Dangerous Incorrect Traffic Control At Rural Oklahoma Intersection

[Brian556]

Now this is really messed up. This is a four way intersection where a state highway changes direction by way of a curve near the intersection. There is a STOP-4 WAY sign where other traffic has right of way., Then, up at the four way stop intersection, there is no stop sign for westbound traffic where one should be.

Intersection Overview: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.971777,-97.4942192,86m/data=!3m1!1e3

GSV: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9715561,-97.4937968,3a,18.7y,279.83h,86.28t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sw_BH8gPLtHe61wCWu4f4GA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dw_BH8gPLtHe61wCWu4f4GA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D10.152693%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

[kphoger]

So southbound traffic gets to turn left without stopping at all?

[Brian556]

So southbound traffic gets to turn left without stopping at all?

Yes, if they use the state highway curve

[Scott5114]

It should be noted that the vast majority of traffic here will be following the curve to follow SH-24. What's marked as SH-122 by Google hasn't actually carried that designation since the 60s.

SH-24 was the first state highway I ever clinched as a driver, incidentally.

[Brian556]

It should be noted that the vast majority of traffic here will be following the curve to follow SH-24. What's marked as SH-122 by Google hasn't actually carried that designation since the 60s.

SH-24 was the first state highway I ever clinched as a driver, incidentally.

I could tell that 122 was a former designation just by the condition of the road.

The only way to truly make this safe would be to make southbound traffic turn left at he four-way stop.

If you were to keep the current configuration, which I would highly advise against, You would need to have a larger stop sign with a "TRAFFIC FROM RIGHT <---- DOES NOT STOP" sign below it ,and a second stop sign with an ALL WAY plaque at the four way intersection

[mrsman]

I agree that leaving it the way it is could be dangerous, since some of the right of way rules are unclear at certain points.  But it seems like a rural intersection, without much traffic, so it porobably doesn't result in any dangerous activity, simply because there is very little opposing traffic.  Nonetheless, it should be fixed. 

It also appears that one of the goals is to allow OK-24 traffic to proceed through the turn without stopping.  That can be achieved. 

I would transform the main intersection (High/180th) to favor 180th.  This means that both directions of High will receive a 2-way stop sign at the intersection, and 180th will not face any traffic control.  (other than a warning of the intersection). 

Just to the north, where High meets the state highway, High northbound will face a yield to opposing traffic sign.  Eastbound 180th will also face a yield sign where it meets the highway curve.  Westbound 180th at the curve will still have a stop sign, but it will be accompanied by a sign that says that right turns do not need to stop.

In this way, the traffic on the state highway will have right of way without stopping through the curve.  All the intersecting traffic (except eastbound 180th) will face a stop sign at the intersection or relatively nearby so that traffic will at least be slowed down.  Eastbound 180th has priority through the intersection ,but will still have to yield to state highway traffic.

[kphoger]

My solution

[Rothman]

*shrug*

It's fine the way it is.

[Bruce]

A similar intersection on Whidbey Island was rebuilt by moving one of the junctions off to the side of the road. It does have a wider curve, though, and a proper T-junction, so it may not be totally applicable here.


Chosen option - SR 20 Morris to Jacobs by Washington State Dept of Transportation, on Flickr

[vdeane]

Yeah, this needs fixing.  I don't see how some people could see it as fine - from the GSV link, it's not clear at all who is supposed to do what from the signage there.  If I encountered that as a driver, I would be very confused.  They appear to be incorrectly using that "stop - 4 way" sign in place of a stop ahead sign, for one thing.  It should be moved to the actual intersection it's meant for, with yield or stop signs added to the roads approaching the curve to make who has the right of way clear.

[Rothman]

I don't see what's so hard about stopping at a stop sign and proceeding when clear...

...or not stopping if you don't have a stop sign.

[vdeane]

I don't see what's so hard about stopping at a stop sign and proceeding when clear...

...or not stopping if you don't have a stop sign.

Check out how it's signed.  Traveling from the GSV link, you have the stop sign at the beginning of the curve and then nothing after.  Therefore, one would assume you stop at the start of the curve and then proceed with the right of way though the four-way intersection, right?  But then, you see that it says "4-way"... except that curve isn't a 4-way intersection!

[Scott5114]

But it seems like a rural intersection, without much traffic, so it porobably doesn't result in any dangerous activity, simply because there is very little opposing traffic.  Nonetheless, it should be fixed.

This intersection occurs between two points that OkDOT has AADT for–590 to the north and 230 to the south. So I think it's likely that there's rarely even two cars at the intersection at the same time. There's very little reason to be in that area unless you're a local anyway, so I'm guessing the majority of the people that use that intersection know how it's supposed to work and act accordingly.

[CtrlAltDel]

My solution

What do you do in the following case where the blue driving straight west conflicts with the red turning from south to east?


