating every time it's triggered, since it requires a full stop cycle even if the person or persons using it cross quickly or not.
And no, being rear ended is not an automatic “they should have been further away,” including potentially in this circumstance. Full stop in a travel lane on an interstate and report back on your fault determination if you survive.
What is it about driving that makes threads personal? The person was totally wrong in a heavily-read forum is all, and that’s your cue to put me in my place for pointing it out or something?
>What is it about driving that makes threads personal?
How did I make this personal? By using the pronoun "you"? I was doing that in a general sense and not targeted, which I thought you were doing as well in your own post.
> [...] please never stop at one unless it’s occupied. Those of us who read the book [...]
You're surprised that interstates are a special case?
> What is it about driving that makes threads personal? The person was totally wrong in a heavily-read forum is all, and that’s your cue to put me in my place for pointing it out or something?
Yeah, you just wandered in and started telling people that they were Wrong, and that even if legally they were in the right they were still Wrong; I can't imagine why anyone would take issue.
Road guy rob is one of my favorite youtubers. He did an awesome video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHX8ezW2XGs
So do clear pavement markings and yellow flashers.
... outside of Berkeley.
The city decided that just about every uncontrolled intersection should have a stop sign, and for busy intersections, a 4-way stop. It happened that they put in the stop signs in the winter. We had a few weeks of entertainment watching out the front window as car after car was caught off-guard by the new stop sign. They'd try to panic stop at the last second and of course slide right into the intersection.
I'm still not sure who's got the right of way e.g. in US parking lots or unsigned back roads. The person going straight, I think? But that's not always clear depending on road topology. "Yield to the right" seems more well-defined, but maybe because I got used to it.
It took me a while to learn to automatically look for European yield signs. It was by far the highest effort to change between the two systems for me.
I don't like the default to yield to progress as it means one is looking for the absence of something most of the time.
Traffic calming is better done with mechanisms not signs.
Incorrect. There are explicit right of way rules for completely unsigned intersections. Yes, they do exist. My neighborhood hasn’t been fully polluted with stop signs yet, so about half our intersections are unsigned. The last crash in the neighborhood that I am aware of was about 10 years ago and was wholly unrelated to intersection control.
Much more interesting are one lane tunnels or bridges that have a yield sign on both sides. Effectively, people just do fist come first served, but if it's at the same time you have to negotiate who has the right of way.
I don't really recall these in New York, but I went for a search on Street View, and we seem to do the same thing here: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6700018,-73.9955353,3a,75y,4...
It seems like that if cross traffic doesn't stop, the stop sign doesn't have a marker. If it does, it gets a tag like "ALL WAY". No idea if this is standardized or an artifact of my sampling, or if it varies between states.
(I had to really rack my brain to find a 4 way stop in NYC. Ultimately the satellite view was helpful, they seem to not paint crosswalks if traffic doesn't stop. Seems dangerous! People are going to cross those streets. But I digress.)
[1] https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/pinalcentral.co...
*this was for an underage moped license
Like any good UI, it isn’t something I could immediately recall, but it is something I mostly unconsciously notice when driving. You can also look for signs, but it isn’t as trustworthy.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/560aa6c7ed915...
It's a constant thread amongst all conspiracy theorists: GW Bush BENEFITED from 9/11, therefore he must have had some hand in planning it. Tech monopolise BENEFITED from COVID, therefore it's a "plandemic". Fuel sellers BENEFIT from stop signs, therefore they coordinate putting more of them up.
The (logical) fallacy is in the word "must". Let's look at the statement again:
> if an aspect of a system benefits a group, that the group must have planned said system aspect
This is incorrect because sometimes groups benefit from things they haven't planned. If the statement were changed to "that there is a good chance the group planned said system aspect", it would no longer be a fallacy.
It's the same as the slippery slope fallacy. Slippery slopes are real things. Sometimes A does get out of hand and cause B. Saying that if A happens, B must happen is where it becomes a fallacy. Changing this to "If A happens, there's a good chance it will snowball and B will happen" also removes this fallacy.
