Uncontrolled intersections

[Brian556]

In some newer residential developments in Denton Tx, all intersections are uncontrolled. I think this is incredibly unsafe and should be illegal.

Are any other cities doing this?

[Alps]

MUTCD allows it for suburban neighborhoods with low speeds and volumes. My old neighborhood in Livingston has them. It's not unsafe by any means due to the 15- mph speeds and the fact that everyone knows where the cross streets are.

[Duke87]

It isn't really a big deal. For years, there was no stop sign at the end of my block. A few years back, the city put one in, and... nobody stops there. The way out of the neighborhood is a right turn and not too many cars come from the left. So, the standard procedure is exactly what it was before there was a sign: glance left as you're coming to the end of the street, see that there's no one else coming, make right turn. Honestly... I find myself having to stop to let someone coming the other way go by about once every couple months.  The stop sign is pointless.

They taught us in driver's ed that if you come to the end of a street and there's no sign, you should treat it as a yield. Seems to work just fine that way in all-around low-volume situations like this. All traffic from the side street needs to slow down to make their turn, anyway.

Of course, this is a T intersection. If we're talking about a four-way intersection with no control, that is unsafe, since now you have a pair of conflicting movements for which neither needs to slow down - through traffic on both streets will see no sign and expect to be able to harmlessly blow right through the intersection without having to look out for anyone else, which has the potential to be disastrous.

[roadfro]

If we're talking about a four-way intersection with no control, that is unsafe, since now you have a pair of conflicting movements for which neither needs to slow down - through traffic on both streets will see no sign and expect to be able to harmlessly blow right through the intersection without having to look out for anyone else, which has the potential to be disastrous.

Is it really unsafe though?  Technically speaking, an uncontrolled 4-way intersection should be treated as an all-way yield. So no driver should expect to "harmlessly blow right through without looking".

Although I do agree with the sentiment that there really isn't a good place for uncontrolled intersections outside of residential subdivisions...

[dislocatedkid]

For whatever reason, they are everywhere here in Hibbing, MN, and I absolutely LOATH them. It's expected of the driver to know that the Avenues have the right of way and the Streets must stop. Super dangerous being that I've known quite a few people who have been in accidents at these intersections. Just post a stop sign somewhere.

[froggie]

In most Upper Midwest and Deep South towns I'm familliar with, this is standard procedure.  As roadfro noted, they're treated as an all-way yield.

[jjakucyk]

When the intersecting streets are of roughly equal volume/priority, then doing an uncontrolled intersection can be quite effective and safe.  In fact, even busy intersections can benefit from this because everyone is forced to slow down and analyze the situation rather than just blindly relying on signals or assumptions about who has the right-of-way.  It would not be appropriate where you have a 4-way intersection between a major arterial and a side street or collector, since those on the arterial will just bludgeon their way through most of the time.  Still, it's an interesting sort of "keep it simple, stupid" situation for low volume residential streets and busy urban intersections that have a lot of mixed modes.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcz-Y8lqOg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU&feature=related

[deathtopumpkins]

The 3-way intersection for my street is uncontrolled, but 95% of traffic turns there, as the other direction is little more than a cul-de-sac, and despite the absurdly high number of cars who stop anyway, there's really no need to. I've found quite a few residential streets that don't need stop signs, or even yields, which are surprisingly common in my neighborhood.

[Kacie Jane]

Pretty common around Puget Sound.  Here in Bellingham, there do seem to be stop signs on every intersection (typically right of way will alternate, i.e. if you're driving down a residential street, you'll have a stop sign every other block), but in Seattle and Tacoma, probably about 90% of residential intersections are uncontrolled.

(By the way, at least here - and I think in most/all places, but I could be wrong - it's not an "all-way yield".  You yield to traffic on the right.  That is, if you come to an intersection, and you see a car coming in from the right, you stop/yield.  But if you see a car coming from the left, they should yield to you.)

[corco]

When my family first moved to Boise all the intersections in the North End were uncontrolled- my Dad actually got t-boned in 1997, but it wasn't his fault. Folks who knew how to drive in them did fine, others were dangerous. A friend of mine's parents who lived in another neighborhood actually refused to drive on the uncontrolled roads, detouring (sometimes pretty significantly) to roads with controls. In 2001 or so they added stop signs and it really slowed travel times for those used to it- if they had to put controls up a yield sign would have been more appropriate.

When I was in Tacoma at University of Puget Sound I was surrounded by uncontrolled intersections- same sort of deal there. I had a buddy who just cruised at 30 MPH through those suckers (in an F-250, which frankly was pretty impressive. I drove a 15-passenger Chevy Express for the university during those years, often dropping folks off on those side streets, and had trouble getting going too fast because the van was often wider than the travel lane without creative maneuvering), which seemed really dangerous, but the vast majority slowed and looked both ways at every intersection. Frankly, 90% of drivers wouldn't go more than 15 through those things anyway- the roads were too narrow, and at that point it's just like an uncontrolled parking lot.

