Hacker News Reader

Comment by temp-dude-87844 | Hacker News Reader

There's a lot of math in this article about blind spots and car pillars and whatnot, but a Google Maps Street View appears to show the terrain and brush blocking the view on approach [1][2], making all of this math largely moot. That the drivers in question didn't even so much as slow down for this approach is beyond reckless, aside from the other lawbreaking that followed.

The 'Give Way' sign is idiotic, put a Stop sign on the other, flatter road, or make it a 4-way stop. The drivers causing accidents were blowing through the intersection, and shame on the wording of the law that they were able to weasel out of harsher punishment.

Altering the roadway geometry, either as proposed, or more drastically with a roundabout, is a brute-force solution on this country road when other societal measures don't suffice, but it seems that there's plenty of room to enact other changes before you dig up the road.

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8638239,-1.4511249,3a,75y,26... [2] https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8634141,-1.452595,3a,75y,269...

View on HN

«make it a 4-way stop»

You may be unaware, but 4-way stop signs are very uncommon outside of the US. In fact, in the UK they have always been formally prohibited by the Department for Transport in 2002.

As a European driver, I discovered the existence of 4-way stop signs when I moved to the US, and I have always found them dangerous in a counter intuitive way: drivers are so used to 4-way stop intersections, that they may adopt the habit of (1) doing rolling stops and (2) assuming an intersection with a stop sign is almost always a 4-way stop. Both of these 2 habits are dangerous... At least that's my personal experience. I prefer the consistency of my home country where every stop is a 2-way stop, therefore I'm never surprised by non-stopping traffic at an intersection.

> rolling stops

What's special about a 4-way stop here? And a rolling stop is good enough to prevent a high-speed collision anyway.

> assuming an intersection with a stop sign is almost always a 4-way stop

Around here there is a good mix and I don't think that happens.

> I prefer the consistency of my home country where every stop is a 2-way stop

Well I personally hate going through 2-way-stop intersections that are over 25mph.

A rolling stop is only good enough to prevent a 'high-speed collision' as judged by people wearing steel armor boxes.

If you don't drop to walking speed, it's not a rolling stop, it's flat-out running the stop sign.

I think we can agree that 4mph is not high speed.

I always found it hard to understand what's so difficult in actually stopping when the sign clearly says "stop". The wording hardly leaves any room for misinterpretation, doesn't it?

I'd guess some people want to keep a bit of the momentum going for fuel efficiency? Going from standstill to moving, with a big heavy metal box, requires more energy than simply accelerating an already existing momentum, even if it's just a small momentum.

But I'm with you: Stop means stop

Many stop signs are placed such that stopping for them prevents you from safely observing oncoming traffic. So after stopping at a stop sign you still need to slowly inch forward checking that the path is clear making the stopping portion of the exercise absolutely pointless.

Further my habit of actually stopping has gotten me rear ended and tossed into an intersection. Doing things unexpected can be very hazardous.

Yup, but you still are supposed to, you know, "STOP". :) And isn't it done on purpose? This way, you are not breaking the knees of pedestrians that are crossing the road & you are not sending bicyclists flying. Stop, slowly inch forward (no broken knees, no flying people), enter the road when safe. I'm always wary when walking across the road with a stop sign, precisely because people don't stop at the line.

It's a shame that following signs is unexpected. Somehow, it's not acceptable to run a red light because "no-one is around anyway", but it's fine to do rolling stops?

Cyclists are supposed to come to a full stop as well. They're easy to see stopped right at the corner.

There is at least one state (Idaho [1]) in the US where cyclists are legally allowed to treat a stop sign like a yield sign.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

This doesn't happen, at least from my limited experience in Beverly Hills.

I ride several blocks to work sometimes and I take local streets which all have 4 ways stop signs.

9 out of 10 cars yield and refuse to go. I get the pedestrian treatment.

The problem of rolling stops is when people accidentally do that at a 2-way stop that they mistake as a 4-way stop. This greatly increases the chance of a collision.

The prevalence of rolling stops is much reduced in countries where all intersections are 2-way stops.

Yeah where I live (the outer sunset neighborhood of San Francisco) it feels like half the stops are 2-way and the other half are 4-way. As a cyclist this is dangerous for me, because if I go through an intersection where I am not stopped but cars are subject to the stop, they will stop, not see me, then start going. So consistency is key!

It happens the other way around too; I had a bicyclist roll through a 2-way where I had no stop and almost cause a collision. They yelled at me, probably thinking it was a 4-way.

It might be my imagination, but I seem to recall nearly all, if not all, 4-ways marked as such with a small rectangular placard below the stop sign in Virginia. I've seen them sometimes in California, but not even at the majority (not really any more common than the opposite sign "Cross traffic does not stop").

> It might be my imagination, but I seem to recall nearly all, if not all, 4-ways marked as such with a small rectangular placard below the stop sign in Virginia.

This is the key problem. Whether an intersection is a 4-way or 2-way stop sign changes the right-of-way of any person with a stop sign. (If it's 2-way, I must yield, but if it's 4-way and I've reached the intersection first, I have the right-of-way.) It is crazy that in the US, a person at a stop sign can't distinguish these two situations for certainly without looking to see if the other direction has a stop sign.

(Similar complaints can be made about flashing-red and flashing-yellow intersections.)

There's a 4-way give way junction here [1]. That's the closest you will get in the UK. It means give way to anything that is in the junction before you are, but the actual effect is for cyclists to frequently be aggressively hooted at and nearly run over by cars.