That said, there is precedent for traffic laws being set by fuel consumption concerns and there was industry pushback against it that led to its repeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
The difference between Drive 55 and the stop signs is that Drive 55 was enacted by a single legislative act, and stop signs proliferate due to a combination of state code, municipal code, civil engineering practices and limited imagination. Traffic circles are currently proliferating just as easy, and reduce fuel consumption.
Stop signs’ utility in shutting up squeaky wheels or appeasing anti-car agitators are a simpler and more direct explanation.
I grew up in an older suburb that made judicious use of yield signs (give right-away to pedestrians AND vehicles). I remember being told as a kid to always give the right-of-way to cars and only cross when the intersection was clear - Smart advice from my parents, because cars had no issue zipping thru the intersection without slowing down while I stood at the corner waiting to cross.
As an example, in Germany, the speed limit on 2-lane highways is (from memory, it's been 5 years) 100 kph. But when you enter a town, which is designated by a specific sign that tells you the name of the town, the speed limit drops to 50 kph. There is no sign that says "speed limit is now 50 kph." It is implicit from the sign saying you are entering that town. Upon leaving the town, there will be a "speed restriction removed" sign. This doesn't mean there's no speed limit, it means the speed restriction has been removed and your speed limit is back to 100 kph.
Yield or "give way" signs make tons of sense. Think of a small two lane road that crosses a four-lane highway. The cars on the larger road have the right of way and cars entering or crossing must give way/yield to that traffic. There's generally no need for a stop sign, but we as Americans are used to it and see it as the only way to do things.
Much like your German example, it exists solely to tell you the speed limit has changed. Rather than put a number on a sign and be done with it, its an inexplicable white circle with a black line across it!
What is the "National Speed Limit" you ask? Again it depends on where you are, and even what you are driving. The only advantage I can think of is they don't need to replace these signs should the limits be changed...
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_national_speed_li...
And never mind the actual highways, where there's no speed limit unless posted. And trucks still can only go 80kph. So you have 2 lane Autobahn. Trucks at 80-99kph on the right lane. 90-200kph cars on the left lane. The trucks that go 80 will have a bunch of trucks that want to go 90 trying to pass them. Then add the ups and downs where even the 90kph truck that's passing will slow to 75. Even if you're only cruising at 150kph (actually a pretty nice cruising speed), if you come up on an "elephant race" as they call it behind a bend in the road it's not fun. This extends to 3 lane highways too. Just that now you actually have cars switching from the middle lane to the left lane, because one truck is passing another. So you have an 80kph truck on the right, 90kph truck on the middle lane and a 100kph car in the left lane and the 200kph Mercedes or BMW approaching from the rear.
In the US and Canada for example the speed limit is just the same. Everyone goes at 100kph in Canada, truck or no truck. While you have people speeding there as well obviously, everyone is sort of going at the same speed.
in NJ, everyone is going about the same speed, but way over the limit. people seem to be pretty good about staying out of the passing lane in light traffic.
in VA, everyone does seem to more or less go the speed limit.
in MD, it's utter chaos. you'll see a minivan going exactly the speed limit in the left lane, people passing it 10-20 mph over the limit, and wild people weaving in and out of exit lanes to pass everyone else at even higher speeds.
that's my experience anyway.
No its not my friend.
Because it is only telling you something that you should already know if you have passed your Theory Test.
Namely that the National Speed Limit is the default state.
Anyone who has passed the Theory Test will know what the NSL is based on the road they are on and the vehicle they are driving. Its not difficult, you've only got to be able to tell the pretty darn obvious difference between a built-up area, single carriageway, dual carriageway and motorway (and whether a central reservation is present or not).
Which is why you only (typically) find NSL signs:
- in locations where the context may normally dictate otherwise (e.g. presence of street lights)
- where temporary limits are changing back to NSL (e.g. after motorway roadworks)
As a counter example, a UK person visiting the US would have almost zero difficulty understanding any of the speed signage, as they all incorporate the actual speed limits. Similarly, there is zero expectation you have passed the theory element of a US drivers licence. The US has roads with different speed limits for different vehicles too and still manages to get clear signage with numbers.
