Yield or stop?

[M3019C LPS20]

For a while, I have noticed that various neighborhoods that have little traffic volume on a daily basis have streets equipped
with "YIELD" signs at intersections.

To yield instead of to stop in an environment like that is rather appropriate in my opinion. Although it is not exactly common to see them instead of "STOP" signs on a daily basis, does M.U.T.C.D. allow the use of them at intersections instead of "STOP" signs? Just rather curious, actually.

[NE2]

Hell yeah.
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2b.htm#section2B08
"On the approaches to a through street or highway where conditions are such that a full stop is not always required."

And above that:
"The use of STOP signs on the minor-street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions..."

[wxfree]

To expand the topic, I dislike how many stop signs are used on lightly-traveled roads.  On the one hand, it could be viewed as a way to generate revenue, since people tend to ignore signs that defy sense.  But I tend to believe that Americans have a view that people need to be controlled, and often controlled beyond what's really necessary.  I see it as a result of descending from Puritans.  It seems to reflect a belief that having strict rules is something to feel good about.  Even if the rules are disregarded, we at least of some sense "morality" in our strict rules.

Stop signs that aren't needed tend to bring about disrespect of traffic signs, just like low speed limits.  I obey traffic laws because I believe we have a societal obligation to obey the laws, but almost no other driver I've been in a car with even knows what a complete stop is.  Stop signs that really should be yield signs are treated as yields.  Similarly "speed limit 65" signs that should be "speed limit 75" signs are treated like "speed limit 75" signs.  The problem is that this trains drivers to ignore instructions that are sometimes reasonable and needed.  Drivers unfamiliar with an area benefit when signs display instructions that result from good engineering judgement.  It's to the detriment of all drivers to have signs giving instructions that are more restrictive than necessary and have people disregard them.

I once was nearly in a collision because a driver ran through a yield sign without even slowing.  This was at a right-angle intersection of two lightly-traveled roads where a yield sign is appropriate.  When we treat stop signs like yield signs, we start ignoring yield signs.  The driver looked right and left while he was blowing through the intersection at over 20 mph, too late to do any good and just in time to see he nearly caused an accident.  I had to initiate rapid deceleration to keep from running into him.  That sign has been replaced with a stop, which is now necessary due to yield signs being treated as "ignore" signs.

My point is that if signs reflected engineering judgement, and not a desire for revenue or a desire for strict rules, drivers would have good instructions.  Lacking good instructions, we either obey the signs or just guess at the appropriate actions in unfamiliar areas.  I'm glad Texas is now posting 75 mph speed limits on two-lane roads statewide.  I'd like to see more 80s and 85s on rural freeways, but on many roads we now have what I think is a reasonable speed limit.  I've always thought speed limits should be reasonably high and strictly enforced.  Similarly, yield signs should be installed where appropriate and respected by drivers.  Otherwise, when traveling it can be difficult to know which stop signs mean business and which mean "slow down and look both ways."

[english si]

But I tend to believe that Americans have a view that people need to be controlled, and often controlled beyond what's really necessary.

I take it you haven't seen how other countries operate. Our freedom of thought, expression, religion and speech rights in Europe is 'subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"', both of which are vague and hand-wavy as to what that might mean. In other words the state (or rather the European Court) gets to define what acceptable speech is, whereas the American's 1st Amendment is all about personal freedom from the state.

In America, it is seen that it is necessary in a democratic society to let anyone think, say or believe what they want, and express it however they want (with certain limitations like harassment, libel, endangerment, etc). In Europe, they believe that it is necessary in a democratic society to restrict thought, speech, belief and expression thereof however they want - far more controlling.

And the Napoleonic Code (used in much of Europe) works on a principle of 'unlawful until made lawful', rather than the Common Law principles that work with 'legal until made not so'. In other words, under Napoleonic Code wouldn't be able to say "we hold these truths to be self-evident...endowed with certain unalienable rights..." and then recognising those rights' pre-existence. Instead it would go "we declare these truths to be true...we grant these rights..." the authority is held by the state and the state can simply remove any rights - hence why the UK took a retrograde step when it joined the ECHR with its .

I see it as a result of descending from Puritans.  It seems to reflect a belief that having strict rules is something to feel good about.  Even if the rules are disregarded, we at least of some sense "morality" in our strict rules.

It is more Pietism, than Puritanism (which was diverse). Puritans in Massachusetts nearly started a civil war among themselves, with one group feeling that strict rules was not-biblical and that their opponents were falling for legalism and the other group wanting the rules and accusing the others as being anti-nominalistic. Both groups felt that England's laws were too strict in many places and all Puritans were individualistic when it came to piety, rather than to try and enforce obedience via law. Cromwell's famous 'ban Christmas', was out of a believe that it shouldn't be a public holiday as that would force people to conform to a religion that they might not subscribe to (though there was lots of other stuff that was nasty in that law, and many others that Cromwell did).

