Yield to whom???

[bcroadguy]

This is kind of related. It's an all-way stop with slip lanes, but the slip lanes have their own stop signs instead of yield signs. I'm positive you're supposed to treat the slip lanes as independent of the main intersection, but I still think it's a very confusing setup.

The plaques underneath the main stop signs used to say "4-way" but now they say "all-way." I think the old wording was slightly more clear.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.3520005,-123.2512008,3a,50.4y,39.93h,89.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spIllJ0oTyhO2Ie-_XZuO8w!2e0!5s20180501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

[deathtopumpkins]

The plaques underneath the main stop signs used to say "4-way" but now they say "all-way." I think the old wording was slightly more clear.

I know this is in Canada, not the US, but they may be following US standards.

The 2009 MUTCD (§2B.05) prohibits the use of "2-way", "4-way", etc. plaques. "ALL WAY" is allowed, as is "CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP". The logic is that providing a number forces you to count the approaches, and potentially have to guess whether everyone needs to yield at complicated intersections, whereas "ALL WAY" unambiguously tells you that all movements must stop.

[hotdogPi]

The 2009 MUTCD (§2B.05) prohibits the use of "2-way", "4-way", etc. plaques. "ALL WAY" is allowed, as is "CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP". The logic is that providing a number forces you to count the approaches, and potentially have to guess whether everyone needs to yield at complicated intersections, whereas "ALL WAY" unambiguously tells you that all movements must stop.

What about "3-way" where three directions need to stop but one does not?

[kphoger]

all other conflicting movements are Stop sign controlled

This is the root of your misunderstanding.

No, the intersection 90 feet to the southeast of you has all four movements controlled by stop signs.

At your intersection, none of the other two movements is controlled by a stop sign.

Perhaps this will be easier to comprehend if we pretend the slip lane were moved farther away from the intersection.  The intersection below is functionally equivalent to what presently exists, except that the slip lane is more clearly not a part of the main intersection.



Surely you wouldn't say there's nobody for the slip lane traffic to yield to.  Well, the only difference between that image and reality is the number of feet between slip lane and four-way intersection.

[hotdogPi]

Except that he says that the law in Illinois works differently.

[kphoger]

Stoplights in IL that have the right turn slip lane are controlled by the same stoplight

Except where they're not, of course.

You should be pretty familiar with this slip lane at a stoplight-controlled intersection, for example, that isn't.
You're probably also familiar with this one nearby.
And, of course, everyone's favorite stop sign-controlled intersection near there whose slip lane is not governed by the stop sign.

As I said up-thread, these are rare in Illinois, which is why it's easy to understand thinking the situation doesn't exist there.  But the fact is that they do exist in Illinois.

Except that he says that the law in Illinois works differently.

Saying the law works differently is not the same thing as the law actually working differently.  I've provided counter-examples to his assertion.

[jakeroot]

I don't get the discussion around Illinois having different laws. They have unusual practices in signalizing a ton of their right-turn slip lanes, but that doesn't mean those slip lanes are literally part of the main intersection where you turn left or go straight; they are simply timed as part of the main, central signal. If they decided to remove the signals and install yield signs (which they do very rarely, I understand), those yield signs would not be part of the main intersection (as in every other state), and anyone approaching from the left would have the ROW.

Now, for practical purposes, signalized right turns may as well be part of the main intersection, because drivers turning right with a green light would have priority over other approaching vehicles (including those vehicles turning left with a yield signal). But a slip lane with a yield sign totally changes things.

If you note this intersection in Richmond, BC, note how the oncoming Mustang is starting his turn behind the white Mazda6. Even though the camera car is approaching in the slip lane, the slip lane's yield sign requires those drivers to yield to everyone, including that oncoming Mustang who now has priority. The main four-way intersection, whether it has a signal (as in this case) or a stop sign, always has priority over any bypass ("slip") lane.

[Terry]

I don't see any problems with the yield sign as it is. The slip is to avoid having a 120 degree right hand turn. As well, since there's no free flow merge lane, then a traffic control sign is needed. Since the volume of traffic would be low, a stop sign is pointless, hence the yield sign. As well, I imagine that since tthat yield sign has been there for quite a while and has been noticed by several traffic and law officials there's nothing wrong with it.

I did have a quick look at the Illinois drivers guide and didn't see anything about these type of intersections.

[deathtopumpkins]

What about "3-way" where three directions need to stop but one does not?

06 Supplemental plaques with legends such as 2-WAY, 3-WAY, 4-WAY, or other numbers of ways shall not be used with STOP signs.

...

08 Plaques with the appropriate alternative messages of TRAFFIC FROM LEFT (RIGHT) DOES NOT STOP (W4-4aP) or ONCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W4-4bP) should be used at intersections where STOP signs control all but one approach to the intersection, unless the only non-stopped approach is from a one-way street.