Right of Way Rules at Two-Way Stops-Rule Changed Needed?

[Brian556]

The driver's manual in Texas does no specify on this matter. So, they default left turn yields to oncoming generally applies. However, this is quite unfair, and most drivers realize this, and don't adhere always adhere to it. This creates a lot of problems.

In my opinion, the current rule is unfair to left-turners, because, at busy intersections, if the rule were followed, they would never get their fair opportunity. In my opinion, the rule should be changed to state:

If the desired movements of two vehicles that are on approaches controlled by stop signs cross paths/need to occupy the same space at the same time, they should take turns. First to arrive is first to proceed (whenever cross traffic is clear). If both arrived at the same time, the straight movement goes before the left movement.

[WichitaRoads]

The way they look at it, inconvienence is trumped by safety. By telling someone turning left that it is okay to turn ahead of oncoming traffic, even at a controlled 2-way intersection, per your specifications, still opens the door to T-bone crashes. People may read it to mean they always have right of way over oncoming traffic in any circumstance (we must assume all drivers are idiots, with few exceptions - I teach my Driver Ed kids that every day).

For the greater view of safety, right-of-way for left turns and oncoming traffic will most likely remain as it is. Of course, we could go and install protected left turns at every intersection, but that's so unrealistic that I can't even fathom the possibility - and it would just be dumb.

ICTRds

[wisvishr0]

It's really ambiguous. Maryland does a TERRIBLE job explaining the difference between a four-way stop and a "give-way" stop. In fact, they don't even mention four-way stops in their manual! All they say is "you must yield to all traffic and pedestrians after making a complete stop."

When I brought this up a few years ago, my mom told me that you're supposed to yield to the car turning right or going straight, but my dad said to treat it like a 4-way stop with the oncoming traffic, and go in front of him if you get there earlier. That just shows how horribly imprecise stop signs are.

My opinion? I agree with WichitaRoads in that traffic going straight or right should have the right of way over traffic turning left. If an intersection is really that busy, stop signs are NOT the best way to deal with it. (In fact, I'm of the opinion that stop signs should only be used for 4-way stops, and that we should replace all "give way" stop signs with yield signs, which would take away the ambiguity). Or maybe have  a stop sign on top of a yield sign, to emphasize that you have to yield after a complete stop? Either way, just plain stop signs are too ambiguous.

EDIT:
Never mind, apparently that's not true, necessarily. In Michigan, at least, a driver going straight is supposed to yield!

"The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close to the intersection as to constitute an immediate hazard; but the driver, having so yielded and having given a signal when and as required by this chapter, may make the left turn and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching the intersection from the opposite direction shall yield the right of way to the vehicle making the left turn. At an intersection at which a traffic signal is located, a driver intending to make a left turn shall permit vehicles bound straight through in the opposite direction which are waiting a go signal to pass through the intersection before making the turn."
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(mm0fe145ekcvvy45lhoipl45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-257-650

Wow. That's really confusing.

[vdeane]

When I brought this up a few years ago, my mom told me that you're supposed to yield to the car turning right or going straight, but my dad said to treat it like a 4-way stop with the oncoming traffic, and go in front of him if you get there earlier. That just shows how horribly imprecise stop signs are.

Actually, the answer is both.  The vehicle that arrives first goes first, but if the vehicles arrive at the same time, the person to the right goes first.  I guess Maryland isn't very good at explaining that.

[wisvishr0]

Actually, the answer is both.  The vehicles that arrives first goes first, but if the vehicles arrive at the same time, the person to the right goes first.  I guess Maryland isn't very good at explaining that.

Yes, that's understood, but that's only when you don't know who got there first. What if you clearly got there first? Are you still supposed to yield? I think that's the main question.

And, yes, they teach us that in Maryland.

SGH-T999

[vdeane]

What if you clearly got there first? Are you still supposed to yield? I think that's the main question.

The vehicle that arrives first goes first

[wisvishr0]

Yes, I know!!! But some people say otherwise (see WichitaRoad's post). But, yes I guess if Michigan says that that's correct, it's a good bet it's the same everywhere.

[vdeane]

Where did he say anything that contradicted what I said?  He was talking about YOUR idea... not the law as it is now.

[Duke87]

I find this debate interesting because I would never even consider it to be a debate. At a stop sign, the vehicle which got there first goes first. I would never assume I had the right of way over an oncoming car making a left that got there first, regardless of whether the stop was 2-way or 4-way.

