Quote:
Originally Posted by Thymeclock
I think perhaps you miss the point.
In the suburbs of NY City, where there is literally a stop sign covering one of the streets at every intersection it becomes a reasonable assumption that the other street has a required stop for it. Here the state hands out driver's licenses like candy. In fact, much of the immigrant population is simply driving without licenses and there is no way to stop them, let alone insist that they be knowledgeable operators.
OTOH, yield signs leave no room for assumption. I mean, "what part of the word YIELD do you not understand?"  
It may be questionable whether someone may have stopped or not. But if they hit someone, it's self-evident that they didn't yield. |
Hey, I'm an advocate for leaving the signs there, but you can't blame traffic signals for driver ignorance.
I got the point exactly as you displayed it, and I concluded from your information that there was none other than a lack of attention applied in that situation. Both drivers "assumed" that the other would stop (speculation in it's own right - they're both dead), and neither apparently slowed down or even glanced to see if there was a stop sign at any other corner of the intersection. It's driver error, nothing more.
If no intersection had stop signs, the same idea applies... there is no assumption that the intersection has a stop sign, because the majority of them do not. It removes any "wiggle room" by simply making the driver more attentive to whether or not they're correctly timed for the intersection to miss all other traffic, and then, that driver can make an informed decision as to whether to slow down, speed up, stop, or have a heart attack.
Therefore, since the proper assumption should be to yield, in ANY circumstance, no sign is necessary to elicit the intended response, which is why, thus far anyway, the no-sign tests haven't been brought to issue.