[1] https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.2190575,0.1178374,105m/dat...

Interesting construction. This wouldn't be legal in Nordics, there can be no direction in give way signs indicated, and there can be no 4-way give way junctions.

There is at least two of those four-way yields in Stockholm, and yes, it is of course absolutely insane. In a regular junction you already have to

1) Yield to traffic inside the junction,

2) Yield to traffic approaching from your right.

In a four-way yield junction, you have to

1) Yield to traffic inside the junction,

2) Yield to traffic approaching from your right,

3) ??????? to traffic approaching from the left.

It breeds confusion and has no advantage over a regular intersection. Unless, of course, you count confusion as an advantage. Which you do if you drive the vehicle with the largest inertia around.

To be honest, I was quite surprised that it even existed, and it may possibly not be legal in the UK either.

I think the UK has a lot of "mini roundabouts" where they just paint a circle on the road and mount roundabout signs. Traffic paths are similar to what they would be without the circle. Of course, the give-way rule is different: give-way to your left (easy), rather than give-way to those who arrived first (hard).

You give way to your right, not your left, on a mini-roundabout in the UK.

The "4-way" or "All-way" addition helps a little ( https://i.imgur.com/dzRksUw.jpg ), but I've made the mistake at least once or twice myself.

At least 4-way stops have the same basic rules throughout the US (cars go in order of arrival).

2-way stops do not:

Consider the case where the first car to arrive is turning left, but cannot do so due to traffic on the main road. Then a car arrives from the opposite direction going straight. Who is supposed to go first? In some states it's the car that reached the stop sign first, in others it's the car going straight.

All this assumes drivers who know and follow rules. Where I live, I have to wait in a suicide lane to make a left, and sometimes drivers at the stop sign will try to steal the right of way to make their left first. And then there's the problem that it's accepted practice here to point your car and inch toward traffic as a way to request they give you an opening, despite the very significant risk involved in doing so.

When I did my driving lessons many many years ago (UK), I was told that the car turning left would have right of way, because they weren't crossing a carriage way.

You have to flip it so the car is turnin right: across the path of the second car. In Australia the first car would have to wait. You can’t turn in front of a car going straight.

Sorry change "left" to "across traffic" (i.e. right in UK, Japan &c. left in mainland Europe and Americas)

That's the same as everywhere else, just on the other side.

Left is across traffic in the US. Different sides of the road.

> In some states it's the car that reached the stop sign first, in others it's the car going straight.

Do you have a cite/link about this? I've heard people say different things, but I've never seen evidence that the left-turning vehicle has legal right-of-way in any state.

I could not find a US state with that law, interestingly enough, despite being taught it in Driver's Ed. in Virginia, that doesn't appear to be the law on the books.

Most states' language is similar to California's 21801 which is must yield to vehicles "approaching frome the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard"

Not USA, but Ontario, CA actually does have this rule in 136.2[1]

Michigan found a 3rd option: If there are two cars going straight from one direction and one car waiting to turn left from the opposite, then it goes Straight, Left, Straight. This is regardless of the order that they arrive[2]

[edit]

I also find it absurd that this situation is not covered in every single States' driver's manual. After googling this, it's clearly contentious, and has been for years. If there ever was a situation that needed clarification it's this one.

I think it was New York's manual that had the section and had a list of questions "you should be able to answer" before proceeding (without answers provided). One of the questions was this situation, but I could not figure out the answer from reading the chapter!

1: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK230

2: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(did15hikprdseomawdqif0jc))/...

This is evidence to the contrary, as you've said...

Utah law only talks about who must yield. I use to believe that a person going strait had the right of way. Some of the confusion may come from the wording from different ways of entering the roadway. In Utah it says the following.

41-6a-903 Yield right-of-way -- Vehicle turning left -- Entering or crossing highway other than from another roadway -- Merging lanes. (1) The operator of a vehicle: (a) intending to turn to the left shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is so close to the turning vehicle as to constitute an immediate hazard;

This doesn't actually apply to a stop sign because it says "other than a roadway". It also talks about "opposite direction" and not cross traffic.

The other part of the law that actually seems to apply is the following.

41-6a-902 Right-of-way -- Stop or yield signals -- Yield -- Collisions at intersections or junctions of roadways -- Evidence. (b) After having stopped at a stop sign, the operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard.

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/C41-6a-P9_180001...

That's crazy. I find myself frequently having to pause, look around, make sure, etc (and the pausing and looking around in itself is dangerous) so often because of the discrepancy. But as someone born and raised here I've never considered an alternative, and am shocked that the alternative is so simple!

The other thing about 4-way stop intersections in the US is that the right-of-way rules when two vehicles arrive at the intersection at the same time is not quite what one would expect. That is, the vehicle to the right has the right of way. If the intersection was controlled by a roundabout, then the vehicle to the left would have the right of way.

In the US right-of-way for a 4-way stop is order of arrival, with yield to your right if you arrived at the stop line at the same time as someone else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-way_stop#Operation

In general it works fairly well even in areas notorious for bad driving (although sometimes people steal a turn, I've never seen someone blow right through one, even late at night).

Roundabouts are different. It's a one-way street that goes in a counter-clockwise circle, so naturally you if you are joining (effectively taking a right turn onto it) you must yield to traffic already on the roadway (that would be traffic coming from your left) as you would when turning right onto any street. Once you are on it, you now have right of way.