[Brian556]

Ok-
Most areas of Denton have stop signs at all intersections, but these few nieghborhoods don't. How is a driver entering one of these supposed to know it's uncontrolled? There are street name blades on 2 corners at exactly the place a stop sign would be located, so a driver entering the intersection from the other 2 approaches would assume that there is a stop sign on the post. Also, because the majority of the city has controlled interesctions, drivers are used to assuming that they have the right of way if they don't see a stop sign.

I think that they are incredibly unsafe and should be banned.

[corco]

The issue would be that it costs a ton of money to put up "yield" signs at every corner (which is also aesthetically ugly- giant retroreflective signs don't really contribute to the historic feel of old neighborhoods), and the majority of traffic in the area lives in the area and should be familiar with the way those roads work. I can see merit to putting up a sign at the entrance to an uncontrolled area that says "end traffic controls" or something to that effect, but the speed in uncontrolled areas generally isn't much more than that of a parking lot, and parking lots often don't have traffic controls.

The traffic is so low in those areas- if you drove around for an hour I bet you'd only bump into a situation where a collision would be possible once or twice.  That said, if the majority of traffic is able to and is moving at more than about 20 MPH, then sure, traffic controls should be in place, but two cars going 15 aren't going to run into each other unless somebody isn't paying attention, which folks should be doing anyway in neighborhoods.

[roadfro]

(By the way, at least here - and I think in most/all places, but I could be wrong - it's not an "all-way yield".  You yield to traffic on the right.  That is, if you come to an intersection, and you see a car coming in from the right, you stop/yield.  But if you see a car coming from the left, they should yield to you.)

What I meant by "all-way yield" is that, in the absence of traffic control devices that specifically define the right-of-way rules for the location, a driver should interpret the intersection operation as if it had yield signs on all approaches. A driver approaching the intersection should stop/yield for vehicles already in/at the intersection (or if two drivers approach simultaneously, the ROW rules of stop signs would apply).

---

I'm actually a bit surprised at the negativity towards uncontrolled intersections. Sure, these are not a good idea on arterials or collector roads. But in a low-volume or residential setting, it seems to me to make a good deal of sense and is more practical than erecting a bunch of signs--which in this type of setting would likely be ignored anyway. Put controls in at problem locations, let the rest be uncontrolled.

There is actually some merit in reducing the amount of signs on our roads. Britain has experimented with this concept on a bigger scale than just uncontrolled intersections...removing all signs and pavement markings on particular streets in an effort to improve safety.

[vdeane]

The problem is that many whiny homeowners often band together to get the state to put unnecessary stop signs on their road because they don't want people to "drive too fast".  So many neighborhoods do this that people aren't used to the idea that a stop sign is supposed to mean that there's a legitimate reason you need to stop, not that there's a cross street.

[J N Winkler]

What I meant by "all-way yield" is that, in the absence of traffic control devices that specifically define the right-of-way rules for the location, a driver should interpret the intersection operation as if it had yield signs on all approaches. A driver approaching the intersection should stop/yield for vehicles already in/at the intersection (or if two drivers approach simultaneously, the ROW rules of stop signs would apply).

The UVC rule is that the vehicle coming from the right has priority, but in practice, defensive driving calls for uncontrolled intersections to be treated much as you describe.

*  Too few drivers know this rule for any one driver to count on it being consistently observed by another vehicle approaching the same uncontrolled intersection on a conflicting path.

*  Not all US states have adopted the UVC, and many drivers come from places where priorities are not assigned at uncontrolled intersections (Britain, for example, has no priority rule).

*  The low-volume intersections that tend to be uncontrolled tend also to have restricted sightlines which make it unsafe to proceed at even 20 MPH without any diminution of speed.

The only uncontrolled intersection near my house which I go through regularly at full speed is a tee intersection where my usual route lies across the top of the tee.  Sightlines are good and I know that, unlike me, anyone who comes up the stem of the tee will be slowing down and checking traffic before he or she makes a turn in one direction or the other.  I don't at the moment remember, however, whether the UVC (as implemented in Kansas) assigns priority to the right at tee intersections.  The pragmatic approach for tee intersections would be to take priority away from the traffic which has to slow down for a turn (i.e., traffic coming up the stem of the tee, or preparing to turn down it) and give it to traffic going straight across along the crossbar.

Another cardinal tenet of defensive driving is that whenever anyone wants to take priority away from you, you let him or her have it.

