Uncontrolled intersections

[NE2]

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.

school zones

[BigMattFromTexas]

I'm not fond of them, don't hate them, but they can be pestering.. Angelo has them in the old parts of town, well that's not completely true. There's I think 3-4 in my neighborhood. Which ISN'T in the older (worser) part of town.
BigMatt

[kphoger]

I live between two uncontrolled intersections.  So does the co-worker who sits right next to me at the office.  In her neighborhood, the city just recently installed two-way stop controls at those intersections.  Last night, two cars collided in one of those intersections, despite one of them facing a stop sign.  From the sound of it, she says, they must have both been going full speed.

I'm curious to know if y'all's opinions of uncontrolled intersections have changed since this thread was last active.

Heretofore, I've always been OK with uncontrolled intersections.  But, reading through these old posts, what has really struck me is that navigating an uncontrolled intersection requires a driver to look at the other street's signage–which seems to run contrary to the conventional wisdom of focus only on the traffic control that pertains to one's own street.  And also that correctly identifying the lack of signage on a cross-street takes a significantly longer amount of time and attentioin than identifying the lack of signage on one's own street.

[webny99]

As we've discussed in other threads, uncontrolled intersections are fairly rare in my part of the country, so I don't have a strong opinion on them either way.

However, a two-way stop, especially if it's a relatively busy intersection, and especially when it's newly installed, should definitely have accompanying Cross Traffic Does Not Stop signage. The only time I support omitting this signage from a two-way stop is when it's abundantly clear that the other road is much busier/more important. If that's not the case, it should have the aforementioned signage or either be uncontrolled (use caution) or a four-way stop (creating redundancy if one person fails to stop).

[Shedingtonian]

I don't think that uncontrolled intersections are all that harmful, so long as they're in areas with either low volumes of traffic (like undeveloped areas) or traffic going at low speeds (like suburban streets).

Though, by reading the replies to this thread, I've come to the conclusion that uncontrolled crossings in the US are completely unsigned, as in, there is nothing to warn you that the intersection is not controlled. Here in Spain we do have a sign for that. In the rare occasion where an intersection is uncontrolled, this sign is placed on all roads approaching the intersection:



Somebody here already explained how it works: you must yield to vehicles coming from your right. If there is no vehicle on your right, you go. If there are cars waiting in all directions of the intersection, whoever is turning right or going straight goes first, and then the default "priority to vehicles from the right" applies.

Keyword: VEHICLES. A cyclist counts as a vehicle, but if it's a pedestrian or equestrian, they yield to you.

[Flint1979]

There have been several uncontroled intersections in Saginaw for decades. I've never had a problem with them.

[kphoger]

However, a two-way stop, especially if it's a relatively busy intersection, and especially when it's newly installed, should definitely have accompanying Cross Traffic Does Not Stop signage. The only time I support omitting this signage from a two-way stop is when it's abundantly clear that the other road is much busier/more important. If that's not the case, it should have the aforementioned signage or either be uncontrolled (use caution) or a four-way stop (creating redundancy if one person fails to stop).

I vehemently disagree.  In fact, I'd say you have it flip-flopped.  A two-way stop should be the default, not something that warrants the addition of a plaque.  Only locations where there is a high incidents of crashes should receive the "two-way" plaque.

[webny99]

However, a two-way stop, especially if it's a relatively busy intersection, and especially when it's newly installed, should definitely have accompanying Cross Traffic Does Not Stop signage. The only time I support omitting this signage from a two-way stop is when it's abundantly clear that the other road is much busier/more important. If that's not the case, it should have the aforementioned signage or either be uncontrolled (use caution) or a four-way stop (creating redundancy if one person fails to stop).

I vehemently disagree.  In fact, I'd say you have it flip-flopped.  A two-way stop should be the default, not something that warrants the addition of a plaque.  Only locations where there is a high incidents of crashes should receive the "two-way" plaque.

How do you reconcile that with your original point about uncontrolled signage requiring you to look at the other street's signage? The same is also true of two-way stops. 

