Am I the only person who is sick and tired of all the unnecessary stop signs everywhere in America when many of those could be replaced with yield signs? In Europe, stop signs are rarely used and yield signs are extensively used unlike in North America where stop signs are common and seen everywhere. :ded:
In most local communities, stop signs are known as the "poor man's speed limit." As such, they have nothing to do with the actual need to assign right of way at a given location.
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 11:27:43 AM
Am I the only person who is sick and tired of all the unnecessary stop signs everywhere in America when many of those could be replaced with yield signs? In Europe, stop signs are rarely used and yield signs are extensively used unlike in North America where stop signs are common and seen everywhere. :ded:
Yes, especially when the stop sign in question controls a merge such as a RIRO or a right turn. Those should all be yield signs.
Quote from: Brandon on November 25, 2015, 12:00:29 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 11:27:43 AM
Am I the only person who is sick and tired of all the unnecessary stop signs everywhere in America when many of those could be replaced with yield signs? In Europe, stop signs are rarely used and yield signs are extensively used unlike in North America where stop signs are common and seen everywhere. :ded:
Yes, especially when the stop sign in question controls a merge such as a RIRO or a right turn. Those should all be yield signs.
MUTCD should be contacted... hopefully they change it when providing them feedback.
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 01:10:36 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 25, 2015, 12:00:29 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 11:27:43 AM
Am I the only person who is sick and tired of all the unnecessary stop signs everywhere in America when many of those could be replaced with yield signs? In Europe, stop signs are rarely used and yield signs are extensively used unlike in North America where stop signs are common and seen everywhere. :ded:
Yes, especially when the stop sign in question controls a merge such as a RIRO or a right turn. Those should all be yield signs.
MUTCD should be contacted... hopefully they change it when providing them feedback.
Here, please familiarize yourself:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_general.htm#genq1
The MUTCD is not a "they," it's a manual.
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 11:27:43 AM
Am I the only person who is sick and tired of all the unnecessary stop signs everywhere in America when many of those could be replaced with yield signs? In Europe, stop signs are rarely used and yield signs are extensively used unlike in North America where stop signs are common and seen everywhere. :ded:
Absolutely. Driving in Europe is like a breath of fresh air in that respect. But it's a totally different approach to driver responsibility that is unlikely to take hold in the litigious USA. Here it's assumed you won't know what to do without a billion signs telling you everything. There it's often assumed you will both know and act accordingly unless a sign tells you otherwise.
(Edited on December 1 to fix the busted quote tag and a typo)
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 25, 2015, 04:19:13 PM
Absolutely. Driving in Europe is like a breath of fresh air in that respect. But it's a totally different approach to driver responsibility that is unlikely to take hold in the litigious USA. Here it's assumed you won't know what to do without a billion signs telling you everything. There it's often assumed you will both know and act accordingly unless a sign tells you otherwise.
You make it seem like better driving is manna from heaven. That's disingenuous because the US could have better drivers if it wanted.
Two factors:
1) More stringent licensing and education standards. Here in the US, you effectively get a license by asking for one and passing a test that you'll never have to re-take ever again. My guess is that the automobile reliance in this country makes for an implied understanding that everyone must have a car, and that making it hard to get and keep a license is tantamount to denying job prospects.
2) Stronger restrictions on distracted driving (such as cell phone usage) and other factors (strict DUI enforcement versus the mild enforcement here).
"Disingenuous"? What's got you wound up? That's a rather insulting word that indicates you think a person is being intentionally misleading.
I just feel like the post I was replying to made it seem like a litigious society and lawyers was to blame for our over-signing of roads. Lawyer-blaming is always too easy (Shakespeare in Henry VI, for example).
I believe that the answer is much tangible, namely that getting a license in Europe requires significantly more training and education than here in the United States. It would follow that more training and education along with stricter standards would result in a better-educated pool of motorists in the road.
I know it well but there are still individuals who design, add/change signs etc.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 25, 2015, 04:00:34 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 01:10:36 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 25, 2015, 12:00:29 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 11:27:43 AM
Am I the only person who is sick and tired of all the unnecessary stop signs everywhere in America when many of those could be replaced with yield signs? In Europe, stop signs are rarely used and yield signs are extensively used unlike in North America where stop signs are common and seen everywhere. :ded:
Yes, especially when the stop sign in question controls a merge such as a RIRO or a right turn. Those should all be yield signs.
MUTCD should be contacted... hopefully they change it when providing them feedback.
Here, please familiarize yourself:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_general.htm#genq1
The MUTCD is not a "they," it's a manual.
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 06:16:33 PM
I know it well but there are still individuals who design, add/change signs etc.
The FHWA is the body responsible for the MUTCD. Some states produce their own version.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2015, 06:32:06 PM
The FHWA is the body responsible for the MUTCD. Some states produce their own version.
...which has to be in substantial conformance with the national version, and still approved by the state's FHWA division office.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 25, 2015, 04:19:13 PMHere it's assumed you won't know what to do without a billion signs telling you everything. There it's oftenassumed you will both know and act accordingly unless a sign tells you otherwise.
Indeed. I also suspect that this difference between the "we will assume you all to be stupid morons because we let stupid morons drive" and the "we will assume you know how to drive because if you don't know how to drive, what are you doing driving?" approaches is what is driving the "we don't want none of that picture mcgubbins that requires us to learn what three or four signs where the picture isn't great actually mean, give us verbose signs instead" stuff in the thread about the US having more diagrammatic signs.
The 'driving school' at Legoland Windsor (aimed at Elementary school kids, and, back then at least, more complex than the Californian or Floridian ones, but actually, similar points would apply there) is a bit of both. European: you have 10 minutes of being told what the rules of the road are, as well as how to accelerate, steer, brake, etc, then you are on your own, expected to follow them, with one person dealing with 30 cars driven by kids and telling them not to do it again if they behave dangerously (like going round a roundabout the wrong way right in front of him, like I did*) - assuming that they would know the rules of the road. American: everyone (unless they have been really dangerous - some other friends managed to see people taken off before it ended) gets a 'licence' at the end of a short run around.
