In some newer residential developments in Denton Tx, all intersections are uncontrolled. I think this is incredibly unsafe and should be illegal.
Are any other cities doing this?
MUTCD allows it for suburban neighborhoods with low speeds and volumes. My old neighborhood in Livingston has them. It's not unsafe by any means due to the 15- mph speeds and the fact that everyone knows where the cross streets are.
It isn't really a big deal. For years, there was no stop sign at the end of my block. A few years back, the city put one in, and... nobody stops there. The way out of the neighborhood is a right turn and not too many cars come from the left. So, the standard procedure is exactly what it was before there was a sign: glance left as you're coming to the end of the street, see that there's no one else coming, make right turn. Honestly... I find myself having to stop to let someone coming the other way go by about once every couple months. The stop sign is pointless.
They taught us in driver's ed that if you come to the end of a street and there's no sign, you should treat it as a yield. Seems to work just fine that way in all-around low-volume situations like this. All traffic from the side street needs to slow down to make their turn, anyway.
Of course, this is a T intersection. If we're talking about a four-way intersection with no control, that is unsafe, since now you have a pair of conflicting movements for which neither needs to slow down - through traffic on both streets will see no sign and expect to be able to harmlessly blow right through the intersection without having to look out for anyone else, which has the potential to be disastrous.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 07, 2011, 09:18:59 PM
If we're talking about a four-way intersection with no control, that is unsafe, since now you have a pair of conflicting movements for which neither needs to slow down - through traffic on both streets will see no sign and expect to be able to harmlessly blow right through the intersection without having to look out for anyone else, which has the potential to be disastrous.
Is it really unsafe though? Technically speaking, an uncontrolled 4-way intersection should be treated as an all-way yield. So no driver should expect to "harmlessly blow right through without looking".
Although I do agree with the sentiment that there really isn't a good place for uncontrolled intersections outside of residential subdivisions...
For whatever reason, they are everywhere here in Hibbing, MN, and I absolutely LOATH them. It's expected of the driver to know that the Avenues have the right of way and the Streets must stop. Super dangerous being that I've known quite a few people who have been in accidents at these intersections. Just post a stop sign somewhere.
In most Upper Midwest and Deep South towns I'm familliar with, this is standard procedure. As roadfro noted, they're treated as an all-way yield.
When the intersecting streets are of roughly equal volume/priority, then doing an uncontrolled intersection can be quite effective and safe. In fact, even busy intersections can benefit from this because everyone is forced to slow down and analyze the situation rather than just blindly relying on signals or assumptions about who has the right-of-way. It would not be appropriate where you have a 4-way intersection between a major arterial and a side street or collector, since those on the arterial will just bludgeon their way through most of the time. Still, it's an interesting sort of "keep it simple, stupid" situation for low volume residential streets and busy urban intersections that have a lot of mixed modes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcz-Y8lqOg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU&feature=related
The 3-way intersection for my street is uncontrolled, but 95% of traffic turns there, as the other direction is little more than a cul-de-sac, and despite the absurdly high number of cars who stop anyway, there's really no need to. I've found quite a few residential streets that don't need stop signs, or even yields, which are surprisingly common in my neighborhood.
Pretty common around Puget Sound. Here in Bellingham, there do seem to be stop signs on every intersection (typically right of way will alternate, i.e. if you're driving down a residential street, you'll have a stop sign every other block), but in Seattle and Tacoma, probably about 90% of residential intersections are uncontrolled.
(By the way, at least here - and I think in most/all places, but I could be wrong - it's not an "all-way yield". You yield to traffic on the right. That is, if you come to an intersection, and you see a car coming in from the right, you stop/yield. But if you see a car coming from the left, they should yield to you.)
When my family first moved to Boise all the intersections in the North End were uncontrolled- my Dad actually got t-boned in 1997, but it wasn't his fault. Folks who knew how to drive in them did fine, others were dangerous. A friend of mine's parents who lived in another neighborhood actually refused to drive on the uncontrolled roads, detouring (sometimes pretty significantly) to roads with controls. In 2001 or so they added stop signs and it really slowed travel times for those used to it- if they had to put controls up a yield sign would have been more appropriate.
When I was in Tacoma at University of Puget Sound I was surrounded by uncontrolled intersections- same sort of deal there. I had a buddy who just cruised at 30 MPH through those suckers (in an F-250, which frankly was pretty impressive. I drove a 15-passenger Chevy Express for the university during those years, often dropping folks off on those side streets, and had trouble getting going too fast because the van was often wider than the travel lane without creative maneuvering), which seemed really dangerous, but the vast majority slowed and looked both ways at every intersection. Frankly, 90% of drivers wouldn't go more than 15 through those things anyway- the roads were too narrow, and at that point it's just like an uncontrolled parking lot.
Ok-
Most areas of Denton have stop signs at all intersections, but these few nieghborhoods don't. How is a driver entering one of these supposed to know it's uncontrolled? There are street name blades on 2 corners at exactly the place a stop sign would be located, so a driver entering the intersection from the other 2 approaches would assume that there is a stop sign on the post. Also, because the majority of the city has controlled interesctions, drivers are used to assuming that they have the right of way if they don't see a stop sign.
I think that they are incredibly unsafe and should be banned.
The issue would be that it costs a ton of money to put up "yield" signs at every corner (which is also aesthetically ugly- giant retroreflective signs don't really contribute to the historic feel of old neighborhoods), and the majority of traffic in the area lives in the area and should be familiar with the way those roads work. I can see merit to putting up a sign at the entrance to an uncontrolled area that says "end traffic controls" or something to that effect, but the speed in uncontrolled areas generally isn't much more than that of a parking lot, and parking lots often don't have traffic controls.
The traffic is so low in those areas- if you drove around for an hour I bet you'd only bump into a situation where a collision would be possible once or twice. That said, if the majority of traffic is able to and is moving at more than about 20 MPH, then sure, traffic controls should be in place, but two cars going 15 aren't going to run into each other unless somebody isn't paying attention, which folks should be doing anyway in neighborhoods.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 08, 2011, 08:27:12 PM
(By the way, at least here - and I think in most/all places, but I could be wrong - it's not an "all-way yield". You yield to traffic on the right. That is, if you come to an intersection, and you see a car coming in from the right, you stop/yield. But if you see a car coming from the left, they should yield to you.)
What I meant by "all-way yield" is that, in the absence of traffic control devices that specifically define the right-of-way rules for the location, a driver should interpret the intersection operation as if it had yield signs on all approaches. A driver approaching the intersection should stop/yield for vehicles already in/at the intersection (or if two drivers approach simultaneously, the ROW rules of stop signs would apply).
---
I'm actually a bit surprised at the negativity towards uncontrolled intersections. Sure, these are not a good idea on arterials or collector roads. But in a low-volume or residential setting, it seems to me to make a good deal of sense and is more practical than erecting a bunch of signs--which in this type of setting would likely be ignored anyway. Put controls in at problem locations, let the rest be uncontrolled.
There is actually some merit in reducing the amount of signs on our roads. Britain has experimented with this concept on a bigger scale than just uncontrolled intersections...removing all signs and pavement markings on particular streets in an effort to
improve safety.
The problem is that many whiny homeowners often band together to get the state to put unnecessary stop signs on their road because they don't want people to "drive too fast". So many neighborhoods do this that people aren't used to the idea that a stop sign is supposed to mean that there's a legitimate reason you need to stop, not that there's a cross street.
Quote from: roadfro on March 09, 2011, 02:16:15 AMWhat I meant by "all-way yield" is that, in the absence of traffic control devices that specifically define the right-of-way rules for the location, a driver should interpret the intersection operation as if it had yield signs on all approaches. A driver approaching the intersection should stop/yield for vehicles already in/at the intersection (or if two drivers approach simultaneously, the ROW rules of stop signs would apply).
The UVC rule is that the vehicle coming from the right has priority, but in practice, defensive driving calls for uncontrolled intersections to be treated much as you describe.
* Too few drivers know this rule for any one driver to count on it being consistently observed by another vehicle approaching the same uncontrolled intersection on a conflicting path.
* Not all US states have adopted the UVC, and many drivers come from places where priorities are not assigned at uncontrolled intersections (Britain, for example, has no priority rule).
* The low-volume intersections that tend to be uncontrolled tend also to have restricted sightlines which make it unsafe to proceed at even 20 MPH without any diminution of speed.
The only uncontrolled intersection near my house which I go through regularly at full speed is a tee intersection where my usual route lies across the top of the tee. Sightlines are good and I know that, unlike me, anyone who comes up the stem of the tee will be slowing down and checking traffic before he or she makes a turn in one direction or the other. I don't at the moment remember, however, whether the UVC (as implemented in Kansas) assigns priority to the right at tee intersections. The pragmatic approach for tee intersections would be to take priority away from the traffic which has to slow down for a turn (i.e., traffic coming up the stem of the tee, or preparing to turn down it) and give it to traffic going straight across along the crossbar.