Good signage can be clear regardless of any tests, virtually all other speed signage in the UK incorporates a number. Speaking from experience, even those who have sat a theory test can often not really understand that sign or forget its meaning. There's not even any guarantee a licenced UK citizen has ever sat a theory test, given those who gained a UK licence before the introduction of the theory test in 1996 have generally never been required to sit one. The pre 1996 "theory" element was some random questions from your tester during the practical.
I also know many UK peeps who learnt to drive before 1996 and never have I heard one of them bitch and moan about "how stupid the NSL sign is".
We all know the US is a bit of a nanny state and everyone is constantly covering their backsides to avoid getting sued, and that's probably why the US has explicit speed limit signs splattered at every opportunity. Because if the US had the NSL system, some smart-alec would have a crash and then open up a lawsuit because they were too dumb to figure out which of the four types of road they were on.
I'm sorry. I'll happily bitch and moan about other aspects of UK roads (e.g. not-so-smart motorways). But NSL ? Nah mate ... it makes sense and you know it. ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_European_road_si...
If it depends on what you’re driving they can’t put a single number on it. I would guess putting multiple numbers on wouldn’t be an improvement.
Most other classes aren’t listed.
Likely the German way is better as the real law everywhere is “do not drive faster than is safe for conditions” but that is a number that changes day to day.
I find driving in the US easier because of that. I just which there was roundabout instead of stop signs everywhere.
Understanding speeds, perhaps, but driving? There are many things that require context and state like the rightmost lane becoming an exit lane requiring action to continue straight ahead. You have left turns from right lanes in some states. There are different U-turn laws in adjacent states. Stop signs permitting right turns without stops in some states through tiny exception text.
there are some cases where there is an implied state/town speed limit, but other than that, all the information you need to drive safely/legally is on signage in front of you or a hundred feet back.
Well, actually, the opposite -- you have to understand the meaning of the symbol that is the sign.
In the US, you'll see a sign that's 9 lines of text that you're supposed to read & comprehend at 35 mph = 56 km/h.
Signs like what? The only signs I can think of that have a bunch of text are stuff like valid parking hours.
> Signs like what? The only signs I can think of that have a bunch of text are stuff like valid parking hours.
Like this one, except you have to read it at 65+ mph: https://3gz8cg829c.execute-api.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/prod/...
It's 3 signs totaling 10 lines:
LEFT LANE
HOV 2+
ONLY
6AM - 10AM
2PM - 7PM
MON-FRI
NO TRUCKS
VIOLATION
$250
FINEEven if you aren't able to read the entire sign, there are other clues that should alert you to the fact that you might not want to be in that lane.
And helpfully those words are much much larger.
I will note that signs like that don't exist in my area.
It's definitely distracting to have so much text, since you're still supposed to quickly read all of it, just in case it might say something other than what you expect. Not sure how that's supposed to work at 65+ mph.
Isn't that what reading is?
For example, the first time you see a sign in the UK denoting whether you or the oncoming lane has right of way through a narrow spot the meaning may not be totally obvious.
There'll be a sign that you're leaving the town (same as entering the town, just crossed out). The speed restriction removed part is implicit.
More exactly the "need to stop for ensuring safety" has come first, followed by the Stop sign itself, while in the US it looks like the Stop sign has come first, no matter the actual "neediness" related to traffic safety.
It seems they can’t assume drivers recognize a “no U-turn” sign, even though there’s a clear similarity with other signs (round with a red edge and a diagonal red line means forbidden, black arrows mean driving directions)
So, they write its meaning below it (https://www.alamy.com/beverly-hills-california-usa-8th-septe...).
Weirdly, they do assume their population and tourists can understand written English when passing such signs at speed in a car and even know what a ped xing is.
It may be a broader cultural thing, though. Their state flags also are full of text (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_U.S._states_and_t...)
I complained when I returned. Asked to be shown where that rule was present in the state's official driver's manual. It wasn't in there. I passed.
Sounds unwise - this is a fundamentally unsafe policy [1], and more people will die if it's implemented.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002243...
