Uncontrolled intersections

[kphoger]

... and that entirely defeats the purpose of the yield sign, which should be used to establish who should yield. If everyone is going to yield, it might as well just be a four-way stop.

In my opinion, stop signs should also be used to establish who should yield.  If everyone has to stop, then the intersection is stoopid.

But, at any rate, I don't see how requiring everyone to stop and yield is an improvement over having everyone slow down and yield.

But you don't still have to yield when there's nothing to give right of way to.

That's true for both stop signs and yield signs.

If there's nothing to give right of way to, then you don't still have to yield at a yield sign.

Chapter 11 – Rules of the Road
Article IV – Right of Way
§ 11-403 – Stop signs and Yield signs

(b)    Except when directed to proceed by a police officer, every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall ... After having stopped, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. ...

(c)   The driver of vehicle approaching a yield sign shall ...  After slowing or stopping, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. ...

[webny99]

... and that entirely defeats the purpose of the yield sign, which should be used to establish who should yield. If everyone is going to yield, it might as well just be a four-way stop.

In my opinion, stop signs should also be used to establish who should yield.  If everyone has to stop, then the intersection is stoopid.

But, at any rate, I don't see how requiring everyone to stop and yield is an improvement over having everyone slow down and yield.

What's wrong with a two-way yield, then? Why should a layer of confusion be added by making it four-way (which isn't even allowed in the MUTCD)?  There's no sign for "slow down", and excepting all-way-yield to function like an all-way stop without the stopping is, in my opinion, a vast overestimation of the driving population's cognitive abilities.

But you don't still have to yield when there's nothing to give right of way to.

That's true for both stop signs and yield signs.

If there's nothing to give right of way to, then you don't still have to yield at a yield sign.

... but you still have to stop at a stop sign! The sign is directing you to complete the action of stopping, not the action of yielding, precisely because you may not have to yield.

[US 89]

We need some sort of sign that functions as a four-way stop does but does not legally require a stop.

It is my opinion that unless a whole new sign is invented, the yield sign is the best way to do that. I bet you for the vast majority of American drivers who know anything, the first thing they think upon seeing a yield sign is "this is basically a stop sign that I am not legally required to stop at".

Completely unsigned uncontrolled intersections are the closest thing we have to that right now, but those are really a bad idea in the US outside of low speed residential environments. Prevailing wisdom in American driving is "I have the right of way unless signed otherwise".

[Dirt Roads]

We need some sort of sign that functions as a four-way stop does but does not legally require a stop.

My father used to tell this joke:  How do you pronounce that sign [S-T-O-P] in West Virginia?  "Yuh-heeld"  [He was absolutely insistent that we not speak in the Appalachian dialect, and this joke is the only instance that I ever remember him doing so].

[Scott5114]

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?

Because then one of the roads would get priority over the other, and that might not be what the city wants.

...or did you mean a four-way YIELD intersection?  I'm down with that.

My view on it is the city should quit waffling and just choose one road that has to yield and that's that. If an intersection is low-volume enough that it can function as an uncontrolled intersection, a yield sign will, in practical terms, change nothing 90% of the time–it's just that on the off chance that there happens to be two cars at the intersection at the same time, now there's a protocol for who goes and who waits.

[jeffandnicole]

Prevailing wisdom in American driving is "I have the right of way unless signed otherwise".

In what country do motorists slow down at every intersection when they have the right of way?

[US 89]

Prevailing wisdom in American driving is "I have the right of way unless signed otherwise".

In what country do motorists slow down at every intersection when they have the right of way?

When did I say they did? In other countries, you may not have the right of way if you come to an intersection without any additional signage. The Vienna convention signage has a "priority road" and "end of priority road" sign. If what you're on isn't designated as a priority road, at any intersection you have to yield to the car on your right, even if there is no signage explicitly telling you to do so at the intersection. Is this not accurate?

That said, I think I've found the solution to this endless debate...



The sign requires that people take turns going through the intersection without assigning a right of way to one particular approach, with no requirement to come to a complete stop. It looks like it's only used in Jersey and Guernsey, but the Wikipedia article specifically references its similarity to all-way stops (which apparently do not really exist outside of North America or South Africa).

[kphoger]

In Mexico, uncontrolled intersections in urban settings are somewhat common.  Here's one in Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco.  And here's the uncontrolled intersection of two of the major thoroughfares in Parras, Coahuila–which used to have a stoplight, but it was removed about ten years ago;  I've seen traffic cops directing traffic there a few times, but otherwise it's uncontrolled now.  The general convention at intersections in Mexico is to take turns, a practice known as "UNO Y UNO" (one and one).

When it comes to all-way stops/yields, those are often signed with plaques stating "UNO Y UNO" or something similar.  Here is a tiny stop sign in San Miguel de Allende (Guanajuato) with an accompanying message "ceda el paso a un vehículo" (give way to one vehicle);  this trumps even the supposed priority given by the stop sign, as the cross street doesn't have any stop or yield signage at all.

Or sometimes the sign doesn't even say ALTO (stop) at all–just UNO Y UNO.  Here's an example in Texcoco, EdoMex.

Or then there are the wonky ones, like this intersection in Parras, Coahuila:  Traffic from the west gets a Yield sign, while traffic from the north gets a Stop sign.  Or this intersection in Monclova, Coahuila, which has a stop sign and a yield sign and a stoplight all at the same time–although the stop and yield signs appear to only apply to the right-turn lane.

[jakeroot]

Still the most bizarre intersection that I've come across involving mismatched signage is this spot in Fife, WA:

https://goo.gl/maps/VmjenDaThfFGFzLo6 (N Levee @ Frank Albert)

* Westbound traffic does not have any sign and has priority for all movements.
* Southbound traffic has a yield sign, and must yield to traffic from the left if they go straight.
* Eastbound traffic has a stop sign, and must yield to everyone.

