5 ms·

I've never heard an anti stop sign opinion before. I don't know what to think.

elliottkember 5y ago
It's not anti-stop sign. Stop signs absolutely have their place. The opinion is against the misuse of stop-signs, where other forms of traffic control are more effective. Unfortunately a grid system lends itself to 4-way stop signs because two roads at a right angle are equal. In a tree-shaped road system (like in much of the world) you have a main road and a side road. The side road gives way.
- AuthorizedCust 5y ago
  It is anti-stop sign in the sense that it’s rational to ask for the vast majority to be deleted. The abuse is that rampant. Two-way yields can work fine on grid patterns.
zionic 5y ago
I've been saying this for a long time too. The VAST majority of stop-signs in the US should be replaced by yield signs. Also roundabouts are far superior, even many 4-way light intersections could be replaced with them.
- pmontra 5y ago
  In my European experience roundabouts are better for cars safety, worse for bicycle safety (cars are driven closer to bikes), use up more land, increment gas consumption (almost stop and then go vs just go). The latter point could be debated because it's worse for the cars on the main road, better for the ones on the small ones.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    At least in the Dutch roundabouts I’ve seen that people hold up as a standard, bicycles are not supposed to take the lane but instead have a separated path along the perimeter. I think the grandparent comment is also coming from the US, where all-way stop intersections are extremely common.
    - Aerroon 5y ago
      Is there a cyclist road all around the roundabout then that easy to get on and off?
      - pmontra 5y ago
        Usually not. Bicycle roads are a pain if the road they run along has many intersections and roundabouts. You loose so much time and you don't have an engine to go back to speed. I usually stay on the road but I'm doing at least 25 km/h. Families or people with low saddles usually do half that speed and bike lanes are good for them.
      - bobthepanda 5y ago
        You would probably be in the protected path separated from the road to begin with. Reference: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/a-modern-amsterdam-roundabout/amp/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/a-modern-amste...
      - orthoxerox 5y ago
        Yes. The Netherlands have standalone bicycle paths as the standard. Not a line on the sidewalk, not a lane on the road, but a completely separate path that is designed to avoid both pedestrians and cars.
  - wyre 5y ago
    Roundabouts would use less gas compared to stop signs or lights. A car is going to use the most fuel when it goes from stopped to moving. A roundabout will reduce the amount of cars that have to come to a complete stop, unlike a stop sign or light where stopping is mandatory.
  - occz 5y ago
    >In my European experience roundabouts are better for cars safety Correct - roundabouts reduce traffic fatalities in intersections quite signficantly. >worse for bicycle safety (cars are driven closer to bikes) I think this probably depends on design - if cyclists have a separated path with a raised crossing, then they are likely safer than intersections. >use up more land, Arguably true. >increment gas consumption (almost stop and then go vs just go). The latter point could be debated because it's worse for the cars on the main road, better for the ones on the small ones. Roundabouts generally replace signalled intersections, and compared to those, roundabouts are probably better (slow down/yield vs full speed/full stop).
  - traceroute66 5y ago
    There is no contest. Roundabouts are better than silly multi-way stops any day of the week. There are hundreds of reasons why. But I'll just name the most obvious one that you've missed. Traffic volume. Multi-way stops just kill traffic throughput. Its a hard fact. You make each vehicle stop. Meanwhile roundabouts can safely and efficiently move staggering amounts of traffic. Want to move more traffic ? Add an extra lane or two. P.S. As for the bicycle saftey... Historically yes, but only to a degree, because I'd argue that if you can't manage to avoid hitting a bicycle on a roundabout then you probably should not be driving because you are most likely also committing lots of other dangerous driving offences elsewhere. Going forward however, it should be stressed that a lot more attention is being paid to cyclist safety, both in terms of further re-enforcing driver awareness (i.e. more prominent in driver training and examination) but also in terms of vehicle design (especially HGVs) and roundabout design. I could also argue that with a multi-way stop, perhaps especially at night or in inclement weather or where HGVs are at play, that your cyclist might not be immune to death or injury.
