Stop sign for sidewalk

[roadfro]

Folks, good news! I made a mistake, and this specific example is available on Google Maps. My memory had me 2 miles away.

I hope this link works:
https://goo.gl/maps/6pbvUBm1LJU2

Street View is not available.

Geez, all that pomp and circumstance for a trail that peters out after crossing the street... Virtually nobody is going to cross there.

[jakeroot]

And then you come across the people that come to a complete stop at a yield sign for no reason at all. Only reason to stop at a yield sign would be if there is traffic coming, if not you don't come to a complete stop.

Probably once a week, I see someone come to a complete stop at an uncontrolled intersection.  No stop sign, no yield sign, no nothin'.  Then, probably once a month, I see someone come to a complete stop at an intersection where the cross street has stop signs.   

The former, I can understand in tight one-lane urban areas like this (one of literally hundreds of uncontrolled intersections in Seattle), but the latter ... that's just inattentive (although when you get used to slowing down at every intersection, I can see how the mistake can happen, especially in areas where horizontal visibility is poor, like in my example).

[Flint1979]

And then you come across the people that come to a complete stop at a yield sign for no reason at all. Only reason to stop at a yield sign would be if there is traffic coming, if not you don't come to a complete stop.

Probably once a week, I see someone come to a complete stop at an uncontrolled intersection.  No stop sign, no yield sign, no nothin'.  Then, probably once a month, I see someone come to a complete stop at an intersection where the cross street has stop signs.   

The former, I can understand in tight one-lane urban areas like this (one of literally hundreds of uncontrolled intersections in Seattle), but the latter ... that's just inattentive (although when you get used to slowing down at every intersection, I can see how the mistake can happen, especially in areas where the stop signs are not obvious).

We have intersections like that here too. I can see yielding at the intersection for an uncontrolled intersection like that but if you don't have to stop you shouldn't come to a complete stop either. You're never going to know if someone is flying down the street that you are crossing and with the way people in Michigan drive that isn't uncommon to happen.

[1995hoo]

And then you come across the people that come to a complete stop at a yield sign for no reason at all. Only reason to stop at a yield sign would be if there is traffic coming, if not you don't come to a complete stop.

I can understand stopping, or coming almost to a complete stop, at a yield sign if you feel like you're having trouble seeing the other road to determine whether it's clear; examples of that sort of situation might be the sun in your eyes or construction equipment in the way or some such. Stopping in those situations is just the sensible thing to do. But yeah, some people overdo it.

[mapman1071]

On the Arizona Canal (Sun Circle) Trail (Ped, Bicycles & Horses) at the 25th Avenue Crossing/Crosswalk  (approx 1/4 mile north of Dunlap Avenue) in Phoenix, AZ there are stop signs on the trail. The speed limit on 25th Avenue is 35 and the street has 5 lanes (2 Bicycle, 2 Thru and a 2 Way Left Turn . But Soon 25th will be narrowed to 1 lane each direction with Valley Metro Light Rail Phase 2 NW Extension construction beginning in mid to late 2019 to be complete in 2021-2023. With the trains a Traffic Signal or a Underpass would be required for the trail crossing. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5714941,-112.1121376,86m/data=!3m1!1e3

[kphoger]

So, carrying this comparison to its natural next step...

Perhaps a cyclist should at every intersection dismount, move the bicycle to the roadside, cover it with a blue tarp, wave a red flag, and shout "WATCH OUT! CYCLIST!", then proceed only if traffic is clear within three blocks, walking (not riding) his bicycle across the intersection at a speed no greater than 2½ mph–all while wearing the proper attire, including fully reflective jacket and trousers, helmet-mounted spotlight, bicycle-mounted headlight and taillight, all while blowing a whistle.

Then...
maybe...
just maybe...
we can make a dent in the brutish behavior exhibited by these insects of the roadway.

Or, alternatively, we could all admit that a reasonable approach to an intersection by a cyclist is not necessariliy the same as a reasonable approach by a motorist.  And that coming to a complete stop actually puts a cyclist at greater risk than not stopping (especially when clipped in or carrying a heavy load or cycling with companions or on a hill or on soft gravel or you get the idea).  And that there's not actually a problem needing correction to begin with.

[/snark]
[/rant]

[Rothman]

Better.

[kalvado]

Better.

Actuallty found the original one. Much worse than I expected, it is clearly a deliberate fake news one.
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2019/01/12/injuryprev-2018-043025
All observed effects are within the error margin. Lowering speed limit did not demonstrably affect traffic flow. Average speed and 85% were not affected at all, fluctuations in distribution are responsible for the rest of "results"
Next, please.

[kalvado]

Better.

Oh, and if you need these to craft DOTs response to those speed reduction requests from Malta or CP, I can write a better analysis with more professional terminology. Will be happy to help showing those folks a big middle finger.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

All observed effects are within the error margin. Lowering speed limit did not demonstrably affect traffic flow. Average speed and 85% were not affected at all, fluctuations in distribution are responsible for the rest of "results"
Next, please.

A lower deviation in speeds from the mean is a definite operational safety improvement, even if the mean speed remained the same. Injury severity and fatality rates of struck pedestrians increase dramatically in the 30—50 mph range, so keeping as many vehicles out of that range as possible is definitely desirable.

