Uncontrolled intersections

[3467]

We have them in my town in Illinois. Chicago still has a few. My town has nice asphalt side streets and it could afford yield signs. All the streets are marked and only a few areas are marked lower than the state minimum 30. I had my first accident at one . Both of us got tickets. Then that intersection got a yield sign. I hate them.

[jakeroot]

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:

So, I'm correct in that "all way" plaques shall be used when all approaches are stop controlled?

[Scott5114]

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

I remember digging into the history of the ALL WAY tab before, so I looked for my post on the subject, and it turns out I was answering a question from...you, actually!

It's also a lie, since the intersecting road is one-way, so there's only three ways of traffic that stop at this intersection. This is one reason why new installs say "ALL WAY" rather than specifying the number of ways (which also means you don't have to keep both 3-WAY and 4-WAY plates in stock, nor have to make one-off 5-WAY and higher plates for the situations those would be useful).

As for the use of black on white, in the US, that often means the sign dates back to the 1960s or before, although it's hard to tell if that's the case here, or if Cincinnati just used the wrong color sign that day.

I thought 3-WAY meant that three of four directions stop.

Interesting–this led me to dig around in the MUTCD, leading me to discover that the 3-WAY tab has never appeared in the MUTCD! The 4-WAY tab first appeared in 1961, the first edition with red stop signs (which had previously been established by a 1954 revision to the 1948 MUTCD that also introduced the yellow yield sign for the first time). They have always been red, so who knows how the Cincinnati one that started this conversation ended up white. But every edition from 1961 to now has never had a 3-WAY tab. (ALL WAY appeared as an option in 2003 and then the standard in 2009.)

That being said, I know I've seen 3-WAY tabs before, in the context of 3-way tee intersections where all legs were stop-controlled. It's possible that misapplications stemming from the interpretation you had led to the creation of the ALL WAY tab, in order to make it crystal-clear what these signs are meant to signify.

But yes, short answer to your question–as of 2009 the only tab that has been allowed is ALL WAY.

[kphoger]

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.

[Big John]

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

Not according to MUTCD:

Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications

03 Other than for all of the approaches to a roundabout, YIELD signs shall not be placed on all of the approaches to an intersection.

[webny99]

Makes sense, because a four-way YIELD intersection would create even more confusion than an uncontrolled intersection. By definition, you can't have traffic on all approaches yielding; you'd have everyone thinking they were the one with the yield sign and yielding to everyone else. At least if it's uncontrolled, it's understood that whoever arrives first, goes first.

[Bruce]

Seattle has far too many in residential areas that create conflicts. I much prefer to drive and cycle on streets that have small traffic circles instead of uncontrolled intersections, as they force people to slow down and look for others instead of just barreling through.

[kphoger]

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

Not according to MUTCD:

Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications

03 Other than for all of the approaches to a roundabout, YIELD signs shall not be placed on all of the approaches to an intersection.

Right.  Eliminate that part.  I'm down with that.

Makes sense, because a four-way YIELD intersection would create even more confusion than an uncontrolled intersection. By definition, you can't have traffic on all approaches yielding; you'd have everyone thinking they were the one with the yield sign and yielding to everyone else. At least if it's uncontrolled, it's understood that whoever arrives first, goes first.

There have been plenty of posts on here describing how it isn't understood, by a lot of people, that that's how uncontrolled intersections work.

I don't see how a four-way yield is any less intuitive than a four-way stop.  After all, a stop sign is basically just a yield sign that requires a stop every time.

I also don't see how an uncontrolled intersection differs in any real way from what four-way yield would be.  Slow down, stop if needed, yield to people who got there first, then go.

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. ...

[RobbieL2415]

I really only encounter them in parking lots, and no one really knows what to do at them.

[webny99]

Makes sense, because a four-way YIELD intersection would create even more confusion than an uncontrolled intersection. By definition, you can't have traffic on all approaches yielding; you'd have everyone thinking they were the one with the yield sign and yielding to everyone else. At least if it's uncontrolled, it's understood that whoever arrives first, goes first.

There have been plenty of posts on here describing how it isn't understood, by a lot of people, that that's how uncontrolled intersections work.

I don't see how a four-way yield is any less intuitive than a four-way stop.  After all, a stop sign is basically just a yield sign that requires a stop every time.

I also don't see how an uncontrolled intersection differs in any real way from what four-way yield would be.  Slow down, stop if needed, yield to people who got there first, then go.

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. ...

No, what I'm saying is that a four-way yield is more intuitive than a four-way stop. It's too intuitive, and that's exactly why it's problematic.

With a four way stop, you must always stop first, and then proceed, taking turns with other traffic if there is any. Simple enough.