If 5 year olds on an amusement park ride in England can be expected to spot a sign (or a road layout like a roundabout), understand what they need to, and then do it, then why can't American adults? Most junctions were yield ones, with many not signed (merely marked on the road itself), though (of course) there was a stop one, and one with traffic lights. Now, sure, I'm thinking back 20 years ago, but out of ~100 kids I saw on the road (either while queueing, watching out of the window bored as they explained everything that I already knew, driving, or waiting for the second half of my group), not one broke the rules unknowingly: everyone stopped, yielded (and understood the difference), etc as they were meant to, or did something celebrating their sticking it to the man when they didn't. That Legoland only put one employee supervising suggests that dangerous driving was not a big problem.
Obviously real roads are much more dangerous, more complex, etc - as are real cars, but adults are more able to comprehend.
*All my friends went round the one way system the wrong way, but I could never time it right that it was clear, so needed to do something else to show that I was a part of this "we're 9-years-old and above this kiddy ride's stupid rules" and not stopping at the 'toad crossing' wasn't going to cut the mustard as only the 5 or 6 year old girls stopped at it, and I was running out of time. One or two of the others got told off for their going round the one-way system backwards, but most people didn't get told off as they all went as a group while the guy was busy telling the boy who dd it first not to do it again.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 25, 2015, 06:10:36 PM
I just feel like the post I was replying to made it seem like a litigious society and lawyers was to blame for our over-signing of roads. Lawyer-blaming is always too easy (Shakespeare in Henry VI, for example).
....
Obviously you have no reason to know this, but I am an attorney :-D
In my mind I was focusing more on how liberating, for lack of a better word, it feels to me when I drive in the UK. The litigious society thing wasn't where my thought process was focused. I do think it's a reason for American over-signage, though. It's not the only reason, of course, but it's one reason.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2015, 06:32:06 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 06:16:33 PM
I know it well but there are still individuals who design, add/change signs etc.
The FHWA is the body responsible for the MUTCD. Some states produce their own version.
So FHWA should be contacted then for suggestion/questions?
I already stop every 50 feet or so, just to be on the safe side, so I hardly notice the signs.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2015, 10:13:26 AM
I already stop every 50 feet or so, just to be on the safe side, so I hardly notice the signs.
I'm very confident you live in my community :banghead:
Quote from: UCFKnights on November 26, 2015, 03:02:17 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2015, 10:13:26 AM
I already stop every 50 feet or so, just to be on the safe side, so I hardly notice the signs.
I'm very confident you live in my community :banghead:
In all seriousness, stop signs have a negligible negative effect on my life. Partly because city driving a) requires a lot of them, and b) is slow to begin with, and partly because I just don't care that much that I have to stop at stop signs.
Meanwhile, NY has a bare pavement policy, so one can always see the pavement markings here except in a storm.
In regards to the original topic: Yes, stop signs are way overused. After encountering during the past week signs indicating that two intersections where minor, dead end residential streets intersect with an overloaded collector (which should be classified as an arterial) will become all way stops, I am of the opinion the 2018 edition of the MUTCD needs to upgrade the 'stop signs should not be used for speed control' to a shall statement. Additionally, IMHO, there should be a stronger push for removing unwarranted stop signs tied into either the MUTCD or the federal aid process for road improvements (as in a city has to check and remove unwarranted stop signs or pay for any improvements on that road without federal funding).
If about 65% of the stops signs in my town were replaced with yield signs, I could get around 1000% more efficiently.
Perhaps they could change it to a shall statement and then tell the states that all federal funding will be withheld if they don't whip their towns into compliance in X years.
Quote from: vdeane on November 30, 2015, 12:48:16 PM
Perhaps they could change it to a shall statement and then tell the states that all federal funding will be withheld if they don't whip their towns into compliance in X years.
Remind me again what "shall" means to engineers that isn't what it means to the rest of the world.
Couldn't an agency easily fabricate some traffic study that claims the four-way stop was installed because of heavy side-street traffic (if their new four-way stop is called into question)?
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 11:27:43 AM
You might want to look at these two older, but still active, threads on this subject:
Stop signs that make no sense (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13509.0)
and
Yield Signs Instead of Stop Signs? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15923.0)
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2015, 04:36:12 PM
Couldn't an agency easily fabricate some traffic study that claims the four-way stop was installed because of heavy side-street traffic (if their new four-way stop is called into question)?
Why would heavy side street traffic warrant a four way stop? We finally had 2 of the stop signs removed from one of those here and it eliminated the major bottleneck that was there on a daily basis. If the side street has traffic issues, other improvements need to be made... such as adding turn lanes so multiple vehicles can go simultaneously on the side street or converting the intersection to some other format (roundabout, signal, etc). If heavy side street traffic is causing problems, slowing vehicles down with more stop signs isn't going to fix anything.
Quote from: UCFKnights on November 30, 2015, 08:25:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2015, 04:36:12 PM
Couldn't an agency easily fabricate some traffic study that claims the four-way stop was installed because of heavy side-street traffic (if their new four-way stop is called into question)?
Why would heavy side street traffic warrant a four way stop? We finally had 2 of the stop signs removed from one of those here and it eliminated the major bottleneck that was there on a daily basis. If the side street has traffic issues, other improvements need to be made... such as adding turn lanes so multiple vehicles can go simultaneously on the side street or converting the intersection to some other format (roundabout, signal, etc). If heavy side street traffic is causing problems, slowing vehicles down with more stop signs isn't going to fix anything.
I completely agree, thus I fail to see the point of a four way stop in the first place. To me, it should go from a two way stop to a signal.
Does anyone have any idea why agencies use four way stops in the first place?
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2015, 11:40:26 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on November 30, 2015, 08:25:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2015, 04:36:12 PM
Couldn't an agency easily fabricate some traffic study that claims the four-way stop was installed because of heavy side-street traffic (if their new four-way stop is called into question)?
Why would heavy side street traffic warrant a four way stop? We finally had 2 of the stop signs removed from one of those here and it eliminated the major bottleneck that was there on a daily basis. If the side street has traffic issues, other improvements need to be made... such as adding turn lanes so multiple vehicles can go simultaneously on the side street or converting the intersection to some other format (roundabout, signal, etc). If heavy side street traffic is causing problems, slowing vehicles down with more stop signs isn't going to fix anything.
