In west coast cities, stop signs seem to serve the purpose of letting pedestrians exert their legal right of way where it would otherwise be taken by cars. Without stop signs, cars are not really likely to stop and pedestrians will wait until the road is simply clear rather than playing a one sided mortal game of chicken. The result is that cars can pretend that the pedestrian doesn't actually want to cross. With a stop sign, pedestrians can reason that a car has to stop for the stop sign, and so they will also be able to walk.
That said I think stop signs is a terrible solution to this issue.
Said it better than me, at the same time. It's also better than a fully controlled intersection with lights for pedestrians, since you don't have to wait for a light cycle or choose to cross on red.
It's pretty sad to see people having to wait for a gap to sprint across a road, and little wonder that the situation perpetuates people driving everywhere - it's the safest and fastest way to even cross a street.
But there's an even better alternative to that: pedestrian controlled lights.
There is a main road in France I often take, in the south Paris (RN 20), that goes through a small town. There are traffic lights that are only there for the pedestrians. When there's no one there, they'll be green for cars. When there are pedestrians waiting, they can push a button that'll switch the lights.
Instead of the repurposed stop sign, this has the advantage that cars can flow through without stopping at all when there are no pedestrians, which is basically always. I've only ever stopped there a handful of times.
They reduce car crashes with other cars. I don't know off the top of my head if they reduce car-pedestrian crashes but I suspect not.
I used to live off of a busy roundabout in a place that makes heavy heavy use of roundabouts (almost no four-way stops). It felt dangerous as fuck honestly. The crosswalks are a little "downstream" of the true circle, where cars have already begun to exit. Frequently (saw this a few times myself) a car would stop for a pedestrian and then get rear-ended by another car focused on exiting the roundabout.
This was not the US so unfamiliarity with roundabouts can't be blamed. They were the norm there.
Every time I see a crosswalk near a roundabout, I think that's a terrible place for a crosswalk (the drivers are distracted by figuring out if they need to stop, and when it's clear to keep going).
How small can you make a roundabout? Where I live stop signs are common at very small intersections.
Alternating two way stops (n/s at intersection one, e/w at intersection two) seems like maybe an ok way to reduce the problem by half at little to no cost?
There's a configuration for bike safety that's basically a mini roundabout superimposed on a normal intersection. It doesn't significantly increase the size of the intersection, but the geometry works out in a way where bikes can go at near full speed, but it's impossible for a right turning car and straight going bike to get into a collision without seeing each other first (assuming both are looking forward while driving).
Mini roundabouts are very likely to be confusing horrors, outside of low-speed residential zones, parking lots and the like.
See the city of Nantes in France (roundabout’s paradise), navigating the intersections is horrible. In a few parts of town they even have double mini roundabouts. The only reasonable explanation I found is “security by confusion” : if you have no idea how to drive through the intersection, you’re more likely to slow down. Well it doesn’t make the intersection really safer.
I've seen some in Vancouver that are little more than an oversize planter with a scrub in it stuck in the middle of the intersection. As long as it deflects traffic to the side a bit, a slowdown is achieved and the main purpose fulfilled.
Basically they recommend 28m diameter if you are going to have a central island, otherwise it should be a mini-roundabout (capable of being driven over)
I’ll add that in my family’s home town (farming town in Perthshire) in Scotland, there are mini roundabouts that are just a spot of white paint in the middle of the intersection. It works fine.
Roundabouts generally require a driver to look in a direction other than their direction of travel, to determine if it is safe to go. They are also designed to reduce the amount of time any given vehicle has to actually stop if there is no reason to. However, to keep the flow, a driver must check if there is incoming traffic. This varies based on left/right side driving countries. Lights for pedestrians might help, but then the benefit of continual traffic flow is reduced. There are more considerations that can make it work, but I often see this point (my first sentence) overlooked.
> Roundabouts generally require a driver to look in a direction other than their direction of travel, to determine if it is safe to go.
True for stop signs... and any other traffic control solution in existence, frankly. Yielded merges are the most obvious form of specifically unbroken traffic flow that requires the same.
> They are also designed to reduce the amount of time any given vehicle has to actually stop if there is no reason to.
