non-operational traffic light

[roadfro]

I think that's why roundabouts work so amazingly well once the locals get used to them.  None of that annoying stopping when there is no need to.

That's not how my town uses roundabouts.  Where I live, the city has installed a few roundabouts in residential neighborhoods as a means of slowing down traffic.  The intersection is governed by a 4-way stop so one must stop before navigating the roundabout.

Even "mini-roundabouts" used for traffic calming in neighborhoods should be yield control. That's MUTCD standard.

If I'm not mistaken, the on and off ramps at the I-80/CA-89 interchange in Truckee utilize roundabouts and in this case, only YIELD signs are posted so traffic exiting and entering I-80 can do so without stopping if traffic is light.

You are not mistaken.

[hm insulators]

^^ Those are likely "traffic calming islands" instead of roundabouts. They serve to slow traffic down instead of providing an operational benefit. I know Madison, Wisconsin uses traffic calming islands extensively in their residential areas... and they drive me nuts!

These "driver angering devices", er, uh, "traffic calming islands" are showing up more and more in Phoenix neighborhoods. There's a relatively new one just a few blocks from my apartment.

[formulanone]

Roundabouts = Poor man's ess-bends. I usually welcome them.

[myosh_tino]

Even "mini-roundabouts" used for traffic calming in neighborhoods should be yield control. That's MUTCD standard.

Which version.  If you're talking the 2009 version, then it's a moot point for now since California has not adopted the 2009 MUTCD.  I'm looking right now to see what the 2010 California MUTCD says about roundabouts.Hmmm.... the two figures for roundabouts in the 2010 California MUTCD show Yield signs.  There is no mention of stop signs at all.

Anyways, here's one of the intersections that uses a traffic-calming mini-roundabout with stop signs...
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cupertino,+ca&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.001301,62.578125&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cupertino,+Santa+Clara,+California&ll=37.324398,-122.019644&spn=0.000869,0.000955&t=h&z=20

[realjd]

So at one of those goofy mini roundabouts controlled by stop signs - who has priority? Is it first there / yield to the right like at a normal 4-way stop, or is it yield to the left like at a normal yield-controlled roundabout?

[agentsteel53]

So at one of those goofy mini roundabouts controlled by stop signs - who has priority? Is it first there / yield to the right like at a normal 4-way stop, or is it yield to the left like at a normal yield-controlled roundabout?

my guess would be to yield to those already within the circle.

I've never believed in the rule of "yield to those to the right when two cars arrive simultaneously", because the word "simultaneously" implies you didn't measure accurately enough.  there's always someone who arrives first.  generally, I try to "lose" at 4-way stops just to avoid that sort of conflict, timing my arrival to be clearly later than someone else and expecting them to go first.

[D-Dey65]

I thought this thread was going to be about traffic signals that are non-operational because they're decomissioned. I know of some at an intersection in Mount Vernon, New York that I took some pictures of back in April 2011.

[roadman65]

I have not seen any since I left New Jersey over 20 years ago.  The MUCTD is  currentlycracking down on places that turn off signals completely when they are not needed or obsolete.   I am suprised that there are still some left.  I do know that in Sandy Hook, NJ at the old Fort Hancock guard house there is one, but it is used not for normal traffic control.  If there is a guard on duty, it would be red for motorists to STOP and the gate monitor would change the light to green when cleared.  The yellow, I do not know what it would be needed for, although at one time I did see it flash back in the 90's during the Summer beach season.  This would be exempt from MUTCD guidelines anyway, but it is still there as I saw it not to long ago.

[flowmotion]

If an intersection has a completely non-functioning signal, it is treated as an uncontrolled intersection.

what kind of shit law is that?  other states seem to be more sensible in that they revert a non-functional signal into a four-way stop.  The words "uncontrolled intersection" are just asking for a horrific wreck and, by extension, a delicious lawsuit.

I live right near a 6-way intersection, and once when the stoplights went out it turned into Mogadishu. Nobody cares about your quaint notions of laws when they are living beyond the thunderdome

[PurdueBill]

I live right near a 6-way intersection, and once when the stoplights went out it turned into Mogadishu. Nobody cares about your quaint notions of laws when they are living beyond the thunderdome

Costanza!!!

What is it with people who arrive at an intersection with dark signals and think that they can blow through and everyone else will yield to them?  They seriously can't figure out that someone coming the other way might be thinking the same?

[kphoger]

What is it with people who arrive at an intersection with dark signals and think that they can blow through and everyone else will yield to them?  They seriously can't figure out that someone coming the other way might be thinking the same?

Perhaps it's because everyone else will yield to them.  When everyone is at a standstill, and no one knows exactly what to do, of course there's going to be one guy who just goes for it anyway.

It's like rolling up to a four-way stop where there are three other drivers already stopped, trying to figure out who goes first.  What do you do?  Wait until they figure it out with head nods and finger waves, and let all three go through?  I don't.  I just go.  Screw it.   

[sp_redelectric]

This is why at all Portland roundabouts and traffic circles, stop signs are used.

You mean, at the ONE true traffic circle (the "Joan of Arc" circle on 39th Avenue and Glisan Street)?

All of the other Portland "roundabouts" are nothing more than a big concrete planter placed in what was previous an intersection, with only stop signs on one street.  Outside of Portland, I see yield signs (mostly Washington County, but also in downtown Vancouver).

[sp_redelectric]

When I lived in Kalispell, MT we had a power outage and all the lights went dark.

I tried to treat a particular, busy intersection in the heart of downtown as a 4-way stop.  Nearly got rear-ended.  When I finally went, nearly got hit by another car.

