Yield to vs. Stop for pedestrians in crosswalk

[bzakharin]

So apparently this NJ change is pretty old (see http://www.nj.gov/oag/hts/pedestrian.html), but what is the point in changing the signs from yield to stop for pedestrians? I mean, it hardly carries the same meaning as the difference between a regular yield sign and stop sign. Are they saying the old signs simply meant "don't hit a person in the crosswalk"? I don't think you need a sign, or a crosswalk for that matter, to follow that rule. So they must have meant "if someone is crossing or waiting to cross and you would get in the way, stop and let them cross". So do the new signs mean you have to stop (or stay stopped) for a pedestrian even if you are no longer in the way or never were in the first place (such as when the pedestrian moved on to the next lane)? That doesn't seem reasonable either. So what's the difference?

[briantroutman]

I don't think there's any appreciable difference between "YIELD TO"  and "STOP FOR"  in the context of pedestrians in a crosswalk.

Think about what a yield sign means in terms of a road intersection. It basically says: "allow others to use the right of way, reducing your speed as necessary–even coming to a full stop if required" .  That same intersection marked with a stop sign means "you must come to a full stop regardless of whether cross traffic is present or not" . Obviously the law doesn't force you to stop at vacant crosswalks.

So "yield" is much more appropriate. I could speculate that since yield is meaningless to most motorists, the decision was made to use wording that sounded stronger.

[mrsman]

My impression is that anywhere that would put in those supplemental signs indicates crosswalks that do get significant number of crossings and that drivers should be on the lookout for peds.  I definitely give more caution when I see those yellow flags in the median than I do at a typical unsignalized marked crosswalk.

[vdeane]

Those signs also have the nice effect of making a mid-block crosswalk more visible.  I prefer yield rather than stop though; stop gives the impression that one should stop if there's a pedestrian anywhere in the crosswalk, even if there would be no conflict to proceeding (ex: only just started walking on other side of road when you're practically on top of the crosswalk, already passed your lane, etc.).

[jeffandnicole]

I think the difference lies in how much room you have to give a pedestrian.  With 'Stop for', you have to stop if the pedestrian is within 1 lane of your lane (ie: if crossing a 2 lane road, you must stop if the ped is in the road.  If you're in the far right lane of a 4 lane roadway, you must stop if the ped is in your lane or the lane next to you).  'Yield To' simply means if the pedestrian is within your lane.

I know...it doesn't seem to make much sense, but that's the best I could figure out.  If I see a pedestrian, I tend to slow down far back anyway so I don't have to come to a stop if I don't need to.

[1995hoo]

I know Virginia's MUTCD supplement prohibits the "Stop for" sign because state law requires drivers to yield to pedestrians, not to stop for them. I understand it to work somewhat differently from what jeffandnicole states–the way I understand it is that you don't have to stop if your continued movement won't interfere with the pedestrian's right-of-way, but insofar as I know Virginia has no hard-and-fast rule about where you draw the line on that. I wouldn't want to have to be the person trying to argue either side of a failure-to-yield ticket, though I've never heard of anyone being ticketed for it either.

Compare to, say, California, where from what I've seen on Stanley Roberts's program the rule appears to be that if a pedestrian has set even one foot in the crosswalk, you must stop, even though you're four lanes away. (I'm sure the rule is more complicated than that.)

[vdeane]

Yield is usually used in NY but stop appears in many places, particularly private businesses.

[Revive 755]

Illinois became a "Stop for" state back in 2010.

I believe Michigan leaves it up to the locals on which version is used.

[Mohkfry]

I'm honestly not sure what Indiana has adopted. I've yet to see a "stop/yield to pedestrians in crosswalk" sign on any public roadway in the Northwest district. The only signs I know of are at the South Lake Mall in Merrilville, IN, which is private property.

Florida is a stop for state, at least in district 5 anyway. "stop for peds" signs are everywhere down here on both state and county highways.

Edit: I was wrong, FL is a stop for state. I was more than likely thinking of somewhere else.

[jemacedo9]

Compare to, say, California, where from what I've seen on Stanley Roberts's program the rule appears to be that if a pedestrian has set even one foot in the crosswalk, you must stop, even though you're four lanes away. (I'm sure the rule is more complicated than that.)

This exact thing happened to me here in Rochester NY - I got pulled over for not stopping for a pedestrian in a crosswalk who was in the far opposite parking lane, and I was in the far right driving lane of a 4-lane street, so, more than 3 driving lanes away.  I ended up with just a warning.  It was a mid-block crosswalk with a normal diamond sign, but not the in-street sign.

[empirestate]

Compare to, say, California, where from what I've seen on Stanley Roberts's program the rule appears to be that if a pedestrian has set even one foot in the crosswalk, you must stop, even though you're four lanes away. (I'm sure the rule is more complicated than that.)

This exact thing happened to me here in Rochester NY - I got pulled over for not stopping for a pedestrian in a crosswalk who was in the far opposite parking lane, and I was in the far right driving lane of a 4-lane street, so, more than 3 driving lanes away.  I ended up with just a warning.  It was a mid-block crosswalk with a normal diamond sign, but not the in-street sign.