How are these different from other 'right turns on red' in the US ?
I find turning on red to be a pretty bad idea, because Americans rarely stop fully and look out for pedestrians. I think a majority of pedestrian accidents occurs on turn on reds/stops .
Right on red is indeed unsafe: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002243...
Rarely is being heavily abused in this statement. It's just not true. Otherwise pedestrian fatalities would be vastly higher than they are. Additionally, regional driving habits differ drastically. People in Colorado and California drive far more aggressively than they do in Iowa or even more densely populated areas on the east coast, where policing is far more rigorous.
The only reason there aren't more injuries to pedestrians is that there aren't very many to begin with and those that are on foot operate on the assumption that every driver is out to kill them.
A prime example of this is the "No U-Turn" signs all over the US. People make U-turns at these spots all the time. The sign is really just there to ensure that any accident resulting from said U-turn is always, no matter what, the turner's fault in a legal sense.
b) Is that supposed to be a rebuttal or something? I think "do whatever but strict liability if you F up" would be fine even for average and below average drivers. That's mostly how things already work in practice.
Other traffic calming measures do more to slow drivers down and improve safety while potentially making the entire drive faster, or at least more pleasant and efficient due to a steady speed.
I think we're starting to recognize that, but it's a lot easier to toss up another sign than to move a curb, and stop signs are seen as less of an "anti-car" measure.
They exist because of the usual bureaucratic CYA risk-avoidance. "We have to do something, this is something" and "If it saves just one life" and all that, even though the vast majority of stop signs never will. Or even the cumulative man-hours lost by stopping exceeds that one life.
Nearly every last squeaky wheel requesting a stop sign is wanting a solution to something much more complex. Even though an unwarranted stop sign can’t solve the problem, it’s the cheapest and fastest way to solve the problem, so it’s chosen.
Installing speed control devices is expensive. Installing a sign is cheap.
Not sure if Seattle is still like this or if it was confined to specific neighborhoods (I lived in Leschi until 2018).
Many other American cities with their much larger (new) suburban roads have cars driving at 30/40 mph in the neighborhood
There are hundreds of reasons why. But I'll just name the most obvious one that you've missed.
Traffic volume.
Multi-way stops just kill traffic throughput.
Its a hard fact. You make each vehicle stop.
Meanwhile roundabouts can safely and efficiently move staggering amounts of traffic. Want to move more traffic ? Add an extra lane or two.
P.S. As for the bicycle saftey...
Historically yes, but only to a degree, because I'd argue that if you can't manage to avoid hitting a bicycle on a roundabout then you probably should not be driving because you are most likely also committing lots of other dangerous driving offences elsewhere.
Going forward however, it should be stressed that a lot more attention is being paid to cyclist safety, both in terms of further re-enforcing driver awareness (i.e. more prominent in driver training and examination) but also in terms of vehicle design (especially HGVs) and roundabout design.
I could also argue that with a multi-way stop, perhaps especially at night or in inclement weather or where HGVs are at play, that your cyclist might not be immune to death or injury.
I don't find this to be accurate--at least in the US and in my limited experience in the UK. In computer terms, roundabouts don't guarantee progress under contention.
Roundabouts seem to work when there is semi-continuous, medium-level amounts of traffic. They are better than stop signs, better than unsensored signals, and probably comparable to sensored traffic signals (which are more expensive).
However, once the traffic becomes high, roundabouts are TERRIBLE. Stop signs and controlled intersections at least guarantee some progress while someone may sit at a roundabout entrance almost indefinitely since "give way to traffic on the roundabout" is the normal rule. This is particularly bad when you are entering a roundabout between the most popular inlet and the most popular outlet.
I think you need to spend a bit more time in the UK !
Take Hyde Park Corner for example. A bit of an extreme example as it is a super-busy roundabout. I will grant you that its not one where you will make smooth progress during peak rush-hour (outside of peak it works perfectly though).
There are also other good (and less extreme) examples along the secondary routes out of Heathrow (i.e. along Bath Road and Great West Road).
