CNN article on "Take Turns" sign proposal

[elsmere241]

"It took 27 years, but Gary Lauder eventually came up with what he sees as the solution to the problem of unnecessary stop signs: a new kind of road sign that tells drivers at some kinds of intersections to 'take turns.'"

http://us.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/16/lauder.new.road.sign/index.html?hpt=T2

Thoughts?

[Scott5114]

Congratulations, Gary; you've invented the Yield sign.

[rawmustard]

Like he says, "taking turns" is ambiguous. I don't think such a sign would stand a chance of adoption. Anyone else find it particularly amusing that he refered to the TED audience as "Roads Scholars"?

[KillerTux]

Dumb sign. The sign is a mix of both stop and yield so it would confuse drivers and when I think "take turns", I think actual turns much like every sign on the road that refers to turns like "No Turns" or "No Turns from this lane". If he wanted to clean up that 3 way stop he could make the side road have a Yield sign and remove all stop signs because the side road has sight of the main road traffic. If the side road is not busy like he says then the main road flows free. You could also limit side road to have only right turns so there would be no need for the driver to scan both right and left directions.

[Hellfighter]

We could create electronic signs that say yield at low traffic times, and then change to stop if there's a buildup of traffic.

[roadfro]

I'm not sure if this guy is actually serious about this sign or not. If he is, there's no way it'll ever be adopted. "Take turns" is far too ambiguous to be used, and integrating elements of the stop and yield signs will ultimately lead to confusion.

The better solution is to reevaluate the need for the all-way stop in the first place. The way Mr. Lauder describes the situation, a stop sign on the 'T' of this intersection is all that should be required. Multi-way stops have a tendency to be placed in low volume situations such as this where it's often clear that not all directions should need to stop (such installations often being the result of a politician trying to please constituency instead of an engineering study). Such placements lessen the respect drivers have for stop signs, which can lead to increases in non-compliance.

[agentsteel53]

to me, one indication of poor route design is "multiple four-way stops on the through route".  The four-way stop should be the configuration of last resort, just like "speed limit 55", when no engineer was smart enough to come up with a more ideal situation.

usually, a two-way stop, with the remaining two directions - the primary route - receiving the right of way, is sufficient.

[Duke87]

Interesting concept, but as proposed the implementation is horrible. As has been pointed out, the meaning of "take turns" is less than obvious. Furthermore, the shape is confusing. A hybrid of a stop sign and a yield sign is not the way to go - at first glance it could be wrongfully interpreted as stop, yield, or "is that a stop or a yield?". You'd need a new unique shape.

Meanwhile, what he says about fuel consumption and wasted time is of valid concern. Putting up an extra sign or two is cheap and easy for the agency responsible for the road, but costly to the general public. Clearing more line of sight is a better solution, but besides being more expensive there are other obstacles to practicality. It often would involve removing things on private property, which means obtaining easement rights. And if it involves cutting a tree down, some environmentalist is inevitably going to complain.
At any rate, it's still worth a valid evaluation of how important putting a two or three way stop really is.

As for the thing about roundabouts being safer and better for traffic flow than signals... careful making such general statements. In some cases that's true, but not all cases. Like everything else, it depends.

[Ian]

Reminds me of this sign I saw last Summer on I-81 north of Scranton, PA for a construction zone where one lane was shut down...

[shoptb1]

I could be wrong, but isn't he suggesting the equivalent of a rolling 3-way or 4-way stop?

[agentsteel53]

I could be wrong, but isn't he suggesting the equivalent of a rolling 3-way or 4-way stop?

which would be a very sensible proposition.  why come to a full stop when it is clearly evident that there are no cars on the crossing street for miles.

Europe has really adopted the YIELD sign for this situation, mainly because their cars are primarily manual transmission - here in the US we have mostly automatics, so those of us that drive a manual transmission get to wear out our clutches unnecessarily just because the law is overly harsh.

[shoptb1]

which would be a very sensible proposition.  why come to a full stop when it is clearly evident that there are no cars on the crossing street for miles.

In the South, we always called this a "California stop" (basically a rolling stop).  Whether or not California actually doesn't require people to come to a full stop at a stop sign if there is no opposing traffic...I'm not sure...but the idea always made more sense...especially from an efficiency and economics standpoint.

[agentsteel53]

In the South, we always called this a "California stop" (basically a rolling stop).  Whether or not California actually doesn't require people to come to a full stop at a stop sign if there is no opposing traffic...I'm not sure...but the idea always made more sense...especially from an efficiency and economics standpoint.

it also, alas, makes sense from a perspective of law enforcement - a codified regulation that is so entirely opposed to human nature that any cop sitting in the bush can write ticket after ticket and provide revenue for his little shithole town.  

any law that is to reform the situation must first address that perverse incentive.  Remember, making sense is not the first priority of local lawmakers - making money sure is.

and no, California does not give any leeway in this situation... the rule there, as is anywhere else, is "come to an unnecessary stop, or pay the price".