I completely agree, thus I fail to see the point of a four way stop in the first place. To me, it should go from a two way stop to a signal.
Does anyone have any idea why agencies use four way stops in the first place?
4 way stops are supposed to be used when traffic volumes are about equal on each of the 4 legs at the intersection. Heavy traffic on one road combined with light(er) traffic on another road usually isn't a good match for a 4 way stop, which results in the congested traffic conditions mentioned.
Like everything else, 4 way stops are simply another tool in the road design/engineer's handbook. And like everything else, there are times when they can be used correctly and effectively, and many, many times when they are used incorrectly, usually to appease a group of residents or politicians. They are also very cheap. Even a roundabout requires a great deal of money in order to design, engineer and construct it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2015, 06:21:23 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2015, 11:40:26 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on November 30, 2015, 08:25:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2015, 04:36:12 PM
Couldn't an agency easily fabricate some traffic study that claims the four-way stop was installed because of heavy side-street traffic (if their new four-way stop is called into question)?
Why would heavy side street traffic warrant a four way stop? We finally had 2 of the stop signs removed from one of those here and it eliminated the major bottleneck that was there on a daily basis. If the side street has traffic issues, other improvements need to be made... such as adding turn lanes so multiple vehicles can go simultaneously on the side street or converting the intersection to some other format (roundabout, signal, etc). If heavy side street traffic is causing problems, slowing vehicles down with more stop signs isn't going to fix anything.
I completely agree, thus I fail to see the point of a four way stop in the first place. To me, it should go from a two way stop to a signal.
Does anyone have any idea why agencies use four way stops in the first place?
4 way stops are supposed to be used when traffic volumes are about equal on each of the 4 legs at the intersection. Heavy traffic on one road combined with light(er) traffic on another road usually isn't a good match for a 4 way stop, which results in the congested traffic conditions mentioned.
But how does it help that situation? It seems like on average, its just going to slow every vehicle down. The supposed "correct" use of the 4-way stop at best is supposed to make it "more fair" at the expense of slowing most people down. Its like when they set the timing on traffic signals to be equal for every phase, regardless of the traffic volume on the side street to need the time.
Quote from: UCFKnights on December 01, 2015, 07:31:46 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2015, 06:21:23 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2015, 11:40:26 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on November 30, 2015, 08:25:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2015, 04:36:12 PM
Couldn't an agency easily fabricate some traffic study that claims the four-way stop was installed because of heavy side-street traffic (if their new four-way stop is called into question)?
Why would heavy side street traffic warrant a four way stop? We finally had 2 of the stop signs removed from one of those here and it eliminated the major bottleneck that was there on a daily basis. If the side street has traffic issues, other improvements need to be made... such as adding turn lanes so multiple vehicles can go simultaneously on the side street or converting the intersection to some other format (roundabout, signal, etc). If heavy side street traffic is causing problems, slowing vehicles down with more stop signs isn't going to fix anything.
I completely agree, thus I fail to see the point of a four way stop in the first place. To me, it should go from a two way stop to a signal.
Does anyone have any idea why agencies use four way stops in the first place?
4 way stops are supposed to be used when traffic volumes are about equal on each of the 4 legs at the intersection. Heavy traffic on one road combined with light(er) traffic on another road usually isn't a good match for a 4 way stop, which results in the congested traffic conditions mentioned.
But how does it help that situation? It seems like on average, its just going to slow every vehicle down. The supposed "correct" use of the 4-way stop at best is supposed to make it "more fair" at the expense of slowing most people down. Its like when they set the timing on traffic signals to be equal for every phase, regardless of the traffic volume on the side street to need the time.
If traffic was equally heavy, it would take much longer for traffic on the road with the 'Stop' signs to get thru the intersection, possibly resulting in congested conditions. A 4 way stop would relieve some of that congestion on the side road, at the expense of possibly increasing congestion on the main road.
No doubt there are AADT volume limits when a 4 way stop eventually does no good. When traffic is too light, a 4 way stop isn't an effective traffic control device because many drivers will simply see it as a speed deterrent...and many will treat it as a 4 way yield. When traffic is too heavy, traffic is too congested approaching the intersection, affecting other nearby driveways or intersections.
I can think of only one valid use case for 4-way stop signs, when visibility is greatly impaired from all approaches due to terrain, vegetation, or an odd angle of intersecting roads, when traffic volume does not warrant a traffic light.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2015, 11:40:26 PM
Does anyone have any idea why agencies use four way stops in the first place?
1) Opposition from residents to adding a traffic signal (supposedly adding a signal in some places would destroy the character of a neighborhood)
2) Opposition from residents to building a roundabout
3) An intersection has too many pedestrians to build a roundabout
4) ROW issues, such as needing ROW for a roundabout or for adding turn lanes for efficient operation if an intersection was signalized (signals without dedicated left turn lanes can have congestion and safety issues if a heavy through volume opposes a heavy left turn volume)
5) Costs - both initial and recurring (electricity for signals or lighting a roundabout)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2015, 09:58:48 AM
Quote from: UCFKnights on December 01, 2015, 07:31:46 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2015, 06:21:23 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2015, 11:40:26 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on November 30, 2015, 08:25:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2015, 04:36:12 PM
Couldn't an agency easily fabricate some traffic study that claims the four-way stop was installed because of heavy side-street traffic (if their new four-way stop is called into question)?
Why would heavy side street traffic warrant a four way stop? We finally had 2 of the stop signs removed from one of those here and it eliminated the major bottleneck that was there on a daily basis. If the side street has traffic issues, other improvements need to be made... such as adding turn lanes so multiple vehicles can go simultaneously on the side street or converting the intersection to some other format (roundabout, signal, etc). If heavy side street traffic is causing problems, slowing vehicles down with more stop signs isn't going to fix anything.
I completely agree, thus I fail to see the point of a four way stop in the first place. To me, it should go from a two way stop to a signal.
Does anyone have any idea why agencies use four way stops in the first place?
