5 ms·

> There's also the general problem with stop signs that if you do stop before the line as you're technically supposed to, then most times you can't actually see

> There's also the general problem with stop signs that if you do stop before the line as you're technically supposed to, then most times you can't actually see oncoming vehicle traffic. In these cases there's usually some other violation that is occurring, e.g., cars parked too close to the intersection, or shrubbery not properly cut back. As you note, the result is often they have to go beyond the stop sign. Even worse, I often end up so far in the street that if there was a car that was within its lane, but on the right-most side of it, they'd hit me (fortunately most drivers are aware enough to stop).

mindslight 1y ago
Sure, or the "violation" is by the city who would have to spend money to fix the intersection, thus they're incentivized to ignore it. I think the general problem is that the presence of the stop sign and the 80-99% case (depending on the area/intersection) being to only worry about cars creates a type of blindness to pedestrians when they are there. Rather than these devices, I would say it would be more effective to install flashing lights on or around the stop sign, that turn on to signal a pedestrian is crossing. (of course that would now be a bit of an uphill battle owing to the signs with the lights that flash all the time)
- ryandrake 1y ago
  Yea, then we have flashing lights all over the place and people become blind to them, too.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    I recognized that in my last parenthetical sentence, as we've now got stop signs that flash all the time for similar "must do something" reasons. My point was specifically to only draw attention when it's warranted, to avoid that kind of fatigue. Like I think the crosswalks with flashing yellow lights when pedestrians are crossing are ridiculous overkill, but they don't add to my oversignage fatigue because they only demand that attention when the attention is needed.

mindslight 1y ago

Sure, or the "violation" is by the city who would have to spend money to fix the intersection, thus they're incentivized to ignore it. I think the general problem is that the presence of the stop sign and the 80-99% case (depending on the area/intersection) being to only worry about cars creates a type of blindness to pedestrians when they are there. Rather than these devices, I would say it would be more effective to install flashing lights on or around the stop sign, that turn on to signal a pedestrian is crossing. (of course that would now be a bit of an uphill battle owing to the signs with the lights that flash all the time)

ryandrake 1y ago
Yea, then we have flashing lights all over the place and people become blind to them, too.
- mindslight 1y ago
  I recognized that in my last parenthetical sentence, as we've now got stop signs that flash all the time for similar "must do something" reasons. My point was specifically to only draw attention when it's warranted, to avoid that kind of fatigue. Like I think the crosswalks with flashing yellow lights when pedestrians are crossing are ridiculous overkill, but they don't add to my oversignage fatigue because they only demand that attention when the attention is needed.