Yield to vs. Stop for pedestrians in crosswalk

[jeffandnicole]

My point was that using a cell phone, hands-free or not, legal or illegal, makes you a more distracted driver than if you weren't. I don't think anyone can deny that.

And to preemptively answer people's inevitable counter points, yes, I believe that talking, radio, food, children, etc are all also distractions to driving. Ideally, people will minimize as many of those distractions as possible while operating heavy and fast machinery, as F=M*A

Of course, thats not even necessarily true. When I use an app designed to help drive, like Waze, it alerts me to hazards on the road, can tell me what every lane does and exactly where I need to turn so I don't need to pay attention to the street sign names, I can focus much more on the roadway and thus the pedestrians at the intersection instead of the often difficult to find or read blade sign.

Sounds like you're focusing more on the app to tell you the obvious.  How do all those other people manage to avoid hazards and pedestrians?

[vdeane]

Isn't NY a "your half of the road" state? Or am I thinking of PA?

We were until a few years ago. Now we're an "anywhere in the crosswalk" state. Judging by what I see day to day, I'd say the pedestrians know this, but the drivers don't


(I think Ontario requires a complete stop if someone on the sidewalk appears to be thinking about stepping toward the crosswalk.)

Yeesh.  What's the point of further inconveniencing drivers by making them wait for no reason?  You can't hit the pedestrian if he's not in your lane, it's physically impossible.  When I'm a pedestrian, I don't want drivers to have to wait on me for no reason, but to minimize their inconvenience as much as possible.  Am I just an oddball?

[bzakharin]

Isn't NY a "your half of the road" state? Or am I thinking of PA?

We were until a few years ago. Now we're an "anywhere in the crosswalk" state. Judging by what I see day to day, I'd say the pedestrians know this, but the drivers don't

Downtown Morristown, NJ has those kinds of pedestrians too. They cross without even looking. A friend used to say they have a tremendous faith in God.

[Sam]

I've noticed that around Boston, too. Maybe it's so much part of the culture that the peds are certain they'll be stopped for. I've also seen Boston drivers pull out very close in front of oncoming cars using the pedestrian in the crosswalk as a shield.

[UCFKnights]

Of course, thats not even necessarily true. When I use an app designed to help drive, like Waze, it alerts me to hazards on the road, can tell me what every lane does and exactly where I need to turn so I don't need to pay attention to the street sign names, I can focus much more on the roadway and thus the pedestrians at the intersection instead of the often difficult to find or read blade sign.

However, you're still distracted, as your eyes are still coming off the road to look at your Waze app.  So Alexandria's point is still valid.

By that logic, we should remove the speedometer, gas gauge, and all other instrument panels from the view of the driver because they could glance down at them instead of keeping their eyes on the road.

[Duke87]

Isn't NY a "your half of the road" state? Or am I thinking of PA?

We were until a few years ago. Now we're an "anywhere in the crosswalk" state.

Yeesh.  What's the point of further inconveniencing drivers by making them wait for no reason?  You can't hit the pedestrian if he's not in your lane, it's physically impossible.  When I'm a pedestrian, I don't want drivers to have to wait on me for no reason, but to minimize their inconvenience as much as possible.  Am I just an oddball?

This sounds like something some legislator cooked up in order to look tough and make the law sound more serious, so they could point to it and say "we're taking steps to increase safety!" even if what they're doing accomplishes un cazzo. Politicians are good at that.

Considering that in New York City "yield to pedestrians" frequently means "drive around pedestrians" (i.e. we don't even follow the old rule), this is especially laughable.

Of course, such a rule does make it easier for cops to write tickets since it eliminates any arguments over whether someone was in "your half" of the crosswalk (this can often be ambiguous) by making it not matter. So one could interpret this along the same lines as the law saying you can be fined for texting while driving if you so much as have your phone in your hand for a split second while driving - it shuts down any arguments someone might make that they weren't texting, they were just glancing at the time or something.

[vdeane]

My definition of "yield" has always been "as long as everyone else can pretend you don't exist and still not get in an accident, you're good".  I'm guessing that most bike/ped advocates don't like that definition and would prefer an inviting, wide open path to attract pedestrians to walk across.

[bzakharin]

My definition of "yield" has always been "as long as everyone else can pretend you don't exist and still not get in an accident, you're good".  I'm guessing that most bike/ped advocates don't like that definition and would prefer an inviting, wide open path to attract pedestrians to walk across.

Fir drivers, in my experience, both "yield" and "stop" mean "there is traffic ahead that doesn't expect you to be there, so it's your job to ensure that nothing bad happens". The only difference is that "yield" tends to be used at merges, while "stop" tends to be used at cross streets. Now that does mean that you're more likely to need to actually stop at a stop sign vs a yield sign because cross traffic is harder to see than merging traffic, but not because it's a stop sign. (4-way stop signs mean "we're too cheap to put up a traffic light, so you figure it out on your own". I hate those. Why not just assign right of way at random to one of the roads? I mean if it doesn't warrant a signal, there is probably not enough traffic to cause backups in the non-right-of-way direction, and even if it were, at least now the backups are only on one street instead of two). So I don't think it makes a difference where crosswalks are concerned.

