Odd Stop Sign Configuration

[talllguy]

Greetings. At this intersection in Texas, drivers are often conflicted about who should yield to who. Some think it should be whoever is on the right, others alternate. What is the law? What is logical? What about the uncontrolled gas station exit?

Google Street View

[jeffandnicole]

It looks like 545.066 deals with school buses, not multi-way stop signs!

Legally speaking:

It appears there's actually two different intersections: Westminster & Manor, and Westminster & Old Manor.  For those on Westminster and Old Manor approaching Manor, they should probably alternate, and if two reach the stop sign at the same time, the one on the right goes before the one on the left.

For Westminster & Old Manor, those coming off of Manor have the right of way since there's no stop sign.  After that, same rule as above applies: If 2 cars stop at the same time, Westminster would go first, then Old Manor.  *But*, a car can't be blocking the intersection, so if there's a car waiting at the Westminster Stop sign to turn onto Manor, a vehicle at the stop sign on Westminster waiting to cross Old Manor can't proceed.

In all cases, those exiting the gas station must yield to all other traffic.

Practicality wise though, most people will stop and watch other traffic, and one may wave the other thru.  If an accident were to happen, it would depend on the circumstances present at the time.

[Brian556]

In addition to the potential for right-of way confusion, I also noted that this intersection has a lack of other regulatory signage that is needed.

One option would be to reconfigure the intersection so that the Old Manor T's into Westminster. There is even  an empty lot that could partially be utilized to bend the old road even farther away from the main road intersection.

However, an even better option would be to have Old Manor terminate at a cul-de-sac before getting to this intersection.
It is not needed for thru traffic.

To me, it is poor engineering practice to allow this intersection to continue to exist as-is.

[jakeroot]

Reminds me of another strange configuration of give-way signs near Tacoma, Washington.

https://goo.gl/zINw0g

Frank Albert Road tees at North Levee with a yield sign. North Levee EB has a stop sign at the T, but North Levee WB has no sign whatsoever. Basically, it's a tee with a yield sign, stop sign, and no sign. Obviously the no sign people have the right of way, but do the people at the stop sign have to yield to the people with the yield sign? Do the people with the yield sign have to yield to those with a stop sign? Priority to the right seems to suggest that the people with the stop sign have priority over the people with the yield sign, which seems odd but whatever. The other strange thing is that the yield sign, which faces towards Frank Albert Road, which as stated previously is ending at North Levee with a tee, has a supplemental plaque that says "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop", which is not entirely true, since one direction faces a stop sign. Taking the sign into account, drivers on North Levee Frank Albert Road are probably expecting drivers going EB on North Levee to continue, but they actually stop, even though the sign says they shouldn't (nevermind the fact that EB North Levee traffic is facing a stop sign -- and exactly who are they stopping for? The people with a sign that says to yield to them?)

Did any of that make sense? I know it's sort of rambling, but I promise it's accurate.

[Alex4897]

snip

I think I see what they're trying to do, they just executed it incredibly awkwardly.
My guess is that the yield is there to force SB Levee Rd drivers to yield to the occasional driver that continues WB through the intersection, thus allowing traffic coming from WB Levee Rd turning onto NB Frank Albert to go unimpeded (since I assume that's where most traffic coming from WB Levee Rd is going).  The yield then allows SB Frank Albert traffic to turn onto EB Levee Rd potentially without stopping.  The few people headed EB through the intersection then have to stop for everyone.  I'm wondering if a better way to go about this would be to make it a three way stop, but add the following exceptions: WB Levee Rd doesn't need to stop if they're turning north onto Frank Albert, and SB Frank Albert doesn't need to stop if they're turning east onto Levee Rd.

Kinda hard to explain, but I did the best I could.

[roadfro]

snip

I think I see what they're trying to do, they just executed it incredibly awkwardly.
My guess is that the yield is there to force SB Levee Rd drivers to yield to the occasional driver that continues WB through the intersection, thus allowing traffic coming from WB Levee Rd turning onto NB Frank Albert to go unimpeded (since I assume that's where most traffic coming from WB Levee Rd is going).  The yield then allows SB Frank Albert traffic to turn onto EB Levee Rd potentially without stopping.  The few people headed EB through the intersection then have to stop for everyone.  I'm wondering if a better way to go about this would be to make it a three way stop, but add the following exceptions: WB Levee Rd doesn't need to stop if they're turning north onto Frank Albert, and SB Frank Albert doesn't need to stop if they're turning east onto Levee Rd.

Kinda hard to explain, but I did the best I could.

The simplest thing to do would be to change out the warning plaque under the yield sign from "cross traffic does not stop" to "traffic from left does not stop". They could also add a "oncoming traffic does not stop" warning plaque under the stop sign.

[doorknob60]

Reminds me of another strange configuration of give-way signs near Tacoma, Washington.

https://goo.gl/zINw0g

Frank Albert Road tees at North Levee with a yield sign. North Levee EB has a stop sign at the T, but North Levee WB has no sign whatsoever. Basically, it's a tee with a yield sign, stop sign, and no sign. Obviously the no sign people have the right of way, but do the people at the stop sign have to yield to the people with the yield sign? Do the people with the yield sign have to yield to those with a stop sign? Priority to the right seems to suggest that the people with the stop sign have priority over the people with the yield sign, which seems odd but whatever. The other strange thing is that the yield sign, which faces towards Frank Albert Road, which as stated previously is ending at North Levee with a tee, has a supplemental plaque that says "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop", which is not entirely true, since one direction faces a stop sign. Taking the sign into account, drivers on North Levee Frank Albert Road are probably expecting drivers going EB on North Levee to continue, but they actually stop, even though the sign says they shouldn't (nevermind the fact that EB North Levee traffic is facing a stop sign -- and exactly who are they stopping for? The people with a sign that says to yield to them?)

Did any of that make sense? I know it's sort of rambling, but I promise it's accurate.

Click on images for Google Street View
Similar intersection, but probably better execution.

 


The road that ends at the T has right of way, no sign. Then the primary opposite direction has a STOP, but can turn right without stopping (where 99% of drivers will go). Then the minor side street has a plain stop sign.

Here's another similar one. This one is on a less traveled road but the idea is similar. The road to the left is a dead end, so the traffic is mostly going to the right. You can't see it in the picture but the road on the left has a normal stop sign.

 


The only thing I question at these is if someone is at the regular stop sign (the minor street) and someone else approaches the Right Turn Permitted without Stop just after, can the right turner still just roll through? How is the person at the regular stop sign supposed to know that the other side doesn't have to stop on right turns? Not a perfect solution, but better, and that situation is rare due to the dead end nature of the other roads (only locals will be using it).

[Mr. Matté]

Are these situations any different than the "STOP -- EXCEPT RIGHT TURN" found throughout Pennsylvania? (this for example)

[roadfro]

Are these situations any different than the "STOP -- EXCEPT RIGHT TURN" found throughout Pennsylvania? (this for example)

Not really. This exception wording seems much clearer.