With a four way yield, you are not required to stop, only to yield to other traffic if there is any. But the same is also true of any other approaching traffic. So they will assume they need to yield to you, while you simultaneously assume you need to yield to them. You both expect the other driver to go first, and neither does. So you both come to a complete stop, to fulfill the YIELD requirement, and eventually start looking at each other wondering what to do next. Whoever eventually decides to go first is in violation of the the sign, because they haven't yielded to other traffic. It's simply not possible for you to both yield, hence why the MUTCD states that there should not be yield signage on all approaches to an intersection (or really, on any two perpendicular approaches).

That's different than an uncontrolled intersection because it's explicitly stated that you must yield to other traffic, rather than an understanding in lieu of signage that whoever arrives first, goes first.

[7/8]

Ontario has an uncontrolled intersection warning sign (Wa-11). I don't think I've ever seen it though since uncontrolled intersections are very rare here. Does the MUTCD have something similar?


I think yield signs with "4-way" or "all-way" tabs aren't a bad solution, but I'm a bigger fan of simply having yield signs on only one road, since I find uncontrolled intersections sketchy. As someone that comes from a place where they're rare, my mind assumes no sign = I have the right of way, which is dangerous if it's wrong.

[kphoger]

That's different than an uncontrolled intersection because it's explicitly stated that you must yield to other traffic, rather than an understanding in lieu of signage that whoever arrives first, goes first.

It's actually explicitly stated that, absent any other traffic control, vehicles on the left yield to vehicles on the right–not just "other traffic".

For example...

VEHICLES
625 ILCS 5/ – Illinois Vehicle Code
Chapter 11 – Rules of the Road
Article IX – Right of Way
§ 11.901 – Vehicles approaching or entering intersection

(a)  When 2 vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different roadways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left must yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.

With a four way stop, you must always stop first, and then proceed, taking turns with other traffic if there is any. Simple enough.

With a four way yield, you are not required to stop, only to yield to other traffic if there is any. But the same is also true of any other approaching traffic. So they will assume they need to yield to you, while you simultaneously assume you need to yield to them. You both expect the other driver to go first, and neither does. So you both come to a complete stop, to fulfill the YIELD requirement, and eventually start looking at each other wondering what to do next. Whoever eventually decides to go first is in violation of the the sign, because they haven't yielded to other traffic. It's simply not possible for you to both yield, hence why the MUTCD states that there should not be yield signage on all approaches to an intersection (or really, on any two perpendicular approaches).

Source, for the bolded part?

Maybe your state has a law that traffic at a four-way stop sign is supposed to take turns.  But I can't find any such law for Illinois, and I likewise don't see anything in the Universal Vehicle Code outlining when it's OK to go again after stopping at an all-way stop.  The law just says to yield to traffic on the right as the general rule, to slow down and yield to other traffic when facing a Yield sign, and to stop and yield to other traffic when facing a Stop sign.  Nothing about taking turns, as far as I can see.  That's apparently just a convention we've all adopted.

[webny99]

That's different than an uncontrolled intersection because it's explicitly stated that you must yield to other traffic, rather than an understanding in lieu of signage that whoever arrives first, goes first.

It's actually explicitly stated that, absent any other traffic control, vehicles on the left yield to vehicles on the right–not just "other traffic".

For example...

[quote snipped]

But of course, a yield sign is another form of traffic control.

With a four way stop, you must always stop first, and then proceed, taking turns with other traffic if there is any. Simple enough.

...

Source, for the bolded part?

Maybe your state has a law that traffic at a four-way stop sign is supposed to take turns.  But I can't find any such law for Illinois, and I likewise don't see anything in the Universal Vehicle Code outlining when it's OK to go again after stopping at an all-way stop.  The law just says to yield to traffic on the right as the general rule, to slow down and yield to other traffic when facing a Yield sign, and to stop and yield to other traffic when facing a Stop sign.  Nothing about taking turns, as far as I can see.  That's apparently just a convention we've all adopted.

OK, OK. The actual point notwithstanding... perhaps "taking turns" isn't the best phrase. What I mean is that whoever stops first, goes first, and if you stop at the same time, then the person on the right goes first.

[kphoger]

That's different than an uncontrolled intersection because it's explicitly stated that you must yield to other traffic, rather than an understanding in lieu of signage that whoever arrives first, goes first.

It's actually explicitly stated that, absent any other traffic control, vehicles on the left yield to vehicles on the right–not just "other traffic".

But of course, a yield sign is another form of traffic control.

Yes.  I was just pointing out that uncontrolled intersections aren't "explicitly stated" to have "whoever arrives first, goes first".

