This idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates. Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.
I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.
But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else. Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.
Other laws that could use a little tweaking?
Quote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMThis idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates. Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.
I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.
But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else. Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.
Considering that the one time I was on a bus (granted, a city bus) and a railroad signal started flashing, we were almost ready to cross and get hit... it's a good idea to make them stop.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on February 06, 2025, 11:33:55 AMQuote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMThis idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates. Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.
I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.
But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else. Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.
Considering that the one time I was on a bus (granted, a city bus) and a railroad signal started flashing, we were almost ready to cross and get hit... it's a good idea to make them stop.
presumably, closing sequence gives any vehicle enough time to either stop or finish the crossing, and then have a quick coffee before the train shows up.
Same idea as with all-red phase on a traffic light.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMThis idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates. Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.
I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.
But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else. Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.
Other laws that could use a little tweaking?
Isn't it already in the MUTCD or similar, that passive railroad crossings (the ones with no lights or gates) are required to have stop signs now? Which means all traffic will be stopping anyway not just certain classes of motor vehicles (I doubt that school buses specifically would be given an exemption if regular buses are not)
US 301 on the Maryland eastern shore has an RR crossing where marked pull-offs are provided for vehicles required to stop. Obviously not feasible at every single crossing in existence, but I thought it was a neat way to address the issue, especially given that US 301 is a high-speed divided highway at this crossing.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0407313,-76.0142126,3a,39.4y,224.21h,88.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAxxGQLsQdHuLqVku7SJFmA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D1.235196468700181%26panoid%3DAxxGQLsQdHuLqVku7SJFmA%26yaw%3D224.20813158922726!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.039462,-76.0154207,3a,43y,226.42h,89.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slHX3u3qZraUed7B_99izJA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0.895636259669331%26panoid%3DlHX3u3qZraUed7B_99izJA%26yaw%3D226.4239369176042!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Quote from: ran4sh on February 06, 2025, 12:02:58 PMQuote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMThis idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates. Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.
I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.
But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else. Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.
Other laws that could use a little tweaking?
Isn't it already in the MUTCD or similar, that passive railroad crossings (the ones with no lights or gates) are required to have stop signs now? Which means all traffic will be stopping anyway not just certain classes of motor vehicles (I doubt that school buses specifically would be given an exemption if regular buses are not)
It is a yield or stop sign, and I've mostly seen the yield sign.
Quote from: ran4sh on February 06, 2025, 12:02:58 PMQuote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMThis idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates. Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.
I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.
But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else. Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.
Other laws that could use a little tweaking?
Isn't it already in the MUTCD or similar, that passive railroad crossings (the ones with no lights or gates) are required to have stop signs now? Which means all traffic will be stopping anyway not just certain classes of motor vehicles (I doubt that school buses specifically would be given an exemption if regular buses are not)
As far as I understand, some (many?) states adopted some paranoid procedure after a train crashed in a full school bus in 1930s. It is something like - full stop, engine off, open door and window, listen for the train before proceeding. Way beyond stop sign requirements.
Quote from: kalvado on February 06, 2025, 12:39:07 PMQuote from: ran4sh on February 06, 2025, 12:02:58 PMQuote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMThis idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates. Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.
I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.
But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else. Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.
Other laws that could use a little tweaking?
Isn't it already in the MUTCD or similar, that passive railroad crossings (the ones with no lights or gates) are required to have stop signs now? Which means all traffic will be stopping anyway not just certain classes of motor vehicles (I doubt that school buses specifically would be given an exemption if regular buses are not)
As far as I understand, some (many?) states adopted some paranoid procedure after a train crashed in a full school bus in 1930s. It is something like - full stop, engine off, open door and window, listen for the train before proceeding. Way beyond stop sign requirements.
Part of that comes from a seminal court case that you read in torts class during your first year of law school. I don't remember whether it was Judge Learned Hand or Judge Cardozo who wrote the ruling, but it emphasized that a reasonable man of ordinary prudence would "stop, look, and listen" at a railroad crossing. That rule pretty much became universal for a good many years until courts and legislatures realized that in more urban areas it was impractical such that it was necessary to put the onus on the railroads to use automated gates and to do away with "stop, look, and listen" for most motorists where automated gates were in place. Judges Learned Hand and Cardozo were so well-respected that a lot of judges were reluctant to depart from the longstanding precedent even as they questioned its continued viability.
I have seen some crossings marked as EXEMPT from normal bus/railroad procedures. Maybe the law needs to be tweaked to allow for more of those scenarios.
Are there still Train vs. Vehicle (car/bus/train...) collisions at railroad crossings? Absolutely! But I would say over 90% of those collisions are due to driver negligence/stupidity -- not reading warning signs (NO low-clearance vehicles), ignoring the DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS suggestions, or thinking they can clear the tracks or "beat the train" when they obviously safely can't.
Just like people pulling out into traffic or turning left in front of oncoming traffic. You can't fix stupid!
Quote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:37:35 PMI have seen some crossings marked as EXEMPT from normal bus/railroad procedures. Maybe the law needs to be tweaked to allow for more of those scenarios.
Most (not all) Exempt crossings are crossing with no or very little railroad traffic. One notable example is the RR Crossing on the AC Expressway Connector, which had 12 or so crossings per day. The AC Train Station is just east of this crossing.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on February 06, 2025, 12:08:38 PMUS 301 on the Maryland eastern shore has an RR crossing where marked pull-offs are provided for vehicles required to stop. Obviously not feasible at every single crossing in existence, but I thought it was a neat way to address the issue, especially given that US 301 is a high-speed divided highway at this crossing.
US 322 in NJ (55 mph here) has a similar example, although the right lane isn't specifically marked for such vehicles required to stop. https://maps.app.goo.gl/wEuDYpp8WKpMqkzj8
^^ Notable exception in the CN track parallel to Ashland Ave in Green Bay/Ashwaubenon WI. It is a mainline track, but its proximity to the road makes it exempt at all crossings in the area, in addition to no train horn.
Probably one of the more unusual ones are the default speed limits. TN and MS have a default rural limit of 65, yet no roadway that's 2 lanes undivided in those states have limits higher than 55. Conversely, other states that have a default limit rural limit of 55 (i.e. VA, NC, and FL) yet most rural freeways are 65-70.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMOther laws that could use a little tweaking?
Right turns on red.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/20/business/right-on-red-turn-bans/
At least in my area, for the few NOTR intersections there are, 90% of them are due to limited visibility issues
Quote from: Ned Weasel on February 08, 2025, 07:30:09 PMQuote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMOther laws that could use a little tweaking?
Right turns on red.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/20/business/right-on-red-turn-bans/
At least in my area, for the few NOTR intersections there are, 90% of them are due to limited visibility issues.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 08, 2025, 07:44:14 PMAt least in my area, for the few NOTR intersections there are, 90% of them are due to limited visibility issuesQuote from: Ned Weasel on February 08, 2025, 07:30:09 PMQuote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMOther laws that could use a little tweaking?
Right turns on red.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/20/business/right-on-red-turn-bans/
At least in my area, for the few NOTR intersections there are, 90% of them are due to limited visibility issues.
Outside of cities, I'd say this is pretty much true 98% of the time. For the other 2%, it's probably a transportation agency being way overly cautious at certain intersections, or catering to a small group of people, usually anti-road people. I've also seen cases where over-55 communities that have a signal at or near their community may have a cranky group of people that don't want people turning on red for whatever reason.
RTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 08, 2025, 08:18:39 PMRTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.
I don't remember where I read or saw it, but I'm pretty sure that there is a statistic that most red light camera tickets actually are for people rolling through on the right turn, rather than the situation most people think of with a car blasting straight through an intersection on red.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 08, 2025, 08:18:39 PMRTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.
Quote from: jdbx on February 13, 2025, 12:40:45 PMI don't remember where I read or saw it, but I'm pretty sure that there is a statistic that most red light camera tickets actually are for people rolling through on the right turn, rather than the situation most people think of with a car blasting straight through an intersection on red.
That is, of course, still against the law.
The only time I've personally been pulled over for a stoplight infraction, it was because I had not come to a complete stop before RTOR. (Cross-traffic's light was just turning green, and the first car in line in the right lane was—oops!—a police officer.)
Quote from: thenetwork on February 08, 2025, 07:44:14 PMAt least in my area, for the few NOTR intersections there are, 90% of them are due to limited visibility issues
Quote from: Ned Weasel on February 08, 2025, 07:30:09 PMQuote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMOther laws that could use a little tweaking?
Right turns on red.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/20/business/right-on-red-turn-bans/
At least in my area, for the few NOTR intersections there are, 90% of them are due to limited visibility issues.
What mystifies me are part-time prohibitions: "NTOR 6am to 11pm," sometimes also with an additional "Mon-Fri" tab. Does visibility improve during the off hours and weekends? Lower traffic and pedestrian volume so a lower chance of T-boning someone you can't/don't see, let's roll those dice! The only sensible explanation that comes to my mind is that it's an attempt to reduce the number of stupid risky turns in front of a speeding vehicle. In which case it ought to be NTOR full-time.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on February 13, 2025, 01:03:26 PMWhat mystifies me are part-time prohibitions: "NTOR 6am to 11pm," sometimes also with an additional "Mon-Fri" tab. Does visibility improve during the off hours and weekends? Lower traffic and pedestrian volume so a lower chance of T-boning someone you can't/don't see, let's roll those dice! The only sensible explanation that comes to my mind is that it's an attempt to reduce the number of stupid risky turns in front of a speeding vehicle. In which case it ought to be NTOR full-time.
Visibility improves after 11pm and declines after 6am. :no:
I think there are some places where the part-time prohibition reflects that the pedestrian traffic is not present during the off hours. I can think of a good number of intersections where turns on red are prohibited from 7 AM to 7 PM, for example. A good number of those are in areas where the predominant land usage is office buildings (and perhaps some ancillary businesses like restaurants serving those office buildings).
On the other hand, I can think of some intersections—all of them near sports or music venues—where maybe a prohibition from 5 PM to midnight might be more appropriate, although I've never seen that.
This morning, I got stuck at a nearby DDI off-ramp waiting to make a left turn (exactly what the DDI concept was supposed to eliminate). North Carolina and other states should "tweak" their No Left Turn on Red laws to specifically allow left turns on red at DDIs.
[For the record, this interchange actually worked better during construction when the left turn movements were temporarily governed by stop signs/yield signs instead of traffic signals].
Quote from: jdbx on February 13, 2025, 12:40:45 PMQuote from: 74/171FAN on February 08, 2025, 08:18:39 PMRTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.
I don't remember where I read or saw it, but I'm pretty sure that there is a statistic that most red light camera tickets actually are for people rolling through on the right turn, rather than the situation most people think of with a car blasting straight through an intersection on red.
This is by far the most common reason why the camera goes off. While yes, it's illegal, it a low level violation that rarely results in crashes. It's also why most intersections with cameras also allow RTOR, because otherwise the violation count wouldn't justify the money spent on the camera system.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 13, 2025, 01:49:36 PMThis morning, I got stuck at a nearby DDI off-ramp waiting to make a left turn (exactly what the DDI concept was supposed to eliminate). North Carolina and other states should "tweak" their No Left Turn on Red laws to specifically allow left turns on red at DDIs.
Don't similar states just put up a sign saying it's OK to turn left at that particular one?
EDIT — nevermind . . . https://maps.app.goo.gl/Nvd8fQ4se32uqT318
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 13, 2025, 01:49:36 PMThis morning, I got stuck at a nearby DDI off-ramp waiting to make a left turn (exactly what the DDI concept was supposed to eliminate). North Carolina and other states should "tweak" their No Left Turn on Red laws to specifically allow left turns on red at DDIs.
....
Virginia allows left on red, but every time I've gone through a DDI in Virginia, I've encountered "No Turn on Red" signs for the left turns. Example here in Haymarket. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/yLKhntKHBmJ5GGsR6) I wonder whether the reason is that on a DDI ramp, the driver has to turn his head a lot further to the right than he does at a 90-degree crossroads.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 13, 2025, 01:49:36 PMwaiting to make a left turn (exactly what the DDI concept was supposed to eliminate)
That may be what it was originally designed to eliminate, but the reason they're
actually built is to save money. Come on, you know that. And, by eliminating the on/off (accel/decel?) lane from each side of the bridge, they can save even more money.
Not sure if this counts as a traffic law, but...
QuoteCode of Ordinances — Little Rock, AR
Chapter 18 — Miscellaneous Provisions and Offenses
Article II — Offenses Involving Public Peace and Order
Sec. 18-54. — Sounding of horns at sandwich shops
No person shall sound the horn on a vehicle at any place where cold drinks or sandwiches are served after 9:00 p.m.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 13, 2025, 01:49:36 PMNorth Carolina and other states should "tweak" their No Left Turn on Red laws to specifically allow left turns on red at DDIs.
Michigan allows it, but I think I've only seen a couple of drivers (beside myself) that have done it. Granted, traffic is often too busy to allow a LTOR, so maybe other drivers are just being cautious.
Quote from: kphoger on February 13, 2025, 02:36:22 PMNot sure if this counts as a traffic law, but...
QuoteCode of Ordinances — Little Rock, AR
Chapter 18 — Miscellaneous Provisions and Offenses
Article II — Offenses Involving Public Peace and Order
Sec. 18-54. — Sounding of horns at sandwich shops
No person shall sound the horn on a vehicle at any place where cold drinks or sandwiches are served after 9:00 p.m.
