Hacker News Reader

Comment by cpitman | Hacker News Reader

Why does this make any more sense for bikes than for cars? This seems to be an argument for why the current rules for stop signs are wrong because there is an "obvious" set of cases where someone shouldn't have to stop.

Isn't the problem when the two parties disagree about who got to the intersection first?

View on HN

There are many differences. This is in the "beating a dead horse" category of argument because the difference between driving up to an intersection and biking up to one is so intuitively different if you've done both of them. But here are some reasons off the top of my head of why it is safer to yield through a stop sign on a bike vs a car:

1) On a bike you are much more towards the middle of the intersection so there is more space between you and people potentially entering the intersection from the sides, so you have more reaction time to deal with them

2) Your cross section is really tiny and entirely in front of you so there is no risk of hitting something you don't see

3) You have a much better field of view because you aren't obstructed by your car interior

4) You can use your sense of hearing to listen for cars/ pedestrians / other dangers

5) You are going much more slowly

And don't forget that a bike is least stable when starting and stopping, especially for unskilled riders. Having to come to a complete stop at every intersection can be more dangerous, not less, especially if there are cars approaching behind the cyclist: drivers are likely to roll through the stop sign themselves and pass the cyclist right as he is starting again.

Don't forget the cost of momentum. On a bike stopping and starting is a huge tax on you where as in a car it's just moving your foot from break to gas.

Except that there is also the cost to the environment. Conserving momentum in a car means using less gas.

That's not an 'except' kind of argument, more 'as a second order effect, there is also...'.

Tell that to the cities that don't sync their traffic lights. It doesn't matter whether I'm driving or cycling, that always pisses me off.

Bikes are also more nimble, so you're a lot less likely to run into someone else by accident, and if you do, you're likely to only hurt yourself (running into a pedestrian is different, but you're not going to encounter a pedestrian in the middle of an interesection; cross walk, sure, but the danger there is the same whether you stop or yield).

Meanwhile in a car, if you hit someone, you're driving a big multi-ton metal vehicle and you're going to injure or kill anything you hit.

I suspect that stop signs serve an additional purpose, of calming traffic in neighborhoods. Long stretches where car drivers don't expect to slow down, will increase overall speeds. This is already evident on long neighborhood streets that don't have stop signs, and where they are now installing speed bumps at the request of residents.

Perhaps not a planned benefit, but the inconvenience of stop signs also funnels car traffic onto the larger trunk roads, leaving the side streets for cyclists -- a cheap and cheerful way of separating car and bike traffic.

On the other hand, I suspect that stop signs are also just a cheap traffic control device that works with minimal case-by-case design, especially in neighborhoods with narrow streets. Alternatives, such as roundabouts, tend to involve complete re-design of an area with at least a 50 yard radius, for instance eliminating visual obstacles and parked cars.

Moving to the US from Europe one of the most striking differences I noticed was the near complete absence of yield signs. Where I come from (Italy) yield signs are way more common than stop signs at intersections (unless visibility is very poor). Also, traffic lights seem comparatively overused the US, even at low-traffic intersections. I always wondered why. Yield signs would be a cheap and convenient alternative to stop signs and traffic lights at low-traffic intersections with good visibility.

Illegal stop signs abound in the US. Stop signs should only be placed if they meet a Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) warrant. One or more of the following conditions must exist: (1) intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the regular right-of-way rule is hazardous; (2) street entering a through highway or street; (3) unsignalized intersection in a signalized area; or (4) other intersections where a combination of high speed (directly related to sight distance), restricted view and serious accident record indicates a need for control by the stop sign.

Here in Massachusetts, it used to be the case that stop signs had to be individually approved by the state. At some point, the towns were allowed to make the determination—and they frequently put them up as illegal traffic calming devices because that is what's the locals want (and most our towns have direct democracy).

Take the UK rules for stop signs as an example:

"In the UK, stop signs may be placed only at sites with severely restricted visibility, and each must be individually approved by the Secretary of State for Transport."

They are rare, I can only think of one in the county my parents live in. (No doubt there are a few more, but on all the routes we often used when I was a child, there was only one.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#United_Kingdom

That sounds excessive. Has there been a political movement against stop signs in the UK?

It's to ensure that they're only used where visibility is unexpectedly poor; not just where some unqualified local road planner thinks people should stop.

The one near my mum's house is on a junction where the 500+ year old building on the corner is very close to the road (which you can see as you approach), and where the building bulges out round the corner (which you can't see — roll through the junction from that direction and you don't have time to see if it's clear).

Thankfully there has been a movement to reduce the number of road signs in general - see the 'Reducing Sign Clutter' [1] advice released the the DfT in 2013.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

This is definitely true. When I'm cycling in to work, for a 2-mile stretch I have a choice of two roads: one is a major thoroughfare with lots of stop lights and a lot of traffic, and I personally find it extremely irritating to ride on. My other option is a parallel road which has very few lights but a large number of stop signs, and has significantly less traffic even though in theory it could carry almost as many cars. The cars would rather drive where the traffic lights may allow them to continue going for long periods (the light timings are actually pretty decent), but cyclists definitely prefer the road with the stop signs.

Police where I am don't enforce full stop for cars either.

The consequences of two "yield" parties disagreeing about who got to the intersection first are a lot less severe when you're dealing with vehicles that weigh less than their operators. We already have laws that vary according to size and weight: trucks are not allowed on certain roads and highway lanes.

4-way stop intersections are extremely puzzling to me. We don't have them in most of Europe (I suspect all of Europe, but I can't speak for everywhere). STOP/Yield signs always come paired with right-of-way signs, so much so that having a stop/yield or right-of-way sign on just one street of an intersection automatically means the crossing street effectively has the other sign on it, even if it is missing. I think this is because they used to be stolen from time to time and sold for scrap metal. In the case of an intersection with no signs, the person on the right has the right of way, and the person going straight has the right of way respective to the one making a left turn. For T-sections, the person on the main road always has the right of way. For more complicated 5- or 6-way intersections, they put signs, traffic lights or roundabouts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com