4 way stops are supposed to be used when traffic volumes are about equal on each of the 4 legs at the intersection. Heavy traffic on one road combined with light(er) traffic on another road usually isn't a good match for a 4 way stop, which results in the congested traffic conditions mentioned.
But how does it help that situation? It seems like on average, its just going to slow every vehicle down. The supposed "correct" use of the 4-way stop at best is supposed to make it "more fair" at the expense of slowing most people down. Its like when they set the timing on traffic signals to be equal for every phase, regardless of the traffic volume on the side street to need the time.
If traffic was equally heavy, it would take much longer for traffic on the road with the 'Stop' signs to get thru the intersection, possibly resulting in congested conditions. A 4 way stop would relieve some of that congestion on the side road, at the expense of possibly increasing congestion on the main road.
No doubt there are AADT volume limits when a 4 way stop eventually does no good. When traffic is too light, a 4 way stop isn't an effective traffic control device because many drivers will simply see it as a speed deterrent...and many will treat it as a 4 way yield. When traffic is too heavy, traffic is too congested approaching the intersection, affecting other nearby driveways or intersections.
Except the volume limits on the main road that are causing the congestion and vehicles to be unable to go on the side road as a result of the stop sign is not going to possibly result in congested conditions... its GUARANTEED to. Now your spreading the problem from one road onto the other road of the intersection. There are multiple other solutions... just a 4 way stop isn't one.
If you need to do it with just signs... Reducing the speed on the main line may help to allow more vehicles to turn in between cars. If the vehicle counts are really the same, different turning movements may mean moving the stop signs to the "main" road and off of the side road to help the situation. Left turn restrictions can be implemented so the wait time for each vehicle is lessened (on both roads)
When the other signs can't manage the problem, a 4 way stop isn't going to either, short of rare visibility issues. Other small improvements can be made looking at each intersection... is the main line getting stopped by a lack of left turn lanes so there is no openings, and thats why the side street can't go? Is 70% of traffic turning right but being held up by the 30% making a left as that takes longer? Even short turning lanes can make a huge difference to reduce the weight time for all directions even on stop signs.
Near the house I grew up in, there was a 4 way stop that was always really congested. One day, someone crashed and knocked down the stop sign and the city didn't replace it very fast. Congestion was gone as people began to treat it as it wasn't there for a few weeks. Once they replaced it, someone started stealing it to get rid of the congestion every time they would put it up, it would disappear a few days later until they finally gave in and made it side streets only.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 25, 2015, 04:19:13 PM
Absolutely. Driving in Europe is like a breath of fresh air in that respect. But it's a totally different approach to driver responsibility that is unlikely to take hold in the litigious USA. Here it's assumed you won't know what to do without a billion signs telling you everything. There it's oftenassumed you will both know and act accordingly unless a sign tells you otherwise.
I wonder how much of it is American stupidity versus American rebelliousness/selfishness. It seems to me that plenty of people out there on the roads know damn well what the rules are but disregard them for the sake of their own convenience.
You put up yield signs, and you get drivers who just blow through them and cut off the vehicle they're supposed to yield to. When a crash inevitably occurs, you get a lot of he said/she said where people make excuses as to why they didn't yield and it creates headaches.
So, jurisdictions put up stop signs instead, to remove the ability of the driver to make the excuse they didn't see anyone coming because the sign says you're supposed to stop whether you see someone coming or not. But of course this is ridiculous to expect everyone follow to the letter, and the result is that a stop sign which really should be a yield is often unwittingly treated as one by most American drivers. Which then has the positive feedback effect of reinforcing that the rules are made to be broken, resulting in more problems. This seems to be a vicious cycle in many aspects of American society - the government attempts to solve a problem by making more draconian rules, and people respond by more flagrantly disregarding them.
That, ultimately, I think is why American roads have all sorts of nagging signage. It's not because we're incapable of remembering what the rules are without constant reminders. It's because, culturally, we disregard a lot of the rules whether there is a sign or not, but having a sign at least firmly establishes who is at fault if something bad happens.
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 01, 2015, 06:08:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2015, 11:40:26 PM
Does anyone have any idea why agencies use four way stops in the first place?
1) Opposition from residents to adding a traffic signal (supposedly adding a signal in some places would destroy the character of a neighborhood)
2) Opposition from residents to building a roundabout
3) An intersection has too many pedestrians to build a roundabout
4) ROW issues, such as needing ROW for a roundabout or for adding turn lanes for efficient operation if an intersection was signalized (signals without dedicated left turn lanes can have congestion and safety issues if a heavy through volume opposes a heavy left turn volume)
5) Costs - both initial and recurring (electricity for signals or lighting a roundabout)
Roundabouts are fairly new...about 10, 15 years for the most part. 4 Way Stops have been around for decades. So points 2 - 5 when referring to roundabouts aren't really valid, historically speaking, as agencies have been using 4 way stops long before roundabouts were really even part of the playbook. It was either 2 way stop, 4 way stop, or traffic light.
They are valid reasons today however.
Quote...There are multiple other solutions... just a 4 way stop isn't one...
You are almost right...there definitely are multiple other solutions. They just all cost a lot more.
And a 4 way stop is a solution in the appropriate conditions. There isn't a single traffic engineering design that is going to be the right one 100% of the time; and there isn't a single traffic engineering design that will be the wrong one 100% of the time. That's why they study the death out of potential solutions before finally deciding on one.
I'm interested in knowing how many folks in cities have this objection to stop signs. I feel like where I live, they're such a fact of life that people don't even notice them. Moreover, with lots of pedestrian and vehicle cross traffic (and aggressive drivers) they seem to serve a pretty useful purpose.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2015, 08:36:42 PM
I'm interested in knowing how many folks in cities have this objection to stop signs. I feel like where I live, they're such a fact of life that people don't even notice them. Moreover, with lots of pedestrian and vehicle cross traffic (and aggressive drivers) they seem to serve a pretty useful purpose.
Come to NJ or most US suburbs you will see massive stop signs everywhere; most unnecessary in light traffic areas as well... Annoying!
Quote from: NJ on December 01, 2015, 08:46:47 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2015, 08:36:42 PM
I'm interested in knowing how many folks in cities have this objection to stop signs. I feel like where I live, they're such a fact of life that people don't even notice them. Moreover, with lots of pedestrian and vehicle cross traffic (and aggressive drivers) they seem to serve a pretty useful purpose.