    - bsder 5y ago
      > Meanwhile roundabouts can safely and efficiently move staggering amounts of traffic. I don't find this to be accurate--at least in the US and in my limited experience in the UK. In computer terms, roundabouts don't guarantee progress under contention. Roundabouts seem to work when there is semi-continuous, medium-level amounts of traffic. They are better than stop signs, better than unsensored signals, and probably comparable to sensored traffic signals (which are more expensive). However, once the traffic becomes high, roundabouts are TERRIBLE. Stop signs and controlled intersections at least guarantee some progress while someone may sit at a roundabout entrance almost indefinitely since "give way to traffic on the roundabout" is the normal rule. This is particularly bad when you are entering a roundabout between the most popular inlet and the most popular outlet.
      - timthorn 5y ago
        At very busy roundabouts in the UK, drivers usually yield in turn to traffic joining that in theory they have priority over.
  - brimble 5y ago
    As more roundabouts have appeared in my boring flyover city in the last decade (from ~none to quite a few) I have started wondering what it's doing to my tire balance and suspension.
- dataflow 5y ago
  I have a hard time wrapping my head around this. I can understand removing stop signs in some parking lots, for example, but I have a hard time imagining removing the ones at cross street intersections, even if they're converted to yields. When people talk about removing stop signs, I imagine they'd include streets like [1], and I don't understand how that's supposed to work. Could you link to a good example of a street or two on Google Street View that is an actual public street (not a parking lot or such), and where speed limits are (say) over 15mph, where you think removing stop signs would be a good idea? Maybe my imagination is just lacking but I don't see what people are thinking of. [1] https://goo.gl/maps/TGdwEAmXLCU43Gpj9 https://goo.gl/maps/TGdwEAmXLCU43Gpj9
  - orthoxerox 5y ago
    One road gets a diamond priority sign, the other gets an inverted triangle yield sign. For example, the road going up and down the slope would get priority signs and the road going across the slope would get yield signs. Actually, in this case they might leave it with stop signs, because the visibility is quite bad.
jason-phillips 5y ago
> I've never heard an anti stop sign opinion before. I don't know what to think. It's literally how I learned to drive in Europe. They have right of way signs, not stop signs. You stop and wait if someone else has the right of way.
- cm2012 5y ago
  That's just a stop sign by a different name, no?
  - brewdad 5y ago
    Technically, you don't have to stop if the primary road is clear. In practice, you will end up stopping, so it's exactly like a US 2-way stop without the fear of getting ticketed should you roll through it during off-hours.
    - cm2012 5y ago
      Ah, we have that in the US as a yield sign. The problem is a huge portion of stop signs have horrible visibility so you have to stop and creep up to see if you need to yield first.
alar44 5y ago
Same here. No idea what the hell this thread is about. I've never thought there were too few stop signs or too many. They have never been a problem in my life. To me this is like having a strong opinion on the thickness of a street curb or something. Weird thread.
- syntheticcorp 5y ago
  Are you aware which website you’re on? Having strong opinions on esoteric topics is a HN mainstay. Also as a non-American driving in the US made me think about a lot of things I wouldn’t otherwise consider. (Yes you have too many stop signs)
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  There are places that just have way fewer stop signs. Seattle has a lot of local residential street intersections with no stop signs (or yield signs either). When I was living in Munich, same deal.
- grecy 5y ago
  > They have never been a problem in my life Like the boiling lobster in the pot, they are a huge problem in your life, but you don't know it because you've never experienced life without them. Come to a country that doesn't have a single 4 way stop and instead has roundabouts (and people that know how to use them). I drive clear across town through 40+ intersections without stopping once. So does everyone else.