So it works like a yield. That's a good thing because it reduces congestion.
> This varies based on left/right side driving countries.
There are much bigger issues resulting from switching between left- and right-side driving standards which don't have anything to do with roundabouts, so this doesn't say anything about roundabouts so much as the difference in standards.
> Lights for pedestrians might help, but then the benefit of continual traffic flow is reduced.
Comes with the territory, and is also true of every other traffic control solution in existence. The complete solution to this is to completely separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic, which is also not limited to roundabouts.
It sounds like you don't have a problem with roundabouts so much as traffic control per se, if you believe these to be reasons not to implement roundabouts.
>> Roundabouts generally require a driver to look in a direction other than their direction of travel, to determine if it is safe to go.
> True for stop signs...
Not really. Stop signs make you stop first, before needing to look around, after which you continue. There's no "direction of travel" when you've stopped; you're not traveling when you've stopped. Meaning you can focus on one thing at a time, unlike with a roundabout.
Huh? The point is that your attention (and vision) isn't nearly as divided when driving with a stop sign than with a roundabout. You don't have to multitask nearly as much; you do one thing at a time. Less division of attention = less car accidents.
It doesn't sound like you're familiar with any of the studies concerning the safety of traffic flow if you think that that is the only factor that determines intersection safety.
> It doesn't sound like you're familiar with any of the studies concerning the safety of traffic flow if you think that that is the only factor that determines intersection safety.
I'm pretty sure "the only factor that determines intersection safety is division of attention" was not a stance I was taking (when is an event ever a function of just 1 variable in the real world?), but if you'd prefer to take a swipe at me regardless, it would be nice if you could make your response constructive and actually link to some studies that show I said something contrary to reality, if you're well-studied in traffic flow.
Hopefully my reply clarified for you what my earlier point was, even if you think the point was wrong.
The implied point of the above comment was that, while specific linear relationships can be hypothesized, and shown in certain limited controlled experiments, the nonlinear interactions with every single other factor makes such an assertion not only meaningless but also misleading.
"Well-studied", no, I would not claim that. I follow the zeitgeist of urban planners as they discuss topics like this on the fora in which they congregate. I read some of the studies they post and discuss, and I have picked up on some of the memes present in that community. Something that comes up again and again and again and again (and which is immediately apparent upon reading the research) is the primacy of roundabouts for intersections, because they are the safest of the popular options and less prone to congestion than stop signs, stop lights, etc. Even when they do get congested, the outcomes are better for everyone on average, since everyone waits a similar amount of time compared to the asymmetry of e.g. intersections with stoplights. One common pitfall in thinking about these things is only thinking about individual wait times in a subjective sense, and not aggregate wait times in a systemic sense. The latter perspective provides much clarity.
Here, I did your Googling for you. Where do I send the invoice?
For those who live outside the US (or maybe outside California) in California there is a legal crosswalk (ie a 'zebra crossing') at EVERY uncontrolled (ie without lights) intersection, whether it is painted in or not, and pedestrians have absolute right of way (the trade off is that they are not allowed to cross anywhere along a block between intersections).
I now live in NZ where mostly we have Yield/Give Way signs if anything, and pedestrians have no rights (also the neighbourhood speed limit is higher 30mph vs 25) - I'd love for us to have 4 way stops everywhere and slower speed limits everywhere
There's pedestrian crossings in NZ, but sounds like a lot fewer.
Plenty of stop signs here though, but it kinda depends on where you're driving though. They're rather rare in cities now, either replaced by lights or roundabouts.
And honestly, NZ road rules at a "4 way stop" confuse the crap of everyone, as they violate the general assumption of "just give way to your right".
(E.g., I'm at a 4 way stop, I'm going straight, the person to my right has the right of way... ...if he's going straight. If he's turning, then I have right of way. Far more complex.)
But there's still lots of them in the country still :)
US rules for 4-way stops are easier to deal with - if you are the first to come to a full stop you get to go first (people learn to judge that little jump on your shocks as you actually stop) then people take turns (N-S then E-W then N-S etc) - if it's unclear then the NZ-like rules take over.
