"Outdated" Traffic Laws That Could Be Tweaked...

[vtk]

The 55 MPH top speed for heavy duty trucks and vehicles hauling trailers in California.  Currently CHP doesn't seem very interested in enforcing this limit and it never really aided traffic anyways.

That's why I don't like driving to or through California in American Truck Simulator

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm gathering the video game version of California is the "hard mode?"

[freebrickproductions]

If we're referring to hanging back in the left turn lane, it's definitely to trigger the green arrow. Someone who actually installs and maintains signals would have to explain the technical details. But from my observation, if a driver hangs back on the loop detectors, and you can usually see the loop detectors in the road, it will relay to the traffic signal controller that there are multiple cars in the turn lane and to give the green arrow on the next cycle. This is on the protected-permissive left turns (doghouses / FYAs). Depending on how the signal is programmed, the green arrow might not display if there's not enough cars in the turn lane, so the hanging back games the system.

Is that actually a thing, or is it just people pulling-up to a red light too late for it to place the call to give a protected left turn?

Because in the decade I've been driving, I ain't had the former but I very much have had the latter.

[PColumbus73]

If we're referring to hanging back in the left turn lane, it's definitely to trigger the green arrow. Someone who actually installs and maintains signals would have to explain the technical details. But from my observation, if a driver hangs back on the loop detectors, and you can usually see the loop detectors in the road, it will relay to the traffic signal controller that there are multiple cars in the turn lane and to give the green arrow on the next cycle. This is on the protected-permissive left turns (doghouses / FYAs). Depending on how the signal is programmed, the green arrow might not display if there's not enough cars in the turn lane, so the hanging back games the system.

Is that actually a thing, or is it just people pulling-up to a red light too late for it to place the call to give a protected left turn?

Because in the decade I've been driving, I ain't had the former but I very much have had the latter.

Maybe it's something local to my area, but it's something I've seen several times. Usually they will pull up on the red phase and hang back 2-3 car lengths over the farthest loop detector from the stop bar. If they can make it before the cross street goes yellow, it'll trigger the green arrow.

[freebrickproductions]

If they can make it before the cross street goes yellow, it'll trigger the green arrow.

That's generally going to be true of the loop detection anywhere in the country, regardless of where you stop on it.

[jeffandnicole]

If we're referring to hanging back in the left turn lane, it's definitely to trigger the green arrow. Someone who actually installs and maintains signals would have to explain the technical details. But from my observation, if a driver hangs back on the loop detectors, and you can usually see the loop detectors in the road, it will relay to the traffic signal controller that there are multiple cars in the turn lane and to give the green arrow on the next cycle. This is on the protected-permissive left turns (doghouses / FYAs). Depending on how the signal is programmed, the green arrow might not display if there's not enough cars in the turn lane, so the hanging back games the system.

Is that actually a thing, or is it just people pulling-up to a red light too late for it to place the call to give a protected left turn?

Because in the decade I've been driving, I ain't had the former but I very much have had the latter.

Yeah, I'm not quite believing the "skips over the phase because there's not enough vehicles going to turn" theory.  I've yet to see this in action also.

Can we get an intersection location where this actually occurs?

[PColumbus73]

If we're referring to hanging back in the left turn lane, it's definitely to trigger the green arrow. Someone who actually installs and maintains signals would have to explain the technical details. But from my observation, if a driver hangs back on the loop detectors, and you can usually see the loop detectors in the road, it will relay to the traffic signal controller that there are multiple cars in the turn lane and to give the green arrow on the next cycle. This is on the protected-permissive left turns (doghouses / FYAs). Depending on how the signal is programmed, the green arrow might not display if there's not enough cars in the turn lane, so the hanging back games the system.

Is that actually a thing, or is it just people pulling-up to a red light too late for it to place the call to give a protected left turn?

Because in the decade I've been driving, I ain't had the former but I very much have had the latter.

Yeah, I'm not quite believing the "skips over the phase because there's not enough vehicles going to turn" theory.  I've yet to see this in action also.

Can we get an intersection location where this actually occurs?