My gripe with 2-way stops is that they can be difficult to discern at quick glance from 4-way stops, since while there are signs for calling out both, neither is anywhere near consistently used. This leaves the driver to having to check after having stopped whether he can see the back of an octagonal sign facing to the left and/or right.

[jeffandnicole]

Sometimes, laws can't be completely fair. A coworker of mine was merging onto a jammed highway. While he inched forward out of the accel lane, he got hit by someone in the thru lane. My coworker got the ticket because the base rule is those entering the highway must yield to those already on the highway.

Stop signs are the same way. If it's a standard intersection, those turning left have to yield to those going straight/right. If an accident were to occur, a cop isn't going to sit there and listen to who was there first. Too much ambiguity.

[wisvishr0]

^^

That's why I use a dashcam when I drive. To clear any ambiguities.

vdeane: it wasn't my idea. I was wondering what the rule was in the first place. In Michigan, Brian556's idea already seems to be in effect. However, you also have people like WichitaRoads who say it's safer to let the person who's going straight go first. That's what I thought was confusing. As I'm a relatively inexperienced driver, what do you suggest I do? I'm guessing I should just play it safe and let the person who's going straight go.

[Brian556]

For anybody complaining about ambiguity: How 'bout the old who arrived first at the all-way STOP. Why would it be wrong to have ambiguity at a 2-Way STOP when it already exists at all-way stops everywhere?

[Duke87]

Stop signs are the same way. If it's a standard intersection, those turning left have to yield to those going straight/right. If an accident were to occur, a cop isn't going to sit there and listen to who was there first. Too much ambiguity.

Okay, this flies directly in the face of what I was taught in drivers' ed.
Indeed, verbatim from page 36 of the CT drivers' manual:

At a four-way stop, the driver reaching the intersection first goes first (after coming to a complete stop). If more than one vehicle arrives at the same time, the vehicle on the right goes first.

[cpzilliacus]

In Finland and Sweden (and many other EU nations), the preference is for many intersections to have no controls at all. 

The "priority to the vehicle on the right" rule applies and is legally binding. 

[jakeroot]

Priority to the right is fine with me, but I've always liked "Priority to the left" like in a roundabout. Perhaps if we used "Priority to the left", that would help standardize right-of-ways, rather than "give way this direction at this type of intersection and give way to the other direction at this type of intersection". I would suggest that roundabouts should conform to the existing "give way to the right" but that would ruin the point of the roundabout.

I'm sure there's a fatal flaw in my concept. Somebody point it out.

[Brian556]

In Finland and Sweden (and many other EU nations), the preference is for many intersections to have no controls at all.

that sounds really bad.

[english si]

Main roads have diamond signs negating the yield-to-right (a different way of putting it), but every unmarked intersection is yield-to-right which gives consistency without effort of putting down signs and lines. It works well.

Though for the sake of full disclosure, New Zealand ditched a similar rule last year.

[Brian556]

Quote from English si

Main roads have diamond signs negating the yield-to-right (a different way of putting it), but every unmarked intersection is yield-to-right which gives consistency without effort of putting down signs and lines. It works well.

Without signs, how do you know where to yield? Even in the daytime, cross streets can be difficult to see. At night, forget about it.

[mhh]

EDIT:
Never mind, apparently that's not true, necessarily. In Michigan, at least, a driver going straight is supposed to yield!

"The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close to the intersection as to constitute an immediate hazard; but the driver, having so yielded and having given a signal when and as required by this chapter, may make the left turn and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching the intersection from the opposite direction shall yield the right of way to the vehicle making the left turn. At an intersection at which a traffic signal is located, a driver intending to make a left turn shall permit vehicles bound straight through in the opposite direction which are waiting a go signal to pass through the intersection before making the turn."
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(mm0fe145ekcvvy45lhoipl45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-257-650

Wow. That's really confusing.

It's confusing, and it's ignored. I've lived in Michigan my entire life, I've never heard of this law before, and I've never seen this law observed. Drivers turning left yield to drivers going straight, just like everywhere else.

[algorerhythms]

It's really ambiguous. Maryland does a TERRIBLE job explaining the difference between a four-way stop and a "give-way" stop. In fact, they don't even mention four-way stops in their manual! All they say is "you must yield to all traffic and pedestrians after making a complete stop."

When I brought this up a few years ago, my mom told me that you're supposed to yield to the car turning right or going straight, but my dad said to treat it like a 4-way stop with the oncoming traffic, and go in front of him if you get there earlier. That just shows how horribly imprecise stop signs are.