OK then, that car that's trying to back out from the drive thru at Mickey D's at 9:15 - I can't honk at them to stop them from backing into me? Yes, this is an outdated law that should be removed. I can't imagine what would have prompted enactment of this. Maybe too many people cruising in the 50's were honking horns at each other at the Local Drive In?
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 13, 2025, 01:49:36 PMThis morning, I got stuck at a nearby DDI off-ramp waiting to make a left turn (exactly what the DDI concept was supposed to eliminate).
The DDI concept was supposed to eliminate waiting at a second signal to make a left turn to an
on-ramp, and it does so.
Quote from: GaryV on February 13, 2025, 02:41:16 PMQuote from: Dirt Roads on February 13, 2025, 01:49:36 PMNorth Carolina and other states should "tweak" their No Left Turn on Red laws to specifically allow left turns on red at DDIs.
Michigan allows it, but I think I've only seen a couple of drivers (beside myself) that have done it. Granted, traffic is often too busy to allow a LTOR, so maybe other drivers are just being cautious.
I would not be surprised at all to hear that the overwhelming majority of drivers don't know left on red is ever legal.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 13, 2025, 02:53:06 PMI would not be surprised at all to hear that the overwhelming majority of drivers don't know left on red is ever legal.
Plenty of drivers in Wichita know it's legal, because there are plenty of stoplight-controlled one-way intersections. I-135 @ 1st-2nd Streets even has a dual-LTOR in both the
NB (https://maps.app.goo.gl/HPLoU2gWHkNA3qHJ6) and
SB (https://maps.app.goo.gl/wvxEJGcM4LJQtRNA7) directions, and I've seen more drivers go on red there (from both lanes) than not.
In and around the Cleveland, OH area, many intersections have NRTOR signs for specific hours...i.e. "8am-4pm/SCHOOL DAYS ONLY". That one has a lot of gray area ambiguity, especially if you aren't keen on that city's school calendar. Plus why make it NTOR when the intersection is lucky to see actual kids going to/from school for *maybe* 30-45 minutes out of the entire 8-hour restrictive time???
Same for those ambiguous school zones withput accompanying flashing lights that only say list effective times on SCHOOL DAYS ONLY.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 13, 2025, 03:31:13 PMIn and around the Cleveland, OH area, many intersections have NRTOR signs for specific hours...i.e. "8am-4pm/SCHOOL DAYS ONLY". That one has a lot of gray area ambiguity, especially if you aren't keen on that city's school calendar. Plus why make it NTOR when the intersection is lucky to see actual kids going to/from school for *maybe* 30-45 minutes out of the entire 8-hour restrictive time???
Same for those ambiguous school zones withput accompanying flashing lights that only say list effective times on SCHOOL DAYS ONLY.
I agree that those signs are bad. But...
Is it Monday–Friday? Yes? Then I'll assume it's a school day.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 13, 2025, 01:49:36 PMThis morning, I got stuck at a nearby DDI off-ramp waiting to make a left turn (exactly what the DDI concept was supposed to eliminate). North Carolina and other states should "tweak" their No Left Turn on Red laws to specifically allow left turns on red at DDIs.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 13, 2025, 02:12:25 PMVirginia allows left on red, but every time I've gone through a DDI in Virginia, I've encountered "No Turn on Red" signs for the left turns. Example here in Haymarket. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/yLKhntKHBmJ5GGsR6) I wonder whether the reason is that on a DDI ramp, the driver has to turn his head a lot further to the right than he does at a 90-degree crossroads.
That DDI is much wider than the ones here in North Carolina, which are usually designed to fit in the existing interchange footprint. This one at the Hawfields exit in Mebane (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0693721,-79.2978967,3a,75y,251.49h,85.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sh-c-olmUgJztmo6TEcKskQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.787196343709766%26panoid%3Dh-c-olmUgJztmo6TEcKskQ%26yaw%3D251.48689725541323!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) is much tighter, with mainline NC-119 traffic still curving into the DDI at the off-ramp. However, the left turn in the Haymarket example is similar to entering a high-speed expressway from a short lefthand onramp.
[Funny that GoogleMaps still shows the temporary stop signs that worked so well].
Quote from: kphoger on February 13, 2025, 03:34:23 PMIs it Monday–Friday? Yes? Then I'll assume it's a school day.
Unless it's summer. Or between Christmas and New Year. Or Martin Luther King Day. Or you know it's not a school day because your school kids are in the car with you.
It could be worse. They closed and eventually tore down a school a couple miles from my house. The NTOR School Days sign stayed up for more than a year, maybe more than 2 years.
Quote from: kphoger on February 13, 2025, 03:34:23 PMIs it Monday–Friday? Yes? Then I'll assume it's a school day.
Quote from: GaryV on February 13, 2025, 06:02:55 PMUnless it's summer. Or between Christmas and New Year. Or Martin Luther King Day. Or you know it's not a school day because your school kids are in the car with you.
Legally, I'm not even sure if holidays are excluded.
I've also wondered, when facing a "school days when children are present" sign, if that applies to evening programs at the school. It's all bad.
But slowing down, or not turning on red or whatever, on December 30 isn't going to get you a traffic ticket even if it was technically allowed. So, as I said, I just try and assume it's a school day if there's any doubt.
For what it's worth, the vehicle code of Illinois defines the hours of a "school day", but not what days those are.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 13, 2025, 01:49:36 PMwaiting to make a left turn (exactly what the DDI concept was supposed to eliminate)
Quote from: kphoger on February 13, 2025, 02:20:09 PMThat may be what it was originally designed to eliminate, but the reason they're actually built is to save money. Come on, you know that.
I'm from West Virginia so you are giving me more credit than I deserve.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on February 13, 2025, 02:51:09 PMThe DDI concept was supposed to eliminate waiting at a second signal to make a left turn to an on-ramp, and it does so.
Back to this specific DDI at the Hawfields exit in Mebane (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0693721,-79.2978967,3a,75y,251.49h,85.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sh-c-olmUgJztmo6TEcKskQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.787196343709766%26panoid%3Dh-c-olmUgJztmo6TEcKskQ%26yaw%3D251.48689725541323!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D), at least for now the worst case traffic condition is for this westbound offramp turning left (southbound NC-119) during the evening rush. In order to avoid backup onto the Interstate, I'm pretty sure that there is a special cycle that prioritizes and lengthens this left turn during the evening rush (that cycle is now programmed for 3:30PM to 6:00PM at the Hampton Pointe exit in Hillsborough, just for comparison).
Anywhoosit, the traffic signals at this DDI probably could run in normal mode all day long (with no worry of traffic stacking up on the offramp) if Left Turn on Red were permitted here.
[Just in case you weren't paying attention beforehand, GoogleMaps still shows the temporary stop signs during the construction of the Mebane Bypass. This DDI now has lefthand turn signals for both offramps].
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 13, 2025, 05:27:16 PMQuote from: Dirt Roads on February 13, 2025, 01:49:36 PMThis morning, I got stuck at a nearby DDI off-ramp waiting to make a left turn (exactly what the DDI concept was supposed to eliminate). North Carolina and other states should "tweak" their No Left Turn on Red laws to specifically allow left turns on red at DDIs.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 13, 2025, 02:12:25 PMVirginia allows left on red, but every time I've gone through a DDI in Virginia, I've encountered "No Turn on Red" signs for the left turns. Example here in Haymarket. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/yLKhntKHBmJ5GGsR6) I wonder whether the reason is that on a DDI ramp, the driver has to turn his head a lot further to the right than he does at a 90-degree crossroads.
That DDI is much wider than the ones here in North Carolina, which are usually designed to fit in the existing interchange footprint. This one at the Hawfields exit in Mebane (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0693721,-79.2978967,3a,75y,251.49h,85.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sh-c-olmUgJztmo6TEcKskQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.787196343709766%26panoid%3Dh-c-olmUgJztmo6TEcKskQ%26yaw%3D251.48689725541323!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) is much tighter, with mainline NC-119 traffic still curving into the DDI at the off-ramp. However, the left turn in the Haymarket example is similar to entering a high-speed expressway from a short lefthand onramp.
[Funny that GoogleMaps still shows the temporary stop signs that worked so well].
The first one I remember encountering in North Carolina felt like a pretty good-sized DDI that was not at all tight. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/TxscqroBRLFPooKw6)
Quote from: kphoger on February 13, 2025, 06:21:18 PMQuote from: kphoger on February 13, 2025, 03:34:23 PMIs it Monday–Friday? Yes? Then I'll assume it's a school day.
Quote from: GaryV on February 13, 2025, 06:02:55 PMUnless it's summer. Or between Christmas and New Year. Or Martin Luther King Day. Or you know it's not a school day because your school kids are in the car with you.
Legally, I'm not even sure if holidays are excluded.
I've also wondered, when facing a "school days when children are present" sign, if that applies to evening programs at the school. It's all bad.
But slowing down, or not turning on red or whatever, on December 30 isn't going to get you a traffic ticket even if it was technically allowed. So, as I said, I just try and assume it's a school day if there's any doubt.
From what I've heard, the City of Albany school speed cameras do enforce during holidays and breaks, so there's precedent for that.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 13, 2025, 02:12:25 PMQuote from: Dirt Roads on February 13, 2025, 01:49:36 PMThis morning, I got stuck at a nearby DDI off-ramp waiting to make a left turn (exactly what the DDI concept was supposed to eliminate). North Carolina and other states should "tweak" their No Left Turn on Red laws to specifically allow left turns on red at DDIs.
....
Virginia allows left on red, but every time I've gone through a DDI in Virginia, I've encountered "No Turn on Red" signs for the left turns. Example here in Haymarket. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/yLKhntKHBmJ5GGsR6) I wonder whether the reason is that on a DDI ramp, the driver has to turn his head a lot further to the right than he does at a 90-degree crossroads.
That might be it; note that the right turn has the same sign.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMThis idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates. Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.
The requirement to open the side door ought to be removed for crossings that are in quiet zones.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 13, 2025, 03:31:13 PMIn and around the Cleveland, OH area, many intersections have NRTOR signs for specific hours...i.e. "8am-4pm/SCHOOL DAYS ONLY". That one has a lot of gray area ambiguity, especially if you aren't keen on that city's school calendar. Plus why make it NTOR when the intersection is lucky to see actual kids going to/from school for *maybe* 30-45 minutes out of the entire 8-hour restrictive time???
Same for those ambiguous school zones withput accompanying flashing lights that only say list effective times on SCHOOL DAYS ONLY.
There's an intersection near where I work that is signed thusly:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pASUwaw6iqQJNUaE8 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/pASUwaw6iqQJNUaE8)
Those are obviously school hours, but the school traffic is coming from the opposite direction. I think the purpose is to prevent traffic from this direction from turning right and contributing to a backup on that road, forcing school buses and SUV moms coming the other way to sit at a green left arrow because there's no room to pull through the intersection. Better that some of the backup occur on this road, waiting for a green light.
Quote from: kphoger on February 13, 2025, 06:30:03 PMFor what it's worth, the vehicle code of Illinois defines the hours of a "school day", but not what days those are.
In California, school speed limits are conditioned on "when children are present". This, I take it, means you can follow the normal speed limit during the day while they're all in their classrooms. Seems sensible.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 13, 2025, 10:52:37 PMQuote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMThis idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates. Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.
The requirement to open the side door ought to be removed for crossings that are in quiet zones.
Even then that might still let them hear a crossing bell more easily should the signals activate while the bus is stopped there. Plus, I could see it allowing for a slightly better view out that side.
Quote from: kalvado on February 06, 2025, 12:39:07 PMQuote from: ran4sh on February 06, 2025, 12:02:58 PMQuote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMThis idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates. Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.
I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.
But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else. Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.
Other laws that could use a little tweaking?
Isn't it already in the MUTCD or similar, that passive railroad crossings (the ones with no lights or gates) are required to have stop signs now? Which means all traffic will be stopping anyway not just certain classes of motor vehicles (I doubt that school buses specifically would be given an exemption if regular buses are not)
As far as I understand, some (many?) states adopted some paranoid procedure after a train crashed in a full school bus in 1930s. It is something like - full stop, engine off, open door and window, listen for the train before proceeding. Way beyond stop sign requirements.
I drive a city bus, not a school bus. We have to stop, open the door and look both ways. There was indeed a crash in the 1930s. A school bus was in a snowstorm, and at the time they just had to stop and look. The driver couldn't see the train because of the snow and something like 30 kids were killed. In Ohio at least, school buses have a lot more to do, but I think that's more administrative than actual law. They have to stop, pop the brake, shift to neutral, kill the fans (I think they have a switch for that), then open the door AND a window.
We have to stop here, even though there obviously won't be any trains rolling through, but it's still marked. Drivers have gotten tickets for blowing through it.
https://imgur.com/a/AH0ZJN3 (https://imgur.com/a/AH0ZJN3)
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 13, 2025, 10:52:37 PMThe requirement to open the side door ought to be removed for crossings that are in quiet zones.
Wouldn't it make the requirement more important? The train horn is a lot louder than just the sound of the train moving on the tracks.
Quote from: 6a on February 14, 2025, 02:02:26 AMdrive a city bus, not a school bus. We have to stop, open the door and look both ways. There was indeed a crash in the 1930s. A school bus was in a snowstorm, and at the time they just had to stop and look. The driver couldn't see the train because of the snow and something like 30 kids were killed. In Ohio at least, school buses have a lot more to do, but I think that's more administrative than actual law. They have to stop, pop the brake, shift to neutral, kill the fans (I think they have a switch for that), then open the door AND a window.
