Cities without traffic signs

[luvit]

imagine this forum without mods... lol.
lol again.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Lazarus

Hmm. Seems to work in many cities where it's been implemented with fewer accidents.

There also studies that that with stop signs people drive faster to make up time from the previous stop or if it's an open area they will completely ignore the stops.

That is true. Over-regulation breeds contempt for the law, and scofflaw behavior.

Traffic circles are becoming more and more popular.

But that is unworkable for residential streets. (Which is where most of the stop signs are, and where I lose most of my FE in all-city driving.)

So please show me where this data is that has proved removing stop signs has been disastrous?

About a decade ago there was a horrendous fatal crash at one of very few, rare, intersections in my residential neighborhood that had no stop signs. Both drivers assumed the other would have a stop sign, since stop signs are posted for at least one of the streets at every intersection.

I'm very much against so-called "4-way stops". (Again, a feature of the "nanny state".) Often that leads to the assumption that the other driver must stop - sort of a game of "chicken" in reverse.

But YIELD signs ARE traffic control devices. And they keep traffic moving. Or they would, if they were to replace most stop signs, and if we could educate drivers that yield means YIELD!

[Christ]

They're kinda not really here most of the time... and the forum doesn't go to hell in a handbasket, either.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

That is true. Over-regulation breeds contempt for the law, and scofflaw behavior.



But that is unworkable for residential streets. (Which is where most of the stop signs are, and where I lose most of my FE in all-city driving.)



About a decade ago there was a horrendous fatal crash at one of very few, rare, intersections in my residential neighborhood that had no stop signs. Both drivers assumed the other would have a stop sign, since stop signs are posted for at least one of the streets at every intersection.

I'm very much against so-called "4-way stops". (Again, a feature of the "nanny state".) Often that leads to the assumption that the other driver must stop - sort of a game of "chicken" in reverse.

But YIELD signs ARE traffic control devices. And they keep traffic moving. Or they would, if they were to replace most stop signs, and if we could educate drivers that yield means YIELD!

Found the problem!

Wasn't the lack of stop sign, it was the lack of driver intelligence... they teach you to yield the right of way if you're not sure. If you have to assume, you're not sure, so you should yield. Simple as that.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Christ

Found the problem!

Wasn't the lack of stop sign, it was the lack of driver intelligence... they teach you to yield the right of way if you're not sure. If you have to assume, you're not sure, so you should yield. Simple as that.

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.

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by Christ

Found the problem!

Wasn't the lack of stop sign, it was the lack of driver intelligence... they teach you to yield the right of way if you're not sure. If you have to assume, you're not sure, so you should yield. Simple as that.

That's why it works. Everybody slows down because their not sure what the other driver is doing.

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by luvit

imagine this forum without mods... lol.
lol again.

Just like the city without signs. A thing of beauty. Everyone slows down and proceeds with caution.

None of use wants to use the

[Christ]

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.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by Lazarus

Just like the city without signs. A thing of beauty. Everyone slows down and proceeds with caution.

None of use wants to use the

The "Stan"-Hammer?

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by Christ

Hey, I'm an advocate for leaving the signs there, but you can't blame traffic signals for driver ignorance.

I don't think leaving the signs there is a good idea. What if a visitor is passing through. It would cause confusion to an already not so bright driving populace. Without signs everyone would be on there toes.

One thing to keep in mind we are not just talking about removing signs there is other things involved.

But you can’t just take all the street signs down, Lockwood cautions. Roads must be strategically redesigned for slower but better-flowing travel. This requires a new set of cues. Raised brick crosswalks (like those recently installed on St. Paul Street in Charles Village, for example) are a common shared-space tactic for slowing cars at intersections because they provide a visual and tactile signal for motorists to brake and watch for pedestrians. Paving an entire block with brick or cobblestone also changes motorists’ behavior. “This gives drivers a totally different ride, and when they’re going an inappropriate speed for that context, they can feel it,”