4-way stops are more deterministic, whereas traffic can get "starved" trying to enter a roundabout. However, you always must stop at a 4-way (even if it's a rolling stop), whereas you can blast through a roundabout if there's no-one to yield to.

> In general [4-way stop] works fairly well

If you're not considering intersection throughput, then that may be true, but 4-way stops are one of the worst forms of intersection control when there's even a moderate amount of traffic.

> Roundabouts are different.

Of course, but what I was implying when I made my post is that a 4-way stop sign controlled intersection right-of-way rule is unusual compared to most traffic situations where one has to yield the right of way. At a yield sign, one typically yields to traffic coming from the driver's left. When entering a highway, one yields to traffic on their left. When making a right turn on red, one yields to traffic on their left after coming to a full stop.

Only when coming to a 4-way stop are the right-of-way rules reversed it seems.

> whereas traffic can get "starved" trying to enter a roundabout.

One thing that's done in the UK is to add traffic lights at the entrances to busy roundabouts. When traffic gets heavy, the activate the traffic lights to regulate traffic flow to prevent the starvation scenario that you mention. To me, that's the best of both worlds where one isn't legally required to stop even when there's no traffic approaching.

They do exist in Germany.

I won't dispute it because of the general "If you've never seen a black swan, is that proof that none exists? (No)" fallacy, but speaking as a German, I cannot remember having seen one in Germany, ever. So even if one exists it's an exceedingly rare thing.

When I lived in the US I always found it unnecessary that everybody has to stop. In Germany we always have a "main" road and a "secondary" road, and those on the main road don't have to stop. That priority pattern is kept from major roads to tiny roads. Then there's the "right before left" rule when the roads are equal - creating a priority without signs and without "everybody has to stop" rule.

In the places where I see four-way stop, there is some constant but not heavy traffic during parts of the day, so if you had a primary / secondary road with only a two-way stop, the secondary road would not flow well. However, the traffic was not high enough to warrant a signal.

This makes sense to me, and I don't see how other systems would be anything but worse. A signal would have a short cycle and only delay people during large parts of the day, a two-way stop would cause problems in one direction, it seems excessive to tear out a bunch of road to put concrete in, etc.

It is of course very natural that the roads in the US are built to completely different standards than Germany, given how incredibly different the layout of US cities are from German ones, broadly speaking.

Almost every such intersection in Germany was replaced with roundabouts, afaik. Perfect use case for them.

Australia is more similar to the US than Germany, but we don't have four way stops here; they case is provided for by roundabouts. Even still perhaps we have less because we rarely have pure grids.

I went to check on google maps, I suspect I misremembered and it was a 4 way priority loosing (downwards triangle), but the road markings are mostly worn out (but I think they are 4 dashed lines, not continuous), and Germany being Germany, I can't use google street view.

St Peter Strasse / Von der Tann Strasse in Rorhbach in Heidelberg.

Sorry for causing a stir with my bad memory, I remembered that from my French point of view that would cause a deadlock.

I'm guessing they actually do exist almost everywhere, but they are rare, and only typical in very slow traffic areas such as residential block intersections (see google map in next post) where you can't motivate building a roundabout or adding lights. Anywhere else they would be replaced by either traffic lights or a roundabout.

Most importantly, you would avoid at almost any cost to cross two rural roads in a flat 4 way crossing. This is exactly where there is ample space to make a roundabout.

In the Netherlands, a 4 four stop would lead to an instant deadlock. I.e., if you reach a stop sign then all traffic on the road you approaching has priority.

There are no rules for solving this conflict. Because you cannot have two roads that have priority over each other.

The Dutch equivalent of a 4 way stop is a raised intersection. Basically an intersection that is one big speed bump. Traffic is forced to slow down but otherwise normal priority rules apply.

> In the Netherlands, a 4 four stop would lead to an instant deadlock. I.e., if you reach a stop sign then all traffic on the road you approaching has priority.

In a 4 way the same priority rules apply thatwould have applied if there were no stop signs. Obviously the signs have to make clear to everyone that it is a 4 way stop, so that you don't have 4 cars all thinkning they are in a 2 way stop. This is usually done with an additional sign under the STOP sign. After that it just works like any no-stop intersection, you yield to e.g. the car to the right (Sweden) or the first car to arrive (US) etc.

The issue is that you can get in a situation with a car on each road. One of the drivers then has to signal the car on his left that he gives up his right of way. This is the same across the EU.

That happens all the time. But the point is that it's no worse because of the stop signs. Even without 4 stop signs you can have 4 cars stopped. This isn't a "bad" situation or a deadlock, this is a very safe situation and just means cars will have to crawl out in the crossing while making eye contact and taking some kind of turn driving. Now, if this happens regularly then the junction is much too trafficed for being a planar 4 way - with or without stops. Should be a roundabout in this case. But 4 stopsigns does not make an automatic deadlock. You don't need a rule to decide who goes first in that situation.

The same can be seen in any intersection with red lights, as soon as the red lights don't work. You just crawl into the intersection, trying to take turns. It works.

The thing is, in the Netherlands, you could not use a stop sign for that, because a stop sign does not mean "stop and then crawl out into the intersection while maintaining eye contact with other drivers", it means "stop and give way to the road with the higher priority". A proper traffic code should always provide a consistent way to approach any given sign.

If there's no working traffic lights and no stop signs, a different set of rules come into play.

