Hacker News Reader

Comment by hermitdev | Hacker News Reader

Ok, why not just put up signs saying "do not enter" and "right turn only"? And, then, just have a signal for the assumed protected right-turn (Germans do drive on the right, correct?)

This "solution" seems very confusing. In every US/Canadian jurisdiction I've visited has nothing like this German solution. Just indicate with lights, signage and road furniture that the particular route is not allowed. To technically keep the route open, but prohibit by lights seems prone to confusion, especially for individuals not from the area. Also, how do mapping apps deal with this intersection (curious)? Do mapping apps properly route through such an intersection?

(edit: clarity)

View on HN

The set up described in the article is actually equivalent to "come to full stop, then right turn only".

You cannot replace the light with a sign because by law traffic lights have higher precedence that traffic signs. This is for failover reasons (when traffic light is broken, no electricity etc.) So a sign on an intersection can be rendered void/meaningless if the traffic light is operational.

Having traffic lights show the same light is not that unheard of as the article makes it sound. I visited a part of Europe where right turns on intersections always showed blinking yellow light. This is equivalent to "turn right, but yield first"

I understand it can be confusing if you are coming from the US system though. The European system is highly standardized for use in all kinds of driving situations (like places with unreliable electricity), the drawback is that it can get a bit technical at times.

> So a sign on an intersection can be rendered void/meaningless if the traffic light is operational.

But that's a moot point if the light isn't there in the first place.

I'm sorry, but no matter how you slice it, this light is stupid. What is needed is simply a pair of signs: STOP and RIGHT TURN ONLY.

It is mandatory for there to be a light at the intersection by law

Yes, I get that. But it's a stupid law, and it should be changed. Traffic laws are not handed down by the gods.

Yes great idea. Build a new rule into a nation-wide law just to solve a problem that needs no solving as "red light with static green right arrow" is a typical sight over here in Germany and drivers DO understand it.

It would be much better to change traffic la nation-wide so we can get rid of this ONE traffic light in Germany. Isn't it?

Yes, that light is costing tax payers every year to operate it. The law should be changed so that there is no need to do this.

How much do you think it will cost to verify that such a legal change will not have unintended side effects?

Changing the law and checking correct enforcement costs way more in people hours than the cost of operating a single traffic light. People underestimate the cost of regulation. Also, a consistent and simple set of rules should always be preferred and causes less human errors.

Changing the law costs a lot, lot more you know..

Yes. It's stupid for a law to vest absolutely no discretion in the engineers so they may adapt to peculiar local situations.

This light is an at intersection, the other three roads leading to the intersection have traffic lights too.

If there is a power cut, then the other three roads will have no lights, drivers there will treat the intersection with one set of rules. Whereas the driver on this road with a sign will treat the intersection with another, potentially causing an accident.

There is no more possibility of an accident with a stop sign than with an always-red light because the rules for both are exactly the same: stop, and proceed only when there is no conflicting traffic.

"But that's a moot point if the light isn't there in the first place."

When I said "traffic light" I meant the entire set of traffic lights of the intersection. You can't have just one lane without traffic light and all the others with. It would be highly confusing, also probably against the road laws.

The point of the traffic light taking precedence over road sign is actually part of the rules of the road. It is also required knowledge for driver exams.

> You can't have just one lane without traffic light and all the others with.

Of course you can.

> It would be highly confusing

Why?

> also probably against the road laws.

Laws can be changed. The fact that "it's the law" is a stupid reason to keep doing something that doesn't otherwise make sense. Germans of all people should understand this. (And BTW, I am German.)

There is a sign in Germany that indicated "must turn right".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Germany#/media/F...

Combine that with a stop sign to force a stop and yield.

It feels like this would solve the situation without the need for traffic lights. I'm sure I'm missing something though.

From what I have gathered, the reason is that all sides of a junction must have traffic lights or none. Because traffic lights are needed at the other entrances, this one is installed to comply.

Because (as I understand the article) their laws don't allow for intersections with a mixture of traffic lights and static signs.

It's a great illustration of a point that came up a while ago in that discussion of 'what makes a good programmer vs. a great one'. A good programmer recognizes the value of consistency, and leaves the red light in there even though it's a bit ugly and inefficient, because that keeps the system consistent. A great programmer would change the rules to allow a more efficient solution which solves the real problem (ie. cars need to know what to do.)

In that case a 10x-engineer would do a quick calculation and notice that adding and enforcing yet another exception to the law is much more expensive than operating a single traffic light. Note that laws are enforced by humans rather than idling CPUs, so every single rule adds real workload.

That's an incredibly German perspective. Somehow in other parts of the world, practicality is allowed to take precedence over rigid adherence to authority, and it seems to work out fine.

Reminds me of catching hell from random old German ladies in Berlin when I crossed a sleepy residential street, without a car on the road in sight for miles, without waiting for the crosswalk light to go green. Or gasp crossing a street without using a crosswalk!