I'm actually a bit surprised at the negativity towards uncontrolled intersections. Sure, these are not a good idea on arterials or collector roads. But in a low-volume or residential setting, it seems to me to make a good deal of sense and is more practical than erecting a bunch of signs--which in this type of setting would likely be ignored anyway. Put controls in at problem locations, let the rest be uncontrolled.

I am not surprised at the negativity, though I don't agree with the absolutist views some have expressed.  Uncontrolled intersections are a real problem even for low-volume roads and the lack of formal assignment of priority (other than through obscure provisions in the law which most drivers are not familiar with) results in certain features of the street design, such as the presence of runoff slabs in the intersection apron, taking on unwarranted meaning.  (On subdivision roads in Wichita, for example, it is not uncommon for drivers to assume that the street whose camber continues through the intersection has priority, whether or not this is actually the case in legal terms.)  But, again as already noted, the presence of priority signs (even yield signs) or traffic calming circles inside subdivisions creates other problems.

The uncontrolled-intersections problem is the main reason I think it is prudent to design road layouts within subdivisions which maximize the proportion of tee intersections without creating too much of a maze for unfamiliar drivers.

[Brian556]

If a nieghborhood has uncontrolled intersections, a warning sign should be required at the entrance that warns of this.

The excuse that signs are "ugly" is rediculous. Accidents are far worse. People who comlain about signs in their nieghborhoods are self centered stuck-up snooty jerks. Around here, there are several places that don't have "NO OUTLET" signs where they need to be because some a**hole complained that they don't want a sign in front of their house. I don't think the city ashould give in to these people. They own the right of way several feet into the yard and have the legal right to post a sign there. It's pretty rediculous that the government violates americans basic rights and freedoms every day, but when it comes to this they will let a homeowner whom is in the wrong boss them around.

[Kacie Jane]

I don't know, I think there's a lot of unnecessary "ugliness" in that post.

Corco is right that it's not particularly aesthetically pleasing to have yield/stop signs at every intersection.  But that's not the reason the signs aren't there, and I'm fairly certain that's not what he meant to imply.  Sure, I suppose that it's a benefit to the homeowners -- "Yay, my street's pretty" -- but in probably 99.9% of the cases, no one in the neighborhood has ever complained that the signs are ugly just to be a "stuck-up snooty jerk".  (It's far more likely, as someone pointed out, that a neighborhood will get a stop sign because homeowners complain that cars are going too fast.)

The reason that there aren't stop/yield signs in these neighborhoods is the same reason there aren't speed limit signs, pavement markings, etc.  It's a balance of cost vs. necessity.  Signs cost money, and there's no reason to put them there if no one's going to follow them.  (Which they won't.  Like I said, around here, uncontrolled intersections are more rare, and I'd estimate between 70-90% of the time, people will do a rolling stop.)  And you can't enforce them, because that would be far more money.  And accidents are not far worse in this situation, because we're talking about places where cars are going 15-25 mph.  If you can't stop/swerve to avoid the other car going at that speed, then you're not paying attention and deserve the minor fender-bender you get into.

Ok-
Most areas of Denton have stop signs at all intersections, but these few nieghborhoods don't. How is a driver entering one of these supposed to know it's uncontrolled? There are street name blades on 2 corners at exactly the place a stop sign would be located, so a driver entering the intersection from the other 2 approaches would assume that there is a stop sign on the post. Also, because the majority of the city has controlled interesctions, drivers are used to assuming that they have the right of way if they don't see a stop sign.

I think that they are incredibly unsafe and should be banned.

(Emphasis added.)

You know what they say about assuming...  don't.  As a driver, it's your responsibility to be aware of the situation.  At 15-25 mph, you should be able to tell whether or not that post has a stop sign on it.  And at 15-25 mph, in a residential area, you should be able to hit the brakes when a car (or a bicycle, or a child, or a dog, or a soccer ball, etc.) darts into the road in front of you, whether or not it had the right of way.

*  The low-volume intersections that tend to be uncontrolled tend also to have restricted sightlines which make it unsafe to proceed at even 20 MPH without any diminution of speed.

This.

To sum up, there's no need to ban uncontrolled intersections because they're only used in situations where it's safe to do so.  If someone's driving 35 mph down a residential street with the radio blasting and paying more attention to their friends in the back seat than the road around them, then they're being unsafe to begin with, and the DOT hasn't made it any more unsafe by not wasting money on an unnecessary stop sign.  Their job is to make the roads safe, not to protect people from their own stupidity.

[froggie]

Well said.  +1 Kacie

[agentsteel53]

the only part of that assessment I disagree with is the whole idea of "priority to the right".  I was never formally taught that in driver's ed, and to this day the only reason I know it is due to meticulous study of European driving laws, which the average American driver has likely zero familiarity with.