Another cardinal tenet of defensive driving is that whenever anyone wants to take priority away from you, you let him or her have it.
QuoteI'm actually a bit surprised at the negativity towards uncontrolled intersections. Sure, these are not a good idea on arterials or collector roads. But in a low-volume or residential setting, it seems to me to make a good deal of sense and is more practical than erecting a bunch of signs--which in this type of setting would likely be ignored anyway. Put controls in at problem locations, let the rest be uncontrolled.
I am not surprised at the negativity, though I don't agree with the absolutist views some have expressed. Uncontrolled intersections are a real problem even for low-volume roads and the lack of formal assignment of priority (other than through obscure provisions in the law which most drivers are not familiar with) results in certain features of the street design, such as the presence of runoff slabs in the intersection apron, taking on unwarranted meaning. (On subdivision roads in Wichita, for example, it is not uncommon for drivers to assume that the street whose camber continues through the intersection has priority, whether or not this is actually the case in legal terms.) But, again as already noted, the presence of priority signs (even yield signs) or traffic calming circles inside subdivisions creates other problems.
The uncontrolled-intersections problem is the main reason I think it is prudent to design road layouts within subdivisions which maximize the proportion of tee intersections without creating too much of a maze for unfamiliar drivers.
If a nieghborhood has uncontrolled intersections, a warning sign should be required at the entrance that warns of this.
The excuse that signs are "ugly" is rediculous. Accidents are far worse. People who comlain about signs in their nieghborhoods are self centered stuck-up snooty jerks. Around here, there are several places that don't have "NO OUTLET" signs where they need to be because some a**hole complained that they don't want a sign in front of their house. I don't think the city ashould give in to these people. They own the right of way several feet into the yard and have the legal right to post a sign there. It's pretty rediculous that the government violates americans basic rights and freedoms every day, but when it comes to this they will let a homeowner whom is in the wrong boss them around.
I don't know, I think there's a lot of unnecessary "ugliness" in that post.
Corco is right that it's not particularly aesthetically pleasing to have yield/stop signs at every intersection. But that's
not the reason the signs aren't there, and I'm fairly certain that's not what he meant to imply. Sure, I suppose that it's a benefit to the homeowners -- "Yay, my street's pretty" -- but in probably 99.9% of the cases, no one in the neighborhood has ever complained that the signs are ugly just to be a "stuck-up snooty jerk". (It's far more likely, as someone pointed out, that a neighborhood will
get a stop sign because homeowners complain that cars are going too fast.)
The reason that there aren't stop/yield signs in these neighborhoods is the same reason there aren't speed limit signs, pavement markings, etc. It's a balance of cost vs. necessity. Signs cost money, and there's no reason to put them there if no one's going to follow them. (Which they won't. Like I said, around here, uncontrolled intersections are more rare, and I'd estimate between 70-90% of the time, people will do a rolling stop.) And you can't enforce them, because that would be far more money. And accidents are
not far worse in this situation, because we're talking about places where cars are going 15-25 mph. If you can't stop/swerve to avoid the other car going at that speed, then you're not paying attention and deserve the minor fender-bender you get into.
Quote from: Brian556 on March 08, 2011, 10:02:46 PM
Ok-
Most areas of Denton have stop signs at all intersections, but these few nieghborhoods don't. How is a driver entering one of these supposed to know it's uncontrolled? There are street name blades on 2 corners at exactly the place a stop sign would be located, so a driver entering the intersection from the other 2 approaches would assume that there is a stop sign on the post. Also, because the majority of the city has controlled interesctions, drivers are used to assuming that they have the right of way if they don't see a stop sign.
I think that they are incredibly unsafe and should be banned.
(Emphasis added.)
You know what they say about assuming... don't. As a driver, it's your responsibility to be aware of the situation. At 15-25 mph, you should be able to tell whether or not that post has a stop sign on it. And at 15-25 mph, in a residential area, you should be able to hit the brakes when a car (or a bicycle, or a child, or a dog, or a soccer ball, etc.) darts into the road in front of you, whether or not it had the right of way.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 09, 2011, 10:36:39 AM
* The low-volume intersections that tend to be uncontrolled tend also to have restricted sightlines which make it unsafe to proceed at even 20 MPH without any diminution of speed.
This.
To sum up, there's no need to ban uncontrolled intersections because they're only used in situations where it's safe to do so. If someone's driving 35 mph down a residential street with the radio blasting and paying more attention to their friends in the back seat than the road around them, then they're being unsafe to begin with, and the DOT hasn't made it any more unsafe by not wasting money on an unnecessary stop sign. Their job is to make the roads safe, not to protect people from their own stupidity.
Well said. +1 Kacie
the only part of that assessment I disagree with is the whole idea of "priority to the right". I was never formally taught that in driver's ed, and to this day the only reason I know it is due to meticulous study of European driving laws, which the average American driver has likely zero familiarity with.
I do believe (and I see this belief reiterated all the time in uncontrolled parking lots, at shopping malls mainly) that traffic traveling straight through an uncontrolled intersection believes it has right-of-way over traffic making a turn - even a right turn.
I know enough to go slowly enough through such uncontrolled intersections to be able to brake and/or swerve my way out of such a misunderstanding, but it is still inconvenient to be operating at triple-vigilance just because I need to account for every possibility of behavior out of my fellow driver.
in conclusion: uncontrolled intersections are a pain in the ass.
ok, so how do you know you're in an uncontrolled 4-way intersection? Think about it, if you are driving down a street and you come to a 4-way intersection and there is no STOP or YIELD sign on your street, you keep on going. I don't look down the side streets looking for their STOP or YIELD signs, I'm paying attention to the street I am on. Are there warning signs ahead of the uncontrolled intersection stating one is up ahead?
You know, that's a good question. In a congested area you should always pay attention to other streets, not just the one you're on (as well as sidewalks and other areas), and be prepared to stop, but if you're on a higher-speed arterial how are you to know (in time to stop if necessary) whether each intersection is controlled?
My gut reaction says that if you're driving on a higher-speed arterial, there aren't going to be any uncontrolled intersections, as a traffic engineer wouldn't let that happen because it would produce an unsafe situation.
That being said, there isn't any universally accepted or MUTCD standard sign that indicates an upcoming uncontrolled intersection (or area of no traffic controls). Outside of a low-volume residential area, I would never really expect to find an uncontrolled intersection, so I've never really noticed any sign like that.
Generally on a high speed arterial the higher class road takes priority and the other road has to yield. Even with two roads of the same class, one is usually "better" than the other.
Quote from: roadfro on March 11, 2011, 01:23:55 AM
That being said, there isn't any universally accepted or MUTCD standard sign that indicates an upcoming uncontrolled intersection (or area of no traffic controls). Outside of a low-volume residential area, I would never really expect to find an uncontrolled intersection, so I've never really noticed any sign like that.
There is W18-1, which is a diamond that reads "NO TRAFFIC SIGNS", but the MUTCD prescribes that it may only be used on unpaved low volume roads It probably wouldn't adequately emphasize the "no controlled intersections" point anyway.
Quote from: roadfro on March 09, 2011, 02:16:15 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 08, 2011, 08:27:12 PM
(By the way, at least here - and I think in most/all places, but I could be wrong - it's not an "all-way yield". You yield to traffic on the right. That is, if you come to an intersection, and you see a car coming in from the right, you stop/yield. But if you see a car coming from the left, they should yield to you.)
What I meant by "all-way yield" is that, in the absence of traffic control devices that specifically define the right-of-way rules for the location, a driver should interpret the intersection operation as if it had yield signs on all approaches. A driver approaching the intersection should stop/yield for vehicles already in/at the intersection (or if two drivers approach simultaneously, the ROW rules of stop signs would apply).
Going back up the thread a bit because there's something I want to rephrase/explain. I think we were both right here. Technically, there are rules that govern right of way in uncontrolled intersections. But uncontrolled intersections are as far as I know
only used in residential neighborhoods (a point that's being missed here). And in residential areas, you need to be driving defensively anyway, so it does end up being treated as an all-yield.
It goes back to another thread here a couple weeks ago (that I can't find now because I think it was a tangent) about unmarked crosswalks. If you're in a residential area, then regardless of whether or not an intersecting street has a stop sign, a pedestrian crossing in front of you at that intersection has the right of way (because there's a crosswalk there, marked or unmarked, controlled intersection or uncontrolled).
When you're driving through these neighborhoods, you need to be driving at a speed where you can have your head on a swivel, paying attention not just to cars turning in front of you, but more importantly, to pedestrians, bicycles, small children, etc.
Quote from: NE2 on March 11, 2011, 12:04:46 AM
You know, that's a good question. In a congested area you should always pay attention to other streets, not just the one you're on (as well as sidewalks and other areas), and be prepared to stop, but if you're on a higher-speed arterial how are you to know (in time to stop if necessary) whether each intersection is controlled?