While some strands of Puritanism were Priggish and Pietistic, the English Civil War and the Pilgrim Father's exodus to the New World were both rejections of overzealous rules (such as the Sunday Sports - a mandatory choice of activities for Sundays after church - you weren't allowed to do nothing, you weren't allowed to do things that weren't on the list).

However, the real Priggishness came in the mainline groups, especially Methodist and Baptist groups. Prohibition came from the theological liberals (ie the polar opposite of Puritans), not the conservatives (who have now, especially in Baptist circles, have fallen down the trap).

---

Anyway, back to STOP signs. Oddly, when it comes to traffic control, everything is backwards. America works on an assumption that everything (literally) needs spelling out and that drivers aren't to be trusted - though the latter is perhaps due to lower test standards than Western Europe (in part due to the essentiality of driving when in most of the US, and what with the agricultural nature of large parts of society, that much of Western Europe lost, that means lower driving ages). See the lower speed limits in North America, compared with Europe (though I'll concede that the Scandinavian and British speed limits, despite being countries that have traditionally seen things the common law way, are among the lowest in Europe). STOP, therefore, mandates an action with no ambiguity and is thus the default, rather than the more-vague YIELD.

In the UK, a local highway authority must prove to the Department for Transport that the site warrants a STOP sign. In the US, it seems to be the other way around, that Yields must require approval from higher up.

[jeffandnicole]

Unfortunately, the lack of 'Yield' signs come from something more basic - some people fly thru a yield sign as if they don't have to slow down at all.  And when they hit someone...or the paper reports that there's been X number of accidents in a certain time period, some people whine that there should be a stop sign put up. And politicians, who act like they want to solve a problem, demand a stop sign is installed, and it usually happens.

Heck - everyone could probably yield at a yield sign.  It only takes one person to fly thru it, and hitting someone that gets a lot of media attention, to cause action to take place. 

It happens a lot as well when someone flies thru a Stop sign, hits and kills someone, and people demand a traffic light is installed instead (as if people don't fly thru red lights either...).

[1995hoo]

Funny thing about yield signs around here is that I see a disproportionate number of people coming to a complete stop at them even when it's not necessary.  You'd expect the opposite to occur based on the general aggressiveness of DC-area drivers.

I've long thought the overuse of all-way stops in the US stems in part from this idea that we have to bend over backwards to protect the dumbest of the dumb from themselves. Sort of like putting a warning label on one of those sunshades you put in your windshield on a hot day–some of those things have warnings telling you to remove the shade before driving. I mean, really? Sure, part of that is due to fear of runaway juries and the like (though you can also blame judges for not ruling as a matter of law that the warning was unneeded), but I think it's more than just that sort of thing. The point "english si" makes about how Americans need everything spelled out for them is spot-on and it's not limited to driving. It's just that driving is perhaps the most-shared experience in terms of being something almost everybody does (outside of New York City, anyway). Look at how it becomes general anarchy on the roads when a power outage knocks out the traffic lights. Even though the "dark light equals all-way stop" law is well-publicized, you get a lot of people who say "there's no red light and no stop sign" and they gun it. Same applies to parking. Most states have a law that you cannot park within a certain distance of an intersection regardless of whether there's a "no parking" sign. The law is intended to ensure people can see around the corner. Yet I know multiple people who have gotten tickets because they parked right up to the corner where there was no sign and then expressed utter outrage at the "unfair" tickets. I guess America has created an expectation that there will be a sign for everything......which just confirms the accuracy of Alex Ovechkin's gripe that Americans have no idea what to do on the road without a sign directing your every action!

[jeffandnicole]

Funny thing about yield signs around here is that I see a disproportionate number of people coming to a complete stop at them even when it's not necessary.  You'd expect the opposite to occur based on the general aggressiveness of DC-area drivers.