We have to stop here, even though there obviously won't be any trains rolling through, but it's still marked. Drivers have gotten tickets for blowing through it.
https://imgur.com/a/AH0ZJN3 (https://imgur.com/a/AH0ZJN3)
That begs the question: at what point do the requirements make it less safe by making the bus take a long time to get going again after the driver has checked for a train? An entire Amtrak train on a high speed line can come and go in the time that procedure takes.
Quote from: vdeane on February 14, 2025, 12:37:15 PMQuote from: Revive 755 on February 13, 2025, 10:52:37 PMThe requirement to open the side door ought to be removed for crossings that are in quiet zones.
Wouldn't it make the requirement more important? The train horn is a lot louder than just the sound of the train moving on the tracks.
Quote from: 6a on February 14, 2025, 02:02:26 AMdrive a city bus, not a school bus. We have to stop, open the door and look both ways. There was indeed a crash in the 1930s. A school bus was in a snowstorm, and at the time they just had to stop and look. The driver couldn't see the train because of the snow and something like 30 kids were killed. In Ohio at least, school buses have a lot more to do, but I think that's more administrative than actual law. They have to stop, pop the brake, shift to neutral, kill the fans (I think they have a switch for that), then open the door AND a window.
We have to stop here, even though there obviously won't be any trains rolling through, but it's still marked. Drivers have gotten tickets for blowing through it.
https://imgur.com/a/AH0ZJN3 (https://imgur.com/a/AH0ZJN3)
That begs the question: at what point do the requirements make it less safe by making the bus take a long time to get going again after the driver has checked for a train? An entire Amtrak train on a high speed line can come and go in the time that procedure takes.
Isn't that the way most regulation work anyway?
Political rant - while some people do things like it's a cancer surgery performed with an ax, multiple cancer diagnosis are way overdue...
Quote from: kalvado on February 14, 2025, 12:40:44 PMQuote from: vdeane on February 14, 2025, 12:37:15 PMQuote from: Revive 755 on February 13, 2025, 10:52:37 PMThe requirement to open the side door ought to be removed for crossings that are in quiet zones.
Wouldn't it make the requirement more important? The train horn is a lot louder than just the sound of the train moving on the tracks.
Quote from: 6a on February 14, 2025, 02:02:26 AMdrive a city bus, not a school bus. We have to stop, open the door and look both ways. There was indeed a crash in the 1930s. A school bus was in a snowstorm, and at the time they just had to stop and look. The driver couldn't see the train because of the snow and something like 30 kids were killed. In Ohio at least, school buses have a lot more to do, but I think that's more administrative than actual law. They have to stop, pop the brake, shift to neutral, kill the fans (I think they have a switch for that), then open the door AND a window.
We have to stop here, even though there obviously won't be any trains rolling through, but it's still marked. Drivers have gotten tickets for blowing through it.
https://imgur.com/a/AH0ZJN3 (https://imgur.com/a/AH0ZJN3)
That begs the question: at what point do the requirements make it less safe by making the bus take a long time to get going again after the driver has checked for a train? An entire Amtrak train on a high speed line can come and go in the time that procedure takes.
Isn't that the way most regulation work anyway?
Political rant - while some people do things like it's a cancer surgery performed with an ax, multiple cancer diagnosis are way overdue...
I would say that
most regulation, while often implemented in the stupidest way possible, is at least of the variety that would do what it's supposed to if not for the failure to account for the human tendency to try to work around regulations rather than follow the spirit of them rather than just the letter of them.
(personal opinion)
Quote from: vdeane on February 14, 2025, 12:59:51 PMQuote from: kalvado on February 14, 2025, 12:40:44 PMQuote from: vdeane on February 14, 2025, 12:37:15 PMQuote from: Revive 755 on February 13, 2025, 10:52:37 PMThe requirement to open the side door ought to be removed for crossings that are in quiet zones.
Wouldn't it make the requirement more important? The train horn is a lot louder than just the sound of the train moving on the tracks.
Quote from: 6a on February 14, 2025, 02:02:26 AMdrive a city bus, not a school bus. We have to stop, open the door and look both ways. There was indeed a crash in the 1930s. A school bus was in a snowstorm, and at the time they just had to stop and look. The driver couldn't see the train because of the snow and something like 30 kids were killed. In Ohio at least, school buses have a lot more to do, but I think that's more administrative than actual law. They have to stop, pop the brake, shift to neutral, kill the fans (I think they have a switch for that), then open the door AND a window.
We have to stop here, even though there obviously won't be any trains rolling through, but it's still marked. Drivers have gotten tickets for blowing through it.
https://imgur.com/a/AH0ZJN3 (https://imgur.com/a/AH0ZJN3)
That begs the question: at what point do the requirements make it less safe by making the bus take a long time to get going again after the driver has checked for a train? An entire Amtrak train on a high speed line can come and go in the time that procedure takes.
Isn't that the way most regulation work anyway?
Political rant - while some people do things like it's a cancer surgery performed with an ax, multiple cancer diagnosis are way overdue...
I would say that most regulation, while often implemented in the stupidest way possible, is at least of the variety that would do what it's supposed to if not for the failure to account for the human tendency to try to work around regulations rather than follow the spirit of them rather than just the letter of them.
(personal opinion)
Oh,
spirit of the regulation is what would give any lawyer, government or private, a rolling dollar sign in the eye.
"When turning right, drivers must turn into the nearest lane" or "When turning left, drivers must turn into the lane just beyond the center of the cross road"
1. This is typically overridden by traffic control devices (namely pavement markings) where there are more than one turn lane, and often those markings direct traffic into more than just the nearest n lanes. It often makes sense for turning vehicles to turn into the *farthest* lane, and there's no currently established traffic control device that can explicitly indicate this is allowed.
(1a. The "center" of a road is often not exactly the dividing line between two directions of traffic. All references to the center of a road in traffic laws should be revised to refer to the established division been traffic directions.)
2. The only situation where it might actually be helpful for traffic to follow this convention is when two vehicles coming from opposing directions are turning simultaneously onto the same multilane road. But drivers don't stick to that convention consistently enough for it to be trusted. When there is a conflict, either because the convention isn't followed or because there's only one lane to turn into, the driver turning left is supposed to yield to the driver turning right. And that's sufficient for the "nearest lane" convention to be redundant anyway.
Quote from: vtk on February 28, 2025, 09:04:38 PM"When turning right, drivers must turn into the nearest lane" or "When turning left, drivers must turn into the lane just beyond the center of the cross road"
1. This is typically overridden by traffic control devices (namely pavement markings) where there are more than one turn lane, and often those markings direct traffic into more than just the nearest n lanes. It often makes sense for turning vehicles to turn into the *farthest* lane, and there's no currently established traffic control device that can explicitly indicate this is allowed.
(1a. The "center" of a road is often not exactly the dividing line between two directions of traffic. All references to the center of a road in traffic laws should be revised to refer to the established division been traffic directions.)
2. The only situation where it might actually be helpful for traffic to follow this convention is when two vehicles coming from opposing directions are turning simultaneously onto the same multilane road. But drivers don't stick to that convention consistently enough for it to be trusted. When there is a conflict, either because the convention isn't followed or because there's only one lane to turn into, the driver turning left is supposed to yield to the driver turning right. And that's sufficient for the "nearest lane" convention to be redundant anyway.
Baloney.
Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2025, 10:13:22 PMQuote from: vtk on February 28, 2025, 09:04:38 PM"When turning right, drivers must turn into the nearest lane" or "When turning left, drivers must turn into the lane just beyond the center of the cross road"
1. This is typically overridden by traffic control devices (namely pavement markings) where there are more than one turn lane, and often those markings direct traffic into more than just the nearest n lanes. It often makes sense for turning vehicles to turn into the *farthest* lane, and there's no currently established traffic control device that can explicitly indicate this is allowed.
(1a. The "center" of a road is often not exactly the dividing line between two directions of traffic. All references to the center of a road in traffic laws should be revised to refer to the established division been traffic directions.)
2. The only situation where it might actually be helpful for traffic to follow this convention is when two vehicles coming from opposing directions are turning simultaneously onto the same multilane road. But drivers don't stick to that convention consistently enough for it to be trusted. When there is a conflict, either because the convention isn't followed or because there's only one lane to turn into, the driver turning left is supposed to yield to the driver turning right. And that's sufficient for the "nearest lane" convention to be redundant anyway.
Baloney.
Makes quite a bit of sense.
Let me rephrase that:
-Keep things tight if there is conflicting traffic.
-if there are multiple turn lanes, "into nearest lane" is overriden anyway
-if there is no conflicting traffic, then who cares? A bit more room for pedestrians to be seen.
-honorable mention for "turn right, shift 3 lanes for left turn in 100 feet" layouts.
Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2025, 10:13:22 PMQuote from: vtk on February 28, 2025, 09:04:38 PM"When turning right, drivers must turn into the nearest lane" or "When turning left, drivers must turn into the lane just beyond the center of the cross road"
1. This is typically overridden by traffic control devices (namely pavement markings) where there are more than one turn lane, and often those markings direct traffic into more than just the nearest n lanes. It often makes sense for turning vehicles to turn into the *farthest* lane, and there's no currently established traffic control device that can explicitly indicate this is allowed.
(1a. The "center" of a road is often not exactly the dividing line between two directions of traffic. All references to the center of a road in traffic laws should be revised to refer to the established division been traffic directions.)
2. The only situation where it might actually be helpful for traffic to follow this convention is when two vehicles coming from opposing directions are turning simultaneously onto the same multilane road. But drivers don't stick to that convention consistently enough for it to be trusted. When there is a conflict, either because the convention isn't followed or because there's only one lane to turn into, the driver turning left is supposed to yield to the driver turning right. And that's sufficient for the "nearest lane" convention to be redundant anyway.
Baloney.
Well. Thanks for the information.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMThis idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates. Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.
I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.
But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else. Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.
Other laws that could use a little tweaking?
In California they added just a few words to the law and made it conform to your rather sane suggestion: "Unless signed 'exempt'". It makes crossings with full quadrant gates, flashing lights, redundant sensors and all that more easy to traverse.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 08, 2025, 08:18:39 PMRTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.
I've been wondering for a long time: how exactly does a red light camera know whether you've made a full stop before turning right on red?
Quote from: Ned Weasel on March 01, 2025, 05:11:28 PMQuote from: 74/171FAN on February 08, 2025, 08:18:39 PMRTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.
I've been wondering for a long time: how exactly does a red light camera know whether you've made a full stop before turning right on red?
It's taking video, so when it detects a vehicle going past the stop line the reviewer should see the driver stopped first.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2025, 05:17:09 PMQuote from: Ned Weasel on March 01, 2025, 05:11:28 PMQuote from: 74/171FAN on February 08, 2025, 08:18:39 PMRTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.
I've been wondering for a long time: how exactly does a red light camera know whether you've made a full stop before turning right on red?
It's taking video, so when it detects a vehicle going past the stop line the reviewer should see the driver stopped first.
Machine vision has progressed to where no human reviewer should be needed. I don't know if that's been invested in yet anywhere, though.
Some red light cameras still have multiple pavement loop detectors in succession to determine if a red light stop was made or not and which lane ran the red.
Quote from: michravera on March 01, 2025, 04:10:47 AMQuote from: thenetwork on February 06, 2025, 01:11:42 AMBut now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else. Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.
Other laws that could use a little tweaking?
In California they added just a few words to the law and made it conform to your rather sane suggestion: "Unless signed 'exempt'". It makes crossings with full quadrant gates, flashing lights, redundant sensors and all that more easy to traverse.
The set of crossings signed 'exempt' and the set of crossings with full gates and flashing lights are two very different sets with very little overlap.
Quote from: thenetwork on March 01, 2025, 06:57:22 PMSome red light cameras still have multiple pavement loop detectors in succession to determine if a red light stop was made or not and which lane ran the red.
Are you sure that's what they're for? Practically all signalized intersections have more than one loop in each lane, even though very few are detecting red light runners. I always assumed they were just for redundancy due to unreliability, or perhaps to tell whether there was only one car (let it wait) or more (give them the green).
The 55 MPH top speed for heavy duty trucks and vehicles hauling trailers in California. Currently CHP doesn't seem very interested in enforcing this limit and it never really aided traffic anyways.
Quote from: pderocco on March 02, 2025, 03:06:49 PMQuote from: thenetwork on March 01, 2025, 06:57:22 PMSome red light cameras still have multiple pavement loop detectors in succession to determine if a red light stop was made or not and which lane ran the red.
Are you sure that's what they're for? Practically all signalized intersections have more than one loop in each lane, even though very few are detecting red light runners. I always assumed they were just for redundancy due to unreliability, or perhaps to tell whether there was only one car (let it wait) or more (give them the green).
I'm assuming that. In my hometown there will be three signals replaced at city street intersections (no traffic cameras) and the plans for all of them show multiple loops. Although, interestingly, the redundant loops will be only in the left-turn lanes, including the intersection that won't have a dedicated left-turn signal.
(https://i.imgur.com/CxvZqgk.jpeg)
Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 02, 2025, 05:01:58 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 02, 2025, 03:06:49 PMQuote from: thenetwork on March 01, 2025, 06:57:22 PMSome red light cameras still have multiple pavement loop detectors in succession to determine if a red light stop was made or not and which lane ran the red.