Quote from: roadfro on March 11, 2011, 01:23:55 AM
My gut reaction says that if you're driving on a higher-speed arterial, there aren't going to be any uncontrolled intersections, as a traffic engineer wouldn't let that happen because it would produce an unsafe situation.
Exactly.
To rephrase what I said at the end of my last post, uncontrolled intersections
should be banned when it comes to arterials. I've just been assuming they already are.
NE2 does make a good point in his second sentence there though, same point I was trying to make, but probably more clearly and concisely.
"In a congested area you should always pay attention to other streets, not just the one you're on (as well as sidewalks and other areas), and be prepared to stop."
Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 11, 2011, 10:48:06 PM
It goes back to another thread here a couple weeks ago (that I can't find now because I think it was a tangent) about unmarked crosswalks.
school zones
I'm not fond of them, don't hate them, but they can be pestering.. Angelo has them in the old parts of town, well that's not completely true. There's I think 3-4 in my neighborhood. Which ISN'T in the older (worser) part of town.
BigMatt
I live between two uncontrolled intersections. So does the co-worker who sits right next to me at the office. In her neighborhood, the city just recently installed two-way stop controls at those intersections. Last night, two cars collided in one of those intersections, despite one of them facing a stop sign. From the sound of it, she says, they must have both been going full speed.
I'm curious to know if y'all's opinions of uncontrolled intersections have changed since this thread was last active.
Heretofore, I've always been OK with uncontrolled intersections. But, reading through these old posts, what has really struck me is that navigating an uncontrolled intersection requires a driver to look at the other street's signage–which seems to run contrary to the conventional wisdom of focus only on the traffic control that pertains to one's own street. And also that correctly identifying the lack of signage on a cross-street takes a significantly longer amount of time and attentioin than identifying the lack of signage on one's own street.
As we've discussed in other threads, uncontrolled intersections are fairly rare in my part of the country, so I don't have a strong opinion on them either way.
However, a two-way stop, especially if it's a relatively busy intersection, and especially when it's newly installed, should definitely have accompanying Cross Traffic Does Not Stop (https://goo.gl/maps/BMEQjL5w5kDxfRer6) signage. The only time I support omitting this signage from a two-way stop is when it's abundantly clear that the other road is much busier/more important. If that's not the case, it should have the aforementioned signage or either be uncontrolled (use caution) or a four-way stop (creating redundancy if one person fails to stop).
I don't think that uncontrolled intersections are all that harmful, so long as they're in areas with either low volumes of traffic (like undeveloped areas) or traffic going at low speeds (like suburban streets).
Though, by reading the replies to this thread, I've come to the conclusion that uncontrolled crossings in the US are completely unsigned, as in, there is nothing to warn you that the intersection is not controlled. Here in Spain we do have a sign for that. In the rare occasion where an intersection is uncontrolled, this sign is placed on all roads approaching the intersection:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Spain_traffic_signal_p2.svg/218px-Spain_traffic_signal_p2.svg.png)
Somebody here already explained how it works: you must yield to vehicles coming from your right. If there is no vehicle on your right, you go. If there are cars waiting in all directions of the intersection, whoever is turning right or going straight goes first, and then the default "priority to vehicles from the right" applies.
Keyword: VEHICLES. A cyclist counts as a vehicle, but if it's a pedestrian or equestrian, they yield to you.
There have been several uncontroled intersections in Saginaw for decades. I've never had a problem with them.
Quote from: webny99 on September 09, 2022, 10:12:57 AM
However, a two-way stop, especially if it's a relatively busy intersection, and especially when it's newly installed, should definitely have accompanying Cross Traffic Does Not Stop (https://goo.gl/maps/BMEQjL5w5kDxfRer6) signage. The only time I support omitting this signage from a two-way stop is when it's abundantly clear that the other road is much busier/more important. If that's not the case, it should have the aforementioned signage or either be uncontrolled (use caution) or a four-way stop (creating redundancy if one person fails to stop).
I vehemently disagree. In fact, I'd say you have it flip-flopped. A two-way stop should be the
default, not something that warrants the addition of a plaque. Only locations where there is a high incidents of crashes should receive the "two-way" plaque.
Quote from: kphoger on September 09, 2022, 12:04:17 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 09, 2022, 10:12:57 AM
However, a two-way stop, especially if it's a relatively busy intersection, and especially when it's newly installed, should definitely have accompanying Cross Traffic Does Not Stop (https://goo.gl/maps/BMEQjL5w5kDxfRer6) signage. The only time I support omitting this signage from a two-way stop is when it's abundantly clear that the other road is much busier/more important. If that's not the case, it should have the aforementioned signage or either be uncontrolled (use caution) or a four-way stop (creating redundancy if one person fails to stop).
I vehemently disagree. In fact, I'd say you have it flip-flopped. A two-way stop should be the default, not something that warrants the addition of a plaque. Only locations where there is a high incidents of crashes should receive the "two-way" plaque.
How do you reconcile that with your original point about uncontrolled signage requiring you to look at the other street's signage? The same is also true of two-way stops.
Quote from: webny99 on September 09, 2022, 12:06:45 PM
How do you reconcile that with your original point about uncontrolled signage requiring you to look at the other street's signage? The same is also true of two-way stops.
The absence of a plaque should indicate a two-way stop. I dislike four-way stops without plaques. But, be that as it may, their absence at a four-way intersection would only prompt
more care, not less.
Approaching a stop sign with no plaque should not require me to hunt for cross-traffic's signage or lack thereof. It should be simple: two-way stops have no plaque, four-way stops do.
Quote from: kphoger on September 09, 2022, 09:46:35 AMI live between two uncontrolled intersections. So does the co-worker who sits right next to me at the office. In her neighborhood, the city just recently installed two-way stop controls at those intersections. Last night, two cars collided in one of those intersections, despite one of them facing a stop sign. From the sound of it, she says, they must have both been going full speed.
I'm curious to know if y'all's opinions of uncontrolled intersections have changed since this thread was last active.
Heretofore, I've always been OK with uncontrolled intersections. But, reading through these old posts, what has really struck me is that navigating an uncontrolled intersection requires a driver to look at the other street's signage–which seems to run contrary to the conventional wisdom of focus only on the traffic control that pertains to one's own street. And also that correctly identifying the lack of signage on a cross-street takes a significantly longer amount of time and attentioin than identifying the lack of signage on one's own street.
My opinion hasn't changed, but I do think the situation you describe emphasizes the importance of Steve's point about drivers having prior familiarity with the locations of uncontrolled intersections within subdivisions they visit frequently.
The stylized fact is that a decade or so after World War II, it became the norm to plat subdivisions with curved roads specifically to discourage speeding. Mine was platted in bits and pieces from the early 1950's to the late 1970's, with some of the newer plats voiding older ones in part. One key revision led to all but one north-south cross street terminating in tee intersections at 17th Street; previously at least one other had been planned to go straight through. Partly as a result of this and other changes, there are just eight crossroads intersections wholly internal to the subdivision versus twelve tees; only two of these junctions have priority control, and both are crossroads with two-way yields.
In contradistinction, older subdivisions in Wichita tend to have grid layouts covering a substantial fraction if not the entirety of their areas. The absence of natural constraints on speed thus tends sooner or later to lead to stop signs being used either to assign priority in a predictable pattern (e.g., north-south streets in much of Riverside) or simply to frustrate cut-through traffic (e.g., along Morris to prevent it being used as a shortcut to the segment of Lincoln that wraps around the convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph).
Edit: I had forgotten that two of the 20 intersections in my subdivision do have yields.
Quote from: kphoger on September 09, 2022, 12:10:14 PM
Approaching a stop sign with no plaque should not require me to hunt for cross-traffic's signage or lack thereof. It should be simple: two-way stops have no plaque, four-way stops do.
Is this not the norm anyways? If I don't see an "All Way" plaque below the stop sign, I automatically assume traffic from my left and right have right-of-way. I would think this is true for most drivers as well, even those who are older. Just about the only thing that has changed in the last sixty years has been the move away from numeric plaques (aka, "4 way"). At least here in the US, as Canada still uses numeric plaques.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 09, 2022, 01:35:46 PM
In contradistinction, older subdivisions in Wichita tend to have grid layouts covering a substantial fraction if not the entirety of their areas. The absence of natural constraints on speed thus tends sooner or later to lead to stop signs being used either to assign priority in a predictable pattern (e.g., north-south streets in much of Riverside) or simply to frustrate cut-through traffic (e.g., along Morris to prevent it being used as a shortcut to the segment of Lincoln that wraps around the convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph).