Come to NJ or most US suburbs you will see massive stop signs everywhere; most unnecessary in light traffic areas as well... Annoying!
Lived there for decades. Had no serious problem with it, but again, I'm asking about in cities, where traffic flow is inherently different than on the streets of Waldwick or wherever.
Quote from: NJ on December 01, 2015, 08:46:47 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2015, 08:36:42 PM
I'm interested in knowing how many folks in cities have this objection to stop signs. I feel like where I live, they're such a fact of life that people don't even notice them. Moreover, with lots of pedestrian and vehicle cross traffic (and aggressive drivers) they seem to serve a pretty useful purpose.
Come to NJ or most US suburbs you will see massive stop signs everywhere; most unnecessary in light traffic areas as well... Annoying!
I live here. I have no problems with stop signs.
Quote from: NJ on December 01, 2015, 08:46:47 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2015, 08:36:42 PM
I'm interested in knowing how many folks in cities have this objection to stop signs. I feel like where I live, they're such a fact of life that people don't even notice them. Moreover, with lots of pedestrian and vehicle cross traffic (and aggressive drivers) they seem to serve a pretty useful purpose.
Come to NJ or most US suburbs you will see massive stop signs everywhere; most unnecessary in light traffic areas as well... Annoying!
I'm thinking you're annoyed at just about everything.
Quote from: NJ on December 01, 2015, 08:46:47 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2015, 08:36:42 PM
I'm interested in knowing how many folks in cities have this objection to stop signs. I feel like where I live, they're such a fact of life that people don't even notice them. Moreover, with lots of pedestrian and vehicle cross traffic (and aggressive drivers) they seem to serve a pretty useful purpose.
Come to NJ or most US suburbs you will see massive stop signs everywhere; most unnecessary in light traffic areas as well... Annoying!
You would hate southeastern PA. Just about every non-PennDOT (local-maintained) road has many of them erected as a means of low-cost speed-control (MUTCD be damned). Rather than rehash such, click on one of the older thread links in my earlier post for more info & details.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 01, 2015, 07:51:08 PM
You put up yield signs, and you get drivers who just blow through them and cut off the vehicle they're supposed to yield to. When a crash inevitably occurs, you get a lot of he said/she said where people make excuses as to why they didn't yield and it creates headaches.
Which is why standards of fault exist. In Massachusetts, colliding with a vehicle after disregarding a Yield sign satisfies one or more of three specific standards of fault:
(08) Failure to Proceed with Due Caution from a Traffic Control Signal or Sign. The Operator
fails to obey a traffic control signal or sign, or fails to proceed with due caution from a traffic
control signal or sign, and thereafter collides with another vehicle.
(20) Failure to Obey the Rules and Regulations for Driving. The Operator violates a specified
provision of M.G.L. chs. 85, 89 or 90, or fails to obey a specified regulation in
350 CMR:Department of Conservation and Recreation, 540 CMR: Registry of Motor Vehicles,
720 CMR: Department of Highways or 740 CMR: Massachusetts Port Authority, and thereafter
collides with another vehicle.
(26) Collision While Merging onto a Highway, or into a Rotary. The Operator, when merging
onto a highway, or into a rotary, thereafter collides with another vehicle already on the highway,
or in the rotary.
Quote from: roadman on December 02, 2015, 06:02:27 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 01, 2015, 07:51:08 PM
You put up yield signs, and you get drivers who just blow through them and cut off the vehicle they're supposed to yield to. When a crash inevitably occurs, you get a lot of he said/she said where people make excuses as to why they didn't yield and it creates headaches.
Which is why standards of fault exist. In Massachusetts, colliding with a vehicle after disregarding a Yield sign satisfies one or more of three specific standards of fault:
(08) Failure to Proceed with Due Caution from a Traffic Control Signal or Sign. The Operator
fails to obey a traffic control signal or sign, or fails to proceed with due caution from a traffic
control signal or sign, and thereafter collides with another vehicle.
(20) Failure to Obey the Rules and Regulations for Driving. The Operator violates a specified
provision of M.G.L. chs. 85, 89 or 90, or fails to obey a specified regulation in
350 CMR:Department of Conservation and Recreation, 540 CMR: Registry of Motor Vehicles,
720 CMR: Department of Highways or 740 CMR: Massachusetts Port Authority, and thereafter
collides with another vehicle.
(26) Collision While Merging onto a Highway, or into a Rotary. The Operator, when merging
onto a highway, or into a rotary, thereafter collides with another vehicle already on the highway,
or in the rotary.
I think the point is that the person disregarding a Yield sign will argue that he didn't see the other vehicle for some reason, and so thought he could proceed without stopping. The thinking is that with a stop sign there, he would have had to stop whether or not he saw the other vehicle, so the accident would not have happened. Though, had he arrived 3 seconds earlier and stopped, maybe he would still not have seen the other vehicle and the accident would have still happened.
Quote from: bzakharin on December 03, 2015, 12:53:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 02, 2015, 06:02:27 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 01, 2015, 07:51:08 PM
You put up yield signs, and you get drivers who just blow through them and cut off the vehicle they're supposed to yield to. When a crash inevitably occurs, you get a lot of he said/she said where people make excuses as to why they didn't yield and it creates headaches.
Which is why standards of fault exist. In Massachusetts, colliding with a vehicle after disregarding a Yield sign satisfies one or more of three specific standards of fault:
(08) Failure to Proceed with Due Caution from a Traffic Control Signal or Sign. The Operator
fails to obey a traffic control signal or sign, or fails to proceed with due caution from a traffic
control signal or sign, and thereafter collides with another vehicle.
(20) Failure to Obey the Rules and Regulations for Driving. The Operator violates a specified
provision of M.G.L. chs. 85, 89 or 90, or fails to obey a specified regulation in
350 CMR:Department of Conservation and Recreation, 540 CMR: Registry of Motor Vehicles,
720 CMR: Department of Highways or 740 CMR: Massachusetts Port Authority, and thereafter
collides with another vehicle.