I've long thought the overuse of all-way stops in the US stems in part from this idea that we have to bend over backwards to protect the dumbest of the dumb from themselves. Sort of like putting a warning label on one of those sunshades you put in your windshield on a hot day—some of those things have warnings telling you to remove the shade before driving. I mean, really? Sure, part of that is due to fear of runaway juries and the like (though you can also blame judges for not ruling as a matter of law that the warning was unneeded), but I think it's more than just that sort of thing. The point "english si" makes about how Americans need everything spelled out for them is spot-on and it's not limited to driving. It's just that driving is perhaps the most-shared experience in terms of being something almost everybody does (outside of New York City, anyway). Look at how it becomes general anarchy on the roads when a power outage knocks out the traffic lights. Even though the "dark light equals all-way stop" law is well-publicized, you get a lot of people who say "there's no red light and no stop sign" and they gun it. Same applies to parking. Most states have a law that you cannot park within a certain distance of an intersection regardless of whether there's a "no parking" sign. The law is intended to ensure people can see around the corner. Yet I know multiple people who have gotten tickets because they parked right up to the corner where there was no sign and then expressed utter outrage at the "unfair" tickets. I guess America has created an expectation that there will be a sign for everything......which just confirms the accuracy of Alex Ovechkin's gripe that Americans have no idea what to do on the road without a sign directing your every action!

A lot of it comes down to: Take a test to get the original driver's license.  No other retraining is needed.  Even if they read the drivers manual or learned the law back when they were 16, they don't remember it years (or only months) later.  And when they see others parked at an intersection, they figure it's fine for them to do it as well.

[kphoger]

My gut preference would be a roughly 50/50 balance of yield and stop signs.

[agentsteel53]

is there a solution to the four-way stop which does not involve a "four-way yield" (which is an unresolvable situation as the law is written now)? 

one can put in roundabouts but assume for now we are just wanting to change the signage to eliminate having to come to a full stop, when the intersection is clearly empty.  basically, how can we make the "California rolling stop" legal?

[wxfree]

But I tend to believe that Americans have a view that people need to be controlled, and often controlled beyond what's really necessary.

I take it you haven't seen how other countries operate. Our freedom of thought, expression, religion and speech rights in Europe is 'subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"', both of which are vague and hand-wavy as to what that might mean. In other words the state (or rather the European Court) gets to define what acceptable speech is, whereas the American's 1st Amendment is all about personal freedom from the state.

In America, it is seen that it is necessary in a democratic society to let anyone think, say or believe what they want, and express it however they want (with certain limitations like harassment, libel, endangerment, etc). In Europe, they believe that it is necessary in a democratic society to restrict thought, speech, belief and expression thereof however they want - far more controlling.

And the Napoleonic Code (used in much of Europe) works on a principle of 'unlawful until made lawful', rather than the Common Law principles that work with 'legal until made not so'. In other words, under Napoleonic Code wouldn't be able to say "we hold these truths to be self-evident...endowed with certain unalienable rights..." and then recognising those rights' pre-existence. Instead it would go "we declare these truths to be true...we grant these rights..." the authority is held by the state and the state can simply remove any rights - hence why the UK took a retrograde step when it joined the ECHR with its .

I'm not saying that we have more oppressive rules, but that Americans seem to have a belief that we need strict rules.  I mean basically what you said later: "America works on an assumption that everything (literally) needs spelling out and that drivers aren't to be trusted."  Americans vote for politicians who claim to be "tough on crime."  We love prisons.  Our sense of justice looks a lot like revenge.  When you mention that there are better methods of dealing with crime than locking people up with other criminals, and that these other methods can reform people instead of making them hardened criminals, you get accused of "coddling" criminals and called the anti-phallic slur "soft on crime."  We're in love with hurting people who break the rules.  To me, that seems related to the Puritanical (to re-use my earlier choice of words) distrust of people and attitude about strict rules.

It's a common teaching that fornication is a sin, even though most people do it.  We put people in jail for smoking a joint and quietly getting high in their own homes.  Having rules that are disregarded teaches disrespect of rules.  I've always thought that rules should be realistic and only as strict as necessary, and well enforced (when possible, through education and reform rather than locking up people who make mistakes and training them to become criminals).

I don't mean to go too far off topic, but this relates to traffic control because traffic controls are one of the most frequently over-restrictive and disregarded sets of rules.

I see it as a result of descending from Puritans.  It seems to reflect a belief that having strict rules is something to feel good about.  Even if the rules are disregarded, we at least of some sense "morality" in our strict rules.

It is more Pietism, than Puritanism (which was diverse). Puritans in Massachusetts nearly started a civil war among themselves, with one group feeling that strict rules was not-biblical and that their opponents were falling for legalism and the other group wanting the rules and accusing the others as being anti-nominalistic. Both groups felt that England's laws were too strict in many places and all Puritans were individualistic when it came to piety, rather than to try and enforce obedience via law. Cromwell's famous 'ban Christmas', was out of a believe that it shouldn't be a public holiday as that would force people to conform to a religion that they might not subscribe to (though there was lots of other stuff that was nasty in that law, and many others that Cromwell did).