> The thing is, in the Netherlands, you could not use a stop sign for that, because a stop sign does not mean "stop and then crawl out into the intersection while maintaining eye contact with other drivers", it means "stop and give way to the road with the higher priority". A proper traffic code should always provide a consistent way to approach any given sign.

The normal solution (used e.g. in Sweden) is to simply add a supplemental sign saying "multi-way stop" under the stop sign. https://d3h4jqp4au0mzy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/201...

I was taught that the shape of the stop sign is octagon (and yield triangle) because you can recognize the shape from behind. The main road doesn't need to have the diamond priority sign. You know you have priority if the you see the octagon or triangular shape on adjoining roads.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here...

Imagine driving towards an intersection. There is no sign telling you if you have priority or not. There is a red car coming from the right. Then you notice that the red car has a stop sign in front of him (you recognize the shape). You infer that you are on the main road and you can ignore the right-hand rule.

Sorry, I understood what you meant, just not what the relevance was. What you are saying applies, and applies universally (regardless of whether there also exists multi-way-stops).

That there is no need for supplemental signs I guess.

Either you have a regular stop intersection, in which case there are octagonal stop signs on the roads that do not have priority. No supplemental signs needed. A driver stopping at the stop sign knows that when the intersection is clear he can drive. If it's a 4 way and he's turning left, he may have to yield to a driver on the opposite road, depending on the local laws (In a right hand yield priority the car turning left yields to the car in the opposite road).

Or it's a multi-way-stop (which is rare) in which case all roads have the supplemental sign. None of the roads have priority and all drivers can do to resolve deadlocks is be careful. All the supplemental sign does is inform drivers that OTHER drivers will also stop. It just removes the ambiguity we talked about above - where a driver at a stop sign might otherwise think he can't drive until the intersection is completely clear.

A stop sign means stop and give way to the cars on the main road, or if the other road has same priority, to the cars on your right. If there are no cars, you are free to enter the junction. A road with a yield sign and a road with a stop sign are of the same priority and right-hand rule applies. Unless you are in Croatia where people universally refuse to accept this simple rule and consider the stop sign as having lower priority "because that car has to stop".

It's the same situation when there are no signs. Then all roads have same priority and you give way to the vehicle on your right. If 4 vehicles come to the intersection at the same time then every vehicle has another vehicle on their right and it's a standstill. If I remember correctly in such situations drivers need to communicate and one vehicle should go first to resolve the situation.

I don't think so. The literal text from the StVo for the STOP sign (VZ 206) is

    Ge- oder Verbot

    1. Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, muss anhalten und Vorfahrt gewähren.

And that strongly implies that at least one of the other streets has the right of way. I've also never seen one.

This is the same in the Czech Republic and the behavior should be the same as if there are no stop signs (except that you have to stop). One of the drivers have to give way to the one on his left and after he goes through, it's all clear.

Really? I've driven through much of Europe, and I've never seen a 4/all-way stop junction.

Edit: That came across as if I was simply trying to dispute your statement, but I am genuinely curious to see an example of this in Germany.

We have at least one in Sweden, https://goo.gl/maps/kYZpAcQnD3n, it also has the sign subtext "flervägsstopp" /"multi-road-stop".

Never seen one and I suspect that it would be illegal. The rules that govern which sign can go where in Germany are very detailed. And they are broken all the time, so I'm really not disputing the existence of counterexamples.

As a motorist, the 4-way stop is the most disruptive and maddeningly inefficient traffic control device in the municipality's tool chest. How much fuel and how many brake pads are consumed because towns just default to this kind of intersection. There are many better options (as others have listed in this thread) for almost all traffic situations. Always reaching for the 4-way stop is lazy and irritates motorists.

There are a lot of situations where a two way stop would cause traffic to get backed up in the direction of the stop sign.

A great example is a 4 way stop at my former high school. Twice a day, everyone came and left causing a bit of a traffic jam. A two way stop would leave people in one direction waiting indefinitely, whereas a 4 way kept things chugging along rather nicely in both directions.

That is an intersection that needs traffic lights. And if it's just twice a day, default the less used direction to red and have it switch to green only if a car is actually waiting.

As a european 4 way stops seem really inefficient to me. If the intersection isn't that busy a 2 way stop (or no stop at all) favouring the more frequently used road is the obvious choice. If it's a busy 4 way stop however, can you really keep track of when other cars arrived at the stop? And if it's busy enough that you have to yield to the car to your right, chances are that everyone has a car to their right - so vague negotiation between drivers is required. Nobody wins in that scenario.

Also, roundabouts are the superior 4 way stops.

There often isn't a "more frequently used road". If there were, it would probably be a 2-way stop.

Figuring out who goes next is not remotely as difficult as you have made it out to be. Where I used to live, I would go through two four-way stops twice each day during peak traffic. There are generally two scenarios when you approach the intersection. In light traffic, you get to the intersection and nobody else is waiting to cross, or it is obvious who got there first. In moderate traffic, you will queue up behind one or possibly two cars. Once you get to the front of the queue, you wait for the cars on your left and right that are already at the front of the queue, and then you go. This is simple because each direction of traffic alternates, and it is reasonably fast because the queues are very short.

The real worst case scenario is that during light traffic four cars approach simultaneously, but not only is this extremely rare, but it is not really even a problem when it happens.

In my personal experience I have had far, far more problems in US cities on two-way stops when I am bicycling and a driver incorrectly yields when they have right of way.