[kphoger]

How do you reconcile that with your original point about uncontrolled signage requiring you to look at the other street's signage? The same is also true of two-way stops. 

The absence of a plaque should indicate a two-way stop.  I dislike four-way stops without plaques.  But, be that as it may, their absence at a four-way intersection would only prompt more care, not less.

Approaching a stop sign with no plaque should not require me to hunt for cross-traffic's signage or lack thereof.  It should be simple:  two-way stops have no plaque, four-way stops do.

[J N Winkler]

I live between two uncontrolled intersections.  So does the co-worker who sits right next to me at the office.  In her neighborhood, the city just recently installed two-way stop controls at those intersections.  Last night, two cars collided in one of those intersections, despite one of them facing a stop sign.  From the sound of it, she says, they must have both been going full speed.

I'm curious to know if y'all's opinions of uncontrolled intersections have changed since this thread was last active.

Heretofore, I've always been OK with uncontrolled intersections.  But, reading through these old posts, what has really struck me is that navigating an uncontrolled intersection requires a driver to look at the other street's signage–which seems to run contrary to the conventional wisdom of focus only on the traffic control that pertains to one's own street.  And also that correctly identifying the lack of signage on a cross-street takes a significantly longer amount of time and attentioin than identifying the lack of signage on one's own street.

My opinion hasn't changed, but I do think the situation you describe emphasizes the importance of Steve's point about drivers having prior familiarity with the locations of uncontrolled intersections within subdivisions they visit frequently.

The stylized fact is that a decade or so after World War II, it became the norm to plat subdivisions with curved roads specifically to discourage speeding.  Mine was platted in bits and pieces from the early 1950's to the late 1970's, with some of the newer plats voiding older ones in part.  One key revision led to all but one north-south cross street terminating in tee intersections at 17th Street; previously at least one other had been planned to go straight through.  Partly as a result of this and other changes, there are just eight crossroads intersections wholly internal to the subdivision versus twelve tees; only two of these junctions have priority control, and both are crossroads with two-way yields.

In contradistinction, older subdivisions in Wichita tend to have grid layouts covering a substantial fraction if not the entirety of their areas.  The absence of natural constraints on speed thus tends sooner or later to lead to stop signs being used either to assign priority in a predictable pattern (e.g., north-south streets in much of Riverside) or simply to frustrate cut-through traffic (e.g., along Morris to prevent it being used as a shortcut to the segment of Lincoln that wraps around the convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph).

Edit:  I had forgotten that two of the 20 intersections in my subdivision do have yields.

[jakeroot]

Approaching a stop sign with no plaque should not require me to hunt for cross-traffic's signage or lack thereof.  It should be simple:  two-way stops have no plaque, four-way stops do.

Is this not the norm anyways? If I don't see an "All Way" plaque below the stop sign, I automatically assume traffic from my left and right have right-of-way. I would think this is true for most drivers as well, even those who are older. Just about the only thing that has changed in the last sixty years has been the move away from numeric plaques (aka, "4 way"). At least here in the US, as Canada still uses numeric plaques.

In contradistinction, older subdivisions in Wichita tend to have grid layouts covering a substantial fraction if not the entirety of their areas.  The absence of natural constraints on speed thus tends sooner or later to lead to stop signs being used either to assign priority in a predictable pattern (e.g., north-south streets in much of Riverside) or simply to frustrate cut-through traffic (e.g., along Morris to prevent it being used as a shortcut to the segment of Lincoln that wraps around the convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph).

Interesting, I've not noticed a trend towards one or the other in gridded vs curved neighborhoods. It seems to be mostly a local-level policy decision in Washington. Seattle and Tacoma both famously encourage uncontrolled intersections, with calming (circles, chicanes, diverters) as the preferred method for slowing traffic, despite both having a very gridded street network. On the other hand, Renton has much more in the way of curvy suburban neighborhoods but does [seem] to require control at all intersections with more than three approaches. And, generally speaking about all of Western Washington, unincorporated suburban estates generally don't have any markings or signage of any kind, even newer ones with gridded networks and alleys. At most, yield signs are used at the major intersections.