Are you sure that's what they're for? Practically all signalized intersections have more than one loop in each lane, even though very few are detecting red light runners. I always assumed they were just for redundancy due to unreliability, or perhaps to tell whether there was only one car (let it wait) or more (give them the green).
I'm assuming that. In my hometown there will be three signals replaced at city street intersections (no traffic cameras) and the plans for all of them show multiple loops. Although, interestingly, the redundant loops will be only in the left-turn lanes, including the intersection that won't have a dedicated left-turn signal.
(https://i.imgur.com/CxvZqgk.jpeg)
I could be wrong, but I would guess that the loops are redundant in the left turn lanes because if they fail, the controller would never give a green arrow. The straight through phase probably happens eventually even if the sensor fails. Maybe someone else around here knows how these are designed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2025, 04:30:30 PMThe 55 MPH top speed for heavy duty trucks and vehicles hauling trailers in California. Currently CHP doesn't seem very interested in enforcing this limit and it never really aided traffic anyways.
I will also agree with this as an American Truck Simulator player. It's the reason I removed traffic infractions entirely.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on March 02, 2025, 06:34:51 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2025, 04:30:30 PMThe 55 MPH top speed for heavy duty trucks and vehicles hauling trailers in California. Currently CHP doesn't seem very interested in enforcing this limit and it never really aided traffic anyways.
I will also agree with this as an American Truck Simulator player. It's the reason I removed traffic infractions entirely.
I removed traffic infractions because every time I got stuck on a fire hydrant a cop car would come up behind me and I would run it over.
I never did figure out how to play that game without getting stuck on a fire hydrant.
Quote from: algorerhythms on March 02, 2025, 10:12:12 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on March 02, 2025, 06:34:51 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2025, 04:30:30 PMThe 55 MPH top speed for heavy duty trucks and vehicles hauling trailers in California. Currently CHP doesn't seem very interested in enforcing this limit and it never really aided traffic anyways.
I will also agree with this as an American Truck Simulator player. It's the reason I removed traffic infractions entirely.
I removed traffic infractions because every time I got stuck on a fire hydrant a cop car would come up behind me and I would run it over.
I never did figure out how to play that game without getting stuck on a fire hydrant.
I figured it out: I heavily mod my game to have no traffic, no infractions, no damage, and Hatsune Miku liveries for my trucks and trailers.
I should probably check out the mods for the game. I downloaded the Oklahoma DLC when I bought the game, but I've never played it because I've never figured out how to get my truck to Oklahoma when I've never managed to actually complete a delivery.
Quote from: pderocco on March 02, 2025, 05:39:25 PMI could be wrong, but I would guess that the loops are redundant in the left turn lanes because if they fail, the controller would never give a green arrow. The straight through phase probably happens eventually even if the sensor fails. Maybe someone else around here knows how these are designed.
In my area, it's the exact opposite -- I'm guessing the system is wired to send a constant low power flow through the pavement sensors, and a broken sensor tells the controller there is nonstop traffic and the controller is programmed to act accordingly, which absolutely infuriates me. The signal one block away from my home is supposed to trigger a green light phase for the side street only when a vehicle activates it, but the pavement sensors on the side street were torn out during a repaving project about five years ago. Ever since then, every cycle triggers a minimum-length green light for the main road and a maximum-length green light for the side street.
Quote from: algorerhythms on March 02, 2025, 10:23:19 PMI should probably check out the mods for the game. I downloaded the Oklahoma DLC when I bought the game, but I've never played it because I've never figured out how to get my truck to Oklahoma when I've never managed to actually complete a delivery.
You can teleport there for an ingame fee. For what it's worth, I bought all the DLC so everything is interconnected.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 02, 2025, 10:37:59 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 02, 2025, 05:39:25 PMI could be wrong, but I would guess that the loops are redundant in the left turn lanes because if they fail, the controller would never give a green arrow. The straight through phase probably happens eventually even if the sensor fails. Maybe someone else around here knows how these are designed.
In my area, it's the exact opposite -- I'm guessing the system is wired to send a constant low power flow through the pavement sensors, and a broken sensor tells the controller there is nonstop traffic and the controller is programmed to act accordingly, which absolutely infuriates me. The signal one block away from my home is supposed to trigger a green light phase for the side street only when a vehicle activates it, but the pavement sensors on the side street were torn out during a repaving project about five years ago. Ever since then, every cycle triggers a minimum-length green light for the main road and a maximum-length green light for the side street.
I think that's common for the straight-through direction. I've seen that in my area in California. I'm just speculating that turn lanes might be treated differently.
Quote from: pderocco on March 02, 2025, 05:39:25 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on March 02, 2025, 05:01:58 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 02, 2025, 03:06:49 PMQuote from: thenetwork on March 01, 2025, 06:57:22 PMSome red light cameras still have multiple pavement loop detectors in succession to determine if a red light stop was made or not and which lane ran the red.
Are you sure that's what they're for? Practically all signalized intersections have more than one loop in each lane, even though very few are detecting red light runners. I always assumed they were just for redundancy due to unreliability, or perhaps to tell whether there was only one car (let it wait) or more (give them the green).
I'm assuming that. In my hometown there will be three signals replaced at city street intersections (no traffic cameras) and the plans for all of them show multiple loops. Although, interestingly, the redundant loops will be only in the left-turn lanes, including the intersection that won't have a dedicated left-turn signal.
(https://i.imgur.com/CxvZqgk.jpeg)
I could be wrong, but I would guess that the loops are redundant in the left turn lanes because if they fail, the controller would never give a green arrow. The straight through phase probably happens eventually even if the sensor fails. Maybe someone else around here knows how these are designed.
Here in Nevada, the left turn lanes almost always have more detector loops than the through lanes. I'm not sure why that is. The one thing that comes to mind is that if a motorcycle fails to get detected in a turn lane, another car coming along behind it will eventually trip the sensors—theoretically, that detection need is lessened with through lanes that may get a green regardless or run together with opposing through phase.
Quote from: roadfro on March 03, 2025, 11:22:11 AMQuote from: pderocco on March 02, 2025, 05:39:25 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on March 02, 2025, 05:01:58 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 02, 2025, 03:06:49 PMQuote from: thenetwork on March 01, 2025, 06:57:22 PMSome red light cameras still have multiple pavement loop detectors in succession to determine if a red light stop was made or not and which lane ran the red.
Are you sure that's what they're for? Practically all signalized intersections have more than one loop in each lane, even though very few are detecting red light runners. I always assumed they were just for redundancy due to unreliability, or perhaps to tell whether there was only one car (let it wait) or more (give them the green).
I'm assuming that. In my hometown there will be three signals replaced at city street intersections (no traffic cameras) and the plans for all of them show multiple loops. Although, interestingly, the redundant loops will be only in the left-turn lanes, including the intersection that won't have a dedicated left-turn signal.
(https://i.imgur.com/CxvZqgk.jpeg)
I could be wrong, but I would guess that the loops are redundant in the left turn lanes because if they fail, the controller would never give a green arrow. The straight through phase probably happens eventually even if the sensor fails. Maybe someone else around here knows how these are designed.
Here in Nevada, the left turn lanes almost always have more detector loops than the through lanes. I'm not sure why that is. The one thing that comes to mind is that if a motorcycle fails to get detected in a turn lane, another car coming along behind it will eventually trip the sensors—theoretically, that detection need is lessened with through lanes that may get a green regardless or run together with opposing through phase.
I would guess it would have to do with the queuing and to gauge how much time is needed for the green arrow. In my area, I've seen a lot of people 'hang back' on a left turn lane to try and trigger the green arrow, meaning instead of pulling up to the stop bar on a red, they'll sit about 2-3 car lengths back.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 12:22:48 PMQuote from: roadfro on March 03, 2025, 11:22:11 AMQuote from: pderocco on March 02, 2025, 05:39:25 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on March 02, 2025, 05:01:58 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 02, 2025, 03:06:49 PMQuote from: thenetwork on March 01, 2025, 06:57:22 PMSome red light cameras still have multiple pavement loop detectors in succession to determine if a red light stop was made or not and which lane ran the red.
Are you sure that's what they're for? Practically all signalized intersections have more than one loop in each lane, even though very few are detecting red light runners. I always assumed they were just for redundancy due to unreliability, or perhaps to tell whether there was only one car (let it wait) or more (give them the green).
I'm assuming that. In my hometown there will be three signals replaced at city street intersections (no traffic cameras) and the plans for all of them show multiple loops. Although, interestingly, the redundant loops will be only in the left-turn lanes, including the intersection that won't have a dedicated left-turn signal.
(https://i.imgur.com/CxvZqgk.jpeg)
I could be wrong, but I would guess that the loops are redundant in the left turn lanes because if they fail, the controller would never give a green arrow. The straight through phase probably happens eventually even if the sensor fails. Maybe someone else around here knows how these are designed.
Here in Nevada, the left turn lanes almost always have more detector loops than the through lanes. I'm not sure why that is. The one thing that comes to mind is that if a motorcycle fails to get detected in a turn lane, another car coming along behind it will eventually trip the sensors—theoretically, that detection need is lessened with through lanes that may get a green regardless or run together with opposing through phase.
I would guess it would have to do with the queuing and to gauge how much time is needed for the green arrow. In my area, I've seen a lot of people 'hang back' on a left turn lane to try and trigger the green arrow, meaning instead of pulling up to the stop bar on a red, they'll sit about 2-3 car lengths back.
They're either doing that to give room for turning traffic, or because the "Everything you see is true" internet told them to do that.
If we're referring to hanging back in the left turn lane, it's definitely to trigger the green arrow. Someone who actually installs and maintains signals would have to explain the technical details. But from my observation, if a driver hangs back on the loop detectors, and you can usually see the loop detectors in the road, it will relay to the traffic signal controller that there are multiple cars in the turn lane and to give the green arrow on the next cycle. This is on the protected-permissive left turns (doghouses / FYAs). Depending on how the signal is programmed, the green arrow might not display if there's not enough cars in the turn lane, so the hanging back games the system.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2025, 04:30:30 PMThe 55 MPH top speed for heavy duty trucks and vehicles hauling trailers in California. Currently CHP doesn't seem very interested in enforcing this limit and it never really aided traffic anyways.
That's why I don't like driving to or through California in American Truck Simulator
I'm gathering the video game version of California is the "hard mode?"
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 03:20:40 PMIf we're referring to hanging back in the left turn lane, it's definitely to trigger the green arrow. Someone who actually installs and maintains signals would have to explain the technical details. But from my observation, if a driver hangs back on the loop detectors, and you can usually see the loop detectors in the road, it will relay to the traffic signal controller that there are multiple cars in the turn lane and to give the green arrow on the next cycle. This is on the protected-permissive left turns (doghouses / FYAs). Depending on how the signal is programmed, the green arrow might not display if there's not enough cars in the turn lane, so the hanging back games the system.
Is that actually a thing, or is it just people pulling-up to a red light too late for it to place the call to give a protected left turn?
Because in the decade I've been driving, I ain't had the former but I very much have had the latter.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on March 03, 2025, 04:21:02 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 03:20:40 PMIf we're referring to hanging back in the left turn lane, it's definitely to trigger the green arrow. Someone who actually installs and maintains signals would have to explain the technical details. But from my observation, if a driver hangs back on the loop detectors, and you can usually see the loop detectors in the road, it will relay to the traffic signal controller that there are multiple cars in the turn lane and to give the green arrow on the next cycle. This is on the protected-permissive left turns (doghouses / FYAs). Depending on how the signal is programmed, the green arrow might not display if there's not enough cars in the turn lane, so the hanging back games the system.
Is that actually a thing, or is it just people pulling-up to a red light too late for it to place the call to give a protected left turn?
Because in the decade I've been driving, I ain't had the former but I very much have had the latter.
Maybe it's something local to my area, but it's something I've seen several times. Usually they will pull up on the red phase and hang back 2-3 car lengths over the farthest loop detector from the stop bar. If they can make it before the cross street goes yellow, it'll trigger the green arrow.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 05:58:41 PMIf they can make it before the cross street goes yellow, it'll trigger the green arrow.
That's generally going to be true of the loop detection
anywhere in the country, regardless of where you stop on it.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on March 03, 2025, 04:21:02 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 03:20:40 PMIf we're referring to hanging back in the left turn lane, it's definitely to trigger the green arrow. Someone who actually installs and maintains signals would have to explain the technical details. But from my observation, if a driver hangs back on the loop detectors, and you can usually see the loop detectors in the road, it will relay to the traffic signal controller that there are multiple cars in the turn lane and to give the green arrow on the next cycle. This is on the protected-permissive left turns (doghouses / FYAs). Depending on how the signal is programmed, the green arrow might not display if there's not enough cars in the turn lane, so the hanging back games the system.
Is that actually a thing, or is it just people pulling-up to a red light too late for it to place the call to give a protected left turn?
Because in the decade I've been driving, I ain't had the former but I very much have had the latter.
Yeah, I'm not quite believing the "skips over the phase because there's not enough vehicles going to turn" theory. I've yet to see this in action also.
Can we get an intersection location where this actually occurs?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2025, 08:01:03 PMQuote from: freebrickproductions on March 03, 2025, 04:21:02 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 03:20:40 PMIf we're referring to hanging back in the left turn lane, it's definitely to trigger the green arrow. Someone who actually installs and maintains signals would have to explain the technical details. But from my observation, if a driver hangs back on the loop detectors, and you can usually see the loop detectors in the road, it will relay to the traffic signal controller that there are multiple cars in the turn lane and to give the green arrow on the next cycle. This is on the protected-permissive left turns (doghouses / FYAs). Depending on how the signal is programmed, the green arrow might not display if there's not enough cars in the turn lane, so the hanging back games the system.