Interesting, I've not noticed a trend towards one or the other in gridded vs curved neighborhoods. It seems to be mostly a local-level policy decision in Washington. Seattle and Tacoma both famously encourage uncontrolled intersections, with calming (circles, chicanes, diverters) as the preferred method for slowing traffic, despite both having a very gridded street network. On the other hand, Renton has much more in the way of curvy suburban neighborhoods but does [seem] to require control at all intersections with more than three approaches. And, generally speaking about all of Western Washington, unincorporated suburban estates generally don't have any markings or signage of any kind, even newer ones with gridded networks and alleys. At most, yield signs are used at the major intersections.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 09, 2022, 01:35:46 PM
I'm more familiar with the neighborhood to the northeast of where you live (between 15th and 18th, between 235 and McLean). The interesting thing about that area is that the streets are laid out in a grid, but many intersections nonetheless lack stop control. Take, for example, 17th & Gow or 18th & Sheridan.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 09, 2022, 01:47:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 09, 2022, 12:10:14 PM
Approaching a stop sign with no plaque should not require me to hunt for cross-traffic's signage or lack thereof. It should be simple: two-way stops have no plaque, four-way stops do.
Is this not the norm anyways? If I don't see an "All Way" plaque below the stop sign, I automatically assume traffic from my left and right have right-of-way. I would think this is true for most drivers as well, even those who are older.
Yes. But I was responding to a suggestion that
two-way stops should receive additional signage in order to set them apart from all-way stops. I think that should be reserved for only the most crash-prone intersections–as is already the case.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 09, 2022, 01:47:37 PM
I've not noticed a trend towards one or the other in gridded vs curved neighborhoods.
I wonder if it's merely coincidental: perhaps the curvy neighborhoods were built up when one signage standard was popular, whereas the grid neighborhoods were built up with a different standard was popular.
Quote from: kphoger on September 09, 2022, 02:03:52 PMI'm more familiar with the neighborhood to the northeast of where you live (between 15th and 18th, between 235 and McLean). The interesting thing about that area is that the streets are laid out in a grid, but many intersections nonetheless lack stop control. Take, for example, 17th & Gow or 18th & Sheridan.
I know the broader area (bounded by West, 13th, McLean/Amidon, and 21st) well. It includes the entirety of Northwest-Big River, Indian Hills-Riverbend, and a sliver of Benjamin Hills, and it began to be developed about 10 years before my own subdivision.
The hierarchy of internal roads in this area has two distinct steps. St. Paul and Meridian both run north-south and have traffic lights at 13th; all streets that intersect them have stop signs. 15th Street runs east-west between West and McLean, and all streets that intersect it other than St. Paul and Meridian have stop signs. High Street, which may represent a third step, runs north-south and all streets that intersect it have stop signs except for 15th and 19th (where it ends at a tee). I think the other stop signs are designed to discourage rat-running by forcing traffic to stop after several blocks. Examples include 17th and Westridge (favoring 17th), 18th and Kessler (favoring Kessler), 18th and Westridge (favoring 18th), 19th and Kessler (favoring 19th), 19th and Westridge (favoring Westridge), and 17th and Sheridan (favoring Sheridan). I think this last-listed went up soon after the city paved a two-block segment of 17th between Sheridan and Custer, which had remained gravel decades after the rest of the street was paved.
My grandmother used to live in a house northeast of the intersection of 17th and Meridian but south of the river, which was the last large parcel of land to be developed within the West-13th-McLean/Amidon-21st rectangle; the entirety of it was still an open field in 1960. Most of the streets in this tract are curved and all of the intersections internal to it are tees. The shortest distance between our house and hers lies along 17th Street, but we hardly ever took it because of the four stop signs (High, Sheridan, St. Paul, and Meridian).
Quote from: Shedingtonian on September 09, 2022, 10:22:03 AM
I don't think that uncontrolled intersections are all that harmful, so long as they're in areas with either low volumes of traffic (like undeveloped areas) or traffic going at low speeds (like suburban streets).
Though, by reading the replies to this thread, I've come to the conclusion that uncontrolled crossings in the US are completely unsigned, as in, there is nothing to warn you that the intersection is not controlled. Here in Spain we do have a sign for that. In the rare occasion where an intersection is uncontrolled, this sign is placed on all roads approaching the intersection:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Spain_traffic_signal_p2.svg/218px-Spain_traffic_signal_p2.svg.png)
I mean, if you're going to post signs at an intersection either way...why not just post yield signs instead of "uncontrolled intersection" signs?
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2022, 01:38:15 AM
Quote from: Shedingtonian on September 09, 2022, 10:22:03 AM
I don't think that uncontrolled intersections are all that harmful, so long as they're in areas with either low volumes of traffic (like undeveloped areas) or traffic going at low speeds (like suburban streets).
Though, by reading the replies to this thread, I've come to the conclusion that uncontrolled crossings in the US are completely unsigned, as in, there is nothing to warn you that the intersection is not controlled. Here in Spain we do have a sign for that. In the rare occasion where an intersection is uncontrolled, this sign is placed on all roads approaching the intersection:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Spain_traffic_signal_p2.svg/218px-Spain_traffic_signal_p2.svg.png)
I mean, if you're going to post signs at an intersection either way...why not just post yield signs instead of "uncontrolled intersection" signs?
Yeah, that is what I realized while writing that post. Guess that's part of the reason why uncontrolled intersections are so rare!
I'm old enough to remember when almost all intersections outside of city/town limits were uncontrolled in West Virginia. Most of those were still dirt roads, and everyone seemed to know which one was the "main road". If you weren't on the main road, you were expected to stop at the intersection and look both ways. The "main roads" got paved first, which made this easier to understand. But by the end of the 1960s, many of the "back roads" were getting paved but those roads were one-lane wide so the concept was still fairly easy to understand. But folks that weren't local started having major accidents at many of these intersections. Times were tough back then, so I have no idea where the [then] State Road Commission got the money for all of those new stop signs. It's hard to believe that we've gone around full circle on this topic.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 09, 2022, 01:47:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 09, 2022, 12:10:14 PM
Approaching a stop sign with no plaque should not require me to hunt for cross-traffic's signage or lack thereof. It should be simple: two-way stops have no plaque, four-way stops do.
Is this not the norm anyways? If I don't see an "All Way" plaque below the stop sign, I automatically assume traffic from my left and right have right-of-way. I would think this is true for most drivers as well, even those who are older. Just about the only thing that has changed in the last sixty years has been the move away from numeric plaques (aka, "4 way"). At least here in the US, as Canada still uses numeric plaques.
In my experience, all-way stops without supplemental plaques are very common. So much so that if I don't see a plaque and it is not abundantly clear that I am about to stop at a much more important road, the first thing I do is figure out whether approaching traffic is also facing a stop sign.
I would be in full support of mandating "all way" plaques at all-way stops, as the way one approaches an all-way stop is very different than how one approaches a 2-way.
In shopping center and similar parking lots, I think the terminating roadway should at least have a yield sign, depending on traffic on the through roadway.
I've long thought that 2-way stops and all-way stops should have something more distinguishing them than just the plaque, and so a while back, I came up with the following:
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 26, 2021, 11:06:03 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/DtaFZDj.png)
In the first, the cross street is wider, which would imply that cross traffic doesn't have a stop sign, while in the second, the two streets are the same width, which would imply that it's a four-way stop. And of course, all the other variations could be displayed in a similar way.
Another idea I just had is this, but it might be a bit too subtle:
(https://i.imgur.com/ywG5jKA.png)
Quote from: US 89 on September 10, 2022, 01:21:29 PM
I would be in full support of mandating "all way" plaques at all-way stops
This is the first I'm hearing that it's not required. I'm aware of only a handful that don't have all-way plaques.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 10, 2022, 04:04:12 PMThis is the first I'm hearing that it's not required. I'm aware of only a handful that don't have all-way plaques.
Use of them is far from universal. I haven't looked up policy in either the federal
MUTCD or California's interspersed supplement, but in that state in particular, I've noticed it is quite common for the all-way plaque to be omitted on at least one approach at many minor intersections (example (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8489628,-122.2544605,3a,58.5y,348.76h,89.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVfefLG-C4m7yV1M1yx4Aiw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)), apparently as a head fake to discourage rolling stops.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 10, 2022, 04:13:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 10, 2022, 04:04:12 PMThis is the first I'm hearing that it's not required. I'm aware of only a handful that don't have all-way plaques.
Use of them is far from universal. I haven't looked up policy in either the federal MUTCD or California's interspersed supplement, but in that state in particular, I've noticed it is quite common for the all-way plaque to be omitted on at least one approach at many minor intersections (example (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8489628,-122.2544605,3a,58.5y,348.76h,89.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVfefLG-C4m7yV1M1yx4Aiw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)), apparently as a head fake to discourage rolling stops.
I can help with the first part:
(https://i.imgur.com/Y3BWz74.png)
Wait, 3-way and 4-way aren't allowed at all? I thought they were if only some directions had to stop.