There's no way in hell you could replace any of the above with a US-style multi-way stop and achieve the same throughput of traffic.
Roundabouts work so well because you can have that magical combination of vehicles already established on the roundabout and also adding new vehicles all the time.
If you try to join via the wrong lane then you're in for a world of hell. ;-)
Correct - roundabouts reduce traffic fatalities in intersections quite signficantly.
>worse for bicycle safety (cars are driven closer to bikes)
I think this probably depends on design - if cyclists have a separated path with a raised crossing, then they are likely safer than intersections.
>use up more land,
Arguably true.
>increment gas consumption (almost stop and then go vs just go). The latter point could be debated because it's worse for the cars on the main road, better for the ones on the small ones.
Roundabouts generally replace signalled intersections, and compared to those, roundabouts are probably better (slow down/yield vs full speed/full stop).
I think the grandparent comment is also coming from the US, where all-way stop intersections are extremely common.
Reference: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/a-modern-amste...
For example, the road going up and down the slope would get priority signs and the road going across the slope would get yield signs. Actually, in this case they might leave it with stop signs, because the visibility is quite bad.
Unfortunately a grid system lends itself to 4-way stop signs because two roads at a right angle are equal. In a tree-shaped road system (like in much of the world) you have a main road and a side road. The side road gives way.
Two-way yields can work fine on grid patterns.
Like the boiling lobster in the pot, they are a huge problem in your life, but you don't know it because you've never experienced life without them.
Come to a country that doesn't have a single 4 way stop and instead has roundabouts (and people that know how to use them). I drive clear across town through 40+ intersections without stopping once. So does everyone else.
It's literally how I learned to drive in Europe. They have right of way signs, not stop signs. You stop and wait if someone else has the right of way.
Perhaps that depends on the context a little. My city has removed some lights in my neighborhood, in favor of 4-way stops, and traffic is much calmer. No more the gunning it to try to make it through the intersection when it's green or orange. It feels so much safer when on foot or biking.
Compared to what it was before, it's a real improvement.
The easy solution that's often chosen is to add a stop sign to these intersections, but this tends to result in largely-unnecessary stopping and starting, which then tends to increase the number of conflicts (because the traffic on the through street tends to congest at the new stop rather than passing quickly through it).
A better solution would address the nature of the risk -- speed -- more directly. Traffic calming techniques like narrowing the road, or deflection (manufactured bends in the road or speed humps) would improve outcomes for all road users more than a stop sign that creates congestion (and therefore conflict).
Bikes don't have blind spots while vehicles generally do
Get rid of the vast majority of stop signs, and you’ve eliminated a huge amount of the problem this law seeks to solve.
They are almost all 4 way stops, with regular traffic in all directions. If you made it an uncontrolled intersection, or added a yield sign, the road with the yield sign would never get a chance to go.
In fact, there are a number of places along my route to my daughters school where I take a slightly longer way to avoid the intersections without a 4 way stop because I would end up sitting forever trying to turn if I went to one of them.
That's because the roads, as they currently are, were designed for stop signs. Removing those stop signs is going to usually involve changing the roads a bit too.
> I have yet to see a single city where the vast majority of stop-sign-controlled intersections couldn’t have been better served with yield signs.
So I was giving an example of a city where that wasn’t the case. I never said all stop signs are necessary, I was only disputing the point that most stop signs in ALL cities aren’t necessary.
But cities like LA have grown so much that even if they had that at one point effectively every street is a parallel collector and so the traffic volumes are too high.
The “rolling stop” is just proof that most intersections could be unsigned, and then use stop and yield to alert to specifically dangerous ones.
If you rarely or never saw a stop sign, one appearing would be an awakening.
I know there's a push to replace stop lights and signs with traffic circles. But I haven't heard the same for residential stop signs. I've just read that they prefer to eliminate 4-ways stops because 3-ways are much safer..
There’s plenty of it. If you want to start from the pollution angle, consider the pollution caused by a stop/start rather than steady-speed cruise through the intersection. Enormous difference.
Many other countries get by with far fewer stop signs and have far fewer traffic fatalities. Not sure if there's a causative relationship there, but it doesn't seem to be hurting.