Is that actually a thing, or is it just people pulling-up to a red light too late for it to place the call to give a protected left turn?
Because in the decade I've been driving, I ain't had the former but I very much have had the latter.
Yeah, I'm not quite believing the "skips over the phase because there's not enough vehicles going to turn" theory. I've yet to see this in action also.
Can we get an intersection location where this actually occurs?
Something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5496386,-79.0484659,3a,15y,195.01h,85.97t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sHYkms8LTt92QTi86ZmkJ0g!2e0!5s20120801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.026678013364844%26panoid%3DHYkms8LTt92QTi86ZmkJ0g%26yaw%3D195.01053633953384!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D
Where the beige Toyota is is where the loop detectors are for the turn arrows, and some people will stop there to trip the arrow.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 08:32:22 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2025, 08:01:03 PMQuote from: freebrickproductions on March 03, 2025, 04:21:02 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 03:20:40 PMIf we're referring to hanging back in the left turn lane, it's definitely to trigger the green arrow. Someone who actually installs and maintains signals would have to explain the technical details. But from my observation, if a driver hangs back on the loop detectors, and you can usually see the loop detectors in the road, it will relay to the traffic signal controller that there are multiple cars in the turn lane and to give the green arrow on the next cycle. This is on the protected-permissive left turns (doghouses / FYAs). Depending on how the signal is programmed, the green arrow might not display if there's not enough cars in the turn lane, so the hanging back games the system.
Is that actually a thing, or is it just people pulling-up to a red light too late for it to place the call to give a protected left turn?
Because in the decade I've been driving, I ain't had the former but I very much have had the latter.
Yeah, I'm not quite believing the "skips over the phase because there's not enough vehicles going to turn" theory. I've yet to see this in action also.
Can we get an intersection location where this actually occurs?
Something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5496386,-79.0484659,3a,15y,195.01h,85.97t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sHYkms8LTt92QTi86ZmkJ0g!2e0!5s20120801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.026678013364844%26panoid%3DHYkms8LTt92QTi86ZmkJ0g%26yaw%3D195.01053633953384!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D
Where the beige Toyota is is where the loop detectors are for the turn arrows, and some people will stop there to trip the arrow.
Looks like the detector goes all the way up through the stop line.
Another angle: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5493774,-79.0486808,3a,25.4y,138.67h,78.95t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sKzyTzX2kowvJJkHyZvv55g!2e0!5s20120801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D11.049751513958242%26panoid%3DKzyTzX2kowvJJkHyZvv55g%26yaw%3D138.67239976265714!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D
The loops themselves are located between the painted arrow and the ONLY markings. It's the same on the other side of the intersection, too. I'm assuming it's to prioritize thru traffic and not give a green arrow unless there's built up volume. I'm not sure if this is something specific to South Carolina.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 09:37:09 PMAnother angle: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5493774,-79.0486808,3a,25.4y,138.67h,78.95t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sKzyTzX2kowvJJkHyZvv55g!2e0!5s20120801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D11.049751513958242%26panoid%3DKzyTzX2kowvJJkHyZvv55g%26yaw%3D138.67239976265714!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D
The loops themselves are located between the painted arrow and the ONLY markings. It's the same on the other side of the intersection, too. I'm assuming it's to prioritize thru traffic and not give a green arrow unless there's built up volume. I'm not sure if this is something specific to South Carolina.
Wow. But ok, I see what you're saying. That's an interesting setup, and while I'm not going to say it's SC specific, it may be SC specific. Even the doghouse light is well away from the normal sightline for left turning traffic at this particular intersection.
Yeah, that's definitely strange. I'm guessing it must've been done to prioritize thru traffic as well.
Many of the relatively new installations in Oakland Co, MI, have "skip the protected green" phases. They are typically controlled by cameras. The older installations always go to a leading protected green left turn arrow, but it is shortened if there are no cars there. Some of the most recent ones go directly to flashing yellow arrow if there's no cars waiting 2-3 seconds before the signal changes. And then there's no protected green at all that cycle.
Quote from: GaryV on March 04, 2025, 07:49:39 AMMany of the relatively new installations in Oakland Co, MI, have "skip the protected green" phases. They are typically controlled by cameras. The older installations always go to a leading protected green left turn arrow, but it is shortened if there are no cars there. Some of the most recent ones go directly to flashing yellow arrow if there's no cars waiting 2-3 seconds before the signal changes. And then there's no protected green at all that cycle.
Protected green is something you cannot win with. It would be either useless delay or a mess depending on which misdetection would occur.
Once upon a time, I waited for 7 cycles before finally running the red light when protected green didn't want to come up.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2025, 10:36:45 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 09:37:09 PMAnother angle: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5493774,-79.0486808,3a,25.4y,138.67h,78.95t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sKzyTzX2kowvJJkHyZvv55g!2e0!5s20120801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D11.049751513958242%26panoid%3DKzyTzX2kowvJJkHyZvv55g%26yaw%3D138.67239976265714!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D
The loops themselves are located between the painted arrow and the ONLY markings. It's the same on the other side of the intersection, too. I'm assuming it's to prioritize thru traffic and not give a green arrow unless there's built up volume. I'm not sure if this is something specific to South Carolina.
Wow. But ok, I see what you're saying. That's an interesting setup, and while I'm not going to say it's SC specific, it may be SC specific. Even the doghouse light is well away from the normal sightline for left turning traffic at this particular intersection.
I've never seen that setup before either. That does seem like it's meant to prioritize through traffic.
From the previous discussion where there was two loops in the left turn lane, I'd always understood that multiple loops were tied into the same detector channel, thus it wouldn't matter if you stopped further back or at the stop line, because the detectors put in the same call to the controller regardless. But I could be mistaken on that.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 03:20:40 PMIf we're referring to hanging back in the left turn lane, it's definitely to trigger the green arrow. Someone who actually installs and maintains signals would have to explain the technical details. But from my observation, if a driver hangs back on the loop detectors, and you can usually see the loop detectors in the road, it will relay to the traffic signal controller that there are multiple cars in the turn lane and to give the green arrow on the next cycle. This is on the protected-permissive left turns (doghouses / FYAs). Depending on how the signal is programmed, the green arrow might not display if there's not enough cars in the turn lane, so the hanging back games the system.
I have definitely seen something like this in Los Angeles. Protected-permissive left turn signals are designed to be triggered at many intersections only when there are at least three cars waiting in the left turn lane. If there are only one or two, the left arrow is not triggered and those cars are supposed to find a gap in traffic to make their turn.
Here is an intersection with two clearly marked detector loops. I believe both have to have a car present on them for the left arrow to be triggered.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.057324,-118.3464067,3a,57.2y,177.66h,81.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbWY4gBfFQKHBGsT2ct2vpw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D8.878557893167695%26panoid%3DbWY4gBfFQKHBGsT2ct2vpw%26yaw%3D177.65895422652667!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMwMy4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDU1SAFQAw%3D%3D
Quote from: pderocco on March 01, 2025, 05:27:02 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2025, 05:17:09 PMQuote from: Ned Weasel on March 01, 2025, 05:11:28 PMQuote from: 74/171FAN on February 08, 2025, 08:18:39 PMRTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.
I've been wondering for a long time: how exactly does a red light camera know whether you've made a full stop before turning right on red?
It's taking video, so when it detects a vehicle going past the stop line the reviewer should see the driver stopped first.
Machine vision has progressed to where no human reviewer should be needed. I don't know if that's been invested in yet anywhere, though.
Apparently it's radar based. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Mr8fb9cl81c
Also, a while ago when I was visiting family in Chicago, there was a rumor that a secret city law existed requiring you to stop for 5 seconds before turning right on red, otherwise the camera would detect your vehicle and send you a ticket (even if you did come to a complete stop for 4 seconds). Later, the rumor changed to where the vehicle must "rock back" after coming to a complete stop in order to avoid a ticket. I was never able to test or verify either of these, but Chicago does have a history of shady practices involving enforcement cameras... it would come as no surprise if these did occur.
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on March 07, 2025, 07:44:46 PMAlso, a while ago when I was visiting family in Chicago, there was a rumor that a secret city law existed requiring you to stop for 5 seconds before turning right on red, otherwise the camera would detect your vehicle and send you a ticket (even if you did come to a complete stop for 4 seconds). Later, the rumor changed to where the vehicle must "rock back" after coming to a complete stop in order to avoid a ticket. I was never able to test or verify either of these, but Chicago does have a history of shady practices involving enforcement cameras... it would come as no surprise if these did occur.
Since we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.
Quote from: pderocco on March 07, 2025, 10:51:40 PMQuote from: ElishaGOtis on March 07, 2025, 07:44:46 PMAlso, a while ago when I was visiting family in Chicago, there was a rumor that a secret city law existed requiring you to stop for 5 seconds before turning right on red, otherwise the camera would detect your vehicle and send you a ticket (even if you did come to a complete stop for 4 seconds). Later, the rumor changed to where the vehicle must "rock back" after coming to a complete stop in order to avoid a ticket. I was never able to test or verify either of these, but Chicago does have a history of shady practices involving enforcement cameras... it would come as no surprise if these did occur.
Since we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.
I think the point of stopping is to take away the motivation to save some momentum, which can result in quicker and less well considered maneuvers. That is, of course, for the one driver in maybe every thousand who actually stops at stop signs. There's a legitimate reason for making every vehicle stop at some places, but not at every single place where two roads meet. I think a good solution is to put in more yield signs, using stop signs only where they're actually needed. Where you can easily see at a glance whether it's safe to go, put in a yield just to establish a right of way. Save stop signs for places where you need to stop for a better look (due to a visibility challenge or a high-speed road, where a car you might miss with a quick glance because it's far away will quickly be up on you), and then enforce stops strictly (I have the same view of setting and enforcing reasonable speed limits). A narrow turnaround in a divided road where you can see whether oncoming traffic will impede your turn from half a mile before you get to it doesn't really need a yield sign, because the yield is implied, but you can put one if it makes you feel better. Putting a stop sign there is silly and reduces respect for the signs. Don't weaken stops where they're needed, but don't require them where they aren't needed.
Quote from: pderocco on March 07, 2025, 10:51:40 PMQuote from: ElishaGOtis on March 07, 2025, 07:44:46 PMAlso, a while ago when I was visiting family in Chicago, there was a rumor that a secret city law existed requiring you to stop for 5 seconds before turning right on red, otherwise the camera would detect your vehicle and send you a ticket (even if you did come to a complete stop for 4 seconds). Later, the rumor changed to where the vehicle must "rock back" after coming to a complete stop in order to avoid a ticket. I was never able to test or verify either of these, but Chicago does have a history of shady practices involving enforcement cameras... it would come as no surprise if these did occur.
Since we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.
So you want the definition of "Stop" to be the similar to "Yield"?
No.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2025, 07:16:47 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 07, 2025, 10:51:40 PMQuote from: ElishaGOtis on March 07, 2025, 07:44:46 PMAlso, a while ago when I was visiting family in Chicago, there was a rumor that a secret city law existed requiring you to stop for 5 seconds before turning right on red, otherwise the camera would detect your vehicle and send you a ticket (even if you did come to a complete stop for 4 seconds). Later, the rumor changed to where the vehicle must "rock back" after coming to a complete stop in order to avoid a ticket. I was never able to test or verify either of these, but Chicago does have a history of shady practices involving enforcement cameras... it would come as no surprise if these did occur.
Since we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.
So you want the definition of "Stop" to be the similar to "Yield"?
No.
Speed limit already implies at least "+10" in most places. Laws in general tend to become a mere suggestion.
Overuse of authority leads to loss of respect to that authority. As
@wxfree says, use stop sign where you actually need drivers to stop, use yield or no sign otherwise. "traffic calming" isn't a valid use of a stop.
A couple years ago the town we visit family at in Jalisco put stop signs in. At best they function as yield signs and generally they are just ignored. I've never seen or heard of anyone being hit, everyone kind of just makes getting through those intersections happen. Granted this town has a density of about 8,700 people per square mile and nobody is moving fast. In slow moving (under 20 MPH) dense urban situations where non-arterial roads are involved the stop signs seem to just create unnecessary traffic.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2025, 07:16:47 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 07, 2025, 10:51:40 PMQuote from: ElishaGOtis on March 07, 2025, 07:44:46 PMAlso, a while ago when I was visiting family in Chicago, there was a rumor that a secret city law existed requiring you to stop for 5 seconds before turning right on red, otherwise the camera would detect your vehicle and send you a ticket (even if you did come to a complete stop for 4 seconds). Later, the rumor changed to where the vehicle must "rock back" after coming to a complete stop in order to avoid a ticket. I was never able to test or verify either of these, but Chicago does have a history of shady practices involving enforcement cameras... it would come as no surprise if these did occur.
Since we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.
So you want the definition of "Stop" to be the similar to "Yield"?
No.
A yield sign doesn't mean slow down to 2mph before entering. It doesn't mean slow down at all, unless necessary. Think freeway on-ramp.
Quote from: wxfree on March 08, 2025, 07:04:42 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 07, 2025, 10:51:40 PMSince we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.