[shoptb1]

any law that is to reform the situation must first address that perverse incentive.  Remember, making sense is not the first priority of local lawmakers - making money sure is.

Grrrrr.  Sad, but true.   

[agentsteel53]

welcome to America... or, really, any other place on earth - in Europe, the landscape is infested with photographic speed traps - here in the US it is sheriff's deputies around every corner.  In any case, the motivation is to make some money off the driver who is perfectly safe, but who has not obeyed the arbitrary speed limit set by the municipal fascists.

my rule #2 of driving: "the more artificially low the speed limit, the heavier it is likely to be enforced".  So if I see a speed limit 25 on a perfectly standard 65mph stretch of expressway, I know to slow the ever-loving fudge down.  I have been known to drive through Waldo, Florida at 17mph.  Sure, the speed limit is 30, but the road is rated for 60 and the town is known as the #1 speed trap in America.  Go ahead, try busting me for 17 in a 30.  I am sure someday they will try it, given my out-of-state-plates, making the sensible assumption that I am too lazy to spend $500 on a round-trip ticket to come back to town and contest it.

(my rule #1 of driving, btw, is in the case of traffic jams: "if you do not see the problem, you are the problem" - never drive in a manner to create a blockage!)  

[mapman]

(my rule #1 of driving, btw, is in the case of traffic jams: "if you do not see the problem, you are the problem" - never drive in a manner to create a blockage!) 

I do the same, especially on freeways/expressways.  I try to go faster than the lane to my right, so that I can avoid either being in another driver's blind spot or being in a "formation" (i.e. locked along side another car, thereby blocking anyone from passing either myself or the car(s) next to me.)

[Duke87]

Reminds me of this sign I saw last Summer on I-81 north of Scranton, PA for a construction zone where one lane was shut down...

That'd be the "zipper rule" (taking turns where two lanes merge into one). Connecticut went and came up with an experimental symbol sign indicating this:


Here's a couple posted in the field.

In the South, we always called this a "California stop" (basically a rolling stop).  Whether or not California actually doesn't require people to come to a full stop at a stop sign if there is no opposing traffic...I'm not sure

I believe the intended reference is to how drivers from California supposedly treat stop signs, not California law.  

[roadfro]

As for the thing about roundabouts being safer and better for traffic flow than signals... careful making such general statements. In some cases that's true, but not all cases. Like everything else, it depends.

From what I understand, replacing a signal with a roundabout generally decreases the amount of rear-end and angle collisions, but can cause a spike in sideswipes. Given that the latter commonly occurs at much lower speeds than the former, it's generally seen as a beneficial tradeoff.

Trading a traffic signal for a roundabout is not always better for traffic flow, however. In most situations, it's likely that the roundabout will perform better. But that only works up to a given threshold. When you start rising to the level of multi-lane roundabouts (i.e. two or three lanes entering on all approaches), a roundabout can start to break down if highly saturated, rivaling the total delay of a traffic signal. Of course, this all depends on upstream/downstream conditions, signal timing/coordination, etc.

[roadfro]

That'd be the "zipper rule" (taking turns where two lanes merge into one). Connecticut went and came up with an experimental symbol sign indicating this:

That seems to be a good design. However, I think it's a more typical design to have one lane merge into another in such situations.

I can see this sign being used effectively in construction zones where zippered merging would be beneficial.

[elsmere241]

Reminds me of this sign I saw last Summer on I-81 north of Scranton, PA for a construction zone where one lane was shut down...

That'd be the "zipper rule" (taking turns where two lanes merge into one). Connecticut went and came up with an experimental symbol sign indicating this:

I once saw a variation on that in New York, on the Holland Tunnel approach - a simple merge sign with two tails, and a sign below saying "Alternate Merge."

[Duke87]

That seems to be a good design. However, I think it's a more typical design to have one lane merge into another in such situations.
I can see this sign being used effectively in construction zones where zippered merging would be beneficial.

Actually, all merges follow the "zipper rule" unless a yield or stop sign (for an onramp) dictates otherwise.
Geometrically speaking, having one lane continue from the center of where there were two (as the sign would seem to want to specifically indicate) rather than having a lane end is atypical, but not uncommon.

[roadfro]

Actually, all merges follow the "zipper rule" unless a yield or stop sign (for an onramp) dictates otherwise.

Try telling other drivers that...