While some strands of Puritanism were Priggish and Pietistic, the English Civil War and the Pilgrim Father's exodus to the New World were both rejections of overzealous rules (such as the Sunday Sports - a mandatory choice of activities for Sundays after church - you weren't allowed to do nothing, you weren't allowed to do things that weren't on the list).

However, the real Priggishness came in the mainline groups, especially Methodist and Baptist groups. Prohibition came from the theological liberals (ie the polar opposite of Puritans), not the conservatives (who have now, especially in Baptist circles, have fallen down the trap).

Thank you for that history lesson.  I chose the term I knew of that seemed to be closest to my point.  I didn't have much interest in history and studied only as much as needed to pass the classes.  I was very academic in school, but history was the one subject I didn't take a liking to.  As I've gotten older I've learned to appreciate how the present has descended from the past and have taken more of an interest in the subject.

Anyway, back to STOP signs. Oddly, when it comes to traffic control, everything is backwards. America works on an assumption that everything (literally) needs spelling out and that drivers aren't to be trusted - though the latter is perhaps due to lower test standards than Western Europe (in part due to the essentiality of driving when in most of the US, and what with the agricultural nature of large parts of society, that much of Western Europe lost, that means lower driving ages). See the lower speed limits in North America, compared with Europe (though I'll concede that the Scandinavian and British speed limits, despite being countries that have traditionally seen things the common law way, are among the lowest in Europe). STOP, therefore, mandates an action with no ambiguity and is thus the default, rather than the more-vague YIELD.

In the UK, a local highway authority must prove to the Department for Transport that the site warrants a STOP sign. In the US, it seems to be the other way around, that Yields must require approval from higher up.

That's an interesting point about the necessity of driving.  I know several people who probably shouldn't be driving, but there often isn't another way to live.

[A.J. Bertin]

Interesting discussion. It has always bothered me, too, that there do not seem to be many Yield signs around. There are indeed many Stop signs around my little corner of the Midwest that seem to be unneeded. I would love to see more Yield signs around where they make more sense than Stop signs.

I agree with the person who suggested a 50/50 balance between Stop and Yield signs. I'm sure it's possible for the engineers to suggest a better balance between the two.

[Brandon]

I'd say that stop signs are used in many instances where a yield sign might be more effective.  I notice that many RIROs are marked with stop signs in this area.  These could easily be yields due to the fact that one is more-or-less merging with traffic and can only go to the right.

I've also noticed far too many stop signs being used at roundabouts. 

[kphoger]

is there a solution to the four-way stop which does not involve a "four-way yield" (which is an unresolvable situation as the law is written now)? 

one can put in roundabouts but assume for now we are just wanting to change the signage to eliminate having to come to a full stop, when the intersection is clearly empty.  basically, how can we make the "California rolling stop" legal?

An controlled intersection, I think, is what you're looking for.  It's basically an all-way yield at which, when two cars approach at the same time, priority is typically given to the right.

[Brandon]

is there a solution to the four-way stop which does not involve a "four-way yield" (which is an unresolvable situation as the law is written now)? 

one can put in roundabouts but assume for now we are just wanting to change the signage to eliminate having to come to a full stop, when the intersection is clearly empty.  basically, how can we make the "California rolling stop" legal?

An controlled intersection, I think, is what you're looking for.  It's basically an all-way yield at which, when two cars approach at the same time, priority is typically given to the right.

Which, in some cities, *cough* Chicago *cough*, means there will be an accident.

[agentsteel53]

I assume you typoed "uncontrolled".

yeah, I don't think anyone knows "priority to the right" - just look at driving patterns in shopping malls, where drivers seem to instead assign one of the intersecting roads priority based on the fact that it is marginally wider, has more cars on it, is currently being driven on by me, etc.

maybe a cheap roundabout, consisting of planting a tree in the middle of the intersection and striping a big circle around it, the radius corresponding to the size of the entire intersection, corner to corner?  and then of course, for US drivers, we'd need a "yield to traffic already within the roundabout", but it would still be more effective than STOP signs.

[agentsteel53]

I agree with the person who suggested a 50/50 balance between Stop and Yield signs. I'm sure it's possible for the engineers to suggest a better balance between the two.

I feel like, intuitively, the balance can be even more in favor of YIELD.  I remember seeing precisely one STOP sign on my travels in northern Scandinavia - the rest were all yields (when one met a priority road), roundabouts (for the meeting of two priority roads), or uncontrolled (non-priority roads meeting).

