Cities without traffic signs

[Christ]

Originally Posted by Lazarus

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.

When I say "leave the signs there", I mean to assume that the world (or country) has adopted the idea that noone really has to follow the signs, but they're still there as a suggestion/reminder that you're not the only driver there.

I say this because I know a few areas with no signs, and it's very difficult to identify intersections (country areas, dirt roads) until you're right on top of them, making the going pretty slow in some parts.

[Piwoslaw]

Warsaw drivers are notorious for not obeying traffic laws, but they sometimes stop at red lights. If all the signs and lights suddenly disappeared, then all hell would break loose. The situation would probably stabilize, but only after many, many fatal traffic disasters.

[Laurentiu]

Well, it's not about just removing all lights/traffic signs it's mostly about using roundabouts instead of the traffic lights system....and a bunch of other things as well that will make motorists think/take caution on their own, be responsible instead of just relying on the lights/signs...

It does make a lot of sense and having lived in Britain a while ago, where they have lots and lots of roundabouts everywhere, it really made sense. I don't think some intersections I've seen in England could handle the massive road traffic if they traffic lights intersections instead of roundabouts.

[Thymeclock]

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.

Here all our local streets have a stop sign posted for at least one of the streets at any intersection, which is why both drivers in the accident described were taken off guard. Thus it is a reasonable assumption in this area that all intersections are protected by the requirement of traffic stopping on one street at an intersection. Now they are moving towards making more 4-way stops, which IMHO is overkill.

I'd like to see most of them replaced with yield signs. Actually a yield sign is a higher level of control than a stop sign; it can be debatable after the fact whether someone stopped at a stop sign or not. With a yield sign there is a full obligation upon the party that has it to yield to traffic moving in the other direction.

The only argument I've ever heard against use of more yield signs is one of perverse psychological effect: people tend to think "oh, it's only a yield sign, it doesn't matter as much as a stop sign." Nowadays 'right of way' has become an unknown concept.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Here all our local streets have a stop sign posted for at least one of the streets at any intersection, which is why both drivers in the accident described were taken off guard. Thus it is a reasonable assumption in this area that all intersections are protected by the requirement of traffic stopping on one street at an intersection. Now they are moving towards making more 4-way stops, which IMHO is overkill.

I'd like to see most of them replaced with yield signs. Actually a yield sign is a higher level of control than a stop sign; it can be debatable after the fact whether someone stopped at a stop sign or not. With a yield sign there is a full obligation upon the party that has it to yield to traffic moving in the other direction.

The only argument I've ever heard against use of more yield signs is one of perverse psychological effect: people tend to think "oh, it's only a yield sign, it doesn't matter as much as a stop sign." Nowadays 'right of way' has become an unknown concept.

Agreed... Actually reminds me of a yellow light discussion I had with someone else locally, regarding how people no longer slow for yellow lights, rather attempting to "beat the red" to save approximately 6 seconds (NHTSA commercials) on their trip.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Christ

Agreed... Actually reminds me of a yellow light discussion I had with someone else locally, regarding how people no longer slow for yellow lights, rather attempting to "beat the red" to save approximately 6 seconds (NHTSA commercials) on their trip.

Here, most everyone does that, and I have no quarrel with doing it. The light is still red for traffic in the other direction. As long as you go through while your light is still yellow, it presents no problem, and it is legal. At intersections of major roadways the lights are timed, greatly favoring traffic on the dominant thoroughfare. Making the light saves a lot more than 6 seconds. Being stuck there, waiting for the light to turn green again can often take up to 5 minutes.

[99LeCouch]

I can think of a lot of lights in western NY that are timed and not in the side street's favor. Awesome if you're in the thoroughfare, bad if you're making a left turn from the side street. Sometimes it's faster to wind through the side streets to a sensor light than to wait at a long timed light.

Around here it's better. The lights are predictable as long as you know what to look for.

[bestclimb]

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.

Whether or not it is a reasonable assumption the safe and intelligent assumption is that the other driver even with a stop sine is not going to stop and drive accordingly.

It boggles my mind a bit that the concept of right of way is so hard to understand. Look to the right, see a car and it has the right of way. Perhaps it is because I have spent so much time on the water and in the air, where that concept is pretty much the only "rules of the road" (less maneuverable vehicles have right of way too)

[Christ]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Here, most everyone does that, and I have no quarrel with doing it. The light is still red for traffic in the other direction. As long as you go through while your light is still yellow, it presents no problem, and it is legal. At intersections of major roadways the lights are timed, greatly favoring traffic on the dominant thoroughfare. Making the light saves a lot more than 6 seconds. Being stuck there, waiting for the light to turn green again can often take up to 5 minutes.

It's not legal in NY to speed up to make it through a light... been pulled over for it on numerous occasions.

The judge, on every account, gave me some variant of "the yellow means 'yield and prepare to stop'", not "speed up, you've got at least 3 seconds".

I've never had to pay a ticket for them, though... I'm pretty good at getting out of paying for tickets, usually because I push back court dates for so long the cop just doesn't show up.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Christ

It's not legal in NY to speed up to make it through a light... been pulled over for it on numerous occasions.

The judge, on every account, gave me some variant of "the yellow means 'yield and prepare to stop'", not "speed up, you've got at least 3 seconds".

I've never had to pay a ticket for them, though... I'm pretty good at getting out of paying for tickets, usually because I push back court dates for so long the cop just doesn't show up.

Here (near the city) they won't even try that nonsense. Yellow means 'proceed with caution". "Caution" is a subjective term.

Unless they can prove you sped up (radar?) that charge won't stick in court.