I think the point of stopping is to take away the motivation to save some momentum, which can result in quicker and less well considered maneuvers. That is, of course, for the one driver in maybe every thousand who actually stops at stop signs. There's a legitimate reason for making every vehicle stop at some places, but not at every single place where two roads meet. I think a good solution is to put in more yield signs, using stop signs only where they're actually needed. Where you can easily see at a glance whether it's safe to go, put in a yield just to establish a right of way. Save stop signs for places where you need to stop for a better look (due to a visibility challenge or a high-speed road, where a car you might miss with a quick glance because it's far away will quickly be up on you), and then enforce stops strictly (I have the same view of setting and enforcing reasonable speed limits). A narrow turnaround in a divided road where you can see whether oncoming traffic will impede your turn from half a mile before you get to it doesn't really need a yield sign, because the yield is implied, but you can put one if it makes you feel better. Putting a stop sign there is silly and reduces respect for the signs. Don't weaken stops where they're needed, but don't require them where they aren't needed.
The problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield. Just writing into the law that "stop" really means "almost stop" wouldn't require any signage changes.
Also, where I live in SoCal, I'd say roughly half of all people come to complete stops at all-way stops, and it's really obvious that the ones who do take at least three seconds longer at the sign than those who don't. I often find myself at a particular all-way stop that backs up with thirty cars in evening rush on both perpendicular roads. Shaving three seconds off half of them would get us through that in a minute and a half less time.
Quote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMQuote from: wxfree on March 08, 2025, 07:04:42 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 07, 2025, 10:51:40 PMSince we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.
I think the point of stopping is to take away the motivation to save some momentum, which can result in quicker and less well considered maneuvers. That is, of course, for the one driver in maybe every thousand who actually stops at stop signs. There's a legitimate reason for making every vehicle stop at some places, but not at every single place where two roads meet. I think a good solution is to put in more yield signs, using stop signs only where they're actually needed. Where you can easily see at a glance whether it's safe to go, put in a yield just to establish a right of way. Save stop signs for places where you need to stop for a better look (due to a visibility challenge or a high-speed road, where a car you might miss with a quick glance because it's far away will quickly be up on you), and then enforce stops strictly (I have the same view of setting and enforcing reasonable speed limits). A narrow turnaround in a divided road where you can see whether oncoming traffic will impede your turn from half a mile before you get to it doesn't really need a yield sign, because the yield is implied, but you can put one if it makes you feel better. Putting a stop sign there is silly and reduces respect for the signs. Don't weaken stops where they're needed, but don't require them where they aren't needed.
The problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield. Just writing into the law that "stop" really means "almost stop" wouldn't require any signage changes.
Also, where I live in SoCal, I'd say roughly half of all people come to complete stops at all-way stops, and it's really obvious that the ones who do take at least three seconds longer at the sign than those who don't. I often find myself at a particular all-way stop that backs up with thirty cars in evening rush on both perpendicular roads. Shaving three seconds off half of them would get us through that in a minute and a half less time.
The term "California Stop" exists for a reason.
Quote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMQuote from: wxfree on March 08, 2025, 07:04:42 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 07, 2025, 10:51:40 PMSince we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.
I think the point of stopping is to take away the motivation to save some momentum, which can result in quicker and less well considered maneuvers. That is, of course, for the one driver in maybe every thousand who actually stops at stop signs. There's a legitimate reason for making every vehicle stop at some places, but not at every single place where two roads meet. I think a good solution is to put in more yield signs, using stop signs only where they're actually needed. Where you can easily see at a glance whether it's safe to go, put in a yield just to establish a right of way. Save stop signs for places where you need to stop for a better look (due to a visibility challenge or a high-speed road, where a car you might miss with a quick glance because it's far away will quickly be up on you), and then enforce stops strictly (I have the same view of setting and enforcing reasonable speed limits). A narrow turnaround in a divided road where you can see whether oncoming traffic will impede your turn from half a mile before you get to it doesn't really need a yield sign, because the yield is implied, but you can put one if it makes you feel better. Putting a stop sign there is silly and reduces respect for the signs. Don't weaken stops where they're needed, but don't require them where they aren't needed.
The problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield. Just writing into the law that "stop" really means "almost stop" wouldn't require any signage changes.
Also, where I live in SoCal, I'd say roughly half of all people come to complete stops at all-way stops, and it's really obvious that the ones who do take at least three seconds longer at the sign than those who don't. I often find myself at a particular all-way stop that backs up with thirty cars in evening rush on both perpendicular roads. Shaving three seconds off half of them would get us through that in a minute and a half less time.
What's the name of that special treatment for bicycles at stop sign? "Idaho stop" or something similar?
Quote from: kalvado on March 09, 2025, 08:41:09 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMQuote from: wxfree on March 08, 2025, 07:04:42 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 07, 2025, 10:51:40 PMSince we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.
I think the point of stopping is to take away the motivation to save some momentum, which can result in quicker and less well considered maneuvers. That is, of course, for the one driver in maybe every thousand who actually stops at stop signs. There's a legitimate reason for making every vehicle stop at some places, but not at every single place where two roads meet. I think a good solution is to put in more yield signs, using stop signs only where they're actually needed. Where you can easily see at a glance whether it's safe to go, put in a yield just to establish a right of way. Save stop signs for places where you need to stop for a better look (due to a visibility challenge or a high-speed road, where a car you might miss with a quick glance because it's far away will quickly be up on you), and then enforce stops strictly (I have the same view of setting and enforcing reasonable speed limits). A narrow turnaround in a divided road where you can see whether oncoming traffic will impede your turn from half a mile before you get to it doesn't really need a yield sign, because the yield is implied, but you can put one if it makes you feel better. Putting a stop sign there is silly and reduces respect for the signs. Don't weaken stops where they're needed, but don't require them where they aren't needed.
The problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield. Just writing into the law that "stop" really means "almost stop" wouldn't require any signage changes.
Also, where I live in SoCal, I'd say roughly half of all people come to complete stops at all-way stops, and it's really obvious that the ones who do take at least three seconds longer at the sign than those who don't. I often find myself at a particular all-way stop that backs up with thirty cars in evening rush on both perpendicular roads. Shaving three seconds off half of them would get us through that in a minute and a half less time.
What's the name of that special treatment for bicycles at stop sign? "Idaho stop" or something similar?
Yes, that's an Idaho Stop. Essentially it if a law certain states have where cyclists can treat stop signs as yields.
In light of all the discussion about stop signs, the new MUTCD actively recommends against their excessive use, in addition to prohibiting their use solely for speed control.
Quote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMI often find myself at a particular all-way stop that backs up with thirty cars in evening rush on both perpendicular roads. Shaving three seconds off half of them would get us through that in a minute and a half less time.
Sounds like it should be replaced by a roundabout or traffic light.
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on March 09, 2025, 08:48:55 PMIn light of all the discussion about stop signs, the new MUTCD actively recommends against their excessive use, in addition to prohibiting their use solely for speed control.
That part has been in the MUTCD for the past few editions as well
Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2025, 08:51:08 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMI often find myself at a particular all-way stop that backs up with thirty cars in evening rush on both perpendicular roads. Shaving three seconds off half of them would get us through that in a minute and a half less time.
Sounds like it should be replaced by a roundabout or traffic light.
In parts of Florida, enforcement of stop signs is highly unpredictable. As such, I usually come to a full and complete stop. However, in Gainesville and Miami in particular, I have been honked at and flipped off over 50 times for having the audacity to come to a complete stop... Whenever I come to a 4-way stop, I usually mess up the flow (unintentionally), and as a result I try to avoid those intersections if possible. I've only had that issue in those 2 cities, but I can imagine it would be a problem elsewhere (Philly comes to mind)...
For those curious, I do not stop for very long, maybe 0.25 seconds at the longest (long enough to where a cop would recognize that as a complete stop, but short enough to not be inconvenient).
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on March 09, 2025, 10:03:09 PMQuote from: vdeane on March 09, 2025, 08:51:08 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMI often find myself at a particular all-way stop that backs up with thirty cars in evening rush on both perpendicular roads. Shaving three seconds off half of them would get us through that in a minute and a half less time.
Sounds like it should be replaced by a roundabout or traffic light.
In parts of Florida, enforcement of stop signs is highly unpredictable. As such, I usually come to a full and complete stop. However, in Gainesville and Miami in particular, I have been honked at and flipped off over 50 times for having the audacity to come to a complete stop... Whenever I come to a 4-way stop, I usually mess up the flow (unintentionally), and as a result I try to avoid those intersections if possible. I've only had that issue in those 2 cities, but I can imagine it would be a problem elsewhere (Philly comes to mind)...
In Philly it's often known as the Philly Slide (or South Philly Slide in South Philly). All Way stops are frequently found in the neighborhood areas among one-way streets, so it's just 2 streets with stop signs. And yeah, slow enough to see no one is walking, but stopping is pretty rare.
At full 4 way stops, I've always thought of them as 4 way yields: If there's a little traffic and you're doing it right, by the time you get to the stop line, it should be your turn to go thru.
Quote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMThe problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield.
Nope. We already have that concept. It's called an uncontrolled intersection. I think about 90% of all residential intersections here in Wichita are uncontrolled, meaning they are functionally all-way yield. I personally live between two such intersections.
Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2025, 10:39:05 AMQuote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMThe problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield.
Nope. We already have that concept. It's called an uncontrolled intersection. I think about 90% of all residential intersections here in Wichita are uncontrolled, meaning they are functionally all-way yield. I personally live between two such intersections.
Filter in turn within the Channel Islands is basically the same idea as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_in_turn
Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2025, 10:39:05 AMQuote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMThe problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield.
Nope. We already have that concept. It's called an uncontrolled intersection. I think about 90% of all residential intersections here in Wichita are uncontrolled, meaning they are functionally all-way yield. I personally live between two such intersections.
At least they should throw up some YIELD signs on the lesser-used cross-street(s) to legally denote which street has the right of way.
I wish there was a better interpretation of Stop signs vs. Yield signs at minor intersections -- just like how some crosswalk signs will say Stop OR Yield to peds in crosswalk, even within the same municipality!
Quote from: thenetwork on March 10, 2025, 07:00:17 PMQuote from: kphoger on March 10, 2025, 10:39:05 AMQuote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMThe problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield.
Nope. We already have that concept. It's called an uncontrolled intersection. I think about 90% of all residential intersections here in Wichita are uncontrolled, meaning they are functionally all-way yield. I personally live between two such intersections.
At least they should throw up some YIELD signs on the lesser-used cross-street(s) to legally denote which street has the right of way.
I wish there was a better interpretation of Stop signs vs. Yield signs at minor intersections -- just like how some crosswalk signs will say Stop OR Yield to peds in crosswalk, even within the same municipality!
I believe there is a mess here as state laws would say one or the other, but clerks handling those orders don't know any better.
Quote from: thenetwork on March 10, 2025, 07:00:17 PMQuote from: kphoger on March 10, 2025, 10:39:05 AMQuote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMThe problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield.
Nope. We already have that concept. It's called an uncontrolled intersection. I think about 90% of all residential intersections here in Wichita are uncontrolled, meaning they are functionally all-way yield. I personally live between two such intersections.
At least they should throw up some YIELD signs on the lesser-used cross-street(s) to legally denote which street has the right of way.
Why? It's already legally denoted in the laws of the state.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 10, 2025, 07:39:12 PMQuote from: thenetwork on March 10, 2025, 07:00:17 PMQuote from: kphoger on March 10, 2025, 10:39:05 AMQuote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMThe problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield.
Nope. We already have that concept. It's called an uncontrolled intersection. I think about 90% of all residential intersections here in Wichita are uncontrolled, meaning they are functionally all-way yield. I personally live between two such intersections.
At least they should throw up some YIELD signs on the lesser-used cross-street(s) to legally denote which street has the right of way.
Why? It's already legally denoted in the laws of the state.
A sign for an uncontrolled intersection could be nice regardless of what it is (within reason lmao). Better than nothing, I suppose.
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on March 10, 2025, 08:36:49 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on March 10, 2025, 07:39:12 PMQuote from: thenetwork on March 10, 2025, 07:00:17 PMQuote from: kphoger on March 10, 2025, 10:39:05 AMQuote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMThe problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield.
Nope. We already have that concept. It's called an uncontrolled intersection. I think about 90% of all residential intersections here in Wichita are uncontrolled, meaning they are functionally all-way yield. I personally live between two such intersections.
At least they should throw up some YIELD signs on the lesser-used cross-street(s) to legally denote which street has the right of way.
Why? It's already legally denoted in the laws of the state.
A sign for an uncontrolled intersection could be nice regardless of what it is (within reason lmao). Better than nothing, I suppose.
Vienna convention has a "priority road" and an "end of priority" signs for that.
Quote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMThe problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield.
Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2025, 10:39:05 AMNope. We already have that concept. It's called an uncontrolled intersection. I think about 90% of all residential intersections here in Wichita are uncontrolled, meaning they are functionally all-way yield. I personally live between two such intersections.
Quote from: thenetwork on March 10, 2025, 07:00:17 PMAt least they should throw up some YIELD signs on the lesser-used cross-street(s) to legally denote which street has the right of way.
That is nonsensical. At least in Kansas, neither street
has the right of way at an uncontrolled intersection—so there is nothing to denote.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 10, 2025, 07:39:12 PMIt's already legally denoted in the laws of the state.