[kphoger]

I'm more familiar with the neighborhood to the northeast of where you live (between 15th and 18th, between 235 and McLean).  The interesting thing about that area is that the streets are laid out in a grid, but many intersections nonetheless lack stop control.  Take, for example, 17th & Gow or 18th & Sheridan.

Approaching a stop sign with no plaque should not require me to hunt for cross-traffic's signage or lack thereof.  It should be simple:  two-way stops have no plaque, four-way stops do.

Is this not the norm anyways? If I don't see an "All Way" plaque below the stop sign, I automatically assume traffic from my left and right have right-of-way. I would think this is true for most drivers as well, even those who are older.

Yes.  But I was responding to a suggestion that two-way stops should receive additional signage in order to set them apart from all-way stops.  I think that should be reserved for only the most crash-prone intersections–as is already the case.

I've not noticed a trend towards one or the other in gridded vs curved neighborhoods.

I wonder if it's merely coincidental:  perhaps the curvy neighborhoods were built up when one signage standard was popular, whereas the grid neighborhoods were built up with a different standard was popular.

[J N Winkler]

I'm more familiar with the neighborhood to the northeast of where you live (between 15th and 18th, between 235 and McLean).  The interesting thing about that area is that the streets are laid out in a grid, but many intersections nonetheless lack stop control.  Take, for example, 17th & Gow or 18th & Sheridan.

I know the broader area (bounded by West, 13th, McLean/Amidon, and 21st) well.  It includes the entirety of Northwest-Big River, Indian Hills-Riverbend, and a sliver of Benjamin Hills, and it began to be developed about 10 years before my own subdivision.

The hierarchy of internal roads in this area has two distinct steps.  St. Paul and Meridian both run north-south and have traffic lights at 13th; all streets that intersect them have stop signs.  15th Street runs east-west between West and McLean, and all streets that intersect it other than St. Paul and Meridian have stop signs.  High Street, which may represent a third step, runs north-south and all streets that intersect it have stop signs except for 15th and 19th (where it ends at a tee).  I think the other stop signs are designed to discourage rat-running by forcing traffic to stop after several blocks.  Examples include 17th and Westridge (favoring 17th), 18th and Kessler (favoring Kessler), 18th and Westridge (favoring 18th), 19th and Kessler (favoring 19th), 19th and Westridge (favoring Westridge), and 17th and Sheridan (favoring Sheridan).  I think this last-listed went up soon after the city paved a two-block segment of 17th between Sheridan and Custer, which had remained gravel decades after the rest of the street was paved.

My grandmother used to live in a house northeast of the intersection of 17th and Meridian but south of the river, which was the last large parcel of land to be developed within the West-13th-McLean/Amidon-21st rectangle; the entirety of it was still an open field in 1960.  Most of the streets in this tract are curved and all of the intersections internal to it are tees.  The shortest distance between our house and hers lies along 17th Street, but we hardly ever took it because of the four stop signs (High, Sheridan, St. Paul, and Meridian).

[Scott5114]

I don't think that uncontrolled intersections are all that harmful, so long as they're in areas with either low volumes of traffic (like undeveloped areas) or traffic going at low speeds (like suburban streets).

Though, by reading the replies to this thread, I've come to the conclusion that uncontrolled crossings in the US are completely unsigned, as in, there is nothing to warn you that the intersection is not controlled. Here in Spain we do have a sign for that. In the rare occasion where an intersection is uncontrolled, this sign is placed on all roads approaching the intersection:

I mean, if you're going to post signs at an intersection either way...why not just post yield signs instead of "uncontrolled intersection" signs?

[Shedingtonian]

I don't think that uncontrolled intersections are all that harmful, so long as they're in areas with either low volumes of traffic (like undeveloped areas) or traffic going at low speeds (like suburban streets).