(26) Collision While Merging onto a Highway, or into a Rotary. The Operator, when merging
onto a highway, or into a rotary, thereafter collides with another vehicle already on the highway,
or in the rotary.
I think the point is that the person disregarding a Yield sign will argue that he didn't see the other vehicle for some reason, and so thought he could proceed without stopping. The thinking is that with a stop sign there, he would have had to stop whether or not he saw the other vehicle, so the accident would not have happened. Though, had he arrived 3 seconds earlier and stopped, maybe he would still not have seen the other vehicle and the accident would have still happened.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Derby,+CT/@41.3281008,-73.086696,202m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e7dfd46c33ef77:0xd7673e0e77692d28!6m1!1e1
This is why I hate the above linked on-ramp b/c nobody adheres to the YIELD sign at the end of the ramp and they just merge right on forcing traffic on the mainline to swerve. That's why I'd rather see stop signs at the end.
Quote from: bzakharin on December 03, 2015, 12:53:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 02, 2015, 06:02:27 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 01, 2015, 07:51:08 PM
You put up yield signs, and you get drivers who just blow through them and cut off the vehicle they're supposed to yield to. When a crash inevitably occurs, you get a lot of he said/she said where people make excuses as to why they didn't yield and it creates headaches.
Which is why standards of fault exist. In Massachusetts, colliding with a vehicle after disregarding a Yield sign satisfies one or more of three specific standards of fault:
(08) Failure to Proceed with Due Caution from a Traffic Control Signal or Sign. The Operator
fails to obey a traffic control signal or sign, or fails to proceed with due caution from a traffic
control signal or sign, and thereafter collides with another vehicle.
(20) Failure to Obey the Rules and Regulations for Driving. The Operator violates a specified
provision of M.G.L. chs. 85, 89 or 90, or fails to obey a specified regulation in
350 CMR:Department of Conservation and Recreation, 540 CMR: Registry of Motor Vehicles,
720 CMR: Department of Highways or 740 CMR: Massachusetts Port Authority, and thereafter
collides with another vehicle.
(26) Collision While Merging onto a Highway, or into a Rotary. The Operator, when merging
onto a highway, or into a rotary, thereafter collides with another vehicle already on the highway,
or in the rotary.
I think the point is that the person disregarding a Yield sign will argue that he didn't see the other vehicle for some reason, and so thought he could proceed without stopping. The thinking is that with a stop sign there, he would have had to stop whether or not he saw the other vehicle, so the accident would not have happened. Though, had he arrived 3 seconds earlier and stopped, maybe he would still not have seen the other vehicle and the accident would have still happened.
There's been many an accident where someone stopped at a stop sign, then proceeded, never seeing the other person for whatever reason.
Regardless if one blows thru a yield/stop sign or slows or stops at a yield/stop sign, if an accident occurs, the person going thru the yield/stop sign is probably going to get the ticket.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 03, 2015, 01:34:17 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Derby,+CT/@41.3281008,-73.086696,202m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e7dfd46c33ef77:0xd7673e0e77692d28!6m1!1e1
This is why I hate the above linked on-ramp b/c nobody adheres to the YIELD sign at the end of the ramp and they just merge right on forcing traffic on the mainline to swerve. That's why I'd rather see stop signs at the end.
It's an old GSV so I don't know if it's still valid, but the yield sign for this merge is far back from the merge, and small. A larger yield sign with a 'No Merge Area' sign can help in situations like this. A Stop sign really isn't beneficial, because you're forcing traffic that does stop to start from 0 mph onto a 55 mph highway at a point where there's limited sight distance behind you to begin with (due to the curve in the road). And many people aren't going to stop anyway.
I'm not sure about CT law, but using NJ for example, the penalty is exactly the same for a stop or yield sign: It's "Failure to Yield at an Intersection" (39:4-90) or "Failure to Observe Stop or Yield Sign" (39:4-144), assessing 2 points.
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 11:27:43 AM
Am I the only person who is sick and tired of all the unnecessary stop signs everywhere in America when many of those could be replaced with yield signs? In Europe, stop signs are rarely used and yield signs are extensively used unlike in North America where stop signs are common and seen everywhere. :ded:
You could say the exact same thing about traffic lights too. One big problem that I've learned working as an engineer is that, at times, a lot of traffic decisions are completely out of our hands, I find it very frustrating. A lot of things like speed limits, stop signs and signals in certain situations are simply there because the mayor or county/city counsel wanted them there for reasons that are often misguided, or in the case with many signals, promised to the developer.
That is why it should be illegal for political officials to intervene like that.
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2015, 05:42:33 PM
That is why it should be illegal for political officials to intervene like that.
Couldn't disagree more. While I'd rather see speed limits set by the 85th percentile or something similar, placement of signals and such are decisions that need to be made in the best interests of the traveling public. If the public presses for a signal to be placed somewhere for safety reasons, even if it doesn't meet standard criteria (which is the plain-language term I prefer over "warrants"), then it's incumbent upon the elected or appointed officials to do what their bosses (the voters and taxpayers) demand. I know one signal in my area that was installed, even after being denied repeatedly by the engineers, because the locals demanded it and got politicians involved.
That's also why I prefer the agency head not be a PE. Engineers feel compelled to use only engineering judgment in making decisions instead of other factors that are important. A non-PE cabinet secretary can make those decisions.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 03, 2015, 10:55:33 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2015, 05:42:33 PM
That is why it should be illegal for political officials to intervene like that.
Couldn't disagree more. While I'd rather see speed limits set by the 85th percentile or something similar, placement of signals and such are decisions that need to be made in the best interests of the traveling public. If the public presses for a signal to be placed somewhere for safety reasons, even if it doesn't meet standard criteria (which is the plain-language term I prefer over "warrants"), then it's incumbent upon the elected or appointed officials to do what their bosses (the voters and taxpayers) demand. I know one signal in my area that was installed, even after being denied repeatedly by the engineers, because the locals demanded it and got politicians involved.
That's also why I prefer the agency head not be a PE. Engineers feel compelled to use only engineering judgment in making decisions instead of other factors that are important. A non-PE cabinet secretary can make those decisions.