If you look at modern American suburban streets, you'll see this idea in action. Most intersections are 3-way vs the grid layout common in older areas.
Stop and immediately go is particularly a problem for less visible road users like pedestrians and cyclists.
It’s when there’s a huge speed differential and no signaling that it becomes a problem as traffic gets higher.
Eventually, but it hasn't happened yet!
someone from the state saw and freaked out, and lanes were painted. they were too narrow and not safe, but they had lanes!
That’s not a defense of civil engineering culture, which tends to farm lots of free money from unnecessary work with little value.
The stop signs everywhere are one example. Another I would cite is the end of my street, which was ADA compliant with a modern crosswalk, signals, etc. Unfortunately, the crosswalk lines and stop lines wore off, but the city DPW cannot just re-paint them… they need to spend ~$100k on a traffic study.
The biggest problem with driving in my opinion is that everyone is in a useless rush. Speeding, rolling through stop signs. Putting more wear on the vehicle, consuming more fuel, and adding more risk, all for the sake of getting home literally just a few minutes earlier. And once home what do most do? The same thing they were doing in the car: sitting on their ass.
Seems sensible to me.
Speed control devices should be used instead, such as using curbs to narrow the street at intersections to just one lane's width.
Damn right they should complain about speed. Cars at high speed are just plain dangerous, and should slow down.
Streets are so dangerous here for non-drivers. There needs to be much uch ore complaining AFAIC.
> such as using curbs to narrow the street at intersections to just one lane'
That'd be great!
It sure does! Look at all the harms caused by unwarranted stop signs in my original post. Removing the vast majority of stop signs removes those harms, and since they couldn’t have solved any problem in the first place, their removal causes no novel, long term harm.
I will never trust a vehicle no matter how much the law and signage is in my favor - I will see it stop before I move.
For example, here is a stop sign. Would we convert this to a roundabout as well?
Maybe the problem is we have too many intersections?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/610+Martha+St,+Euless,+TX+...
I certainly don't want a world where every residential street is a windy suburban-style affair that goes nowhere. That just entrenches car culture and makes it impossible to run efficient mass transit.
You can also have portions of the road that block cars but allow transit as necessary.
Cars should be discouraged and forced to go the long way around as it doesn’t harm them much, and gives an advantage to walking.
I’d just leave it unsigned entirely since it’s a three way, the incoming traffic has to slow down to make the turn anyway.
I think that one probably exists because people are going south and east (to the two main roads), so it's not clear that either direction should have priority. The junction looks more-or-less the same size as the crossroads to the north. (Which, incidentally, has no signs, just road markings to indicate which road has priority.)
For interest, move slightly south east to see the large roundabout between two main roads, then follow the A4540 north to see two more.
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4875739,-1.9213084,194m/data...
(Driving over one in a bus, lorry or other large vehicle that can't make a tight turn is allowed.)
Driving over a normal roundabout with curbs and landscaping is unheard of, there isn't a specific fine. The kerbs are usually tall enough that it risks damaging the vehicle. I think it would be considered fairly serious¹, as it shows either a serious lack of attention to the road, or a complete disregard for the rules.
¹ i.e. you get a fine and 3-6 penalty points on your driving licence, which increases your insurance cost. If you get 12 points you lose the licence and have to retake the driving test.
The main point of a stop sign is to control intersections that objectively need the stop to permit safe traffic flow.
We are instead seeing unwarranted stop signs proliferate like rabbits, justified by things they can’t do, like slow or calm traffic.
On top of that, we’re ignoring the problems _caused by_ unwarranted stop signs, including crashes that wouldn’t otherwise happen, increased noise, increased pollution (especially small particles in the stop sign’s vicinity), higher speeds that are induced after the stop sign (drivers make up for time lost at the stop), and the broader consequences of reducing credibility of traffic regulations overall (people aren’t stupid, and when they are conditioned to that stop signs are mostly pointless, the conditioning bleeds over to the whole regime of traffic regulations).
Stop engineering malpractice, ditch most stop signs, and problem solved!