I suspect that most Americans feel the same way about roundabouts that, say, Germans feel about 4-way stops. But please remember that roundabouts require more land and much more capital investment. The tradeoffs in the US are different.

> Once you get to the front of the queue, you wait for the cars on your left and right that are already at the front of the queue, and then you go. This is simple because each direction of traffic alternates, and it is reasonably fast because the queues are very short.

Sounds like a high frequency traffic light, but less explicit.

Well, admittedly my experience with 4 way stops is nonexistent (never saw one in europe) and it may simply be a case of not being used to them, but I consider give-way intersections, 2 way stops, roundabouts and finally traffic lights as superior solutions - pretty much in that order and depending on how busy the intersection is. The goal should be to reduce breaking and full stops.

> Also, roundabouts are the superior 4-way stops.

Except on the “compact real estate” axis. A plain intersection is always going to be smaller.

I'm sorry, have you seen some of the British roundabouts? Where the "roundabout" is just a tiny circle painted in the middle? I'm sure it's not bigger than your normal intersection by any measurable standard, and at least everyone knows exactly what the priorities are, you literally can't get it wrong.

We've built something like that on neighborhood streets in the US in the name of "traffic calming". Usually, it's a planter or an island with a single tree. We still put up 2-way or 4-way stop signs though because traffic circles make our heads explode. In the end, all it really accomplishes is making it hard to see other vehicles at the intersection.

Yes it's very easy to keep track of who goes first.

Have a roundabout instead. Easy, safer, and less traffic jams. Seems objectively superior to me.

Are you just conveniently omitting the fact that roundabouts are more expensive and require more land, which may already be used by something else?

That is why mini-roundabouts were invented.

America doesn't really have those... they would be as alien and confusing as a four-way stop in Europe. I can't imagine it not being dangerous.

They exist in some parts of New England and in a few shopping centers in Texas. You're right about them confusing motorists though. New Englanders generally understand what to do, but I've seen many Texans just stop in the middle of the roundabout for no good reason. Maybe if more were built behavior would change.

I was surprised by three new mini traffic circles in Florida on a new road extension. The approaches are embellished with speed bumps. The bumps took away all enthusiasm for the thing.

(Cattlemen Rd in Sarasota)

they would be as alien and confusing as a four-way stop in Europe

For the first year or two perhaps, but I wonder if the long term pay-offs might be worth it.

You can find a few of these small roundabouts in Arlington, VA. There don't seem to be issues with them

Roundabout.

Because death is an acceptable trade-off for avoiding irritation - as long as it's not your death, of course.

What a bullshit response, he argues that there are a lot of better alternatives, not that there shouldn't be any safety precautions.

A roundabout is a much better solution than a stop sign. I still believe that the ubiquous stop signs in the US are there due to the oil lobby. Bringing a car to a full stop is incredibly wasteful.

For cyclists, roundabouts aren't that much better unless we're given separate lanes.

Motorists still tend to blow through roundabouts at speed if they can't see anything coming. From personal experience you can easily navigate a roundabout at 35+ mph.

"From personal experience you can easily navigate a roundabout at 35+ mph."

If a roundabout is small enough, you can't. I have seen many small roundabouts throughout Europe that you cannot navigate without swerving faster than 20-30 km/h (which is assumed safe speed for pedestrian).

Plus, at least in my region there always seems to be some sort of obstacle blocking sight in the center of larger roundabouts. Maybe it's just a convenient place for memorials, statues, etc., but I can't help but think that slowing down drivers is at least a welcome side effect.

The obstacles are intentional. Blocking sight forces people to slow down.

Roundabouts are the very last place where I would consider a bike lane to be a possible net win in safety. If the bike lane has priority at exits, then it will be constantly ignored, if it doesn't, then cyclists would be at the mercy of exciting drivers never forgetting to indicate, resulting in similar bloodshed. Besides being totally shitty towards cyclists who would then have to yield three times for going left at a crossroad-equivalent, at a very uncomfortable viewing angle and with permanent risk of un-indicated exits.

I've been curious as to why American roundabouts include unnecessary vegetation or a hill in the middle? Why obscure oncoming traffic?

If it's a roundabout, the traffic across the roundabout is not actually oncoming, it's the traffic approaching from your left around the roundabout that you need to watch out for.

The obstruction in the middle also makes the existence of a roundabout more obvious.

Here‘s an example of how they are handled in Germany:

https://goo.gl/maps/cmLVxuhViyF2

The space it requires is not much bigger than the traffic light. That town replaced many of its intersections with roundabouts even in central and older parts of the city.

(You might say they went a little overboard with it, looking at the southern limits near that hospital.)

Look at what they have in Berkeley. It addresses exactly this situation

It might be wasteful, but so is killing people.

Stop signs and some speed bumps would soon slow them.

True, but as I pointed out, so would a roundabout. In the area where I grew up we also had a dangerous piece of road that got "fixed" by setting up a "dangerous curve" sign with a warning light on top. It went from multiple fatalities every year to zero.

Having lived near a very similar intersection, also with frequent accidents (it has a 2-way stop with heavy 50-70 mph cross-traffic and frequent left turns, depending on the time of day), cost may be a significant portion of the reason; a neighborhood campaign to replace the 2-way stop with a traffic light fell through due to a >$1 million price tag for adding a light to a countryside road, and it's doubtful a roundabout would cost less.