Nope. Which street has the right of way at an uncontrolled intersection is
not legally denoted in the laws, of my state at least. If two vehicles approach an intersection at approximately the same time, then the one on the left yields to the one on the right: it doesn't matter which driver is on which street.
Quote from: Kansas StatutesChapter 8 — Automobiles and Other Vehicles
Article 15 — Uniform Act Regulating Traffic; Rules of the Road
8-1526 — Right-of-way; approaching or entering intersection
(a) — When two (2) vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2025, 10:25:41 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on March 10, 2025, 07:39:12 PMIt's already legally denoted in the laws of the state.
Nope. Which street has the right of way at an uncontrolled intersection is not legally denoted in the laws, of my state at least. If two vehicles approach an intersection at approximately the same time, then the one on the left yields to the one on the right: it doesn't matter which driver is on which street.
Quote from: Kansas StatutesChapter 8 — Automobiles and Other Vehicles
Article 15 — Uniform Act Regulating Traffic; Rules of the Road
8-1526 — Right-of-way; approaching or entering intersection
(a) — When two (2) vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
You say it's not denoted as a law, then you copy the exact law. That is absolutely the law I'm referring to. Should the two vehicles collide, the vehicle on the left would be cited for failing to yield.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 10, 2025, 10:49:12 PMYou say it's not denoted as a law, then you copy the exact law. That is absolutely the law I'm referring to. Should the two vehicles collide, the vehicle on the left would be cited for failing to yield.
What I was disputing is the assertion that, as |thenetwork| put it, "which
street has the right of way" is, as you put it, "legally denoted in the laws of the state".
I live on Christine Street near its intersection with Gilbert Street. If two drivers approach that intersection at the same time, then which
driver has the right of way is legally denoted Kansas state law—but regardless of which
street that driver is on. Neither Christine
Street nor Gilbert
Street is legally denoted in state law as having the right of way at their intersection. Sometimes when I drive through it on Christine, I as a
driver have the right of way; other times when I drive through it on Christine, the
driver on Gilbert Street has the right of way (but then most of the time they stop anyway, because people think of Christine as the 'main road' through the intersection and therefore erroneously think they're supposed to yield to it).
There are still some neighborhood around the Boise area with uncontrolled intersections. I think they're gone from Boise now (pretty recent change, mostly replaced them with 2 way stops on alternating blocks), but there are still some in Nampa.
I don't like them, because of the ambiguity. The only way to know if you're coming up to an uncontrolled intersection where you might have to yield, or a stop sign controlled intersection where you have the right of way, is to look for actual stop signs on the side streets, which aren't always easy to spot. There is no difference in signage on the street you're on.
For example, if I was driving down Florida Ave in Nampa (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5571761,-116.5698188,3a,75y,269.11h,85.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTERY-HQqhr17S7sYJ5WhMQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.61278429380738%26panoid%3DTERY-HQqhr17S7sYJ5WhMQ%26yaw%3D269.10878386286765!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) and wasn't paying close attention, I'd have no reason to think I might have to yield. That intersection looks almost identical to this one a block to the north (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5592883,-116.5703285,3a,75y,86.22h,79.43t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3aisQG4UAvSa159Ia4LY-g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D10.574823634370873%26panoid%3D3aisQG4UAvSa159Ia4LY-g%26yaw%3D86.2233098952921!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D), and Florida Ave is clearly the "through"/more important street there. But it's uncontrolled so you may have to yield. Just hard to keep track of. If we're going to have them, there should be some sign to indicate it. I don't think a "4 way yield" is MUTCD compliant, but that's on the right track.
I don't have any issues with uncontrolled intersections in rural/remote areas though. On gravel/dirt roads or lower traffic roads, not higher traffic state highways and the like.
Quote from: doorknob60 on March 13, 2025, 04:43:02 PMThere are still some neighborhood around the Boise area with uncontrolled intersections. I think they're gone from Boise now (pretty recent change, mostly replaced them with 2 way stops on alternating blocks)
Maybe I got lucky, but it only took me till about the fourth attempt poking around GSV randomly to come up with an
AUG 2023 shot (https://maps.app.goo.gl/vifgDEbTgEN2pGhS7) of an uncontrolled intersection within Boise city limits.
Here is another (https://maps.app.goo.gl/d98eZNz3J5yrhuVeA), from OCT-2022. Maybe these have all been eliminated recently..?
But
here's a four-way intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/AAcfz9YEjdA9ZLWz9) with only one stop sign. Huh??
Quote from: kphoger on March 13, 2025, 04:58:46 PMQuote from: doorknob60 on March 13, 2025, 04:43:02 PMThere are still some neighborhood around the Boise area with uncontrolled intersections. I think they're gone from Boise now (pretty recent change, mostly replaced them with 2 way stops on alternating blocks)
Maybe I got lucky, but it only took me till about the fourth attempt poking around GSV randomly to come up with an AUG 2023 shot (https://maps.app.goo.gl/vifgDEbTgEN2pGhS7) of an uncontrolled intersection within Boise city limits. Here is another (https://maps.app.goo.gl/d98eZNz3J5yrhuVeA), from OCT-2022. Maybe these have all been eliminated recently..?
But here's a four-way intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/AAcfz9YEjdA9ZLWz9) with only one stop sign. Huh??
Not to dox myself, but let's just say, I should definitely have been aware of that first one, haha. There are other uncontrolled intersections nearby which I did think of, but I was thinking of 3 way T intersections which are a different situation than 4 way intersections. The 3 way intersections act (in practice) as through traffic has right of way, and the ending street has a yield, which is not a problem.
The kinds of places I know they've eliminated them, are the older grid neighborhoods outside of downtown like East End and North End. Here's an example where it was uncontrolled in 2011, and 2 way stop in 2022 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6095126,-116.1807515,3a,90y,107.52h,74.04t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sTEroWv5SI5z6C1yycmklcw!2e0!5s20110701T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D15.955740515840247%26panoid%3DTEroWv5SI5z6C1yycmklcw%26yaw%3D107.52209002234149!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D). It's not surprising that there's more uncontrolled intersections still out there. But the fact that
most intersections are controlled, but a small number are uncontrolled, means people aren't going to expect the uncontrolled ones, and many will assume they have the right of way.
As for your single stop sign, I think I figured it out. In 2006 imagery, the eastern road didn't exist. So when they later built that out, they added a stop sign. But never bothered adding it to the other leg. A bit odd it's still like that though. I imagine people on the western leg would treat it as a yield, with north/south traffic acting as if they had right of way. But legally? Maybe not...
(https://i.imgur.com/7yNBoMt.png)
Well, I for one am glad to live in a city where I can drive through many neighborhoods without hitting at stop sign every couple of blocks.
Quote from: kphoger on March 13, 2025, 05:10:54 PMWell, I for one am glad to live in a city where I can drive through many neighborhoods without hitting at stop sign every couple of blocks.
I'm kinda surprised many cities haven't considered going with these as a substitute for stop signs: https://maps.app.goo.gl/VQ7Udjw1Bsitc49ZA
If required, they can be mountable for larger vehicles and trucks (or the fire brigade)
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on March 13, 2025, 06:52:13 PMQuote from: kphoger on March 13, 2025, 05:10:54 PMWell, I for one am glad to live in a city where I can drive through many neighborhoods without hitting at stop sign every couple of blocks.
I'm kinda surprised many cities haven't considered going with these as a substitute for stop signs: https://maps.app.goo.gl/VQ7Udjw1Bsitc49ZA
If required, they can be mountable for larger vehicles and trucks (or the fire brigade)
The problem with tiny roundabouts is that they eliminate the ability for two opposite vehicles to turn left without crossing each other's paths twice, thus requiring that they synchronize their turns.
Quote from: pderocco on March 13, 2025, 07:20:05 PMQuote from: ElishaGOtis on March 13, 2025, 06:52:13 PMQuote from: kphoger on March 13, 2025, 05:10:54 PMWell, I for one am glad to live in a city where I can drive through many neighborhoods without hitting at stop sign every couple of blocks.
I'm kinda surprised many cities haven't considered going with these as a substitute for stop signs: https://maps.app.goo.gl/VQ7Udjw1Bsitc49ZA
If required, they can be mountable for larger vehicles and trucks (or the fire brigade)
The problem with tiny roundabouts is that they eliminate the ability for two opposite vehicles to turn left without crossing each other's paths twice, thus requiring that they synchronize their turns.
Wouldn't that only be the case at larger intersections? Many smaller intersections like this one only have the room for a small number of synchronous turns, regardless of the island.
Quote from: kalvado on March 10, 2025, 09:13:48 PMQuote from: ElishaGOtis on March 10, 2025, 08:36:49 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on March 10, 2025, 07:39:12 PMQuote from: thenetwork on March 10, 2025, 07:00:17 PMQuote from: kphoger on March 10, 2025, 10:39:05 AMQuote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMThe problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield.
Nope. We already have that concept. It's called an uncontrolled intersection. I think about 90% of all residential intersections here in Wichita are uncontrolled, meaning they are functionally all-way yield. I personally live between two such intersections.
At least they should throw up some YIELD signs on the lesser-used cross-street(s) to legally denote which street has the right of way.
Why? It's already legally denoted in the laws of the state.
A sign for an uncontrolled intersection could be nice regardless of what it is (within reason lmao). Better than nothing, I suppose.
Vienna convention has a "priority road" and an "end of priority" signs for that.
Has anywhere in the US tried to introduce 'priority road' signs?
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 13, 2025, 08:13:21 PMHas anywhere in the US tried to introduce 'priority road' signs?
Not a sign, but a flashing yellow ball at an intersection means you have priority, since the cross street has a flashing red.
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on March 13, 2025, 08:01:26 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 13, 2025, 07:20:05 PMThe problem with tiny roundabouts is that they eliminate the ability for two opposite vehicles to turn left without crossing each other's paths twice, thus requiring that they synchronize their turns.
Wouldn't that only be the case at larger intersections? Many smaller intersections like this one only have the room for a small number of synchronous turns, regardless of the island.
I just mean that if there's no island, two opposing cars can turn left, even if one turns a little before the other. This is what makes SPUIs efficient. If there's a roundabout, they have to do-si-do through the intersection.
Quote from: hotdogPi on March 13, 2025, 08:16:14 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 13, 2025, 08:13:21 PMHas anywhere in the US tried to introduce 'priority road' signs?
Not a sign, but a flashing yellow ball at an intersection means you have priority, since the cross street has a flashing red.
I don't think the beacons are quite the same thing. They're more for emphasis rather than assigning priority.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 13, 2025, 09:17:41 PMQuote from: hotdogPi on March 13, 2025, 08:16:14 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 13, 2025, 08:13:21 PMHas anywhere in the US tried to introduce 'priority road' signs?
Not a sign, but a flashing yellow ball at an intersection means you have priority, since the cross street has a flashing red.
I don't think the beacons are quite the same thing. They're more for emphasis rather than assigning priority.
Stopping traffic on the red flashing side would definitely be assigning priority. :D
Quote from: Rothman on March 13, 2025, 11:04:55 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 13, 2025, 09:17:41 PMQuote from: hotdogPi on March 13, 2025, 08:16:14 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 13, 2025, 08:13:21 PMHas anywhere in the US tried to introduce 'priority road' signs?
Not a sign, but a flashing yellow ball at an intersection means you have priority, since the cross street has a flashing red.
I don't think the beacons are quite the same thing. They're more for emphasis rather than assigning priority.
Stopping traffic on the red flashing side would definitely be assigning priority. :D
Okay, but you're not going to see a red/yellow beacon at signalized intersections the same way you see priority signs in Europe.
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on March 13, 2025, 06:52:13 PMQuote from: kphoger on March 13, 2025, 05:10:54 PMWell, I for one am glad to live in a city where I can drive through many neighborhoods without hitting at stop sign every couple of blocks.
I'm kinda surprised many cities haven't considered going with these as a substitute for stop signs: https://maps.app.goo.gl/VQ7Udjw1Bsitc49ZA
If required, they can be mountable for larger vehicles and trucks (or the fire brigade)
Or you can be like Tucson and use four-way stops and mini roundabouts at the same intersection: https://maps.app.goo.gl/pSHVjBa7Wczma1Zo7
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on March 13, 2025, 06:52:13 PMI'm kinda surprised many cities haven't considered going with these as a substitute for stop signs: https://maps.app.goo.gl/VQ7Udjw1Bsitc49ZA
I'm 100% sure that a large percentage of drivers would simply turn left
in front of that central island. Heck, I probably would sometimes.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 13, 2025, 09:17:41 PMI don't think the beacons are quite the same thing. They're more for emphasis rather than assigning priority.
Technically true but, as it relates to the conversation, they are functionally the same. The issue raised is that you can't tell
by your own signage if a side street has a stop/yield sign or if it's an uncontrolled intersection. Because four-way flashing yellow beacons are not allowed (except in the movie Cars), seeing one immediately lets you know that the cross-street has a stop sign.
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on March 10, 2025, 08:36:49 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on March 10, 2025, 07:39:12 PMQuote from: thenetwork on March 10, 2025, 07:00:17 PMQuote from: kphoger on March 10, 2025, 10:39:05 AMQuote from: pderocco on March 09, 2025, 08:36:32 PMThe problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield.
Nope. We already have that concept. It's called an uncontrolled intersection. I think about 90% of all residential intersections here in Wichita are uncontrolled, meaning they are functionally all-way yield. I personally live between two such intersections.