Something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5496386,-79.0484659,3a,15y,195.01h,85.97t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sHYkms8LTt92QTi86ZmkJ0g!2e0!5s20120801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.026678013364844%26panoid%3DHYkms8LTt92QTi86ZmkJ0g%26yaw%3D195.01053633953384!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D

Where the beige Toyota is is where the loop detectors are for the turn arrows, and some people will stop there to trip the arrow.

[freebrickproductions]

If we're referring to hanging back in the left turn lane, it's definitely to trigger the green arrow. Someone who actually installs and maintains signals would have to explain the technical details. But from my observation, if a driver hangs back on the loop detectors, and you can usually see the loop detectors in the road, it will relay to the traffic signal controller that there are multiple cars in the turn lane and to give the green arrow on the next cycle. This is on the protected-permissive left turns (doghouses / FYAs). Depending on how the signal is programmed, the green arrow might not display if there's not enough cars in the turn lane, so the hanging back games the system.

Is that actually a thing, or is it just people pulling-up to a red light too late for it to place the call to give a protected left turn?

Because in the decade I've been driving, I ain't had the former but I very much have had the latter.

Yeah, I'm not quite believing the "skips over the phase because there's not enough vehicles going to turn" theory.  I've yet to see this in action also.

Can we get an intersection location where this actually occurs?

Something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5496386,-79.0484659,3a,15y,195.01h,85.97t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sHYkms8LTt92QTi86ZmkJ0g!2e0!5s20120801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.026678013364844%26panoid%3DHYkms8LTt92QTi86ZmkJ0g%26yaw%3D195.01053633953384!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D

Where the beige Toyota is is where the loop detectors are for the turn arrows, and some people will stop there to trip the arrow.

Looks like the detector goes all the way up through the stop line.

[PColumbus73]

Another angle: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5493774,-79.0486808,3a,25.4y,138.67h,78.95t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sKzyTzX2kowvJJkHyZvv55g!2e0!5s20120801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D11.049751513958242%26panoid%3DKzyTzX2kowvJJkHyZvv55g%26yaw%3D138.67239976265714!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D

The loops themselves are located between the painted arrow and the ONLY markings. It's the same on the other side of the intersection, too. I'm assuming it's to prioritize thru traffic and not give a green arrow unless there's built up volume. I'm not sure if this is something specific to South Carolina.

[jeffandnicole]

Another angle: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5493774,-79.0486808,3a,25.4y,138.67h,78.95t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sKzyTzX2kowvJJkHyZvv55g!2e0!5s20120801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D11.049751513958242%26panoid%3DKzyTzX2kowvJJkHyZvv55g%26yaw%3D138.67239976265714!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D

The loops themselves are located between the painted arrow and the ONLY markings. It's the same on the other side of the intersection, too. I'm assuming it's to prioritize thru traffic and not give a green arrow unless there's built up volume. I'm not sure if this is something specific to South Carolina.

Wow. But ok, I see what you're saying.  That's an interesting setup, and while I'm not going to say it's SC specific, it may be SC specific.  Even the doghouse light is well away from the normal sightline for left turning traffic at this particular intersection.

[freebrickproductions]

Yeah, that's definitely strange. I'm guessing it must've been done to prioritize thru traffic as well.

[GaryV]

Many of the relatively new installations in Oakland Co, MI, have "skip the protected green" phases. They are typically controlled by cameras. The older installations always go to a leading protected green left turn arrow, but it is shortened if there are no cars there. Some of the most recent ones go directly to flashing yellow arrow if there's no cars waiting 2-3 seconds before the signal changes. And then there's no protected green at all that cycle.

[kalvado]

Many of the relatively new installations in Oakland Co, MI, have "skip the protected green" phases. They are typically controlled by cameras. The older installations always go to a leading protected green left turn arrow, but it is shortened if there are no cars there. Some of the most recent ones go directly to flashing yellow arrow if there's no cars waiting 2-3 seconds before the signal changes. And then there's no protected green at all that cycle.

Protected green is something you cannot win with. It would be either useless delay or a mess depending on which misdetection would occur.
Once upon a time, I waited for 7 cycles before finally running the red light when protected green didn't want to come up. 