Quote from: 1 on September 10, 2022, 04:45:08 PM
Wait, 3-way and 4-way aren’t allowed at all? I thought they were if only some directions had to stop.
I don't believe so, no:
(https://i.imgur.com/VkJP5SR.png)
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 10, 2022, 04:41:06 PMI can help with the first part:
(https://i.imgur.com/Y3BWz74.png)
In the current California MUTCD (2014 revision 6), the Standard verbiage is identical. Older versions are not available on the website, so I can't immediately tell if and when standards changed. (The Berkeley intersection linked to above definitely doesn't comply with the current standard.)
We have them in my town in Illinois. Chicago still has a few. My town has nice asphalt side streets and it could afford yield signs. All the streets are marked and only a few areas are marked lower than the state minimum 30. I had my first accident at one . Both of us got tickets. Then that intersection got a yield sign. I hate them.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 10, 2022, 04:41:06 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 10, 2022, 04:13:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 10, 2022, 04:04:12 PMThis is the first I'm hearing that it's not required. I'm aware of only a handful that don't have all-way plaques.
Use of them is far from universal. I haven't looked up policy in either the federal MUTCD or California's interspersed supplement, but in that state in particular, I've noticed it is quite common for the all-way plaque to be omitted on at least one approach at many minor intersections (example (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8489628,-122.2544605,3a,58.5y,348.76h,89.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVfefLG-C4m7yV1M1yx4Aiw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)), apparently as a head fake to discourage rolling stops.
I can help with the first part:
(https://i.imgur.com/Y3BWz74.png)
So, I'm correct in that "all way" plaques shall be used when all approaches are stop controlled?
Quote from: 1 on September 10, 2022, 04:45:08 PM
Wait, 3-way and 4-way aren't allowed at all? I thought they were if only some directions had to stop.
I remember digging into the history of the ALL WAY tab before, so I looked for my post on the subject, and it turns out I was answering a question from...you, actually!
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2022, 08:16:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 08, 2022, 07:17:54 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2022, 04:34:10 PM
It's also a lie, since the intersecting road is one-way, so there's only three ways of traffic that stop at this intersection. This is one reason why new installs say "ALL WAY" rather than specifying the number of ways (which also means you don't have to keep both 3-WAY and 4-WAY plates in stock, nor have to make one-off 5-WAY and higher plates for the situations those would be useful).
As for the use of black on white, in the US, that often means the sign dates back to the 1960s or before, although it's hard to tell if that's the case here, or if Cincinnati just used the wrong color sign that day.
I thought 3-WAY meant that three of four directions stop.
Interesting–this led me to dig around in the MUTCD, leading me to discover that the 3-WAY tab has never appeared in the MUTCD! The 4-WAY tab first appeared in 1961, the first edition with red stop signs (which had previously been established by a 1954 revision to the 1948 MUTCD that also introduced the yellow yield sign for the first time). They have always been red, so who knows how the Cincinnati one that started this conversation ended up white. But every edition from 1961 to now has never had a 3-WAY tab. (ALL WAY appeared as an option in 2003 and then the standard in 2009.)
That being said, I know I've seen 3-WAY tabs before, in the context of 3-way tee intersections where all legs were stop-controlled. It's possible that misapplications stemming from the interpretation you had led to the creation of the ALL WAY tab, in order to make it crystal-clear what these signs are meant to signify.
But yes, short answer to your question–as of 2009 the only tab that has been allowed is ALL WAY.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2022, 01:38:15 AM
I mean, if you're going to post signs at an intersection either way...why not just post yield signs instead of "uncontrolled intersection" signs?
Because then one of the roads would get priority over the other, and that might not be what the city wants.
...or did you mean a four-way YIELD intersection? I'm down with that.
Quote from: kphoger on September 12, 2022, 01:57:36 PM
...or did you mean a four-way YIELD intersection? I'm down with that.
Not according to MUTCD:
QuoteSection 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications
03 Other than for all of the approaches to a roundabout, YIELD signs shall not be placed on all of the approaches to an intersection.
Makes sense, because a four-way YIELD intersection would create even more confusion than an uncontrolled intersection. By definition, you can't have traffic on all approaches yielding; you'd have everyone thinking they were the one with the yield sign and yielding to everyone else. At least if it's uncontrolled, it's understood that whoever arrives first, goes first.
Seattle has far too many in residential areas that create conflicts. I much prefer to drive and cycle on streets that have small traffic circles instead of uncontrolled intersections, as they force people to slow down and look for others instead of just barreling through.
Quote from: Big John on September 12, 2022, 05:27:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 12, 2022, 01:57:36 PM
...or did you mean a four-way YIELD intersection? I'm down with that.
Not according to MUTCD:
Quote
Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications
03 Other than for all of the approaches to a roundabout, YIELD signs shall not be placed on all of the approaches to an intersection.
Right. Eliminate that part. I'm down with that.
Quote from: webny99 on September 12, 2022, 09:11:50 PM
Makes sense, because a four-way YIELD intersection would create even more confusion than an uncontrolled intersection. By definition, you can't have traffic on all approaches yielding; you'd have everyone thinking they were the one with the yield sign and yielding to everyone else. At least if it's uncontrolled, it's understood that whoever arrives first, goes first.
There have been plenty of posts on here describing how it
isn't understood, by a lot of people, that that's how uncontrolled intersections work.
I don't see how a four-way yield is any less intuitive than a four-way stop. After all, a stop sign is basically just a yield sign that requires a stop every time.
I also don't see how an uncontrolled intersection differs in any real way from what four-way yield would be. Slow down, stop if needed, yield to people who got there first, then go.
Quote from: Uniform Vehicle Code, Millennium Edition
Chapter 11 – Rules of the Road
Article IV – Right of Way
§ 11-403 – Stop signs and Yield signs
(b) Except when directed to proceed by a police officer, every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall ... After having stopped, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. ...
(c) The driver of vehicle approaching a yield sign shall ... After slowing or stopping, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. ...
I really only encounter them in parking lots, and no one really knows what to do at them.
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 09:48:51 AM
Quote from: webny99 on September 12, 2022, 09:11:50 PM
Makes sense, because a four-way YIELD intersection would create even more confusion than an uncontrolled intersection. By definition, you can't have traffic on all approaches yielding; you'd have everyone thinking they were the one with the yield sign and yielding to everyone else. At least if it's uncontrolled, it's understood that whoever arrives first, goes first.
There have been plenty of posts on here describing how it isn't understood, by a lot of people, that that's how uncontrolled intersections work.
I don't see how a four-way yield is any less intuitive than a four-way stop. After all, a stop sign is basically just a yield sign that requires a stop every time.
I also don't see how an uncontrolled intersection differs in any real way from what four-way yield would be. Slow down, stop if needed, yield to people who got there first, then go.
Quote from: Uniform Vehicle Code, Millennium Edition
Chapter 11 – Rules of the Road
Article IV – Right of Way
§ 11-403 – Stop signs and Yield signs
(b) Except when directed to proceed by a police officer, every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall ... After having stopped, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. ...
(c) The driver of vehicle approaching a yield sign shall ... After slowing or stopping, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. ...
No, what I'm saying is that a four-way yield is
more intuitive than a four-way stop. It's
too intuitive, and that's exactly why it's problematic.
With a four way stop, you must always stop first, and then proceed, taking turns with other traffic if there is any. Simple enough.
With a four way yield, you are not required to stop, only to yield to other traffic if there is any. But the same is
also true of any other approaching traffic. So they will assume they need to yield to you, while you simultaneously assume you need to yield to them. You both expect the other driver to go first, and neither does. So you both come to a complete stop, to fulfill the YIELD requirement, and eventually start looking at each other wondering what to do next. Whoever eventually decides to go first is in violation of the the sign, because they haven't yielded to other traffic. It's simply not possible for you to
both yield, hence why the MUTCD states that there should not be yield signage on all approaches to an intersection (or really, on any two perpendicular approaches).
That's different than an uncontrolled intersection because it's explicitly stated that you must yield to other traffic, rather than an understanding in lieu of signage that whoever arrives first, goes first.
Ontario has an uncontrolled intersection warning sign (Wa-11). I don't think I've ever seen it though since uncontrolled intersections are very rare here. Does the MUTCD have something similar?
(https://stinson.ca/media/catalog/product/cache/c11378dcd36c1317c52ac5673fc63b5e/w/a/wa-11_intersection_uncontrolled.jpg)
I think yield signs with "4-way" or "all-way" tabs aren't a bad solution, but I'm a bigger fan of simply having yield signs on only one road, since I find uncontrolled intersections sketchy. As someone that comes from a place where they're rare, my mind assumes no sign = I have the right of way, which is dangerous if it's wrong.
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 10:35:56 AM
That's different than an uncontrolled intersection because it's explicitly stated that you must yield to other traffic, rather than an understanding in lieu of signage that whoever arrives first, goes first.