Though, by reading the replies to this thread, I've come to the conclusion that uncontrolled crossings in the US are completely unsigned, as in, there is nothing to warn you that the intersection is not controlled. Here in Spain we do have a sign for that. In the rare occasion where an intersection is uncontrolled, this sign is placed on all roads approaching the intersection:

I mean, if you're going to post signs at an intersection either way...why not just post yield signs instead of "uncontrolled intersection" signs?

Yeah, that is what I realized while writing that post. Guess that's part of the reason why uncontrolled intersections are so rare!

[Dirt Roads]

I'm old enough to remember when almost all intersections outside of city/town limits were uncontrolled in West Virginia.  Most of those were still dirt roads, and everyone seemed to know which one was the "main road".  If you weren't on the main road, you were expected to stop at the intersection and look both ways.  The "main roads" got paved first, which made this easier to understand.  But by the end of the 1960s, many of the "back roads" were getting paved but those roads were one-lane wide so the concept was still fairly easy to understand.  But folks that weren't local started having major accidents at many of these intersections.  Times were tough back then, so I have no idea where the [then] State Road Commission got the money for all of those new stop signs.  It's hard to believe that we've gone around full circle on this topic.

[US 89]

Approaching a stop sign with no plaque should not require me to hunt for cross-traffic's signage or lack thereof.  It should be simple:  two-way stops have no plaque, four-way stops do.

Is this not the norm anyways? If I don't see an "All Way" plaque below the stop sign, I automatically assume traffic from my left and right have right-of-way. I would think this is true for most drivers as well, even those who are older. Just about the only thing that has changed in the last sixty years has been the move away from numeric plaques (aka, "4 way"). At least here in the US, as Canada still uses numeric plaques.

In my experience, all-way stops without supplemental plaques are very common. So much so that if I don't see a plaque and it is not abundantly clear that I am about to stop at a much more important road, the first thing I do is figure out whether approaching traffic is also facing a stop sign.

I would be in full support of mandating "all way" plaques at all-way stops, as the way one approaches an all-way stop is very different than how one approaches a 2-way.

[epzik8]

In shopping center and similar parking lots, I think the terminating roadway should at least have a yield sign, depending on traffic on the through roadway.

[CtrlAltDel]

I've long thought that 2-way stops and all-way stops should have something more distinguishing them than just the plaque, and so a while back, I came up with the following:

In the first, the cross street is wider, which would imply that cross traffic doesn't have a stop sign, while in the second, the two streets are the same width, which would imply that it's a four-way stop. And of course, all the other variations could be displayed in a similar way.

Another idea I just had is this, but it might be a bit too subtle:

[jakeroot]

I would be in full support of mandating "all way" plaques at all-way stops

This is the first I'm hearing that it's not required. I'm aware of only a handful that don't have all-way plaques.

[J N Winkler]

This is the first I'm hearing that it's not required. I'm aware of only a handful that don't have all-way plaques.

Use of them is far from universal.  I haven't looked up policy in either the federal MUTCD or California's interspersed supplement, but in that state in particular, I've noticed it is quite common for the all-way plaque to be omitted on at least one approach at many minor intersections (example), apparently as a head fake to discourage rolling stops.

[CtrlAltDel]

This is the first I'm hearing that it's not required. I'm aware of only a handful that don't have all-way plaques.

Use of them is far from universal.  I haven't looked up policy in either the federal MUTCD or California's interspersed supplement, but in that state in particular, I've noticed it is quite common for the all-way plaque to be omitted on at least one approach at many minor intersections (example), apparently as a head fake to discourage rolling stops.

I can help with the first part:

[hotdogPi]

Wait, 3-way and 4-way aren't allowed at all? I thought they were if only some directions had to stop.

[CtrlAltDel]

Wait, 3-way and 4-way aren’t allowed at all? I thought they were if only some directions had to stop.

I don't believe so, no:

[J N Winkler]

I can help with the first part:

In the current California MUTCD (2014 revision 6), the Standard verbiage is identical.  Older versions are not available on the website, so I can't immediately tell if and when standards changed.  (The Berkeley intersection linked to above definitely doesn't comply with the current standard.)