In practice, the yield sign rarely comes into play, as traffic almost always originates from the east or north, with N Levee dead-ending shortly after the intersection. Still, there are two other ways I think this could have been tackled: (1) two way stop for N Levee traffic, with westbound traffic receiving an "except right turns" sign. Alternatively, (2) have only a stop sign for eastbound traffic, and have a dashed yellow line curving through the intersection to indicate that as being the through movement; continuing onto N Levee would become more of a left turn and would have to yield.

The current setup is a bit dangerous: with through movement being Frank Albert > N Levee and vice-versa, traffic rarely signals when turning onto Frank Albert. I also rarely see traffic slow down when making the left onto N Levee. The only assurance drivers have turning left is that 97% of westbound traffic turns north at the intersection. But for the few cars going straight-on, I don't know how more crashes don't hapen. I have to assume they're actually used to yielding to southbound traffic, despite the sign.

[webny99]

The intersection I would nominate for most bizarre/confusing is this three-way stop at a five-way intersection. The cherry on top is the fact that the two approaches that have right-of-way (the one the Street View car is on and the one angling off to the left) aren't even directly across from each other!

[kphoger]

The intersection I would nominate for most bizarre/confusing is this three-way stop at a five-way intersection. The cherry on top is the fact that the two approaches that have right-of-way (the one the Street View car is on and the one angling off to the left) aren't even directly across from each other!

Wasn't this recently brought up in another thread?  I can't find it, for some reason.

[webny99]

The intersection I would nominate for most bizarre/confusing is this three-way stop at a five-way intersection. The cherry on top is the fact that the two approaches that have right-of-way (the one the Street View car is on and the one angling off to the left) aren't even directly across from each other!

Wasn't this recently brought up in another thread?  I can't find it, for some reason.

Yep. I mentioned it in passing here (find the needle in the haystack!)

[mrsman]

Still the most bizarre intersection that I've come across involving mismatched signage is this spot in Fife, WA:

https://goo.gl/maps/VmjenDaThfFGFzLo6 (N Levee @ Frank Albert)

* Westbound traffic does not have any sign and has priority for all movements.
* Southbound traffic has a yield sign, and must yield to traffic from the left if they go straight.
* Eastbound traffic has a stop sign, and must yield to everyone.

In practice, the yield sign rarely comes into play, as traffic almost always originates from the east or north, with N Levee dead-ending shortly after the intersection. Still, there are two other ways I think this could have been tackled: (1) two way stop for N Levee traffic, with westbound traffic receiving an "except right turns" sign. Alternatively, (2) have only a stop sign for eastbound traffic, and have a dashed yellow line curving through the intersection to indicate that as being the through movement; continuing onto N Levee would become more of a left turn and would have to yield.

The current setup is a bit dangerous: with through movement being Frank Albert > N Levee and vice-versa, traffic rarely signals when turning onto Frank Albert. I also rarely see traffic slow down when making the left onto N Levee. The only assurance drivers have turning left is that 97% of westbound traffic turns north at the intersection. But for the few cars going straight-on, I don't know how more crashes don't hapen. I have to assume they're actually used to yielding to southbound traffic, despite the sign.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0487478,-77.0570149,3a,60y,345.96h,79.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1si3ycrW2-0wGVnHqBRwD-Vg!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

There is a similar 3-way intersection in my area, except that (in 2012)

Westbound Parker had a stop sign
Westbound Arcola had a stop sign
Eastbound Parker had no sign

The primary movements are westbound Arcola making a left onto westbound Parker and the reverse movement of eastbound Parker making a right onto eastbound Arcola.  But as in your example the primary Arcola WB to Parker WB has a stop sign and has to yield to the possible Parker EB continuing onto Parker EB movement, even though the vast majority of cars on Parker EB made the turn to continue onto Arcola EB (and would not be in conflict with the Arocla to Parker movement).  But the occasional car going through on Parker was definitely enough of an unexpected hazard, so fortunately the intersection was converted to an all-way stop.

Another interesting intersection is Highland/Edgewood in L.A.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0557503,-118.3404754,3a,75y,336.37h,61.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFMTWbQXjT9CQUk1fBboryw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This is a slightly askew 4-way intersection, but the primary movment is north leg of Highland to west leg of Edgewood and vice versa.  As you can see, a number of left turns are prohibited here so as not to impede the flow of the main movement.  The east leg of Edgewood and the south leg of Highland each have a stop sign, and obviously have to yield to the main movement.

There is also some old views of National/Rose/Mentone in L.A. where three of the four movements had a stop sign,but the fourth movment that represents the left turn to continue on national had no stop sign.  Thankfully, this crazy corner now has a signal.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.028825,-118.4115152,3a,37.5y,230.43h,83.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIsoLGo6hqRnyJj1A-Lj4wA!2e0!5s20070701T000000!7i3328!8i1664

[webny99]

As we've discussed in other threads, uncontrolled intersections are fairly rare in my part of the country ...

I found a rare uncontrolled intersection the other day and immediately thought of this thread, so I had to come back and mention it here: Drumm Rd at Dunnbridge Dr/Old Woods Rd in Webster, NY.

This is rare enough that I think they probably just forgot to install stop signs on the side streets, or perhaps more likely, it used to be 3-way uncontrolled before Dunnbridge Estates was built and it got grandfathered in when it became 4-way.

[kphoger]

In my experience:  even in parts of the country where uncontrolled intersections are common, that intersection would have stop or yield control.