[roadfro]

Another angle: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5493774,-79.0486808,3a,25.4y,138.67h,78.95t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sKzyTzX2kowvJJkHyZvv55g!2e0!5s20120801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D11.049751513958242%26panoid%3DKzyTzX2kowvJJkHyZvv55g%26yaw%3D138.67239976265714!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D

The loops themselves are located between the painted arrow and the ONLY markings. It's the same on the other side of the intersection, too. I'm assuming it's to prioritize thru traffic and not give a green arrow unless there's built up volume. I'm not sure if this is something specific to South Carolina.

Wow. But ok, I see what you're saying.  That's an interesting setup, and while I'm not going to say it's SC specific, it may be SC specific.  Even the doghouse light is well away from the normal sightline for left turning traffic at this particular intersection.

I've never seen that setup before either. That does seem like it's meant to prioritize through traffic.

From the previous discussion where there was two loops in the left turn lane, I'd always understood that multiple loops were tied into the same detector channel, thus it wouldn't matter if you stopped further back or at the stop line, because the detectors put in the same call to the controller regardless. But I could be mistaken on that.

[mrsman]

If we're referring to hanging back in the left turn lane, it's definitely to trigger the green arrow. Someone who actually installs and maintains signals would have to explain the technical details. But from my observation, if a driver hangs back on the loop detectors, and you can usually see the loop detectors in the road, it will relay to the traffic signal controller that there are multiple cars in the turn lane and to give the green arrow on the next cycle. This is on the protected-permissive left turns (doghouses / FYAs). Depending on how the signal is programmed, the green arrow might not display if there's not enough cars in the turn lane, so the hanging back games the system.

I have definitely seen something like this in Los Angeles.  Protected-permissive left turn signals are designed to be triggered at many intersections only when there are at least three cars waiting in the left turn lane.  If there are only one or two, the left arrow is not triggered and those cars are supposed to find a gap in traffic to make their turn.

Here is an intersection with two clearly marked detector loops.  I believe both have to have a car present on them for the left arrow to be triggered.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.057324,-118.3464067,3a,57.2y,177.66h,81.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbWY4gBfFQKHBGsT2ct2vpw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D8.878557893167695%26panoid%3DbWY4gBfFQKHBGsT2ct2vpw%26yaw%3D177.65895422652667!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMwMy4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDU1SAFQAw%3D%3D

[ElishaGOtis]

RTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.

I've been wondering for a long time: how exactly does a red light camera know whether you've made a full stop before turning right on red?

It's taking video, so when it detects a vehicle going past the stop line the reviewer should see the driver stopped first.

Machine vision has progressed to where no human reviewer should be needed. I don't know if that's been invested in yet anywhere, though.

Apparently it's radar based. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Mr8fb9cl81c

Also, a while ago when I was visiting family in Chicago, there was a rumor that a secret city law existed requiring you to stop for 5 seconds before turning right on red, otherwise the camera would detect your vehicle and send you a ticket (even if you did come to a complete stop for 4 seconds). Later, the rumor changed to where the vehicle must "rock back" after coming to a complete stop in order to avoid a ticket. I was never able to test or verify either of these, but Chicago does have a history of shady practices involving enforcement cameras... it would come as no surprise if these did occur.

[pderocco]

Also, a while ago when I was visiting family in Chicago, there was a rumor that a secret city law existed requiring you to stop for 5 seconds before turning right on red, otherwise the camera would detect your vehicle and send you a ticket (even if you did come to a complete stop for 4 seconds). Later, the rumor changed to where the vehicle must "rock back" after coming to a complete stop in order to avoid a ticket. I was never able to test or verify either of these, but Chicago does have a history of shady practices involving enforcement cameras... it would come as no surprise if these did occur.

Since we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.

[wxfree]

Also, a while ago when I was visiting family in Chicago, there was a rumor that a secret city law existed requiring you to stop for 5 seconds before turning right on red, otherwise the camera would detect your vehicle and send you a ticket (even if you did come to a complete stop for 4 seconds). Later, the rumor changed to where the vehicle must "rock back" after coming to a complete stop in order to avoid a ticket. I was never able to test or verify either of these, but Chicago does have a history of shady practices involving enforcement cameras... it would come as no surprise if these did occur.

Since we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.