Yes NZ has occasional pedestrian crossings, but not at the one place we most need them (roundabouts) - what we don;t have are ubiquitous ones (at every intersection)
I like the solution of the pedestrian triggered stop signs. The don’t literally say stop but they flash yellow and cars have to stop even if there’s no one in the street.
If you’re talking about at least California, that isn’t how those work, and please never stop at one unless it’s occupied. Those of us who read the book are expecting you to proceed through an empty crosswalk because we know the flashing yellow lights are legally advisory and often keep going long after the crosswalk is empty. Some even flash permanently. Every time you stop for an empty, flashing crosswalk, you’re risking a collision that you’ll probably get away with, but that will really be your fault deep down.
This is quite simple: if a pedestrian is threatening to cross or actually crossing, whether the crosswalk is painted, flashing, not flashing because they didn’t push the button, or even merely implied by an unpainted intersection (another overlooked reason to read the book, given my pedestrian experience!), you yield. Otherwise keep moving. It’s that easy.
I absolutely can't stand beg buttons for pedestrians. Nothing indicates more to pedestrian that they are second class road users than having to push a button to ask permission for the gods of traffics to be able to cross. When driving, I always make it a point to slow down for flashing yellow signs; any small thing I can do to make the streets feel less dangerous for pedestrians. Same as crossing right on red, I'll never do it, out of principle, it's so trashy, everybody who's walked anywhere has almost been killed by a driver turning in a little too cavalier.
> but that will really be your fault deep down
Not true, it is definitely most certainly the fault of the cars behind you. It's because of the driver behind you is too aggressive or careless, and not keeping proper distance. If they can't slow down for a car in front of them, they certainly can't either when there's a true emergency, like a dog or child sprinting across the street. There's a million reasons why the car in front of you may have to slow down or come to an emergency stop, and that's why you keep proper distance from cars in front of you.
> if a pedestrian is threatening
It's just a turn of phrase, I get it, but pedestrians can never threaten a driver. They get maimed or killed if they do. It's such an insidious mindset that somehow pedestrians and drivers have equal responsibilities, when the power to inflict harm is so enormously lopsided.
It's this way with on-demand flashing pedestrian signals in my city in Washington as well, though honestly I see it in practice (and do it myself) without actually knowing what the law is.
We also have at least one red light that is strictly for pedestrians that I find irritating every time it's triggered, since it requires a full stop cycle even if the person or persons using it cross quickly or not.
If you’re going by the book you should never be following another car closely enough that you can’t stop in time to avoid a collision, even if they come to a full stop unexpectedly.
You clearly misunderstood the point of mentioning being rear ended, which wasn’t that I’d be rear ending you, but instead the dumbass who doesn’t know that. It was really a warning about property damage to your own car from stopping unnecessarily, which is why I mentioned legal and actual fault since we’re discussing California.
And no, being rear ended is not an automatic “they should have been further away,” including potentially in this circumstance. Full stop in a travel lane on an interstate and report back on your fault determination if you survive.
What is it about driving that makes threads personal? The person was totally wrong in a heavily-read forum is all, and that’s your cue to put me in my place for pointing it out or something?
I looked it up for California and the best I could find is that if someone stops or slows inappropriately they could bear partial blame. Partial as in not all of it, so some of the blame stays on the person doing the rear ending. To me this infers that you are not following the book if you don't leave enough space to stop in time.
>What is it about driving that makes threads personal?
How did I make this personal? By using the pronoun "you"? I was doing that in a general sense and not targeted, which I thought you were doing as well in your own post.
> And no, being rear ended is not an automatic “they should have been further away,” including potentially in this circumstance. Full stop in a travel lane on an interstate and report back on your fault determination if you survive.
You're surprised that interstates are a special case?
> What is it about driving that makes threads personal? The person was totally wrong in a heavily-read forum is all, and that’s your cue to put me in my place for pointing it out or something?
Yeah, you just wandered in and started telling people that they were Wrong, and that even if legally they were in the right they were still Wrong; I can't imagine why anyone would take issue.
You’re arguing from a point of misunderstanding. Pedestrian triggered cross walks these days have signs that only flash while occupied and have signs that warn drivers again by flashing, ahead of the crosswalk.
That said I think stop signs is a terrible solution to this issue.