I e-mailed the local police department.  The Chief of Police replied and said "We didn't have any wrecks so we are happy with how motorists treated the situation."

Why there is a police department in that town, I am not quite sure why.

[PurdueBill]

Perhaps it's because everyone else will yield to them.  When everyone is at a standstill, and no one knows exactly what to do, of course there's going to be one guy who just goes for it anyway.

It's like rolling up to a four-way stop where there are three other drivers already stopped, trying to figure out who goes first.  What do you do?  Wait until they figure it out with head nods and finger waves, and let all three go through?  I don't.  I just go.  Screw it.   

I guess what I am thinking is whether it occurs to them that maybe someone else will come another direction and not see them?  Seems pretty risky, but I guess they are willing to take the risk.

Back in March when I was in San Diego, on a Saturday morning there was some problem with many of the downtown traffic signals and they seemed relatively prompt in getting stop signs on barricades set out, with police at intersections involving trolleys.  Early in the morning before the signs were in place, traffic did seem to be treating the dark signals as stop signs, but of course this was Saturday morning.  If it were a Monday morning traffic situation, who knows what would have happened.

[1995hoo]

During the widespread power outages here in the DC area last week after the big storm on June 29, the police had blocked off portions of certain intersections to force traffic to make right turns or the like. At some others they'd put up portable stop signs. I can think of one "dark intersection" where I slowed slightly on approach and then blew threw it when I saw that (a) the road intersecting from my left had barriers set up to force traffic to turn right, (b) nobody was coming from that direction anyway, and (c) I already knew that nobody would be coming from the right because that direction is a military base entrance that isn't open on Sundays. I think in that sort of situation it's reasonable to blow through without stopping.

But as a general matter, the people who disturb me are the ones who don't slow at all. I agree with the general principle "kphoger" cites about how if the other drivers can't seem to figure out whose turn it is, you take charge and go yourself. But I think only a fool would not at least be prepared to come to a complete stop at a "dark intersection." Put differently, who wants to have his car wrecked? Even if it's my turn to go, I'm not going to drive out in front of an Escalade bearing down on me at 50 mph. It's like the principle I've always thought applies to riding a bike on the road and having the "right" to expect drivers to yield to you: What good is being "right" if you're "dead right"?

[vtk]

ODOT has recently started installing signals with reflective yellow borders around them.  This is a good thing, because otherwise, a non-energized signal would be completely invisible at night.

[PurdueBill]

ODOT has recently started installing signals with reflective yellow borders around them.  This is a good thing, because otherwise, a non-energized signal would be completely invisible at night.

Not all the approaches get the reflective borders though.  The replacement on OH 18 from Fairlawn to Medina last year involved reflective borders on the signals on 18 but not the cross streets, and even some on 18 did not get borders (who knows why).  With the new all-black housings, the new signals are virtually invisible if dark without the reflective frame.  What I don't know is if maybe the new signals have battery backup. 

I know that the city of Fairlawn upgraded signals in the city at several key busy intersections to LED from incandescent a couple years ago and installed battery backup for the signals to run in a blackout.  (Several other intersections still run incandescents, though--without backup so they are simply dark in an outage, but these are the lower-volume intersections with less risk of crazy maneuvers.  One nice thing about the non-upgraded intersections is that they kept their incandescent worded pedestrian signals; the upgraded corners got new symbolic walk signals.)

On the section of 18 mentioned above, no cross streets (except OH 94, I think) got frames around the new signals because 18 runs east-west and suffers more from sun glare.  The invisible-in-outage issue was probably never high on ODOT's list of issues though.

It makes me wonder, why not a surface that looks black but reflects white (like in the old "stealth" nighttime speed limit signs) that borders the circular sections of the signals, so at least in an outage at night the signal would reflect as three circles?  For somewhere not requiring backplates for sun glare (and the extra wind load of the backplates), the reflective surface could signal the presence of the traffic light.  When the lights are operational, the bright signal circles would probably drown out most of the visible reflection of the outlines of the circles.

[Central Avenue]

ODOT has recently started installing signals with reflective yellow borders around them.  This is a good thing, because otherwise, a non-energized signal would be completely invisible at night.

Indeed. I actually ended up blowing through a dark signal a few nights ago because I couldn't see it until I was right under it.

Thankfully, it was for a parking lot, not a cross street, and there was no traffic because all the businesses were closed...

[empirestate]

New York, for it's part, does not have a "4-way stop" law, for the simple reason that many signalized intersections don't have four approaches. It simply has a "stop" law, which means that a dark signal equals a STOP sign and that standard right-of-way applies, but it only pertains to intersections, so it would be legal to blow through a dark signal at, say, a pedestrian crossing. The law also covers signals that are malfunctioning in a manner other than just being dark, so that crazy super-fast cycling in the Ohio video upthread would presumably apply there as well.

As for my own concern of being rear-ended when I stop for a dark signal, fully expecting to be the only driver to do so, I just put on my hazard flashers. Dark signals are hard to see if there's a full power outage, and I've been caught off guard even in neighborhoods I'm familiar with by some of them. Blackouts are disorienting!

[1995hoo]

....

As for my own concern of being rear-ended when I stop for a dark signal, fully expecting to be the only driver to do so, I just put on my hazard flashers. Dark signals are hard to see if there's a full power outage, and I've been caught off guard even in neighborhoods I'm familiar with by some of them. Blackouts are disorienting!

That sounds like an excellent idea and I might start doing it too. Thanks for the tip. I already do that if I'm on the highway and I find I have to slow suddenly, say because of congestion or debris in the road (example: big piece of tire tread in the road and I can't change lanes to avoid it so I slow down to work my way around it), and I want to draw extra attention to the fact that I'm slowing abruptly.