The speed limit reduction was associated with a 0.3 % reduction in mean speeds (p=0.065), and reductions of 2.9%, 8.5% and 29.3 % in the odds of vehicles exceeding 25 mph, 30 mph and 35 mph, respectively. All these reductions were statistically significant.

[kalvado]

All observed effects are within the error margin. Lowering speed limit did not demonstrably affect traffic flow. Average speed and 85% were not affected at all, fluctuations in distribution are responsible for the rest of "results"
Next, please.

A lower deviation in speeds from the mean is a definite operational safety improvement, even if the mean speed remained the same. Injury severity and fatality rates of struck pedestrians increase dramatically in the 30—50 mph range, so keeping as many vehicles out of that range as possible is definitely desirable.

The speed limit reduction was associated with a 0.3 % reduction in mean speeds (p=0.065), and reductions of 2.9%, 8.5% and 29.3 % in the odds of vehicles exceeding 25 mph, 30 mph and 35 mph, respectively. All these reductions were statistically significant.

All these reductions were statistically significant. <- Bullshit
Pretty obvious from Providence data.

[kphoger]

unwarranted stop signs be replaced has a roughly   -1%   chance of being considered.

FTFY with appropriate spacing.   

[jakeroot]

unwarranted stop signs be replaced has a roughly   -1%   chance of being considered.

FTFY with appropriate spacing.   

no i'm retarded and put in a hyphen. I meant +1% (though the annoyed engineers who received the request may install a few extra stop signs for fun, making it negative!)

[kphoger]

unwarranted stop signs be replaced has a roughly   -1%   chance of being considered.

FTFY with appropriate spacing.   

no i'm retarded and put in a hyphen. I meant +1% (though the annoyed engineers who received the request may install a few extra stop signs for fun, making it negative!)

You're unduly optimistic.

[jakeroot]

You're unduly optimistic.

I usually am.

I'm not trying to say that right-angle yields are bad. Just that, I hardly ever see them used by city/state/county engineers. Baloo's request that unwarranted stop signs be replaced has a roughly-1% chance of being considered.

I have seen new right-angle yields, but mostly in suburban developments, like in Olympia, WA: http://bit.ly/2CSNfkr

Neither do I. I am just thinking about different engineering approaches to signing and associated limitations.
My impression is that for right angle yield to actually work, you need at least 30-40 feet of visibility across the corner - OR drivers who know the deal and take yield sign as a "rolling stop" (unsigned intersection + common courtesy may work). None of your two examples provides enough visibility IMHO, and actually I don't understand the logic why those particular spots got yield, while similar spots nearby got either stop or no signs at all.

Those examples (except the last one) are all pretty old. I don't exactly how they ended up installing yield signs at those locations. Maybe the engineers were foreign? There's quite a few right-angle yields in Vancouver proper (as I mentioned), where there's also a ton of first- and second-gen English immigrants that very well could have brought their practices with them.

[kalvado]

Actuallty found the original one. Much worse than I expected, it is clearly a deliberate fake news one.
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2019/01/12/injuryprev-2018-043025
All observed effects are within the error margin. Lowering speed limit did not demonstrably affect traffic flow. Average speed and 85% were not affected at all, fluctuations in distribution are responsible for the rest of "results"
Next, please.

I'm not able to read anything more than the abstract on account of being paywalled.

If anyone has access, I am curious to know:
- The methods used to measure speed (particularly if it is average speed or spot speed)
- Whether they account for possible differences in the levels of enforcement before and after the speed limit drop, or between the study area and the control area.

There is nothing fancy in the measurement approach. Not accounting for anything beyond most basic things.
Here is their main table:

My main concern is that they see variations of similar type and magnitude both at Boston site and Providence site. There is no explanation of why Providence got any change at all - so I assume those are day-to-day variations.
But they do attribute same variations (aka measurement error margin) in Boston to speed limit change - and claim those are statistically significant. WHich is IMHO dishonest at best.
If you want original text, PM me..

Going to straight yield for cars may be a bit more hazard as yield doesn't imply single digit MPH.

It doesn't have to. When you as a driver see a yield sign, you are supposed to slow down as much as necessary to ensure the coast is clear before proceeding, and you are expected as a competent driver to be able to judge how much that is. If you have a situation where vehicles can safely proceed after having slowed down to 5 mph but no faster, that should be a yield sign. Even if the speed limit approaching the sign is 55. A stop sign should not be used unless an ordinary driver in ordinary conditions cannot determine if the coast is clear at any speed greater than 0 mph.

I see what you say, but I am a bit more cautious. You put a lot of faith into driver's common sense and vehicle braking capabilities, I suspect such approach would increase problems with drivers not familiar with the area.
  I would say that for many drivers yield sign means they can maintain relatively high speed and there is enough time to stop if needed. It is not about what MUTCD or state law says, this is about sign perception by drivers - IMHO it is a priority sign.
If anything, a sign which explicitly assumes a very low speed approach is missing from the sign pallet. Stop sign plays that role, at least over here, for lack of a better candidate.