Comments on: When Stop Signs Stop Working

By: Traffic Signs by Rani177

Traffic Signs by Rani177 — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:28:00 +0000

This is interesting though if a stop sign was replaced with a yield sign, then where a stop sign slowed the driver from 30mph to 5 mph, the yield sign might only slow the driver from 30mph to 20mph. The former calms traffic, but it is not clear if the latter will actually increase safety. At first glance, it seems to me that the yield sign may decrease safety because the driver may not slow as much compared to a stop sign.

By: Joshuahmel

Joshuahmel — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:06:00 +0000

The MUTCD actually recommends the installation of a YIELD sign as the first step on the way to a STOP sign and a signal. In England, GIVE WAY signs are used almost exclusively and they work fine. It just needs to be made clear that approaching drivers are required to yield to pedestrians as well as vehicles.

By: Austin

Austin — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:04:00 +0000

but let’s not assume that stop signs are the only option for creating a safer environment.

there are other alternatives, like pedestrian flags, pedestrian activated signals, neckdowns, yield signs, etc. that may outperform stop signs while minimizing interference to road traffic.

just saying “enforce the stop signs” isn’t a long-term solution. if a stop sign is appropriately placed, the effect of a “crackdown” would wear off soon after the cops move on to other initiatives.

By: jass

jass — Sat, 29 May 2010 06:16:39 +0000

Clarence, I guess you’ve never had the displeasure of having to slam on the breaks because a stop sign is hiding behind a tree. I love the “stop ahead” signs.

By: Clarence Eckerson

Clarence Eckerson — Fri, 28 May 2010 13:43:08 +0000

What I find even more disturbing is the proliferation of the pre-stop signs which are popping up everywhere. What’s the point of those?

By: Philip Crawford

Philip Crawford — Fri, 28 May 2010 13:37:33 +0000

@PaulCJr If the consequences of enforcing a complete stop for bicyclists at stop signs moves some riders to busy streets without stop signs, is that good? And if some choose to drive rather than ride their bike, is that good?

What if we issued a ticket for every single auto driver that went above the maximum speed limit? I’m pretty sure public opinion would stop that enforcement rather quickly. We aren’t in danger because a person is going 30 in a 25 or because a bicyclist slows down to 5 mph instead of stopping at a stop sign. Driving while distracted (which is a bigger problem from our over-engineered traffic systems) and from bicyclists who _completely_ ignore safe and defensive bicycling tactics are more of the problem.

Making Things Safer may actually make them More Dangerous
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4308670

Rolling Stops
http://vimeo.com/4140910

By: Claus Olsen

Claus Olsen — Fri, 28 May 2010 04:40:59 +0000

Pedestrians have the right of way at all crosswalks – regardless of whether they are faced with a stop or yield sign. The author is wrong in thinking that yield signs would leave “kids stranded on a street corner”. In fact, even if there is no sign at all at a crosswalk vehicles must still stop if they see a pedestrian waiting to cross the street. Ticketing cars that drive by waiting pedestrians and ticketing speeders! are the better way to solve the problem of “stranded kids”.

By: Claus Olsen

Claus Olsen — Fri, 28 May 2010 04:26:37 +0000

Marta your quote “I’ll take a crappy incomplete stop…” tells me what you really want is for traffic to slow down on your street. This is not how stop signs are supposed to be used, but it is vey common. In fact, I would say the decision to place a stop sign instead of a yield sign is most often made not because a complete stop is needed to negotiate an intersection safely, but because local residents want traffic to slow down in their neigbhorhoods. Drivers intuitively recognize this and it’s why they don’t stop at stop signs. In other words, we cried wolf/danger and it was unwarranted. Those cries/stop signs are now ignored. OK they’re not ignored but they are essentially treated as yield signs, which is what most should actually be. Police also recognize this and it’s why they allow rolls (I believe a couple of you asked why they aren’t enforced – now you know. As traffic guidance they’re ruined because too many people like Marta abused them. They’ll never get their reputation back or be taken seriously again). What should Marta’s neighborhood have done then? They should have petitioned not for a stop sign but for a lower speed limit, or since I bet eveybody was blowing through there at 5-10mph over the existing limit, enforcement of the limit. Why enforce speed limits but not full and complete stops? Because higher speeds have been PROVEN by studies to be more dangerous. On the other hand when accidents happen at stop signs it not because someone came to an incomplete stop – it’s because they didn’t stop at all. They failed to yield.

By: icarus12

icarus12 — Thu, 27 May 2010 22:33:01 +0000

In most Greek towns every 4-way intersection without a traffic light has only two stop signs. So cars stop always stop in one direction but not in the other. Drivers know this and so traffic flows and there are a lot fewer confusing right-of-way moments at the intersections. The system reduces fuel use, but I don’t know if it reduces car-on-car accidents, or if it leads to more pedestrian-car accidents.

By: Marta

Marta — Thu, 27 May 2010 19:05:26 +0000

Wow, I totally disagree with the idea of getting rid of stop signs (and yes, why aren’t they being enforced!). For the past three years I’ve tiptoed with fear in my heart across the intersection in front of my house because there was no stop sign.

Thankfully, thanks to neighborhood action, there is now a stop sign and while I am still vigilant about looking both ways, at least I know cars are SUPPOSED to stop and at least slow.

I’d take a really crappy incomplete stop by a car versus no stop at all any day.