I guess you could consider the straight movement as a left turn, requiring you to yield, but, especially given what it looks like on Street View, that isn't something that seems to intuitively come to mind since the curving road doesn't look more "important" than the other one.

My solution would admittedly involve a bit of, but I don't think too much, repaving:


Another way, now that I think about it, needs no repaving, but only a small amount of "depaving":

[DaBigE]

Does anyone know what kind of volumes are out here? If they're as low as I think they are, based on the remoteness of the intersection, just remove the bypass and make everyone go through the all-way stop.

The lack of obvious traffic control concerns me a bit, but so does the lack of route signage and vertical delineation of the bypass.

There's a few similar intersections in rural Wisconsin, but the volumes are very low and the configuration is much more intuitive as to who has the ROW/is on the more important road.

[Rothman]

I don't see what's so hard about stopping at a stop sign and proceeding when clear...

...or not stopping if you don't have a stop sign.

Check out how it's signed.  Traveling from the GSV link, you have the stop sign at the beginning of the curve and then nothing after.  Therefore, one would assume you stop at the start of the curve and then proceed with the right of way though the four-way intersection, right?  But then, you see that it says "4-way"... except that curve isn't a 4-way intersection!

Right.  I don't see a problem with the signage or the function of the intersection as is, especially for such a low-volume intersection.  You wait for oncoming traffic on the curve and then go.  Still gets a shrug from me.

Has the intersection had a problem with accidents?

[vdeane]

Does anyone know what kind of volumes are out here? If they're as low as I think they are, based on the remoteness of the intersection, just remove the bypass and make everyone go through the all-way stop.

I don't even see a need to change the pavement - just fix the signs to be more clear (and adjust the striping too to emphasize the curve as the "through" route).

I don't see what's so hard about stopping at a stop sign and proceeding when clear...

...or not stopping if you don't have a stop sign.

Check out how it's signed.  Traveling from the GSV link, you have the stop sign at the beginning of the curve and then nothing after.  Therefore, one would assume you stop at the start of the curve and then proceed with the right of way though the four-way intersection, right?  But then, you see that it says "4-way"... except that curve isn't a 4-way intersection!

Right.  I don't see a problem with the signage or the function of the intersection as is, especially for such a low-volume intersection.  You wait for oncoming traffic on the curve and then go.  Still gets a shrug from me.

Has the intersection had a problem with accidents?

Except that's not a "stop ahead" sign or a "stop at intersection" sign, that's a "stop here" sign at a location other than where the stop is supposed to be.  As someone who was taught to stop at the location of the sign unless a stop line says otherwise, that's confusing.  Looking at the GSV, my brain does not process the curve as the through road - it processes the straight as such, because that's what the striping says it is, as it does not bend for that curve at all.

In New York we tend to be pretty unambiguous about such things, and that's what I'm used to.  Heck, if that road was maintained by NYSDOT, not only would there be more stop/yield signs to make things clear and curved striping, we'd also have route markers and chevrons.

[Rothman]

So, you stop at the line.  All you need to decide at that point is whether you can continue on your desired path.  If you're headed north, no problem.  If you need to continue straight, you just wait for any south-to-east traffic to clear...but there probably won't be any.

Confusion aside for first-timers through this way off the beaten path intersection -- which may just delay them 30 seconds to figure it out -- I'd imagine locals know it pat.

If there hasn't been accidents at the location, I don't see how it is dangerous.

[kphoger]

My solution

What do you do in the following case where the blue driving straight west conflicts with the red turning from south to east?

Add a YIELD sign for westbound traffic at the curve (the right end of your blue line).

My solution would admittedly involve a bit of, but I don't think too much, repaving:

This is best

[freebrickproductions]

To me, it looks like the stop sign is just located at the wrong spot, due to the spot it should be at is in a painted median. Just move the stop sign, maybe add a couple of yield signs to designate right of way with the bypass, and you'd pretty much be good to go.

[mrsman]

It would also be OK to have the curve be one-way westbound to northbound and have left turners following the state highway to just use the 4-way stop.

If traffic is so low anyway, what's the big deal of stopping at a 4-way stop?

[jeffandnicole]

If traffic is so low anyway, what's the big deal of stopping at a 4-way stop?

If traffic's so low, what's the point of the 4 way stop in the first place?  Usually these are reserved for developments where, as much as they won't say it, they're used for speed control.  Or, higher-volume intersections where a traffic light isn't necessary.

[kphoger]

what's the point of 4 way stop?

Simplified for truth.

[webny99]

... Or, higher-volume intersections where a traffic light isn't necessary.

If it's higher-volume (whatever that means in this context), then IMO either a stoplight or roundabout must be warranted. Roads that carry notable through traffic should not have 4-way stops.

[kphoger]

Agreed.  If too many cars are driving through the intersection, then making all of them stop is not a good solution.