It's actually explicitly stated that, absent any other traffic control, vehicles on the left yield to vehicles on the right–not just "other traffic".
For example...
Quote from: Illinois General Assembly – Illinois Compiled Statutes
VEHICLES
625 ILCS 5/ – Illinois Vehicle Code
Chapter 11 – Rules of the Road
Article IX – Right of Way
§ 11.901 – Vehicles approaching or entering intersection
(a) When 2 vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different roadways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left must yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 10:35:56 AM
With a four way stop, you must always stop first, and then proceed, taking turns with other traffic if there is any. Simple enough.
With a four way yield, you are not required to stop, only to yield to other traffic if there is any. But the same is also true of any other approaching traffic. So they will assume they need to yield to you, while you simultaneously assume you need to yield to them. You both expect the other driver to go first, and neither does. So you both come to a complete stop, to fulfill the YIELD requirement, and eventually start looking at each other wondering what to do next. Whoever eventually decides to go first is in violation of the the sign, because they haven't yielded to other traffic. It's simply not possible for you to both yield, hence why the MUTCD states that there should not be yield signage on all approaches to an intersection (or really, on any two perpendicular approaches).
Source, for the bolded part?
Maybe your state has a law that traffic at a four-way stop sign is supposed to take turns. But I can't find any such law for Illinois, and I likewise don't see anything in the Universal Vehicle Code outlining when it's OK to
go again after stopping at an all-way stop. The law just says to yield to traffic on the right as the general rule, to slow down and yield to other traffic when facing a Yield sign, and to stop and yield to other traffic when facing a Stop sign. Nothing about taking turns, as far as I can see. That's apparently just a convention we've all adopted.
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 10:35:56 AM
That's different than an uncontrolled intersection because it's explicitly stated that you must yield to other traffic, rather than an understanding in lieu of signage that whoever arrives first, goes first.
It's actually explicitly stated that, absent any other traffic control, vehicles on the left yield to vehicles on the right–not just "other traffic".
For example...
[quote snipped]
But of course, a yield sign
is another form of traffic control.
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 10:35:56 AM
With a four way stop, you must always stop first, and then proceed, taking turns with other traffic if there is any. Simple enough.
...
Source, for the bolded part?
Maybe your state has a law that traffic at a four-way stop sign is supposed to take turns. But I can't find any such law for Illinois, and I likewise don't see anything in the Universal Vehicle Code outlining when it's OK to go again after stopping at an all-way stop. The law just says to yield to traffic on the right as the general rule, to slow down and yield to other traffic when facing a Yield sign, and to stop and yield to other traffic when facing a Stop sign. Nothing about taking turns, as far as I can see. That's apparently just a convention we've all adopted.
OK, OK. The actual point notwithstanding... perhaps "taking turns" isn't the best phrase. What I mean is that whoever stops first, goes first, and if you stop at the same time, then the person on the right goes first.
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 11:43:06 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 10:35:56 AM
That's different than an uncontrolled intersection because it's explicitly stated that you must yield to other traffic, rather than an understanding in lieu of signage that whoever arrives first, goes first.
It's actually explicitly stated that, absent any other traffic control, vehicles on the left yield to vehicles on the right–not just "other traffic".
But of course, a yield sign is another form of traffic control.
Yes. I was just pointing out that uncontrolled intersections aren't "explicitly stated" to have "whoever arrives first, goes first".
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 11:43:06 AM
OK, OK. The actual point notwithstanding... perhaps "taking turns" isn't the best phrase. What I mean is that whoever stops first, goes first, and if you stop at the same time, then the person on the right goes first.
I'm not even sure that's entirely true either. I'll give you a common scenario in which I
don't wait for the person who got there first.
In the illustration below, the blue truck arrived at the four-way stop intersection first.
The pink car is just arriving.
I'm driving the green car, and I'll arrive at the intersection after both of them.
(https://i.imgur.com/fXPmfCB.png)
By the time I get to the intersection, the blue truck has started to make its left turn, and the pink car is still waiting its turn. You know what I do? I turn left–even though I arrived at the intersection
after the pink car. By the time the blue truck completes the turn and clears the intersection for the pink car to go, I've already completed my turn and am probably already up to 15 mph.
I obeyed the law by stopping at the stop sign. There was no traffic for me to yield to that was "in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when" I made my turn. Therefore, I complied with the law as written.
(https://i.imgur.com/6ajhPUH.png)
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 12:26:31 PM
I'm not even sure that's entirely true either. I'll give you a common scenario in which I don't wait for the person who got there first.
In the illustration below, the blue truck arrived at the four-way stop intersection first.
The pink car is just arriving.
I'm driving the green car, and I'll arrive at the intersection after both of them.
(https://i.imgur.com/fXPmfCB.png)
By the time I get to the intersection, the blue truck has started to make its left turn, and the pink car is still waiting its turn. You know what I do? I turn left–even though I arrived at the intersection after the pink car. By the time the blue truck completes the turn and clears the intersection for the pink car to go, I've already completed my turn and am probably already up to 15 mph.
I obeyed the law by stopping at the stop sign. There was no traffic for me to yield to that was "in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when" I made my turn. Therefore, I complied with the law as written.
(https://i.imgur.com/6ajhPUH.png)
Agreed. Also, an orange car arriving later than you from the [west] and turning right [south] might also be able to go at the same time, depending upon your green car trajectory.
By the way, we were taught that the car on the left always goes first. That rule was simple because it also applied to on-ramps, lane switching and traffic circles whenever control signage is missing. I mentioned this about a year ago to an older relative who also grew up in West Virginia, and he was taught the exact opposite (just as the majority of folks in this discussion).
Quote from: 7/8 on September 13, 2022, 10:44:44 AMOntario has an uncontrolled intersection warning sign (Wa-11). I don't think I've ever seen it though since uncontrolled intersections are very rare here. Does the MUTCD have something similar?
(https://stinson.ca/media/catalog/product/cache/c11378dcd36c1317c52ac5673fc63b5e/w/a/wa-11_intersection_uncontrolled.jpg)
No, and an American driver would not automatically know that that sign applies to uncontrolled intersections only. The similar-looking
MUTCD sign is for discretionary use (typically on the road having priority, if one does) for unsignalized intersections in general, including ones that do have priority control using signs (stop or yield) but are not readily visible.
Edit: Clarified ambiguous wording in last sentence of original post.
For those of you who, like me, didn't realize there were different signs in Ontario for controlled vs uncontrolled intersections...
(https://i.imgur.com/2QxoD98.png)
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 12:26:31 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 11:43:06 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 10:35:56 AM
That's different than an uncontrolled intersection, because [a yield sign explicitly states] that you must yield to other traffic, rather than an understanding in lieu of signage that whoever arrives first, goes first.
It's actually explicitly stated that, absent any other traffic control, vehicles on the left yield to vehicles on the right–not just "other traffic".
But of course, a yield sign is another form of traffic control.
Yes. I was just pointing out that uncontrolled intersections aren't "explicitly stated" to have "whoever arrives first, goes first".
No, and I didn't say they were. That was in reference to yield-sign controlled intersections, not uncontrolled ones (edited for clarity).
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 12:26:31 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 11:43:06 AM
OK, OK. The actual point notwithstanding... perhaps "taking turns" isn't the best phrase. What I mean is that whoever stops first, goes first, and if you stop at the same time, then the person on the right goes first.
I'm not even sure that's entirely true either. I'll give you a common scenario in which I don't wait for the person who got there first.
...
I obeyed the law by stopping at the stop sign. There was no traffic for me to yield to that was "in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when" I made my turn. Therefore, I complied with the law as written.
I am completely on board with that. I've probably done the same thing myself. I'm just not sure what it has to do with the case for using yield signs on all approaches to an intersection.
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 01:39:31 PM
I'm just not sure what it has to do with the case for using yield signs on all approaches to an intersection.
My point is that you seem to be arguing that the rules pertaining to four-way stops are more cut and dry than they actually are. Thus, the relative ambiguity of a potential four-way yield may be less than you're imagining. People handle four-way stops pretty well, considering how much of it is mere social convention, and I imagine people might do similarly well with a four-way yield.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 13, 2022, 01:02:30 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on September 13, 2022, 10:44:44 AMOntario has an uncontrolled intersection warning sign (Wa-11). I don't think I've ever seen it though since uncontrolled intersections are very rare here. Does the MUTCD have something similar?
(https://stinson.ca/media/catalog/product/cache/c11378dcd36c1317c52ac5673fc63b5e/w/a/wa-11_intersection_uncontrolled.jpg)
No, and an American driver would not automatically know that that sign applies to uncontrolled intersections only. The similar-looking MUTCD sign is for discretionary use (typically on the road having priority) for unsignalized intersections in general, including ones with stop or yield signs that may not be readily visible.