[agentsteel53]

I notice that many RIROs are marked with stop signs in this area.  These could easily be yields due to the fact that one is more-or-less merging with traffic and can only go to the right.

this, actually, is one case where I might actually want to keep the STOP.  the entrance from Yerba Buena to the Bay Bridge westbound comes to mind. there is almost no acceleration lane, and traffic is coming very fast (the 50mph speed limit is exceeded by 20-30 regularly), so it is useful to have the incoming driver stop, think about the fine mess they have gotten themselves into, make absolutely damn sure that they have the room, and then floor it.

[kphoger]

maybe a cheap roundabout, consisting of planting a tree in the middle of the intersection and striping a big circle around it, the radius corresponding to the size of the entire intersection, corner to corner?  and then of course, for US drivers, we'd need a "yield to traffic already within the roundabout", but it would still be more effective than STOP signs.

I tried deftly avoiding mention of the mini roundabout, because I didn't want this thread to devolve into an argument about whether roundabouts are good or bad.  But, that would probably be your "cheap" solution.

I notice that many RIROs are marked with stop signs in this area.  These could easily be yields due to the fact that one is more-or-less merging with traffic and can only go to the right.

this, actually, is one case where I might actually want to keep the STOP.  the entrance from Yerba Buena to the Bay Bridge westbound comes to mind. there is almost no acceleration lane, and traffic is coming very fast (the 50mph speed limit is exceeded by 20-30 regularly), so it is useful to have the incoming driver stop, think about the fine mess they have gotten themselves into, make absolutely damn sure that they have the room, and then floor it.

But locations like this one on a frontage road (which I use at least five times a week) really don't need full STOP control. 

[agentsteel53]

But locations like this one on a frontage road (which I use at least five times a week) really don't need full STOP control.

no, certainly not.  California uses so few RIROs that the ones with a stop sign are because they date back to the 1940s and the STOP is indeed needed.

[realjd]

I tried deftly avoiding mention of the mini roundabout, because I didn't want this thread to devolve into an argument about whether roundabouts are good or bad.  But, that would probably be your "cheap" solution.

You beat me to it. I loathe 4-way stops and think almost all of them can be replaced by a small roundabout. It doesn't even need to be as big as the one in the video, as seen here in Austin: http://goo.gl/maps/YqNzG

[kphoger]

I tried deftly avoiding mention of the mini roundabout, because I didn't want this thread to devolve into an argument about whether roundabouts are good or bad.  But, that would probably be your "cheap" solution.

You beat me to it. I loathe 4-way stops and think almost all of them can be replaced by a small roundabout. It doesn't even need to be as big as the one in the video, as seen here in Austin: http://goo.gl/maps/YqNzG

The one in your example is more akin to agentsteel53's "planting a tree in the middle of the intersection and striping a big circle around it".  I don't think those are reasonable without pushing back the curb lines, because there is insufficient room for large vehicles or truck-trailer combinations to navigate the circle.  Even in the most residential neighborhoods, you would still need to allow for party buses, church and school buses, moving trucks, landscaping trailers, and on and on.  A mostly flat, roll-over-able island would be better.



Having mentioned, uncontrolled intersections, I do think that 25 mph should be the max limit on roads with uncontrolled intersections.  For roads with higher speeds, I prefer two-way stops and roundabouts.

[agentsteel53]

A mostly flat, roll-over-able island would be better.

probably.  how do we get people to make a hook left turn, instead of barging across, or cutting even to the left of the island, which is the trajectory people take right now at an intersection to make a left.

[kphoger]

A mostly flat, roll-over-able island would be better.

probably.  how do we get people to make a hook left turn, instead of barging across, or cutting even to the left of the island, which is the trajectory people take right now at an intersection to make a left.

Primarily with a slightly raised, painted island.  They make them out of metal, actually.  Nearly everyone would not simply barrel across that but, if they did, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.  See "Mini-roundabouts - Getting them Right!" and related pages for more details about designing mini roundabouts.

[realjd]

^^^
The intersection I linked to in Austin is low traffic but near a number of construction sites. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire purpose of the roundabout was to physically block truck traffic.

[cpzilliacus]

I agree with the person who suggested a 50/50 balance between Stop and Yield signs. I'm sure it's possible for the engineers to suggest a better balance between the two.

I feel like, intuitively, the balance can be even more in favor of YIELD.  I remember seeing precisely one STOP sign on my travels in northern Scandinavia - the rest were all yields (when one met a priority road), roundabouts (for the meeting of two priority roads), or uncontrolled (non-priority roads meeting).

STOP signs are rather rare in the Nordic nations.  They  can be found, but not nearly as frequently as in the U.S. 

Many times, traffic engineers prefer to use a YIELD sign. At intersections in urban areas, things are often left with no controls at all, which means that you yield to the vehicles approaching on your right.