Anecdata: fixing frequent accident sites (e.g. 70 kph main road x 50 kph access roads) with traffic lights reduces minor accidents, but there was a major accident on one of them just recently...because "traffic lights be damned, nobody ever comes out that road anyw-BOOM." Traffic lights are a discretionary access control mechanism ("ignore at your discretion"), roundabout is a mandatory access control mechanism.

I wonder if that happened because the traffic light was just on a timer rather than taking actual traffic in account. If the smaller road hardly ever sees traffic the light would be red very infrequently and getting your attention when red.

It's a timer, yes - but if you do not have enough attention to see two RED lights on an otherwise empty intersection (one overhead and one right at your eye level), you have no business being behind the wheel, as you either a) are legally blind, or b) have the attention span of a proverbial goldfish.

The suggestion that anything important should be screaming and blinking (otherwise the poor driver couldn't have noticed) is patently ridiculous. There's quite a lot of other, less conspicuous things that a driver needs to be aware of (such as pedestrians or potholes).

A roundabout might cost less. I wonder how much of that signal price was getting grid electricity to the site.

Interestingly, there is a flashing red/yellow light there (similar to [1]) and plenty of houses/powerlines, so it shouldn't be the power costs. I imagine the price of buying and laying signal cable might be similarly expensive, however, as the nearest signaled intersection is about two miles away, if I recall correctly.

[1] https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/other_topics/fhwasa...

A roundabout is always the best solution, but it's very expensive. Replacing the "Give Way" by a stop sign costs almost nothing and would probably help a lot, although not for truly reckless drivers.

Traffic lights chop up traffic flow, creating windows of opportunity for turns and crossings at minor intersections downstream. Roundabouts on the other hand create bottlenecks of relatively constant throughput, smoothing out any pulsation in traffic density (e.g. from upstream traffic lights), which makes minor downstream intersections much more difficult.

Determining the best option for a given case is more an at than a matter of simple preferences.

I agree. A roundabout is also a much better than solution presented in the article, whereby traffic would have to turn across oncoming traffic in order to continue on their original track.

I have roundabouts in my neighborhood. They have the exact same problem. If you don't come to a full stop and/or look around your A pillar deliberately, you may never see the car or bike hidden behind it.

I've also had the same problem turning onto a crossroad without coming to a complete stop at the stop sign first.

I believe the only real solution is driver training.

Training is important, but the idea behind roundabouts is "we'll have plenty of collisions here, but all of them will be 30km/h or less".

Obviously you want to having bicycles or pedestrians in your roundabout so adding a bike/pedestrian path next to the roads has to be part of the plan if you want to do it right.

But you modulate speed and rotate the car while navigating the roundabout, which solves the constant speed/constant bearing problem. At a roundabout, blind spots are all over the place and will never perfectly track another traffic participant.

Roundabouts and 4-way stops are used in different situations - a 4-way stop is typically used in residential neighborhoods or street grids where the roads are only single-lane and the lack of available space prohibits a roundabout.

In Europe the residential area would either 1. Have no signs resulting in the car to the right getting the right of way 2. One road gets a right of way sign and the other road had to yield.

I strongly prefer those setups because they are much more fuel efficient.

However, I don't think any of that would work in the UD because it would require real driving classes and tests. I had to drive around for close to 20 hours with a professional driving teacher on to of dozens of hours of theoretical classes. All that end in a 30min+ examination with a examiner in the back of the car putting me through as many challenging situations as possible.

In the urban eastern U.S. apartment buildings usually run right up to the road, except a ~ 1-3meter sidewalk. There isn't sufficient visibility to yield safely; both directions have to come to a stop anyway to check for cross traffic.

In the western U.S. (and eastern suburbs) the 4-way stops are largely vestigial; I'd agree that most of them could go away without any loss of safety. Many of the newer neighborhoods are signed that way anyway, though - I just drove through one this morning with 2-way yields.

My driver's ed class was IIRC 36 hours of instruction and 12 hours in the car, with a professional driving teacher. It had an hour long examination putting me through as many challenging situations as possible at the end.

It's also a matter of being used to bicycle traffic, and training. In the Netherlands in a residential area there are probably more bicycles than cars, so every car driver is used to being careful at junctions.

And on average a person needs 38 hours in the car with a professional teacher before they pass the exam, most people don't pass on the first try.

Most middle- and upper-class Americans take a driver’s education course (like what you’ve described) prior to receiving their driver’s license. In 10 years it won’t even be necessary because nobody’s going to be driving themselves anyway.

A lot of the cars on the road right now are ten years old or older. Even if self driving cars became a thing that anybody can afford right now it would take longer than ten years before nobody had to drive themselves.

In my country (Finland), the average age of cars used in traffic is 13 years.

Except pedestrians, bikers, cyclists, etcetera. (Plus you are overestimating the rate of change: I still see horse carriages on the road, 100+ years after the beginning of the car era)

And don't get me started on driver ed in PA, USA: in my case, it consisted of a video, signing an drivers' permit application - and voila, go out there and drive (under supervision). I was shocked, shocked.

In the UK you can get a provisional license that allows supervised driving with zero training. It's assumed your supervisor (anyone holding a driving licence for something like 7 years or more) will stop you doing stupid shit.

Interesting. I was so used to the continental idea "driver school takes at least weeks and is like any other training, except it's in a car" that the opposite approach was highly unexpected to me; it does make sense though.

>> In 10 years it won’t even be necessary because nobody’s going to be driving themselves anyway.