I think the point of stopping is to take away the motivation to save some momentum, which can result in quicker and less well considered maneuvers.  That is, of course, for the one driver in maybe every thousand who actually stops at stop signs.  There's a legitimate reason for making every vehicle stop at some places, but not at every single place where two roads meet.  I think a good solution is to put in more yield signs, using stop signs only where they're actually needed.  Where you can easily see at a glance whether it's safe to go, put in a yield just to establish a right of way.  Save stop signs for places where you need to stop for a better look (due to a visibility challenge or a high-speed road, where a car you might miss with a quick glance because it's far away will quickly be up on you), and then enforce stops strictly (I have the same view of setting and enforcing reasonable speed limits).  A narrow turnaround in a divided road where you can see whether oncoming traffic will impede your turn from half a mile before you get to it doesn't really need a yield sign, because the yield is implied, but you can put one if it makes you feel better.  Putting a stop sign there is silly and reduces respect for the signs.  Don't weaken stops where they're needed, but don't require them where they aren't needed.

[jeffandnicole]

Also, a while ago when I was visiting family in Chicago, there was a rumor that a secret city law existed requiring you to stop for 5 seconds before turning right on red, otherwise the camera would detect your vehicle and send you a ticket (even if you did come to a complete stop for 4 seconds). Later, the rumor changed to where the vehicle must "rock back" after coming to a complete stop in order to avoid a ticket. I was never able to test or verify either of these, but Chicago does have a history of shady practices involving enforcement cameras... it would come as no surprise if these did occur.

Since we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.

So you want the definition of "Stop" to be the similar to "Yield"?

No.

[kalvado]

Also, a while ago when I was visiting family in Chicago, there was a rumor that a secret city law existed requiring you to stop for 5 seconds before turning right on red, otherwise the camera would detect your vehicle and send you a ticket (even if you did come to a complete stop for 4 seconds). Later, the rumor changed to where the vehicle must "rock back" after coming to a complete stop in order to avoid a ticket. I was never able to test or verify either of these, but Chicago does have a history of shady practices involving enforcement cameras... it would come as no surprise if these did occur.

Since we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.

So you want the definition of "Stop" to be the similar to "Yield"?

No.

Speed limit already implies at least "+10" in most places. Laws in general tend to become a mere suggestion.
Overuse of authority leads to loss of respect to that authority. As @wxfree says, use stop sign where you actually need drivers to stop, use yield or no sign otherwise. "traffic calming" isn't a valid use of a stop.

[Max Rockatansky]

A couple years ago the town we visit family at in Jalisco put stop signs in.  At best they function as yield signs and generally they are just ignored.  I've never seen or heard of anyone being hit, everyone kind of just makes getting through those intersections happen.  Granted this town has a density of about 8,700 people per square mile and nobody is moving fast.  In slow moving (under 20 MPH) dense urban situations where non-arterial roads are involved the stop signs seem to just create unnecessary traffic.

[pderocco]

Also, a while ago when I was visiting family in Chicago, there was a rumor that a secret city law existed requiring you to stop for 5 seconds before turning right on red, otherwise the camera would detect your vehicle and send you a ticket (even if you did come to a complete stop for 4 seconds). Later, the rumor changed to where the vehicle must "rock back" after coming to a complete stop in order to avoid a ticket. I was never able to test or verify either of these, but Chicago does have a history of shady practices involving enforcement cameras... it would come as no surprise if these did occur.

Since we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.

So you want the definition of "Stop" to be the similar to "Yield"?

No.

A yield sign doesn't mean slow down to 2mph before entering. It doesn't mean slow down at all, unless necessary. Think freeway on-ramp.

[pderocco]

Since we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.

I think the point of stopping is to take away the motivation to save some momentum, which can result in quicker and less well considered maneuvers.  That is, of course, for the one driver in maybe every thousand who actually stops at stop signs.  There's a legitimate reason for making every vehicle stop at some places, but not at every single place where two roads meet.  I think a good solution is to put in more yield signs, using stop signs only where they're actually needed.  Where you can easily see at a glance whether it's safe to go, put in a yield just to establish a right of way.  Save stop signs for places where you need to stop for a better look (due to a visibility challenge or a high-speed road, where a car you might miss with a quick glance because it's far away will quickly be up on you), and then enforce stops strictly (I have the same view of setting and enforcing reasonable speed limits).  A narrow turnaround in a divided road where you can see whether oncoming traffic will impede your turn from half a mile before you get to it doesn't really need a yield sign, because the yield is implied, but you can put one if it makes you feel better.  Putting a stop sign there is silly and reduces respect for the signs.  Don't weaken stops where they're needed, but don't require them where they aren't needed.

The problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield. Just writing into the law that "stop" really means "almost stop" wouldn't require any signage changes.

Also, where I live in SoCal, I'd say roughly half of all people come to complete stops at all-way stops, and it's really obvious that the ones who do take at least three seconds longer at the sign than those who don't. I often find myself at a particular all-way stop that backs up with thirty cars in evening rush on both perpendicular roads. Shaving three seconds off half of them would get us through that in a minute and a half less time.

[Max Rockatansky]

Since we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.

I think the point of stopping is to take away the motivation to save some momentum, which can result in quicker and less well considered maneuvers.  That is, of course, for the one driver in maybe every thousand who actually stops at stop signs.  There's a legitimate reason for making every vehicle stop at some places, but not at every single place where two roads meet.  I think a good solution is to put in more yield signs, using stop signs only where they're actually needed.  Where you can easily see at a glance whether it's safe to go, put in a yield just to establish a right of way.  Save stop signs for places where you need to stop for a better look (due to a visibility challenge or a high-speed road, where a car you might miss with a quick glance because it's far away will quickly be up on you), and then enforce stops strictly (I have the same view of setting and enforcing reasonable speed limits).  A narrow turnaround in a divided road where you can see whether oncoming traffic will impede your turn from half a mile before you get to it doesn't really need a yield sign, because the yield is implied, but you can put one if it makes you feel better.  Putting a stop sign there is silly and reduces respect for the signs.  Don't weaken stops where they're needed, but don't require them where they aren't needed.

The problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield. Just writing into the law that "stop" really means "almost stop" wouldn't require any signage changes.

Also, where I live in SoCal, I'd say roughly half of all people come to complete stops at all-way stops, and it's really obvious that the ones who do take at least three seconds longer at the sign than those who don't. I often find myself at a particular all-way stop that backs up with thirty cars in evening rush on both perpendicular roads. Shaving three seconds off half of them would get us through that in a minute and a half less time.

The term "California Stop" exists for a reason. 

[kalvado]

Since we're talking about tweaking laws, I think the definition of "stopping" should be tweaked to be something like moving at less than 2mph, a slow walk. That's slow enough to ensure safety, and would increase the throughput of busy intersections with stop signs, reducing backups.

I think the point of stopping is to take away the motivation to save some momentum, which can result in quicker and less well considered maneuvers.  That is, of course, for the one driver in maybe every thousand who actually stops at stop signs.  There's a legitimate reason for making every vehicle stop at some places, but not at every single place where two roads meet.  I think a good solution is to put in more yield signs, using stop signs only where they're actually needed.  Where you can easily see at a glance whether it's safe to go, put in a yield just to establish a right of way.  Save stop signs for places where you need to stop for a better look (due to a visibility challenge or a high-speed road, where a car you might miss with a quick glance because it's far away will quickly be up on you), and then enforce stops strictly (I have the same view of setting and enforcing reasonable speed limits).  A narrow turnaround in a divided road where you can see whether oncoming traffic will impede your turn from half a mile before you get to it doesn't really need a yield sign, because the yield is implied, but you can put one if it makes you feel better.  Putting a stop sign there is silly and reduces respect for the signs.  Don't weaken stops where they're needed, but don't require them where they aren't needed.

The problem with replacing stop signs with yield signs is that we'd have to invent the new concept of an all-way yield. Just writing into the law that "stop" really means "almost stop" wouldn't require any signage changes.

Also, where I live in SoCal, I'd say roughly half of all people come to complete stops at all-way stops, and it's really obvious that the ones who do take at least three seconds longer at the sign than those who don't. I often find myself at a particular all-way stop that backs up with thirty cars in evening rush on both perpendicular roads. Shaving three seconds off half of them would get us through that in a minute and a half less time.

What's the name of that special treatment for bicycles at stop sign? "Idaho stop" or something similar?