Indeed, I would not have known that this sign is supposed to be for an uncontrolled intersection. The first example that came to mind is at a location (
NY 441 at Harris Rd (https://goo.gl/maps/Ht3mMZP3zgTH1jTX9)) where there's no control on the road with the sign, and a two-way stop on the cross street. In this case, I suspect poor sightlines contribute to the need for the sign and accompanying flashing beacon.
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 01:47:19 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 01:39:31 PM
I'm just not sure what it has to do with the case for using yield signs on all approaches to an intersection.
My point is that you seem to be arguing that the rules pertaining to four-way stops are more cut and dry than they actually are. Thus, the relative ambiguity of a potential four-way yield may be less than you're imagining. People handle four-way stops pretty well, considering how much of it is mere social convention, and I imagine people might do similarly well with a four-way yield.
Meanwhile, I imagine that only a very small percentage of the driving population would approach a four-way stop in the way you described and be attentive and reactive enough to proceed through the intersection before the pink car.
In other words, four way stops would function perfectly fine if they
were that cut and dry. There would be nothing wrong with you waiting for the pink car to proceed before taking your "turn". It would be less efficient, but there wouldn't be anything wrong with it to an observer.
That wouldn't be the case with a four-way yield, since you would have to disobey the sign to enter the intersection anytime another car was nearby.
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 01:55:09 PM
That wouldn't be the case with a four-way yield, since you would have to disobey the sign to enter the intersection anytime another car was nearby.
Nope. You'd only be disobeying it if there were another vehicle approaching "so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard". And, if that car is slowing down to similarly yield to
you, then I don't really see how it is constituting an immediate hazard–any more than a vehicle slowing down for a stop sign would be.
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 02:02:07 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 01:55:09 PM
That wouldn't be the case with a four-way yield, since you would have to disobey the sign to enter the intersection anytime another car was nearby.
Nope. You'd only be disobeying it if there were another vehicle approaching "so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard". And, if that car is slowing down to similarly yield to you, then I don't really see how it is constituting an immediate hazard–any more than a vehicle slowing down for a stop sign would be.
But, either way, one of you wouldn't be yielding. It's simply not possible by definition.
A stop sign is different because it requires you to stop 24/7, 100% of the time and doesn't imply anything about your relationship with other traffic. You must stop first, and
then figure out your relationship with other vehicles and directions of traffic to establish when it's OK to proceed.
A yield sign, however,
does imply something about your relationship with other traffic: that you must give right of way. That means that you must figure out your relationship with other traffic
first in order to give right of way if necessary. And that just wouldn't work if it was happening on perpendicular approaches to an intersection at the same time.
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 03:31:33 PM
But, either way, one of you wouldn't be yielding. It's simply not possible by definition.
A yield sign only obliges a driver to yield to traffic that is already in the intersection or approaching so closely as to present an imminent hazard. It does not oblige a driver to yield to any other traffic. If both drivers slow down at the intersection–heck, if they come to a complete stop–then neither of those conditions remains.
Or consider this: if I'm approaching an uncontrolled intersection, and a driver approaches on my right, then I slow down and/or come to a stop as required by law. But if that other driver
also stops, then I go*. I yielded, then there was no longer anyone I was required to yield to, so I proceeded through.
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 03:31:33 PM
A stop sign is different because it requires you to stop 24/7, 100% of the time and doesn't imply anything about your relationship with other traffic. You must stop first, and then figure out your relationship with other vehicles and directions of traffic to establish when it's OK to proceed.
A yield sign, however, does imply something about your relationship with other traffic: that you must give right of way. That means that you must figure out your relationship with other traffic first in order to give right of way if necessary. And that just wouldn't work if it was happening on perpendicular approaches to an intersection at the same time.
A stop sign also implies that you must give right of way. A yield sign just does require a full stop first.
(*) Sometimes I'm feeling cantankerous, so I'll just sit there until the other driver gets a clue.
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 03:44:30 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 03:31:33 PM
But, either way, one of you wouldn't be yielding. It's simply not possible by definition.
A yield sign only obliges a driver to yield to traffic that is already in the intersection or approaching so closely as to present an imminent hazard. It does not oblige a driver to yield to any other traffic. If both drivers slow down at the intersection–heck, if they come to a complete stop–then neither of those conditions remains.
Or consider this: if I'm approaching an uncontrolled intersection, and a driver approaches on my right, then I slow down and/or come to a stop as required by law. But if that other driver also stops, then I go*. I yielded, then there was no longer anyone I was required to yield to, so I proceeded through.
... and that entirely defeats the purpose of the yield sign, which should be used to establish
who should yield. If everyone is going to yield, it might as well just be a four-way stop.
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 03:44:30 PM
A stop sign also implies that you must give right of way. A yield sign just doesn't require a full stop first.
You still have to stop, even if there's nothing to give right of way to. But you don't still have to yield when there's nothing to give right of way to.
(Also FTFY)
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 04:13:42 PM
... and that entirely defeats the purpose of the yield sign, which should be used to establish who should yield. If everyone is going to yield, it might as well just be a four-way stop.
In my opinion, stop signs should also be used to establish who should yield. If everyone has to stop, then the intersection is stoopid.
But, at any rate, I don't see how requiring everyone to stop and yield is an improvement over having everyone slow down and yield.
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 04:13:42 PM
But you don't still have to yield when there's nothing to give right of way to.
That's true for both stop signs and yield signs.
If there's nothing to give right of way to, then you don't still have to yield at a yield sign.
Quote from: Uniform Vehicle Code, Millennium Edition
Chapter 11 – Rules of the Road
Article IV – Right of Way
§ 11-403 – Stop signs and Yield signs
(b) Except when directed to proceed by a police officer, every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall ... After having stopped, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. ...
(c) The driver of vehicle approaching a yield sign shall ... After slowing or stopping, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. ...
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 04:38:29 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 04:13:42 PM
... and that entirely defeats the purpose of the yield sign, which should be used to establish who should yield. If everyone is going to yield, it might as well just be a four-way stop.
In my opinion, stop signs should also be used to establish who should yield. If everyone has to stop, then the intersection is stoopid.
But, at any rate, I don't see how requiring everyone to stop and yield is an improvement over having everyone slow down and yield.
What's wrong with a two-way yield, then? Why should a layer of confusion be added by making it four-way (which isn't even allowed in the MUTCD)? There's no sign for "slow down", and excepting all-way-yield to function like an all-way stop without the stopping is, in my opinion, a vast overestimation of the driving population's cognitive abilities.
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 04:38:29 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2022, 04:13:42 PM
But you don't still have to yield when there's nothing to give right of way to.
That's true for both stop signs and yield signs.
If there's nothing to give right of way to, then you don't still have to yield at a yield sign.
... but you still have to stop at a stop sign! The sign is directing you to complete the action of stopping, not the action of yielding, precisely because you may
not have to yield.
We need some sort of sign that functions as a four-way stop does but does not legally require a stop.
It is my opinion that unless a whole new sign is invented, the yield sign is the best way to do that. I bet you for the vast majority of American drivers who know anything, the first thing they think upon seeing a yield sign is "this is basically a stop sign that I am not legally required to stop at".
Completely unsigned uncontrolled intersections are the closest thing we have to that right now, but those are really a bad idea in the US outside of low speed residential environments. Prevailing wisdom in American driving is "I have the right of way unless signed otherwise".
Quote from: US 89 on September 13, 2022, 05:54:11 PM
We need some sort of sign that functions as a four-way stop does but does not legally require a stop.
My father used to tell this joke: How do you pronounce that sign [S-T-O-P] in West Virginia? "Yuh-heeld" [He was absolutely insistent that we not speak in the Appalachian dialect, and this joke is the only instance that I ever remember him doing so].
Quote from: kphoger on September 12, 2022, 01:57:36 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2022, 01:38:15 AM
I mean, if you're going to post signs at an intersection either way...why not just post yield signs instead of "uncontrolled intersection" signs?
Because then one of the roads would get priority over the other, and that might not be what the city wants.
...or did you mean a four-way YIELD intersection? I'm down with that.
My view on it is the city should quit waffling and just choose one road that has to yield and that's that. If an intersection is low-volume enough that it can function as an uncontrolled intersection, a yield sign will, in practical terms, change nothing 90% of the time–it's just that on the off chance that there happens to be two cars at the intersection at the same time, now there's a protocol for who goes and who waits.
Quote from: US 89 on September 13, 2022, 05:54:11 PMPrevailing wisdom in American driving is "I have the right of way unless signed otherwise".
In what country do motorists slow down at every intersection when they have the right of way?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2022, 07:47:51 AM
Quote from: US 89 on September 13, 2022, 05:54:11 PMPrevailing wisdom in American driving is "I have the right of way unless signed otherwise".
In what country do motorists slow down at every intersection when they have the right of way?