Try 50+ years. Driverless cars aren't happening anytime soon, and certainly not to a level where you literally don't need a licence to drive one.

And public transport definitely isn't going to be taking up the slack given the catastrophic decline in public investment therein.

There are plenty junctions that have been turned into a roundabout simply by painting a circle in the middle and putting up the necessary signs. They don't need that much space, especially in places that are low speed, low traffic volume like residential neighbourhoods.

Indeed, a stop sign would solve this, wouldn’t it? Simplist & cheapest solution first. The point about the geometry is that it doesn’t matter at which point the driver can see over the hill and brush; they still won’t see the cyclist.

Apparently not. I had a very similar junction outside my house where cars crashed constantly though usually non fatally as it was in a 30 zone. I wrote to the road engineer folk asking for a stop sign and apparently motorists don't take much more notice than of give ways. In the end the cross roads were replaced with two mini roundabouts which have fixed the problem. Physical obstacles are much better at making cars slow down than signs.

The UK hates stop signs.

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

Most UK cities will have one single stop sign somewhere, just so that the driving lessons can go past one.

I thought only the US loved stop signs.

Poland also loves stop signs. Actually, Poland just loves signs in general which is a problem: https://d-w24.ppstatic.pl/g2/6b/6f/65/116789_1258901612_33ec...

Well, one reason for that amount of signage is that there are multiple roads from the right and some of those signs only extend to the next junction. There's simply no way to have fewer of those signs. Same for the pedestrian crossings.

Some of the signs are only relevant to pedestrians and cyclists, or motorists looking for a place to park, so it's not that bad.

It can be way better. Some ideas:

- pedestrian/cyclists signs can be made on the pavement instead

- which lane goes where is repeated 3 times - if it's so that you know them when you join the road, 2 can be moved to the side roads instead

- one of the right of way signs can go

- no parking can be replaced with a chain / bolards

- the end of pedestrian/cyclist path is useless since it's reopened after the crossing

Poland puts the repeated signs after each and every tiny side road. Many countries don't do that. Instead they rely on more informative big signs over the intersections that can be visible from further away.

I'm not sure the signs on the pavement have the same meaning as the actual signs. In many places (Germany for example) »signs« on the ground are merely a courtesy (e.g. the 30 in 30 zones), but not legally binding, and the actual signs define the rules.

They're called horizonal and vertical signs in Poland and they are binding. The solid line between lanes counts as a horizontal sign as well.

Wow, that is crazy! Now imagine those were US style signs that are covered in text instead abstract symbols...

Thanks for the link but it doesn't say why?

There are stop signs now (as of June 2017) and STOP markings in the road. Streetview shows old imagery from 2015 when viewed from the offending road but Beaulieu Rd. is newer.

In the US, they would put up a stop sign and park a cop near there for some instant, costly learning experiences. Although, if the speed is sufficient you would probably get an overpass, particularly if one road is a known truck route. It would be interesting to build a bicycle only overpass.

The US also tends to overuse stop signs when a yield (give way) sign would suffice. That is, if there is sufficient visibility of approaching traffic, coming to a complete stop is not necessary to safely yield to any conflicting traffic. Also, coming to a complete stop and then proceeding isn't sufficient to properly yield to approaching traffic.

In the end, stop signs end up being treated like yield signs. The only time they're properly treated like stop signs is when it's not possible to see cross traffic before you approach the intersection.

In the end, stop signs end up being treated like yield signs.

This definitely varies based on where in the US you are. In California almost no one comes to a complete stop. (That's probably why rolling through a stop sign is called a "California Roll"). But in many other parts of the country people do, even if there are no cars around.

Some of this may be that stop signs in California tend to be more superfluous.

In New England & NYC, a 4-way stop is usually used for urban neighborhoods where single-lane, low-traffic streets meet. Roundabouts and slip lanes are space-prohibitive in these situations (they'd have to go through privately-owned lots), traffic lights are overkill given the light traffic, and visibility is insufficient for a safe 2-way stop or yield.

In CA and other western states, these same neighborhoods are usually suburban houses with lawns, and even the apartment buildings have setbacks from the street. A yield would work fine, but either for habit or consistency, it's signed as a 4-way stop. Drivers feel like they have good visibility and it should be a yield, though, and so they roll through it.

While I may California Roll occasionally, at a yield sign I may not slow at all, or only slow enough to safely make a turn. So there's definitely a difference between the two, even if you treat the stop sign as "just a guideline". Stop means go slow enough that you can make a complete stop if you see police in the intersection. "Oops, missed the limit line by a couple feet, but I was totally always gonna stop."

>In California almost no one comes to a complete stop. (That's probably why rolling through a stop sign is called a "California Roll").

It probably depends on where in CA. Have been living in Bay Area, mid-Peninsula, for 18 years and i've so far seen most people (and myself included) do complete stops. And just recently saw police stopped and cited a cyclist for the "California Roll" in Los Altos.

I know that practice by the name "California Stop"[1]

[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=california%2...

In my experience driving through many states in the eastern part of the US, it's not really any different compared to your description of how drivers in California deal with stop signs.

> The US also tends to overuse stop signs when a yield (give way) sign would suffice. That is, if there is sufficient visibility of approaching traffic, coming to a complete stop is not necessary to safely yield to any conflicting traffic.

From TFA there already is a give-way sign - drivers who should be yielding think they have good visibility, blast through the intersection at full speed, and kill somebody. The article suggests this could be due to the CBRD phenomenon.

