Do you stop (again) at a stop sign?

[TravelingBethelite]

Let me clarify, the title is a misnomer. This is a question of driving etiquette.

Let say you're pulling up to a 4-way intersection. Every direction has a stop sign (or a flashing red light if you like). There's no one coming from either side. One person is ahead of you, and they stop and then pull ahead. Do you stop again, after you waited for them to stop and pull ahead, or do you immediately follow them. It usually depends on how much of a hurry I'm in, when I encounter these.

[jeffandnicole]

Rolling stop.

[Max Rockatansky]

I believe the term is "California Stop."

[hotdogPi]

I've heard "California roll" for a rolling right on red (regardless of whether there's someone in front of you or not), but it's obviously named after the sushi.

[jeffandnicole]

I believe the term is "California Stop."

Depends where you're at. We have the 'South Philly Slide' down our way.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I always stop again, usually just long enough to satisfy any complete stop requirements should the po-po come rolling up unexpectedly.

[1995hoo]

I believe the term is "California Stop."

Around here I never hear that. People say "rolling stop." (My autocorrect just tried to change that to "Rolling Stones.")

[wxfree]

I would stop again, as required.  Failure to do so is running a stop sign.

I have a similar question.  I'm big on doing things the right way, but one situation bothers me, because nothing feels right.

I stop at a stop sign, just before the stop line.  As is often the case, this stop line is about a half-mile before the intersection.  Before this, the vehicle ahead of me rolls completely over the stop line before stopping, leaving me right at the line.  When the way is clear, that vehicle goes.  I can either move forward an inch and stop again before the line (making the required stop after the line is an invalid option), but doesn't seem right because it isn't a double-stop sign. Or I can go forward and proceed if safe, because I made the required stop in the required place, waited for the way ahead to be clear, and then went forward.  If there had been no one in front of me, I would do the same thing, the only difference is that I waited before going forward because of a vehicle ahead of me. That still doesn't seem right, because even though I did what the law requires, it still feels like running the stop sign.

What's the correct answer?  I just looked up the Texas statute regarding stop signs, and it helped, because it mentioned crosswalks.  If I stopped before the line and a pedestrian was in the crosswalk, I would wait, and then see no reason to make a second stop just to make the point that I stopped.  I would move forward and proceed if it was safe.  I think that might be the right way to think of this, stopping as required, waiting for the way ahead to clear (if it's blocked by a vehicle that's the same as it being blocked by a pedestrian), and then proceeding after a prolonged stop.

[kphoger]

I always stop again, usually just long enough to satisfy any complete stop requirements should the po-po come rolling up unexpectedly.

Same here.

I would stop again, as required.  Failure to do so is running a stop sign.

I have a similar question.  I'm big on doing things the right way, but one situation bothers me, because nothing feels right.

I stop at a stop sign, just before the stop line.  As is often the case, this stop line is about a half-mile before the intersection.  Before this, the vehicle ahead of me rolls completely over the stop line before stopping, leaving me right at the line.  When the way is clear, that vehicle goes.  I can either move forward an inch and stop again before the line (making the required stop after the line is an invalid option), but doesn't seem right because it isn't a double-stop sign. Or I can go forward and proceed if safe, because I made the required stop in the required place, waited for the way ahead to be clear, and then went forward.  If there had been no one in front of me, I would do the same thing, the only difference is that I waited before going forward because of a vehicle ahead of me. That still doesn't seem right, because even though I did what the law requires, it still feels like running the stop sign.

What's the correct answer?  I just looked up the Texas statute regarding stop signs, and it helped, because it mentioned crosswalks.  If I stopped before the line and a pedestrian was in the crosswalk, I would wait, and then see no reason to make a second stop just to make the point that I stopped.  I would move forward and proceed if it was safe.  I think that might be the right way to think of this, stopping as required, waiting for the way ahead to clear (if it's blocked by a vehicle that's the same as it being blocked by a pedestrian), and then proceeding after a prolonged stop.

I was about to pose that exact question, because I've thought about it a lot too.

(1)  If nobody else is waiting their turn to go, then I don't roll forward only to stop again.  The way I figure it, my job is to stop at the stop sign and proceed when clear–and nothing therein is based on what that other driver did.  If the other driver completely blew the stop sign without stopping, that wouldn't change what I'm obligated to do either.

(2)  If, however, someone is waiting their turn, then I roll forward a foot and stop again, just to give them the visual cue that it's their turn to go.