I couldn't disagree more with that comment, going with your logic, we don't need engineers, just let the public (who think they know everything) design everything. And what judgment does the public use? Their gut feeling? Engineers can be wrong, but I trust an engineer over someone who has a gut feeling. Yes, there are times where the public can be right, but I'll defer to the engineer 99% of the time. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, but that's how I read it.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 03, 2015, 10:55:33 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2015, 05:42:33 PM
That is why it should be illegal for political officials to intervene like that.
Couldn't disagree more. While I'd rather see speed limits set by the 85th percentile or something similar, placement of signals and such are decisions that need to be made in the best interests of the traveling public. If the public presses for a signal to be placed somewhere for safety reasons, even if it doesn't meet standard criteria (which is the plain-language term I prefer over "warrants"), then it's incumbent upon the elected or appointed officials to do what their bosses (the voters and taxpayers) demand. I know one signal in my area that was installed, even after being denied repeatedly by the engineers, because the locals demanded it and got politicians involved.
That's also why I prefer the agency head not be a PE. Engineers feel compelled to use only engineering judgment in making decisions instead of other factors that are important. A non-PE cabinet secretary can make those decisions.
Trouble is, residents often try to lower speed limits, add stop signs, etc. not because of safety, but because "we don't want them damn motorists going down our street".
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2015, 01:01:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 03, 2015, 10:55:33 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2015, 05:42:33 PM
That is why it should be illegal for political officials to intervene like that.
Couldn't disagree more. While I'd rather see speed limits set by the 85th percentile or something similar, placement of signals and such are decisions that need to be made in the best interests of the traveling public. If the public presses for a signal to be placed somewhere for safety reasons, even if it doesn't meet standard criteria (which is the plain-language term I prefer over "warrants"), then it's incumbent upon the elected or appointed officials to do what their bosses (the voters and taxpayers) demand. I know one signal in my area that was installed, even after being denied repeatedly by the engineers, because the locals demanded it and got politicians involved.
That's also why I prefer the agency head not be a PE. Engineers feel compelled to use only engineering judgment in making decisions instead of other factors that are important. A non-PE cabinet secretary can make those decisions.
Trouble is, residents often try to lower speed limits, add stop signs, etc. not because of safety, but because "we don't want them damn motorists going down our street".
Politicians are elected to carry out the will of the people, which sometimes is "We prefer this neighborhood not be the thoroughfare, even though it might be the shortest path between two points."
We also don't assign zoning duties purely to technicians for the same reason. The public has every right to decide what kind of community it wants to shape. That's its job.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 04, 2015, 01:11:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2015, 01:01:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 03, 2015, 10:55:33 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2015, 05:42:33 PM
That is why it should be illegal for political officials to intervene like that.
Couldn't disagree more. While I'd rather see speed limits set by the 85th percentile or something similar, placement of signals and such are decisions that need to be made in the best interests of the traveling public. If the public presses for a signal to be placed somewhere for safety reasons, even if it doesn't meet standard criteria (which is the plain-language term I prefer over "warrants"), then it's incumbent upon the elected or appointed officials to do what their bosses (the voters and taxpayers) demand. I know one signal in my area that was installed, even after being denied repeatedly by the engineers, because the locals demanded it and got politicians involved.
That's also why I prefer the agency head not be a PE. Engineers feel compelled to use only engineering judgment in making decisions instead of other factors that are important. A non-PE cabinet secretary can make those decisions.
Trouble is, residents often try to lower speed limits, add stop signs, etc. not because of safety, but because "we don't want them damn motorists going down our street".
Politicians are elected to carry out the will of the people, which sometimes is "We prefer this neighborhood not be the thoroughfare, even though it might be the shortest path between two points."
We also don't assign zoning duties purely to technicians for the same reason. The public has every right to decide what kind of community it wants to shape. That's its job.
And if their neighborhood already is (and possibly always has been) the thoroughfare and they're just in denial?
Complaining residents is one of the reasons why there are so many there are so many all-way stops in this country. Traffic devices should not be used for speed control!
I would go so far as to say that once one gets to the state and federal level (and sometimes possibly even local) that politicians are elected to serve the corporations/special interests that contributed their campaign dollars and lobby them in office and don't give a crap about the people. If Mr. Politician is in bed with the insurance lobby, for example, he's going to lower the speed limit regardless of what the public wants and what engineering judgement demands, ultimately making the roads
less safe.
In the mid-80s, before CA-85/West Valley Fwy was constructed, commuters (mostly from Saratoga) would frequently use Bubb Rd and Stelling Rd, both two-lane streets through a predominately residential area. The city of Cupertino installed two stop signs on Bubb at Hyannisport Drive and Columbus Avenue and two more on Stelling at Huntridge Lane and Orion Lane in an attempt to persuade through traffic to use De Anza Blvd.
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2015, 01:42:47 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 04, 2015, 01:11:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2015, 01:01:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 03, 2015, 10:55:33 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2015, 05:42:33 PM
That is why it should be illegal for political officials to intervene like that.
Couldn't disagree more. While I'd rather see speed limits set by the 85th percentile or something similar, placement of signals and such are decisions that need to be made in the best interests of the traveling public. If the public presses for a signal to be placed somewhere for safety reasons, even if it doesn't meet standard criteria (which is the plain-language term I prefer over "warrants"), then it's incumbent upon the elected or appointed officials to do what their bosses (the voters and taxpayers) demand. I know one signal in my area that was installed, even after being denied repeatedly by the engineers, because the locals demanded it and got politicians involved.
That's also why I prefer the agency head not be a PE. Engineers feel compelled to use only engineering judgment in making decisions instead of other factors that are important. A non-PE cabinet secretary can make those decisions.
Trouble is, residents often try to lower speed limits, add stop signs, etc. not because of safety, but because "we don't want them damn motorists going down our street".
Politicians are elected to carry out the will of the people, which sometimes is "We prefer this neighborhood not be the thoroughfare, even though it might be the shortest path between two points."
We also don't assign zoning duties purely to technicians for the same reason. The public has every right to decide what kind of community it wants to shape. That's its job.
And if their neighborhood already is (and possibly always has been) the thoroughfare and they're just in denial?