[vdeane]

Yield requires you to let others go first if the conflicting traffic isn't clear.  Stop means that you're supposed to stop every time regardless.  Thus "yield to pedestrian" means "allow them to cross without being hit", while "stop for pedestrian" means "you must stop if the pedestrian is in the crosswalk or thinking about crossing regardless of whether you can safely go or not".

[briantroutman]

[Now that does mean that you're more likely to need to actually stop at a stop sign vs a yield sign because cross traffic is harder to see than merging traffic...

Do you ever NOT stop at a stop sign? For your sake and the safety of those around you, I certainly hope the answer is "no" .

[roadman]

4-way stop signs mean "we're too cheap to put up a traffic light, so you figure it out on your own". I hate those

In most Massachusetts communities, 4-way stop signs mean "We think traffic is going too fast, but a permanent reduction in the speed limit can't be justified."

[AlexandriaVA]

Four-way stop means that the local traffic planners haven't gotten to roundabout chapters in their textbooks.

Seriously...does any other part of the world use four-way stops as much as the US does? I've never seen a single one in Europe.

[1995hoo]

[Now that does mean that you're more likely to need to actually stop at a stop sign vs a yield sign because cross traffic is harder to see than merging traffic...

Do you ever NOT stop at a stop sign? For your sake and the safety of those around you, I certainly hope the answer is "no" .

Read his comment again. He questioned the NEED to stop at a stop sign. We've all experienced many instances where the only reason to stop at the stop sign is because the sign says you have to do so. In other words, because of the lack of other traffic there is no "need" to stop.

Four-way stop means that the local traffic planners haven't gotten to roundabout chapters in their textbooks.

Seriously...does any other part of the world use four-way stops as much as the US does? I've never seen a single one in Europe.

I found the European approach to be a refreshing change from the American approach. The American approach says "you might have to come to a stop at some point, so we'll require you to stop every time just in case because we don't trust you to yield when necessary." The European approach says "there's no reason to require you to stop except when there's someone else to whom you have to yield, and we presume that you know the law and will follow it."

[jakeroot]

Four-way stop means that the local traffic planners haven't gotten to roundabout chapters in their textbooks.

Seriously...does any other part of the world use four-way stops as much as the US does? I've never seen a single one in Europe.

There are a few examples, but definitely not as many. I think other parts of the world take traffic control a little more seriously than we do. Lots of four-way stops only exist to slow traffic. Some other countries (which are concerned about speed) use chicanes, speed tables, and speed cameras to complete that task. As for stop signs in general, 1995hoo took the words right out of my mouth...it really does come down to a matter of trust.

I would agree that a roundabout is superior to a four-way stop, but there are ROW restrictions on occasion which may prevent even a mini-roundabout from being installed. I prefer signals to four-way stops in those cases, but sometimes there isn't the money for that.

[AlexandriaVA]

I guess it's another case of American exceptionalism, in that American motorists are exceptionally bad at making judgements calls (yielding on roundabounts, yielding to pedestrians, etc).

[1995hoo]

I can certainly think of some urban areas where mini-roundabouts would be undesirable due to poor sight lines around the corners due to parked cars. If parking is tight such that it's a problem to remove spaces to improve sight lines for a roundabout, I can see why a four-way stop is better in those cases. At smaller side street intersections I'd rather deal with a four-way stop than a traffic light because I find they're usually (not always, just usually) faster to get through compared to waiting for a light that probably won't be on a trip.

[jakeroot]

I can certainly think of some urban areas where mini-roundabouts would be undesirable due to poor sight lines around the corners due to parked cars. If parking is tight such that it's a problem to remove spaces to improve sight lines for a roundabout, I can see why a four-way stop is better in those cases. At smaller side street intersections I'd rather deal with a four-way stop than a traffic light because I find they're usually (not always, just usually) faster to get through compared to waiting for a light that probably won't be on a trip.

I'm just fundamentally opposed to four-way stops in general, for two reasons:

1) They're usually installed because the side street has too much approaching traffic, or
2) They're installed to slow traffic down

Installing a four-way stop may assist in the flow of the secondary street, but it severely exacerbates the traffic flow on the primary road. If traffic on the secondary street has trouble pulling out due to heavy traffic on the primary road, it means the primary road has a fairly steady stream of vehicles. To then make each of those vehicles along the primary road stop for a stop sign is just outrageous...if you thought traffic was bad before the stop sign, just wait until afterwards, when every vehicle has to stop, not just those along the secondary street. If traffic along the side street has a regular line of 10 to 20 cars, then a signal should be installed. That way, sometimes you'll have to stop and wait, but other times you'll be able to proceed without any stopping, just like before.