It's not anti-stop sign. Stop signs absolutely have their place. The opinion is against the misuse of stop-signs, where other forms of traffic control are more effective. Unfortunately a grid system lends itself to 4-way stop signs because two roads at a right angle are equal. In a tree-shaped road system (like in much of the world) you have a main road and a side road. The side road gives way.

AuthorizedCust 5y ago
It is anti-stop sign in the sense that it’s rational to ask for the vast majority to be deleted. The abuse is that rampant. Two-way yields can work fine on grid patterns.

zionic 5y ago

I've been saying this for a long time too. The VAST majority of stop-signs in the US should be replaced by yield signs. Also roundabouts are far superior, even many 4-way light intersections could be replaced with them.

pmontra 5y ago
In my European experience roundabouts are better for cars safety, worse for bicycle safety (cars are driven closer to bikes), use up more land, increment gas consumption (almost stop and then go vs just go). The latter point could be debated because it's worse for the cars on the main road, better for the ones on the small ones.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  At least in the Dutch roundabouts I’ve seen that people hold up as a standard, bicycles are not supposed to take the lane but instead have a separated path along the perimeter. I think the grandparent comment is also coming from the US, where all-way stop intersections are extremely common.
  - Aerroon 5y ago
    Is there a cyclist road all around the roundabout then that easy to get on and off?
    - pmontra 5y ago
      Usually not. Bicycle roads are a pain if the road they run along has many intersections and roundabouts. You loose so much time and you don't have an engine to go back to speed. I usually stay on the road but I'm doing at least 25 km/h. Families or people with low saddles usually do half that speed and bike lanes are good for them.
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      You would probably be in the protected path separated from the road to begin with. Reference: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/a-modern-amsterdam-roundabout/amp/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/a-modern-amste...
    - orthoxerox 5y ago
      Yes. The Netherlands have standalone bicycle paths as the standard. Not a line on the sidewalk, not a lane on the road, but a completely separate path that is designed to avoid both pedestrians and cars.
- wyre 5y ago
  Roundabouts would use less gas compared to stop signs or lights. A car is going to use the most fuel when it goes from stopped to moving. A roundabout will reduce the amount of cars that have to come to a complete stop, unlike a stop sign or light where stopping is mandatory.
- occz 5y ago
  >In my European experience roundabouts are better for cars safety Correct - roundabouts reduce traffic fatalities in intersections quite signficantly. >worse for bicycle safety (cars are driven closer to bikes) I think this probably depends on design - if cyclists have a separated path with a raised crossing, then they are likely safer than intersections. >use up more land, Arguably true. >increment gas consumption (almost stop and then go vs just go). The latter point could be debated because it's worse for the cars on the main road, better for the ones on the small ones. Roundabouts generally replace signalled intersections, and compared to those, roundabouts are probably better (slow down/yield vs full speed/full stop).
- traceroute66 5y ago
  There is no contest. Roundabouts are better than silly multi-way stops any day of the week. There are hundreds of reasons why. But I'll just name the most obvious one that you've missed. Traffic volume. Multi-way stops just kill traffic throughput. Its a hard fact. You make each vehicle stop. Meanwhile roundabouts can safely and efficiently move staggering amounts of traffic. Want to move more traffic ? Add an extra lane or two. P.S. As for the bicycle saftey... Historically yes, but only to a degree, because I'd argue that if you can't manage to avoid hitting a bicycle on a roundabout then you probably should not be driving because you are most likely also committing lots of other dangerous driving offences elsewhere. Going forward however, it should be stressed that a lot more attention is being paid to cyclist safety, both in terms of further re-enforcing driver awareness (i.e. more prominent in driver training and examination) but also in terms of vehicle design (especially HGVs) and roundabout design. I could also argue that with a multi-way stop, perhaps especially at night or in inclement weather or where HGVs are at play, that your cyclist might not be immune to death or injury.
  - bsder 5y ago
    > Meanwhile roundabouts can safely and efficiently move staggering amounts of traffic. I don't find this to be accurate--at least in the US and in my limited experience in the UK. In computer terms, roundabouts don't guarantee progress under contention. Roundabouts seem to work when there is semi-continuous, medium-level amounts of traffic. They are better than stop signs, better than unsensored signals, and probably comparable to sensored traffic signals (which are more expensive). However, once the traffic becomes high, roundabouts are TERRIBLE. Stop signs and controlled intersections at least guarantee some progress while someone may sit at a roundabout entrance almost indefinitely since "give way to traffic on the roundabout" is the normal rule. This is particularly bad when you are entering a roundabout between the most popular inlet and the most popular outlet.
    - timthorn 5y ago
      At very busy roundabouts in the UK, drivers usually yield in turn to traffic joining that in theory they have priority over.
- brimble 5y ago
  As more roundabouts have appeared in my boring flyover city in the last decade (from ~none to quite a few) I have started wondering what it's doing to my tire balance and suspension.
dataflow 5y ago
I have a hard time wrapping my head around this. I can understand removing stop signs in some parking lots, for example, but I have a hard time imagining removing the ones at cross street intersections, even if they're converted to yields. When people talk about removing stop signs, I imagine they'd include streets like [1], and I don't understand how that's supposed to work. Could you link to a good example of a street or two on Google Street View that is an actual public street (not a parking lot or such), and where speed limits are (say) over 15mph, where you think removing stop signs would be a good idea? Maybe my imagination is just lacking but I don't see what people are thinking of. [1] https://goo.gl/maps/TGdwEAmXLCU43Gpj9 https://goo.gl/maps/TGdwEAmXLCU43Gpj9
- orthoxerox 5y ago
  One road gets a diamond priority sign, the other gets an inverted triangle yield sign. For example, the road going up and down the slope would get priority signs and the road going across the slope would get yield signs. Actually, in this case they might leave it with stop signs, because the visibility is quite bad.

jason-phillips 5y ago

> I've never heard an anti stop sign opinion before. I don't know what to think. It's literally how I learned to drive in Europe. They have right of way signs, not stop signs. You stop and wait if someone else has the right of way.

cm2012 5y ago
That's just a stop sign by a different name, no?
- brewdad 5y ago
  Technically, you don't have to stop if the primary road is clear. In practice, you will end up stopping, so it's exactly like a US 2-way stop without the fear of getting ticketed should you roll through it during off-hours.
  - cm2012 5y ago
    Ah, we have that in the US as a yield sign. The problem is a huge portion of stop signs have horrible visibility so you have to stop and creep up to see if you need to yield first.

alar44 5y ago

Same here. No idea what the hell this thread is about. I've never thought there were too few stop signs or too many. They have never been a problem in my life. To me this is like having a strong opinion on the thickness of a street curb or something. Weird thread.

syntheticcorp 5y ago
Are you aware which website you’re on? Having strong opinions on esoteric topics is a HN mainstay. Also as a non-American driving in the US made me think about a lot of things I wouldn’t otherwise consider. (Yes you have too many stop signs)
TulliusCicero 5y ago
There are places that just have way fewer stop signs. Seattle has a lot of local residential street intersections with no stop signs (or yield signs either). When I was living in Munich, same deal.
grecy 5y ago
> They have never been a problem in my life Like the boiling lobster in the pot, they are a huge problem in your life, but you don't know it because you've never experienced life without them. Come to a country that doesn't have a single 4 way stop and instead has roundabouts (and people that know how to use them). I drive clear across town through 40+ intersections without stopping once. So does everyone else.