OK, OK. The actual point notwithstanding... perhaps "taking turns" isn't the best phrase. What I mean is that whoever stops first, goes first, and if you stop at the same time, then the person on the right goes first.

I'm not even sure that's entirely true either.  I'll give you a common scenario in which I don't wait for the person who got there first.

In the illustration below, the blue truck arrived at the four-way stop intersection first.
The pink car is just arriving.
I'm driving the green car, and I'll arrive at the intersection after both of them.



By the time I get to the intersection, the blue truck has started to make its left turn, and the pink car is still waiting its turn.  You know what I do?  I turn left–even though I arrived at the intersection after the pink car.  By the time the blue truck completes the turn and clears the intersection for the pink car to go, I've already completed my turn and am probably already up to 15 mph.

I obeyed the law by stopping at the stop sign.  There was no traffic for me to yield to that was "in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when" I made my turn.  Therefore, I complied with the law as written.

[Dirt Roads]

I'm not even sure that's entirely true either.  I'll give you a common scenario in which I don't wait for the person who got there first.

In the illustration below, the blue truck arrived at the four-way stop intersection first.
The pink car is just arriving.
I'm driving the green car, and I'll arrive at the intersection after both of them.



By the time I get to the intersection, the blue truck has started to make its left turn, and the pink car is still waiting its turn.  You know what I do?  I turn left–even though I arrived at the intersection after the pink car.  By the time the blue truck completes the turn and clears the intersection for the pink car to go, I've already completed my turn and am probably already up to 15 mph.

I obeyed the law by stopping at the stop sign.  There was no traffic for me to yield to that was "in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when" I made my turn.  Therefore, I complied with the law as written.

Agreed.  Also, an orange car arriving later than you from the [west] and turning right [south] might also be able to go at the same time, depending upon your green car trajectory.

By the way, we were taught that the car on the left always goes first.  That rule was simple because it also applied to on-ramps, lane switching and traffic circles whenever control signage is missing.  I mentioned this about a year ago to an older relative who also grew up in West Virginia, and he was taught the exact opposite (just as the majority of folks in this discussion). 

[J N Winkler]

Ontario has an uncontrolled intersection warning sign (Wa-11). I don't think I've ever seen it though since uncontrolled intersections are very rare here. Does the MUTCD have something similar?

No, and an American driver would not automatically know that that sign applies to uncontrolled intersections only.  The similar-looking MUTCD sign is for discretionary use (typically on the road having priority, if one does) for unsignalized intersections in general, including ones that do have priority control using signs (stop or yield) but are not readily visible.

Edit:  Clarified ambiguous wording in last sentence of original post.

[kphoger]

For those of you who, like me, didn't realize there were different signs in Ontario for controlled vs uncontrolled intersections...

[webny99]

That's different than an uncontrolled intersection, because [a yield sign explicitly states] that you must yield to other traffic, rather than an understanding in lieu of signage that whoever arrives first, goes first.

It's actually explicitly stated that, absent any other traffic control, vehicles on the left yield to vehicles on the right–not just "other traffic".

But of course, a yield sign is another form of traffic control.

Yes.  I was just pointing out that uncontrolled intersections aren't "explicitly stated" to have "whoever arrives first, goes first".

No, and I didn't say they were. That was in reference to yield-sign controlled intersections, not uncontrolled ones (edited for clarity).

OK, OK. The actual point notwithstanding... perhaps "taking turns" isn't the best phrase. What I mean is that whoever stops first, goes first, and if you stop at the same time, then the person on the right goes first.

I'm not even sure that's entirely true either.  I'll give you a common scenario in which I don't wait for the person who got there first.
...

I obeyed the law by stopping at the stop sign.  There was no traffic for me to yield to that was "in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when" I made my turn.  Therefore, I complied with the law as written.

I am completely on board with that. I've probably done the same thing myself. I'm just not sure what it has to do with the case for using yield signs on all approaches to an intersection.

[kphoger]

I'm just not sure what it has to do with the case for using yield signs on all approaches to an intersection.

My point is that you seem to be arguing that the rules pertaining to four-way stops are more cut and dry than they actually are.  Thus, the relative ambiguity of a potential four-way yield may be less than you're imagining.  People handle four-way stops pretty well, considering how much of it is mere social convention, and I imagine people might do similarly well with a four-way yield.

[webny99]

Ontario has an uncontrolled intersection warning sign (Wa-11). I don't think I've ever seen it though since uncontrolled intersections are very rare here. Does the MUTCD have something similar?

No, and an American driver would not automatically know that that sign applies to uncontrolled intersections only.  The similar-looking MUTCD sign is for discretionary use (typically on the road having priority) for unsignalized intersections in general, including ones with stop or yield signs that may not be readily visible.