I do believe (and I see this belief reiterated all the time in uncontrolled parking lots, at shopping malls mainly) that traffic traveling straight through an uncontrolled intersection believes it has right-of-way over traffic making a turn - even a right turn.

I know enough to go slowly enough through such uncontrolled intersections to be able to brake and/or swerve my way out of such a misunderstanding, but it is still inconvenient to be operating at triple-vigilance just because I need to account for every possibility of behavior out of my fellow driver.

in conclusion: uncontrolled intersections are a pain in the ass.

[Mergingtraffic]

ok, so how do you know you're in an uncontrolled 4-way intersection?  Think about it, if you are driving down a street and you come to a 4-way intersection and there is no STOP or YIELD sign on your street, you keep on going.  I don't look down the side streets looking for their STOP or YIELD signs, I'm paying attention to the street I am on.  Are there warning signs ahead of the uncontrolled intersection stating one is up ahead?

[NE2]

You know, that's a good question. In a congested area you should always pay attention to other streets, not just the one you're on (as well as sidewalks and other areas), and be prepared to stop, but if you're on a higher-speed arterial how are you to know (in time to stop if necessary) whether each intersection is controlled?

[roadfro]

My gut reaction says that if you're driving on a higher-speed arterial, there aren't going to be any uncontrolled intersections, as a traffic engineer wouldn't let that happen because it would produce an unsafe situation.

That being said, there isn't any universally accepted or MUTCD standard sign that indicates an upcoming uncontrolled intersection (or area of no traffic controls). Outside of a low-volume residential area, I would never really expect to find an uncontrolled intersection, so I've never really noticed any sign like that.

[vdeane]

Generally on a high speed arterial the higher class road takes priority and the other road has to yield.  Even with two roads of the same class, one is usually "better" than the other.

[Scott5114]

That being said, there isn't any universally accepted or MUTCD standard sign that indicates an upcoming uncontrolled intersection (or area of no traffic controls). Outside of a low-volume residential area, I would never really expect to find an uncontrolled intersection, so I've never really noticed any sign like that.

There is W18-1, which is a diamond that reads "NO TRAFFIC SIGNS", but the MUTCD prescribes that it may only be used on unpaved low volume roads  It probably wouldn't adequately emphasize the "no controlled intersections"  point anyway.

[Kacie Jane]

(By the way, at least here - and I think in most/all places, but I could be wrong - it's not an "all-way yield".  You yield to traffic on the right.  That is, if you come to an intersection, and you see a car coming in from the right, you stop/yield.  But if you see a car coming from the left, they should yield to you.)

What I meant by "all-way yield" is that, in the absence of traffic control devices that specifically define the right-of-way rules for the location, a driver should interpret the intersection operation as if it had yield signs on all approaches. A driver approaching the intersection should stop/yield for vehicles already in/at the intersection (or if two drivers approach simultaneously, the ROW rules of stop signs would apply).

Going back up the thread a bit because there's something I want to rephrase/explain.  I think we were both right here.  Technically, there are rules that govern right of way in uncontrolled intersections.  But uncontrolled intersections are as far as I know only used in residential neighborhoods (a point that's being missed here).  And in residential areas, you need to be driving defensively anyway, so it does end up being treated as an all-yield.

It goes back to another thread here a couple weeks ago (that I can't find now because I think it was a tangent) about unmarked crosswalks.  If you're in a residential area, then regardless of whether or not an intersecting street has a stop sign, a pedestrian crossing in front of you at that intersection has the right of way (because there's a crosswalk there, marked or unmarked, controlled intersection or uncontrolled).

When you're driving through these neighborhoods, you need to be driving at a speed where you can have your head on a swivel, paying attention not just to cars turning in front of you, but more importantly, to pedestrians, bicycles, small children, etc.

You know, that's a good question. In a congested area you should always pay attention to other streets, not just the one you're on (as well as sidewalks and other areas), and be prepared to stop, but if you're on a higher-speed arterial how are you to know (in time to stop if necessary) whether each intersection is controlled?

My gut reaction says that if you're driving on a higher-speed arterial, there aren't going to be any uncontrolled intersections, as a traffic engineer wouldn't let that happen because it would produce an unsafe situation.

Exactly.

To rephrase what I said at the end of my last post, uncontrolled intersections should be banned when it comes to arterials.  I've just been assuming they already are.

NE2 does make a good point in his second sentence there though, same point I was trying to make, but probably more clearly and concisely. "In a congested area you should always pay attention to other streets, not just the one you're on (as well as sidewalks and other areas), and be prepared to stop."