Tl;dr: Secondary streets are simply not important in the big picture of traffic flow. I know that's a broad statement, but I'm fairly certain I can defend it if necessary.

[empirestate]

I guess it's another case of American exceptionalism, in that American motorists are exceptionally bad at making judgements calls (yielding on roundabounts, yielding to pedestrians, etc).

Or, to put it another way, we're exceptionally good at making judgment calls; the judgment is just more likely to fall in our own favor.

[cbeach40]

(I think Ontario requires a complete stop if someone on the sidewalk appears to be thinking about stepping toward the crosswalk.)

No, that is not the case at all.

• At intersection - based on the control at that intersection (signals/stop/yield/free flow)
• Mid-block pedestrian signal - per the signal displayed, legally the same as an intersection signal
• Mid-block pedestrian crossover - somewhat ambiguous, which is why they're being phased out. Driver is to stop for the ped, peds should activate the signals. Right now, driver may proceed when their half of the roadway is clear, will be changing to full width soon.
• Unsignalized mid-block crosswalk - pedestrians yield to traffic

[vdeane]

Does anyone have any insight on what the point is on stopping if the pedestrian is anywhere in the crosswalk rather than just somewhere where you might hit them?  It appears to just be a way to further inconvenience drivers in a bid to coax them out of their cars.

[kkt]

Does anyone have any insight on what the point is on stopping if the pedestrian is anywhere in the crosswalk rather than just somewhere where you might hit them?  It appears to just be a way to further inconvenience drivers in a bid to coax them out of their cars.

If you're really curious, it's because drivers are expected to drive predictably and responsibly, and pedestrians are not.  Drivers are more-or-less adult, with training behind them.  Pedestrians may be children or no longer mentally able to drive.  They may change from a walk to a run or change directions in the middle of the street.  As a driver it's not only your job to miss them but also not to threaten them.  Try to be glad that you are able to drive rather than upset because you might have to wait a few seconds for someone who doesn't have that option.

[jakeroot]

If priority is a matter of predictability, trains should be required to yield to cars. Obviously that's insane, but train:car as car:pedestrian. Both of the former cannot stop as quickly as the latter, but for some reason, cars have to yield to pedestrians in most cases, despite taking much longer to stop, and being far less maneuverable (the reason we are required to yield to trains in the first place).

Now, it's established that you cannot knowingly run someone down, and pedestrians usually don't have the right of way at crossings where they are facing a red hand. But I do feel for drivers in places where pedestrians always have the ROW, even in scenarios where the car has a green light. That just seems nutty.

[xcellntbuy]

In Milledgeville, GA where we have three colleges, the signs say "stop" for pedestrians in red.  I use one every day to get to my office at Georgia Military College.  It is amazing the number of people who do not stop for pedestrians.

[Pete from Boston]

4-way stop signs mean "we're too cheap to put up a traffic light, so you figure it out on your own". I hate those

In most Massachusetts communities, 4-way stop signs mean "We think traffic is going too fast, but a permanent reduction in the speed limit can't be justified."

In most Massachusetts communities, 4-way stop signs mean "Screw this, I'm going when the guy in front of me goes."

[empirestate]

If priority is a matter of predictability, trains should be required to yield to cars. Obviously that's insane, but train:car as car:pedestrian. Both of the former cannot stop as quickly as the latter, but for some reason, cars have to yield to pedestrians in most cases, despite taking much longer to stop, and being far less maneuverable (the reason we are required to yield to trains in the first place).

Now, it's established that you cannot knowingly run someone down, and pedestrians usually don't have the right of way at crossings where they are facing a red hand. But I do feel for drivers in places where pedestrians always have the ROW, even in scenarios where the car has a green light. That just seems nutty.

I'd think of it in terms of fundamental right-of-way. On a public thoroughfare–road, street, highway, whatever–people have a right of way, a freedom of passage along that thoroughfare and access to the properties that abut it. Fundamentally, a person using this right of way takes the form a pedestrian; that's just a person.

Now, some people have the privilege of owning or otherwise having access to a vehicle that can expedite their passage along that right of way; in fact, so many people have this privilege that many thoroughfares are segregated into different areas for different types of vehicles, or for those without a vehicle, and rules are enacted establishing the movement of those vehicles. But the underlying freedom of passage is vested in the person, not the vehicle, and those with the privilege of having a vehicle undertake the responsibility of maneuvering it safely amongst those other persons exercising their right of way.

The difference with trains is that a railroad is a dedicated right-of-way for train travel. Persons do not have a right-of-way on railroads, nor do their vehicles, so trains have the priority. And, yes, for practical reasons trains are given priority where the intersect public rights-of-way for reasons of maneuvering.