Isn't NY a "your half of the road" state? Or am I thinking of PA?

[jakeroot]

Washington State's MUTCD revision does not permit the "YIELD TO..." signs. All the equivalent signs all have the stop sign on them, in place of the yield sign:

Delete signs R1-5, R1-5a, R1-6, and R1-9 from MUTCD Figure 2B-2...

When the breakaway bollards first started showing up (the kind that are placed in the center of the roadway), I seem to remember some of them saying "YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS", but they were replaced with "STOP FOR PEDESTRIANS" once Washington's MUTCD supplement came out in support of the "STOP" versions (also, in support of the law, which indicates that one must stop for pedestrians, not merely just yield the right of way (despite the two being, in effect, the same).

[spooky]

Massachusetts is a "yield to" state, but many towns ignore that state law and put up "stop for" signs.

[Pete from Boston]

Massachusetts is a "yield to" state, but many towns ignore that state law and put up "stop for" signs.

This makes me curious how the 10-foot rule is applied to the "stop for" signs.  In Massachusetts, one may ignore a pedestrian in the opposite side of the road if that pedestrian is more than 10 feet from one's car.

[AlexandriaVA]

In Italy (Rome specifically), I noticed that drivers would slow down for you but never actually stop - you simply had to start crossing the street and trust that the oncoming cars would slow down enough to let you go and then keep on going. In Germany, cars would come to a complete stop.

I don't trust American drivers nearly as much due to more distractions in the car (i.e. eating and drinking, and the legalized use of cell phones), so I won't go until I see the car at or very close to a complete stop.

[Rothman]

(i.e.  and the legalized use of cell phones)

Say what?

[bzakharin]

(i.e.  and the legalized use of cell phones)

Say what?

I assume he means hands free. But the only country where that's illegal is Japan.

[1995hoo]

(i.e.  and the legalized use of cell phones)

Say what?

I assume he means hands free. But the only country where that's illegal is Japan.

I assumed he meant just the opposite, that in the US it's generally not illegal to use a handheld phone.

[spooky]

(i.e.  and the legalized use of cell phones)

Say what?

I assume he means hands free. But the only country where that's illegal is Japan.

I assumed he meant just the opposite, that in the US it's generally not illegal to use a handheld phone.

This was my assumption as well.

[Pete from Boston]

It's legal to hold a phone while driving in Massachusetts only when using it for an actual call, but I don't know how common it is nationally.  It's illegal in most nearby states, and probably will be here soon as well.

I step into moving traffic only really cautiously, but it's almost necessary in places to instigate a slowdown, even in very marked crosswalks. 

[1995hoo]

....  It's illegal in most nearby states, and probably will be here soon as well.

....

I doubt it'll matter. It's illegal in DC and Maryland and both jurisdictions' laws are widely ignored. The real benefit of that law is that if you're in a wreck and the other person was illegally using a phone, the fact that said use is banned may be persuasive evidence of the standard of care in a negligence case. But if you're a pedestrian, that may be small comfort.

[AlexandriaVA]

My point was that using a cell phone, hands-free or not, legal or illegal, makes you a more distracted driver than if you weren't. I don't think anyone can deny that.

And to preemptively answer people's inevitable counter points, yes, I believe that talking, radio, food, children, etc are all also distractions to driving. Ideally, people will minimize as many of those distractions as possible while operating heavy and fast machinery, as F=M*A

[Sam]

Isn't NY a "your half of the road" state? Or am I thinking of PA?

We were until a few years ago. Now we're an "anywhere in the crosswalk" state. Judging by what I see day to day, I'd say the pedestrians know this, but the drivers don't


(I think Ontario requires a complete stop if someone on the sidewalk appears to be thinking about stepping toward the crosswalk.)

[UCFKnights]

My point was that using a cell phone, hands-free or not, legal or illegal, makes you a more distracted driver than if you weren't. I don't think anyone can deny that.

And to preemptively answer people's inevitable counter points, yes, I believe that talking, radio, food, children, etc are all also distractions to driving. Ideally, people will minimize as many of those distractions as possible while operating heavy and fast machinery, as F=M*A

Of course, thats not even necessarily true. When I use an app designed to help drive, like Waze, it alerts me to hazards on the road, can tell me what every lane does and exactly where I need to turn so I don't need to pay attention to the street sign names, I can focus much more on the roadway and thus the pedestrians at the intersection instead of the often difficult to find or read blade sign.

[froggie]

Of course, thats not even necessarily true. When I use an app designed to help drive, like Waze, it alerts me to hazards on the road, can tell me what every lane does and exactly where I need to turn so I don't need to pay attention to the street sign names, I can focus much more on the roadway and thus the pedestrians at the intersection instead of the often difficult to find or read blade sign.

However, you're still distracted, as your eyes are still coming off the road to look at your Waze app.  So Alexandria's point is still valid.