At least they should throw up some YIELD signs on the lesser-used cross-street(s) to legally denote which street has the right of way.
Why? It's already legally denoted in the laws of the state.
A sign for an uncontrolled intersection could be nice regardless of what it is (within reason lmao). Better than nothing, I suppose.
For sure, this is what sketches me out about uncontrolled intersections, as someone who's only seen a few in my life. If I come up to an intersection and don't see any sign or light, I'm going to assume I have right-of-way and the side street must have a stop sign (not saying that's
right, but considering this is
always the case where I'm from...).
I agree with "thenetwork" that it'd be best just to choose one street as the major street and put yields for the side street.
Quote from: 7/8 on March 14, 2025, 10:48:16 AMFor sure, this is what sketches me out about uncontrolled intersections, as someone who's only seen a few in my life. If I come up to an intersection and don't see any sign or light, I'm going to assume I have right-of-way and the side street must have a stop sign (not saying that's right, but considering this is always the case where I'm from...).
Meanwhile, having grown up and learned to drive in a town with plenty of uncontrolled intersections, and having never lived in a state that eschews them, I am
not going to assume I have the right of way just because I don't see a sign or light. That's not how I was taught to drive.
Quote from: 7/8 on March 14, 2025, 10:48:16 AMI agree with "thenetwork" that it'd be best just to choose one street as the major street and put yields for the side street.
Yields, maybe. But I am definitely not in favor of adding a whole bunch of stops to intersections where it's currently unnecessary to stop.
Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2025, 11:04:59 AMMeanwhile, having grown up and learned to drive in a town with plenty of uncontrolled intersections, and having never lived in a state that eschews them, I am not going to assume I have the right of way just because I don't see a sign or light. That's not how I was taught to drive.
Which is good for sure, but I think places should keep in mind the potential danger with visitors who don't expect them (is it worth saving the cost of a couple yield signs?)
Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2025, 11:04:59 AMQuote from: 7/8 on March 14, 2025, 10:48:16 AMI agree with "thenetwork" that it'd be best just to choose one street as the major street and put yields for the side street.
Yields, maybe. But I am definitely not in favor of adding a whole bunch of stops to intersections where it's currently unnecessary to stop.
I agree, I wish the majority of stop signs were replaced with yield signs. They're a crutch of poorly-done traffic calming.
Quote from: 7/8 on March 14, 2025, 11:15:08 AMWhich is good for sure, but I think places should keep in mind the potential danger with visitors who don't expect them (is it worth saving the cost of a couple yield signs?)
We're talking about more than just a couple of yield signs.
For example, here in Wichita:
Quote from: KWCH 12 News, July 2023City officials said they didn't know exactly how many uncontrolled intersections there are in Wichita, but said it estimated only 10% of all intersections have a stop sign.
And as for the potential danger:
Quote from: KWCH 12 News, July 2023The City of Wichita told FactFinder it recently did a study of Wichita intersections with stop signs and compared them to intersections without them. It said it found more crashes happened at intersections with stop signs compared to ones without. The study also found the likelihood of being involved in a crash is six times higher at an intersection with a stop sign.
Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2025, 11:50:10 AMQuote from: KWCH 12 News, July 2023The City of Wichita told FactFinder it recently did a study of Wichita intersections with stop signs and compared them to intersections without them. It said it found more crashes happened at intersections with stop signs compared to ones without. The study also found the likelihood of being involved in a crash is six times higher at an intersection with a stop sign.
That's wild, it's hard for me to comprehend, but I guess it's working for Wichita so fair enough! The thought of having to scan every intersection for side street signage (to determine right-of-way) seems exhausting, but I guess you get used to it?
Quote from: 7/8 on March 14, 2025, 12:07:06 PMThe thought of having to scan every intersection for side street signage (to determine right-of-way) seems exhausting, but I guess you get used to it?
I'm sure a lot of those intersections are T-intersections, though.
For what it's worth, here is the neighborhood I live in. No intersection between Orme and Lincoln, Edgemoor and Woodlawn, has a stop or yield sign of any sort.
I witnessed one accident at Christine and Gilbert last year (I was grilling in the driveway and heard the crash). Neither driver had any idea that uncontrolled intersections even existed. One of them was a young lady from out of state who was here for an internship. But the other was a middle-aged lady who, along with her boyfriend, are from Wichita. That's the only accident at an uncontrolled intersection I've ever witnessed. And, for that particular intersection, it's the only one in the 14½ years we've lived in this house.
It blows me away that people can drive around this city thinking that they have the right of way at every such intersection!
But yes, our kids go from our house near that intersection over to the Fabrique Park playground and back all the time, passing through eight uncontrolled intersections along the way. No big deal.
(https://i.imgur.com/FV1QwJj.png)
Here's another example where YIELD signs should replace STOP Signs:
I travel through a lot of smaller neighborhoods and subdivisions in my job.
So you approach a "T" intersection, or an "L" intersection where one street ends, and traffic has only one direction they can turn to as the other options have no street, or just a short-stubbed Dead End (which may have been designed for a future street extension).
In either event, the municipality still puts a STOP sign in one or both directions despite there being a .0000001% chance of a vehicle coming from the road-less direction(s).
Why the hell is a STOP sign warranted when a YIELD sign is still more than enough for the intersection and eliminates a complete stop that makes no sense???
Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2025, 10:47:06 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 13, 2025, 09:17:41 PMI don't think the beacons are quite the same thing. They're more for emphasis rather than assigning priority.
Technically true but, as it relates to the conversation, they are functionally the same. The issue raised is that you can't tell by your own signage if a side street has a stop/yield sign or if it's an uncontrolled intersection. Because four-way flashing yellow beacons are not allowed (except in the movie Cars), seeing one immediately lets you know that the cross-street has a stop sign.
A similar concern is resulting in the removal of these overhead flashing beacons at certain intersections in FL. Apparently, those on the minor approach with the flashing red were thinking it was a 4-way stop. This occurred even with "cross traffic does not stop" plates... many of these are being replaced with ICWS / "Vehicles Entering Highway" signs as a result.
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on March 14, 2025, 07:23:47 PMQuote from: kphoger on March 14, 2025, 10:47:06 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 13, 2025, 09:17:41 PMI don't think the beacons are quite the same thing. They're more for emphasis rather than assigning priority.
Technically true but, as it relates to the conversation, they are functionally the same. The issue raised is that you can't tell by your own signage if a side street has a stop/yield sign or if it's an uncontrolled intersection. Because four-way flashing yellow beacons are not allowed (except in the movie Cars), seeing one immediately lets you know that the cross-street has a stop sign.
A similar concern is resulting in the removal of these overhead flashing beacons at certain intersections in FL. Apparently, those on the minor approach with the flashing red were thinking it was a 4-way stop. This occurred even with "cross traffic does not stop" plates... many of these are being replaced with ICWS / "Vehicles Entering Highway" signs as a result.
It appears that, at some point in the past, at least a few intersections only had flashing yellow beacons for the main road. The side road just had stop sign(s). I'm aware of a surviving example in Tuscumbia:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.718675,-87.7261777,3a,75y,79.72h,95.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sO5fu-vNnBPnHuObLlGr_Uw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-5.788950179478306%26panoid%3DO5fu-vNnBPnHuObLlGr_Uw%26yaw%3D79.71530104543083!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMxMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on March 14, 2025, 07:23:47 PMA similar concern is resulting in the removal of these overhead flashing beacons at certain intersections in FL. Apparently, those on the minor approach with the flashing red were thinking it was a 4-way stop. This occurred even with "cross traffic does not stop" plates... many of these are being replaced with ICWS / "Vehicles Entering Highway" signs as a result.
Yes, I've had that problem at a stoplight in off-peak flashing mode: My street had a flashing red light, but I had no idea if the cross-street (a) also had a flashing red light or (b) had a flashing yellow light. So I couldn't tell if I needed to yield to approaching cross-traffic or not.
This past Sunday, I came across a dark traffic light with two cops sitting on either side of the intersection, not directing traffic, just there I guess. Traffic on the main road were proceeding straight through, despite that you're supposed to treat a dark signal as an all-way stop.
If that rule is regularly not followed or enforced, how does the rule get revised?
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 17, 2025, 12:22:22 PMThis past Sunday, I came across a dark traffic light with two cops sitting on either side of the intersection, not directing traffic, just there I guess. Traffic on the main road were proceeding straight through, despite that you're supposed to treat a dark signal as an all-way stop.
Are you sure the police hadn't unfolded
STOP signs (https://maps.app.goo.gl/63gi6jcAvUJjEiE17) on one of the streets?
Quote from: kphoger on March 17, 2025, 12:46:59 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 17, 2025, 12:22:22 PMThis past Sunday, I came across a dark traffic light with two cops sitting on either side of the intersection, not directing traffic, just there I guess. Traffic on the main road were proceeding straight through, despite that you're supposed to treat a dark signal as an all-way stop.
Are you sure the police hadn't unfolded STOP signs (https://maps.app.goo.gl/63gi6jcAvUJjEiE17) on one of the streets?
doesn't really matter - if I see a dark traffic light, looking for stop signs on a cross street requires at least slowing down. Is there any sign in MUTCD to say "proceed without a stop"?
Logically, intersection on a major road with a small side may easily choke if it were to go to all-way stop. I don't know how to formalize that, though.
Quote from: kalvado on March 24, 2025, 12:56:14 PMQuote from: kphoger on March 17, 2025, 12:46:59 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 17, 2025, 12:22:22 PMThis past Sunday, I came across a dark traffic light with two cops sitting on either side of the intersection, not directing traffic, just there I guess. Traffic on the main road were proceeding straight through, despite that you're supposed to treat a dark signal as an all-way stop.
Are you sure the police hadn't unfolded STOP signs (https://maps.app.goo.gl/63gi6jcAvUJjEiE17) on one of the streets?
doesn't really matter - if I see a dark traffic light, looking for stop signs on a cross street requires at least slowing down. Is there any sign in MUTCD to say "proceed without a stop"?
Logically, intersection on a major road with a small side may easily choke if it were to go to all-way stop. I don't know how to formalize that, though.
What I have seen a lot over the last 10 years or so is that if a signaled intersection is in all-way flash mode, drivers tend to come to a full stop, even if it is a full flashing YELLOW on one street.
I think is because less newer traffic lights don't go into flash mode on nights and weekends as much as they used to, so us old timers perceive signals that are flashing yellow to be treated as "proceed with caution", but NOT as a full fledged, all-way stop as if the intersection was an all-way flashing RED or if the power was completely out.
Quote from: thenetwork on March 24, 2025, 03:46:06 PMQuote from: kalvado on March 24, 2025, 12:56:14 PMQuote from: kphoger on March 17, 2025, 12:46:59 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 17, 2025, 12:22:22 PMThis past Sunday, I came across a dark traffic light with two cops sitting on either side of the intersection, not directing traffic, just there I guess. Traffic on the main road were proceeding straight through, despite that you're supposed to treat a dark signal as an all-way stop.
Are you sure the police hadn't unfolded STOP signs (https://maps.app.goo.gl/63gi6jcAvUJjEiE17) on one of the streets?
doesn't really matter - if I see a dark traffic light, looking for stop signs on a cross street requires at least slowing down. Is there any sign in MUTCD to say "proceed without a stop"?
Logically, intersection on a major road with a small side may easily choke if it were to go to all-way stop. I don't know how to formalize that, though.
What I have seen a lot over the last 10 years or so is that if a signaled intersection is in all-way flash mode, drivers tend to come to a full stop, even if it is a full flashing YELLOW on one street.
This I've seen also. I've even been honked at for going thru the yellow. Although this occurs as less-heavily traveled intersections where there's no clear roadway that normally has the primary traffic flow.
In the other situation where the light is out completely and there's a clear primary roadway, usually traffic defaults to that road just going thru. Of course, there are those that will insist on stopping...which ironically is how traffic chaos ensues.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2025, 03:59:28 PMQuote from: thenetwork on March 24, 2025, 03:46:06 PMQuote from: kalvado on March 24, 2025, 12:56:14 PMQuote from: kphoger on March 17, 2025, 12:46:59 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 17, 2025, 12:22:22 PMThis past Sunday, I came across a dark traffic light with two cops sitting on either side of the intersection, not directing traffic, just there I guess. Traffic on the main road were proceeding straight through, despite that you're supposed to treat a dark signal as an all-way stop.
Are you sure the police hadn't unfolded STOP signs (https://maps.app.goo.gl/63gi6jcAvUJjEiE17) on one of the streets?
doesn't really matter - if I see a dark traffic light, looking for stop signs on a cross street requires at least slowing down. Is there any sign in MUTCD to say "proceed without a stop"?
Logically, intersection on a major road with a small side may easily choke if it were to go to all-way stop. I don't know how to formalize that, though.
What I have seen a lot over the last 10 years or so is that if a signaled intersection is in all-way flash mode, drivers tend to come to a full stop, even if it is a full flashing YELLOW on one street.
This I've seen also. I've even been honked at for going thru the yellow. Although this occurs as less-heavily traveled intersections where there's no clear roadway that normally has the primary traffic flow.
In the other situation where the light is out completely and there's a clear primary roadway, usually traffic defaults to that road just going thru. Of course, there are those that will insist on stopping...which ironically is how traffic chaos ensues.
It doesn't help when a traffic report says an intersection with flashing yellow lights on the main thoroughfare says the light is "malfunctioning" and "should be treated as a Four Way Stop".