Maryland, from what I've seen, tries to avoid building any four-way stops. Aside from a 6-month period due to a traffic light outage in Cumberland a few years ago, there are no four-way stops at all that I know of in Allegany or Garrett County (there may be some in the rest of Maryland, but I don't know for certain). I don't remember my drivers' ed covering four-way stops, though it was a long time ago.

I'm currently living in Oklahoma, though, which loves four-way stops. They're everywhere, and I've noticed I have to be very careful at intersections that aren't four-way stops, because people will assume that they are...

[jeffandnicole]

Stop signs are the same way. If it's a standard intersection, those turning left have to yield to those going straight/right. If an accident were to occur, a cop isn't going to sit there and listen to who was there first. Too much ambiguity.

Okay, this flies directly in the face of what I was taught in drivers' ed.
Indeed, verbatim from page 36 of the CT drivers' manual:

At a four-way stop, the driver reaching the intersection first goes first (after coming to a complete stop). If more than one vehicle arrives at the same time, the vehicle on the right goes first.

A standard intersection isn't a 4 way stop.  A standard intersection has a thru road that doesn't stop, and a cross street that does stop. 

In fact, using the bullet point 3 above the one you quoted, you will find this:

- Drivers turning left must yield to oncoming vehicles going straight.
- Drivers entering a traffic circle or rotary must yield to drivers already in the circle.
- At an intersection where there is no stop sign, yield sign or oncoming traffic signal, drivers must yield to vehicles coming from the right.
- At a four-way stop, the driver reaching the intersection first goes first (after coming to a complete stop). If more than one vehicle arrives at the same time, the vehicle on the right goes first.

[english si]

Without signs, how do you know where to yield?

I don't know - never driven in such countries where this applies (In the UK, unmarked crossroads are rare and typically only found in low-speed housing estates. No one has priority at them, so it is literally 'anything goes'). All I know is there's a rule in several countries in Europe and it works in those countries.

Yield isn't Stop - you don't have to even slow down unless there's another car. I guess, at night, if you see headlights approaching from the right, you know to slow down and prepare to stop unless you've seen a

sign and not seen one with a bar through it.

Where priority is different, there's at least road markings, if not signs as well

Even in the daytime, cross streets can be difficult to see. At night, forget about it.

If you can barely see a cross street in daylight and less so at night, either there's a huge engineering problem where you are (bad signage, lighting, sightlines, etc), or you shouldn't be on the road.

[wisvishr0]

If you can barely see a cross street in daylight and less so at night, either there's a huge engineering problem where you are (bad signage, lighting, sightlines, etc), or you shouldn't be on the road.

I don't think the problem is not seeing cross-roads. I think the problem is knowing whether a cross-road is a road or just a driveway/shop entrance. I know, here in the US at least, it's sometimes hard to distinguish between an actual road and a driveway that leads to a business.

Say you're driving on a main road. If there's no priority diamond sign, and there are businesses and driveways on the side of the road, does that mean you'd have to give way to every driver that's trying to turn onto the main road from the driveways on your right, even if they're clearly minor?

I'm guessing the governments of the respective countries would make sure it's not ambiguous, but it still seems weird to Americans. Here, we basically assume right-of-way unless there's a stop or yield (= give way) sign, or a cross-road is clearly bigger than ours. Here, the Highway Administrations do a good job signing and controlling each intersection that could be a problem. In residential areas with ambiguous priorities, we usually use 4-way stops (although I'd prefer mini-roundabouts), although usage of 4-way stops varies (see below).

algorerhythms: You're generally right: in Maryland, priority is usually given to a road, and cross roads have to yield or stop at that road, even if they're both relatively minor (i.e. 2-way yielding/stopping is preferred to 4-way stops). There's only one 4-way stop near my house, which is at the intersection between two "main" roads whose traffic doesn't warrant a signal (yet).

Ex. in Bethesda: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.986102,-77.122906,3a,75y,85.2h,66.87t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1siKZ3GdBjKcLqKw_Dhpm77w!2e0

[jakeroot]

In Western Washington, urban areas will sometimes have a mix of residential roads that, at least to SDOT or TPU, don't necessarily have priority over each other. In these cases, every other cross street has a stop sign. Every intersection has a road with priority but that road might not have priority at the next immediate intersection. I can't say I like it very much. I'd rather have clear boulevards with priority. Hell, I hate four way stops.