Even if people treated the stop sign as a rolling stop sign, slowing down seems like it would help, at least WRT drivers not seeing people due to CBRD.

Of course there are fancier (more expensive) engineering solutions too.

Even then, they're still not treated like stop signs. Drivers blow past the sign up to the farthest possible point and only stop there, if at all. In particular they speed right over the pedestrian crossing without looking.

That's because in America you grandma can legally teach you how to drive and so you learn all her bad habits. It's a feature, not a bug. And your driving test might cover this type of intersection or it might not. The testing is like 50 out of 5000 possible questions. Again, it's a feature (of idiocy) not a bug.

I personally know maybe one other person, who knows that the location of the stop sign defines a line perpendicular to your lane and you're supposed to stop completely before this imaginary line. Almost no one knows this is the law. And sure as fuck no one actually does it.

I'd love to have a light saber for the sole purpose of cutting off everyone's goddamn front end of their car right along this imaginary line. Oh, your front seat is in the imaginary line? So sad...

> the location of the stop sign defines a line perpendicular to your lane and you're supposed to stop completely before this imaginary line. Almost no one knows this is the law.

I am inclined not to believe this. I have been told by a traffic cop before that if there is no marked stop line or crosswalk, there is no legally defined point where the stop must happen: it's just a "use reasonable judgment" kind of thing.

That was in NC. The following is apparently a quote from a statute in Washington State that contradicts your statement:

“every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering a marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway.”

Can you point to a statute somewhere supporting your claim?

driver of a vehicle shall stop at a stop sign or at a clearly marked stop line before entering the intersection, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169.30

And stopping right before the stop sign is what I was taught in driver's ed, not by my grandma.

One of the joys of driving in the U.S. is every state has it's own driving laws and while they're substantially the same, they are by far not identical (see lane splitting in California vs everywhere else, and turning right on red).

Also you'll find some states will define the intersection as including sidewalks, which is why you'll usually find the stop sign placed right before the sidewalk, not after it. http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross...

Actually, you can't pass the line with your wheels without coming to a full stop, so you have to account for the engine overhang, you can't just zap the cars at the line with your lightsaber... :-P

This CBDR problem would seem to imply that we actually don't underuse stop signs. I bet if you found a similar junction in the US you'd find a much higher rate of accidents because we're all so lousy at driving.

Americans don't do yield signs very well except in the most obvious situations that shouldn't even need yield signs, like highway on ramps, and intersections with islands creating curved right turn lanes. Americans barely have competency at four way stops, the main way who goes next is figured out is someone launching from a rolling stop before the others. There's also often hand waiving, honking, and lights flashing because people are just plain ignorant the actual law, or even common sense.

And traffic circles? Fuck that's super confusing! Americans would rather get into accidents at a four way stop than be confused in a traffic circle. That's why traffic circles are so uncommon.

I’ve personally rarely encountered issues with yielding. Four-way stops are another issue, and any driver in the U.S. has probably encountered them, but they’re solveable issues with basic driver courtesy. They assume basic understanding and cognizance to prevent incidents, but nothing more is strictly required.

The greatest number of accidents I’ve seen have been at stop lights rather than stop signs, weirdly. Driver apprehension and cautiousness at four-way stops may actually prevent more incidents than other systems.

I encounter problems with yielding nearly every day, but I think it has more to do with road design. The yield is on a very long acceleration ramp and it is placed towards the front of the ramp. Then there is a merge sign near the end of the ramp.

I think the idea is that you should yield and only go when it is clear. But because of the length of the ramp, I think they are legally required to have a merge sign there. Invariably people fail to yield, and, since it is uphill, 'merge' into 45 mph traffic at 20 mph. And by merge I mean they just drive on and expect people to stay out of their way.

I have way more problems with people turning on red at the worst possible moment (despite lots of previous safe opportunities) than I do with yield signs though. But I don't doubt the GP's experience either. Drivers are very different in different states and regions of the U.S.

When the sight lines are blocked, the false sense of safety which is undermined by theconstant speed/constant bearing blind spot simply would not happen. If you don't think that you know that the other road is empty (because you can't see it), a yield sign is enough.

Blocking the view? Strange, I think the views to the road that crosses this one are remarkably open here. Before looking at this, I thought there could be some hedges or such for which England is famous, but I can't think of any excuse for why a driver doesn't see a bike when approaching from [1] or [2]. The visibility is very good.

>> The 'Give Way' sign is idiotic, put a Stop sign on the other, flatter road, or make it a 4-way stop. The drivers causing accidents were blowing through the intersection, and shame on the wording of the law that they were able to weasel out of harsher punishment.

It seems the cyclists are blowing through the intersection as well. To me the problem is simply that it's an uncontrolled intersection where nobody is required to stop. Why blame the driver so much?

The cyclists were on the road that has priority, whereas the motorists were on roads were they are required to give way. Should the road user who has priority give way to the road user who doesn't?

100% agreed. This is just basic common sense: don't take a junction at a speed greater than 20km/h, no matter what. That's it. I slow down instinctively at junctions. I literally cannot see the other road because of trees/buildings. How can I assume it is clear?

Same is true for bicyclists. Slow. The. Fuck. Down. At. Intersections.

For low volume intersections, roundabouts are great at avoiding accidents.

The math is wrong. It ignores binocular vision and normal head motion.

4-way-stops aren't really 4-way stops. Nobody stops at them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com