When did I say they did? In other countries, you may
not have the right of way if you come to an intersection without any additional signage. The Vienna convention signage has a "priority road" and "end of priority road" sign. If what you're on isn't designated as a priority road, at any intersection you have to yield to the car on your right, even if there is no signage explicitly telling you to do so at the intersection. Is this not accurate?
That said, I think I've found the solution to this endless debate...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Filter_in_Turn_Sign_%28Used_in_Jersey_and_Guernsey%29.svg/272px-Filter_in_Turn_Sign_%28Used_in_Jersey_and_Guernsey%29.svg.png)
The sign requires that people take turns going through the intersection without assigning a right of way to one particular approach, with no requirement to come to a complete stop. It looks like it's only used in Jersey and Guernsey, but the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_in_turn) specifically references its similarity to all-way stops (which apparently do not really exist outside of North America or South Africa).
In Mexico, uncontrolled intersections in urban settings are somewhat common. Here's one in Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco (https://goo.gl/maps/g5Muu7FQAh9AXY7a6). And here's the uncontrolled intersection of two of the major thoroughfares in Parras, Coahuila (https://goo.gl/maps/RyHQ6YNNPHMdkU5f6)–which used to have a stoplight, but it was removed about ten years ago; I've seen traffic cops directing traffic there a few times, but otherwise it's uncontrolled now. The general convention at intersections in Mexico is to take turns, a practice known as "UNO Y UNO" (one and one).
When it comes to all-way stops/yields, those are often signed with plaques stating "UNO Y UNO" or something similar. Here is a tiny stop sign (https://goo.gl/maps/SLKpKooyChRBh3197) in San Miguel de Allende (Guanajuato) with an accompanying message "ceda el paso a un vehÃculo" (give way to one vehicle); this trumps even the supposed priority given by the stop sign, as the cross street doesn't have any stop or yield signage at all.
Or sometimes the sign doesn't even say ALTO (stop) at all–just UNO Y UNO. Here's an example in Texcoco, EdoMex (https://goo.gl/maps/ciM3Nn5Ym8MA3dbj8).
Or then there are the wonky ones, like this intersection in Parras, Coahuila (https://goo.gl/maps/dQDJ6wjNTGrWHchv6): Traffic from the west gets a Yield sign (https://goo.gl/maps/9YDekiyUdKHDBx5Q6), while traffic from the north gets a Stop sign (https://goo.gl/maps/1p92bd7uXdmQT1g28). Or this intersection in Monclova, Coahuila (https://goo.gl/maps/S71SUrcZkW3KEvzd9), which has a stop sign and a yield sign and a stoplight all at the same time–although the stop and yield signs appear to only apply to the right-turn lane.
Still the most bizarre intersection that I've come across involving mismatched signage is this spot in Fife, WA:
https://goo.gl/maps/VmjenDaThfFGFzLo6 (N Levee @ Frank Albert)
* Westbound traffic does not have any sign and has priority for all movements.
* Southbound traffic has a yield sign, and must yield to traffic from the left if they go straight.
* Eastbound traffic has a stop sign, and must yield to everyone.
In practice, the yield sign rarely comes into play, as traffic almost always originates from the east or north, with N Levee dead-ending shortly after the intersection. Still, there are two other ways I think this could have been tackled: (1) two way stop for N Levee traffic, with westbound traffic receiving an "except right turns" sign. Alternatively, (2) have only a stop sign for eastbound traffic, and have a dashed yellow line curving through the intersection to indicate that as being the through movement; continuing onto N Levee would become more of a left turn and would have to yield.
The current setup is a bit dangerous: with through movement being Frank Albert > N Levee and vice-versa, traffic rarely signals when turning onto Frank Albert. I also rarely see traffic slow down when making the left onto N Levee. The only assurance drivers have turning left is that 97% of westbound traffic turns north at the intersection. But for the few cars going straight-on, I don't know how more crashes don't hapen. I have to assume they're actually used to yielding to southbound traffic, despite the sign.
The intersection I would nominate for most bizarre/confusing is this three-way stop at a five-way intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/PuvsM7XTxvqLucyJ8). The cherry on top is the fact that the two approaches that have right-of-way (the one the Street View car is on and the one angling off to the left) aren't even directly across from each other!
Quote from: webny99 on September 14, 2022, 04:18:13 PM
The intersection I would nominate for most bizarre/confusing is this three-way stop at a five-way intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/PuvsM7XTxvqLucyJ8). The cherry on top is the fact that the two approaches that have right-of-way (the one the Street View car is on and the one angling off to the left) aren't even directly across from each other!
Wasn't this recently brought up in another thread? I can't find it, for some reason.
Quote from: kphoger on September 14, 2022, 04:28:58 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 14, 2022, 04:18:13 PM
The intersection I would nominate for most bizarre/confusing is this three-way stop at a five-way intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/PuvsM7XTxvqLucyJ8). The cherry on top is the fact that the two approaches that have right-of-way (the one the Street View car is on and the one angling off to the left) aren't even directly across from each other!
Wasn't this recently brought up in another thread? I can't find it, for some reason.
Yep. I mentioned it in passing
here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31523.msg2739164#msg2739164) (find the needle in the haystack!)
Quote from: jakeroot on September 14, 2022, 02:58:37 PM
Still the most bizarre intersection that I've come across involving mismatched signage is this spot in Fife, WA:
https://goo.gl/maps/VmjenDaThfFGFzLo6 (N Levee @ Frank Albert)
* Westbound traffic does not have any sign and has priority for all movements.
* Southbound traffic has a yield sign, and must yield to traffic from the left if they go straight.
* Eastbound traffic has a stop sign, and must yield to everyone.
In practice, the yield sign rarely comes into play, as traffic almost always originates from the east or north, with N Levee dead-ending shortly after the intersection. Still, there are two other ways I think this could have been tackled: (1) two way stop for N Levee traffic, with westbound traffic receiving an "except right turns" sign. Alternatively, (2) have only a stop sign for eastbound traffic, and have a dashed yellow line curving through the intersection to indicate that as being the through movement; continuing onto N Levee would become more of a left turn and would have to yield.
The current setup is a bit dangerous: with through movement being Frank Albert > N Levee and vice-versa, traffic rarely signals when turning onto Frank Albert. I also rarely see traffic slow down when making the left onto N Levee. The only assurance drivers have turning left is that 97% of westbound traffic turns north at the intersection. But for the few cars going straight-on, I don't know how more crashes don't hapen. I have to assume they're actually used to yielding to southbound traffic, despite the sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0487478,-77.0570149,3a,60y,345.96h,79.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1si3ycrW2-0wGVnHqBRwD-Vg!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656
There is a similar 3-way intersection in my area, except that (in 2012)
Westbound Parker had a stop sign
Westbound Arcola had a stop sign
Eastbound Parker had no sign
The primary movements are westbound Arcola making a left onto westbound Parker and the reverse movement of eastbound Parker making a right onto eastbound Arcola. But as in your example the primary Arcola WB to Parker WB has a stop sign and has to yield to the possible Parker EB continuing onto Parker EB movement, even though the vast majority of cars on Parker EB made the turn to continue onto Arcola EB (and would not be in conflict with the Arocla to Parker movement). But the occasional car going through on Parker was definitely enough of an unexpected hazard, so fortunately the intersection was converted to an all-way stop.
Another interesting intersection is Highland/Edgewood in L.A.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0557503,-118.3404754,3a,75y,336.37h,61.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFMTWbQXjT9CQUk1fBboryw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
This is a slightly askew 4-way intersection, but the primary movment is north leg of Highland to west leg of Edgewood and vice versa. As you can see, a number of left turns are prohibited here so as not to impede the flow of the main movement. The east leg of Edgewood and the south leg of Highland each have a stop sign, and obviously have to yield to the main movement.
There is also some old views of National/Rose/Mentone in L.A. where three of the four movements had a stop sign,but the fourth movment that represents the left turn to continue on national had no stop sign. Thankfully, this crazy corner now has a signal.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.028825,-118.4115152,3a,37.5y,230.43h,83.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIsoLGo6hqRnyJj1A-Lj4wA!2e0!5s20070701T000000!7i3328!8i1664
Quote from: webny99 on September 09, 2022, 10:12:57 AM
As we've discussed in other threads, uncontrolled intersections are fairly rare in my part of the country ...
I found a rare uncontrolled intersection the other day and immediately thought of this thread, so I had to come back and mention it here:
Drumm Rd at Dunnbridge Dr/Old Woods Rd (https://goo.gl/maps/Vm9px63CNA2oDxnKA) in Webster, NY.
This is rare enough that I think they probably just forgot to install stop signs on the side streets, or perhaps more likely, it used to be 3-way uncontrolled before Dunnbridge Estates was built and it got grandfathered in when it became 4-way.
In my experience: even in parts of the country where uncontrolled intersections are common, that intersection would have stop or yield control.