Indeed, I would not have known that this sign is supposed to be for an uncontrolled intersection. The first example that came to mind is at a location (NY 441 at Harris Rd) where there's no control on the road with the sign, and a two-way stop on the cross street. In this case, I suspect poor sightlines contribute to the need for the sign and accompanying flashing beacon.

[webny99]

I'm just not sure what it has to do with the case for using yield signs on all approaches to an intersection.

My point is that you seem to be arguing that the rules pertaining to four-way stops are more cut and dry than they actually are.  Thus, the relative ambiguity of a potential four-way yield may be less than you're imagining.  People handle four-way stops pretty well, considering how much of it is mere social convention, and I imagine people might do similarly well with a four-way yield.

Meanwhile, I imagine that only a very small percentage of the driving population would approach a four-way stop in the way you described and be attentive and reactive enough to proceed through the intersection before the pink car.

In other words, four way stops would function perfectly fine if they were that cut and dry. There would be nothing wrong with you waiting for the pink car to proceed before taking your "turn". It would be less efficient, but there wouldn't be anything wrong with it to an observer.

That wouldn't be the case with a four-way yield, since you would have to disobey the sign to enter the intersection anytime another car was nearby.

[kphoger]

That wouldn't be the case with a four-way yield, since you would have to disobey the sign to enter the intersection anytime another car was nearby.

Nope.  You'd only be disobeying it if there were another vehicle approaching "so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard".  And, if that car is slowing down to similarly yield to you, then I don't really see how it is constituting an immediate hazard–any more than a vehicle slowing down for a stop sign would be.

[webny99]

That wouldn't be the case with a four-way yield, since you would have to disobey the sign to enter the intersection anytime another car was nearby.

Nope.  You'd only be disobeying it if there were another vehicle approaching "so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard".  And, if that car is slowing down to similarly yield to you, then I don't really see how it is constituting an immediate hazard–any more than a vehicle slowing down for a stop sign would be.

But, either way, one of you wouldn't be yielding. It's simply not possible by definition.

A stop sign is different because it requires you to stop 24/7, 100% of the time and doesn't imply anything about your relationship with other traffic. You must stop first, and then figure out your relationship with other vehicles and directions of traffic to establish when it's OK to proceed.

A yield sign, however, does imply something about your relationship with other traffic: that you must give right of way. That means that you must figure out your relationship with other traffic first in order to give right of way if necessary. And that just wouldn't work if it was happening on perpendicular approaches to an intersection at the same time.

[kphoger]

But, either way, one of you wouldn't be yielding. It's simply not possible by definition.

A yield sign only obliges a driver to yield to traffic that is already in the intersection or approaching so closely as to present an imminent hazard.  It does not oblige a driver to yield to any other traffic.  If both drivers slow down at the intersection–heck, if they come to a complete stop–then neither of those conditions remains.

Or consider this:  if I'm approaching an uncontrolled intersection, and a driver approaches on my right, then I slow down and/or come to a stop as required by law.  But if that other driver also stops, then I go*.  I yielded, then there was no longer anyone I was required to yield to, so I proceeded through.

A stop sign is different because it requires you to stop 24/7, 100% of the time and doesn't imply anything about your relationship with other traffic. You must stop first, and then figure out your relationship with other vehicles and directions of traffic to establish when it's OK to proceed.

A yield sign, however, does imply something about your relationship with other traffic: that you must give right of way. That means that you must figure out your relationship with other traffic first in order to give right of way if necessary. And that just wouldn't work if it was happening on perpendicular approaches to an intersection at the same time.

A stop sign also implies that you must give right of way.  A yield sign just does require a full stop first.


(*)  Sometimes I'm feeling cantankerous, so I'll just sit there until the other driver gets a clue.

[webny99]

But, either way, one of you wouldn't be yielding. It's simply not possible by definition.

A yield sign only obliges a driver to yield to traffic that is already in the intersection or approaching so closely as to present an imminent hazard.  It does not oblige a driver to yield to any other traffic.  If both drivers slow down at the intersection–heck, if they come to a complete stop–then neither of those conditions remains.

Or consider this:  if I'm approaching an uncontrolled intersection, and a driver approaches on my right, then I slow down and/or come to a stop as required by law.  But if that other driver also stops, then I go*.  I yielded, then there was no longer anyone I was required to yield to, so I proceeded through.

... 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.

A stop sign also implies that you must give right of way.  A yield sign just doesn't require a full stop first.

You still have to stop, even if there's nothing to give right of way to. But you don't still have to yield when there's nothing to give right of way to.

(Also FTFY)