Complaining residents is one of the reasons why there are so many there are so many all-way stops in this country. Traffic devices should not be used for speed control!
I would go so far as to say that once one gets to the state and federal level (and sometimes possibly even local) that politicians are elected to serve the corporations/special interests that contributed their campaign dollars and lobby them in office and don't give a crap about the people. If Mr. Politician is in bed with the insurance lobby, for example, he's going to lower the speed limit regardless of what the public wants and what engineering judgement demands, ultimately making the roads less safe.
We get the government we consent to.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 04, 2015, 01:11:58 PMPoliticians are elected to carry out the will of the people, which sometimes is "We prefer this neighborhood not be the thoroughfare, even though it might be the shortest path between two points."
We also don't assign zoning duties purely to technicians for the same reason. The public has every right to decide what kind of community it wants to shape. That's its job.
But what if the rest of the residents of the city - who are also represented by the same politicians - want to be able to take the shortest path between two points?
Or on zoning, what if some residents want the new shopping center that the other residents are trying to get the politicians to ban?
That's why we want professionals making these recommendations and decisions, sometimes with the oversight of the politicians. Not policy made by whoever can yell the loudest.
Quote from: GaryV on December 04, 2015, 09:07:11 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 04, 2015, 01:11:58 PMPoliticians are elected to carry out the will of the people, which sometimes is "We prefer this neighborhood not be the thoroughfare, even though it might be the shortest path between two points."
We also don't assign zoning duties purely to technicians for the same reason. The public has every right to decide what kind of community it wants to shape. That's its job.
But what if the rest of the residents of the city - who are also represented by the same politicians - want to be able to take the shortest path between two points?
Or on zoning, what if some residents want the new shopping center that the other residents are trying to get the politicians to ban?
That's why we want professionals making these recommendations and decisions, sometimes with the oversight of the politicians. Not policy made by whoever can yell the loudest.
We have these things called legislative bodies, where interests are debated, weighed, and voted upon. Therein lies the capability for a municipality as a whole to weigh in.
Are legislatures corruptable? Yes, on this issue just like those concerning taxes, health care, education, morality, and more. They are nevertheless one of the main avenues by which we have collectively agreed to make policy.
Technocrats find this level of public involvement to be irksome meddling in expert matters. But when you put all "expert matters" outside the purview the public has through representative government, you end up with them doing what, rewriting the flag code?
Winston Churchhill famously said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others, so sometimes you have to put up with a few extra stop signs."
Let me weigh in with the particulars of the traffic signal situation I mentioned upthread.
In this case, the intersection in question is located in Booneville, Ky., at the intersection of KY 28 and KY 3347. KY 3347 leads to the local high school/middle school complex which is located north of KY 28. A few years ago, a new entrance to the elementary school, which is located on the south side of KY 28, was built. That new entrance aligns with the KY 3347 intersection. After it was built, traffic became a problem twice a day, during the morning and afternoon "school rush" hours. Booneville is a very small town, and Owsley County is traditionally known as one of the five poorest counties in the nation. The local elected officials and school officials repeatedly requested a traffic light at the intersection. (Disclosure -- I've known the school superintendent there for more than 30 years and he's a very good friend of mine). Other than twice a day, the intersection didn't meet warrants (there's that engineering term again) for a signal. It also didn't have a crash history, but the locals were trying to prevent wrecks from happening. The local leaders contacted state legislators. State legislators got the same answer -- the intersection didn't meet warrants. So they went to Frankfort and Frankfort overruled the district office and had the signal installed. This may not have been the correct engineering decision, but it was what the local people wanted, so installing it was the right thing to do.
Quote from: GaryV on December 04, 2015, 09:07:11 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 04, 2015, 01:11:58 PMPoliticians are elected to carry out the will of the people, which sometimes is "We prefer this neighborhood not be the thoroughfare, even though it might be the shortest path between two points."
We also don't assign zoning duties purely to technicians for the same reason. The public has every right to decide what kind of community it wants to shape. That's its job.
But what if the rest of the residents of the city - who are also represented by the same politicians - want to be able to take the shortest path between two points?
Or on zoning, what if some residents want the new shopping center that the other residents are trying to get the politicians to ban?
That's why we want professionals making these recommendations and decisions, sometimes with the oversight of the politicians. Not policy made by whoever can yell the loudest.
I can confirm that this is an issue. We have a road in the neighborhood with an apparently intentional "dip" at one of the intersections. I was talking to someone who lives on that street and he was complaining that a 4-way stop sign would be a much better deterrent of traffic on his street, but that the township refuses to install any such assemblies. Meanwhile, I just wish there would be a decent way out of the neighborhood (his street is the most direct exit onto a major state highway) without unnecessary dips and stop signs. I doubt it would increase traffic from outside the neighborhood much, since, in order to cut through the neighborhood between two major streets, one would have to make 4 turns, with one stop sign in one direction and 3 in the other.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 05, 2015, 09:30:28 PM
Let me weigh in with the particulars of the traffic signal situation I mentioned upthread.
In this case, the intersection in question is located in Booneville, Ky., at the intersection of KY 28 and KY 3347. KY 3347 leads to the local high school/middle school complex which is located north of KY 28. A few years ago, a new entrance to the elementary school, which is located on the south side of KY 28, was built. That new entrance aligns with the KY 3347 intersection. After it was built, traffic became a problem twice a day, during the morning and afternoon "school rush" hours. Booneville is a very small town, and Owsley County is traditionally known as one of the five poorest counties in the nation. The local elected officials and school officials repeatedly requested a traffic light at the intersection. (Disclosure -- I've known the school superintendent there for more than 30 years and he's a very good friend of mine). Other than twice a day, the intersection didn't meet warrants (there's that engineering term again) for a signal. It also didn't have a crash history, but the locals were trying to prevent wrecks from happening. The local leaders contacted state legislators. State legislators got the same answer -- the intersection didn't meet warrants. So they went to Frankfort and Frankfort overruled the district office and had the signal installed. This may not have been the correct engineering decision, but it was what the local people wanted, so installing it was the right thing to do.
Nah. I disagree with this. Leave it to the experts, not the ignorant public.