Or would realise that changing the wording slightly (not adding an exception, just updating the wording of one clause) to allow using a sign in place of a non-changing light would be a small enough change to get instantly rubber-stamped (so low administrative implementation cost), and would be trivial to enact because we already know that there's only one place where it applies.

Take a look at the light: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13873787

Any jurisdiction in North America would just put a Stop or Yield sign there.

In North America, they use a stop sign for basically every situation. So the continent is plastered with stop signs, none of which show their intent.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The intent of a stop sign is to require the driver to stop and check that it is safe to continue before doing so. I don't see how a stop sign could fail to convey that intent.

In the rest of the world its a given that you'll check its safe to continue before driving through an intersection ;)

Around here (Norway), stop signs are only used at particularly risky intersections.

To illustrate how rare they are, I can only think of two within a 100-mile radius[0] - both in places where you are about to enter a road with a 50mph/80kmh speed limit and where visibility is terrible in either direction.

[0] In fairness I should mention that 2/3 of that circle falls in the Norwegian Sea, where stop signs are exceedingly rare...

> Around here (Norway), stop signs are only used at particularly risky intersections.

The same as in Bucharest, Romania. That's why when I see a stop sign I make double-sure when looking for cars who have right of way over me.

He must be talking about the four way stop crossing, a thing that is entirely unheard of in Europe. Over here, if no road gets priority, it's either a roundabout or priority to the right. In case of a deadlock, all three solution become first in first out, but only the four way stop requires everybody to shed all inertia even when the resource is not contested.

Compared to the countries of Europe where I have driven, the American traffic I have experienced often seemed excessively polite, to the point where I think that (relative to Europe) it would be more socially acceptable to drive bad because of being dangerously distracted than to drive bad due to being in a hurry.

I have long suspected a causal relation between the politeness and the four way stop, I just can't figure out the direction of causation.

Obviously roundabouts are fine. But an unsignaled intersection? Most intersections do not have nearly enough visibility to make a go vs. yield decision while you're going at full speed and traffic from the left or right is also going at full speed.

Easy one: you don't approach such an intersection at full speed. The difference between safe speed and a complete stop is substantial (even more so if you can pretty much ignore one of two directions).

> Easy one: you don't approach such an intersection at full speed. The difference between safe speed and a complete stop is substantial

I still have to slow down a lot because I'm not sure how fast the other drivers are going. At that point it's not a big deal if I stop.

> even more so if you can pretty much ignore one of two directions

That sounds like an intersection that would not be a four way stop in the first place.

Why would everyone blow through an intersection at full speed?

Sometimes stop signs are used because of interference with other drivers (check it's safe to checking other drivers), sometimes they refer to pedestrians (check it's safe by checking pedestrians), sometimes they refer to some other kind of danger, for example it could be something like speed bumps. Basically a stop sign is there to tell you to stop (even if it's not really necessary) and watch out for something (without telling you what).

There exist all sorts of signs that actually tell the driver what to watch out for, and make the right of way situation clearer. But in North America, a stop sign is used in most situations.

Four-way stop signs are another form of silliness. They often happen in residential areas where small streets cross. In Europe you'd have 'right before left' rules that only really matter when cars actually meet; in North America you have to come to a complete halt, constantly.

I'm no driver, and am not a big fan of drivers or driving in general. But I kind of understand why drivers are so aggravated here.

You stop and then wait your turn to proceed. This is the same meaning everywhere in the US and if there are additional restrictions there will be separate signs imposing them.

What is it that confuses you about them?

From what I understand, the difference is:

- In Europe a stop sign means that you have to wait until the way is clear. Of course, you normally don't have stops on more than two of the roads crossing. (Theoretically, you can wait forever at a stop, since people on the other roads won't stop and let you through)

- In North America (I've seen it in Canada), you have stop signs on all four roads crossing and you get through in a first in first out turn.

It seems to me that

- the US uses stop signs as a way to slow down the traffic (so, no real meaning), but

- in Europe it does have a clear meaning: "it's dangerous to drive over a crossing without halting". Not only you have to be careful because you have no right of way (the "give way" sign) but you really have to stop and look at the traffic, mostly due to poor visibility (or high difference in speed).

There's two types of stop signs in the US- normal stop sign and a 4 way stop. 4 way stops are marked as such. Normal stop signs work "like Europe."

In practice stop signs don't work at all in the US. People roll through them, sometimes not even slowing down and can't understand whoo goes first at 4 way stop. So they either sit at the stop sign frantically waving on all cars that are approaching until no more cars are approaching or they just go at some random time or they just blow through the sign altogether.

Anyways, 4 way stops aren't just for slowing down traffic, though they are sometimes used that way. They are for when you have two roads coming together that both have roughly the same amount of traffic (no 'main' road) but don't want to put in a light.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com