Re: Stop Sign and Traffic Light in same intersection?

James Robinson wrote:
> "k_flynn@xxxxxxxxx" <k_flynn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > James Robinson wrote:
> >> "k_flynn@xxxxxxxxx" <k_flynn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > James Robinson wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> As I said, when stop signs are posted at every intersection with
> >> >> traffic lights, like they were for a time in some communities in
> >> >> California, you figure out how they work pretty quickly.
> >> >
> >> > I'd still like to know what communities these were. Frankly, as I
> >> > said, I don't believe it. Traffic engineers will tell you that if
> >> > you have a stop sign posted at a green light, the expectation would
> >> > be that drivers must *stop* before proceeding on green. Lawyers
> >> > would have a field day in the event of accidents.
> >> >
> >> > And...
> >> >
> >> > This confusion is the precise reason that the MUTCD prohibits just
> >> > what you're claiming existed. The MUTCD has long prohibited the
> >> > placement of stop signs at signalized intersections.
> >>
> >> How long is "long"? They did exist.
> >
> > For as long as I can tell. You say they did exist but the traffic
> > engineer in Orange County, whose been there more than 25 years, told
> > me he's never heard of them and they've never been used in Orange
> > County. Perhaps you're remembering something different.
>
> Well, now that another poster has provided photographic evidence of the
> existence of such arrangements in California, will you accept what I was
> saying?

When was Long Beach part of Orange County?

This was a movie site location. It could very well be that temporary
signs were posted for traffic control during location set up, when
grips and dollies and best boys were trying to get their work done.

But even if not, you said these signs were "posted at every
intersection with traffic lights... for a time in some communities in
California." Two intersections in Long Beach in 1963 doesn't prove
that broader statement. What I challenged was your claim that this
signage convention was in widespread use. I never thought it might be
impossible to find a single instance.

And in fact, granting there may have been sporadic use of what has
since been demonstrated to be an inherently unsafe and hazardous
signage situation - stop signs along with traffic signals - the
experience with them there might well have led to the prohibition on
doing so, a prohibition to which California subscribes by statute.

> >> >> There are many cities with fold-over stop signs that can be
> >> >> quickly deployed after a power failure. When the signals begin
> >> >> working again, both traffic control devices will be visible for a
> >> >> time, since it will take time for the city crews to refold the
> >> >> stop signs. That situation has to be handled by the traffic laws.
> >> >
> >> > Again, I find this difficult to believe. Name some CA cities with
> >> > foldover signs. Do you have any idea how long it would take to
> >> > dispatch road crews to congested intersections following a power
> >> > failure of some sort, to unfold these just-in-case stop signs? It
> >> > could be *hours!* In most cases, the power would be restored long
> >> > before a crew would even hear about it. This makes no sense at all,
> >> > especially when all drivers are told when they first study to get
> >> > their first licenses that when signals go out, the intersection is
> >> > treated as all-stop.
> >>
> >> The problem is that at night, you cannot tell that an unfamiliar
> >> intersection even has a traffic signal.
> >
> > "I've never had a problem with it.
>
> I have. I was driving during a power failure at night, in a part of a
> city I was unfamiliar with, and drove through a number of minor signaled
> intersections without stopping, since I couldn't see the signals until
> it was too late.

You should have your license suspended if you can't see signal mast
arms or dangling assemblies at night, and especially if, in a power
failure, you continue as you admit here to drive through them after
seeing the first one "too late." If you blow through one without
seeing it until "too late," that at least should have clued you in
that there are others ahead. Not to mind this warning was pretty
foolhardy, no?

> None of the other cars were stopping either, so there
> was no clue. It is really dark under a general power failure, and car
> headlights really don't illuminate much.

Like stop signs on the side of a wide roadway. Drivers who continue to
proceed under an obvious power failure as though they must have a
right-of-way are a whole separate problem. I doubt your anecdotal
experience is widespread, since my universal experience with sporadic
signal outages is just the opposite.

> >> This is particularly a problem
> >> where there might only be one signal, which may not be obvious.
> >
> > It is not allowed to post a signalized intersection with only one
> > signal head. If you have such intersections, complain to the local
> > traffic department.
>
> You obviously aren't very old.

Well, hey, thanks, I try to maintain a youthful outlook! But in truth
I'm probably old enough to have taught you how to drive, and if I had
I'd have made sure you learned the all-stop protocol in a signal
outage.

Actually, by coincidence, today is the day I no longer have any minor
children! My youngest son is 18 today, and his first act after school
is going down to a county office to register to vote!

> > This is simply not an effective trade-off for the huge safety problems
> > that would be caused by posting stop signs at signalized intersections
> > -- and it is the reason MUTCD prohibits them.
> >
> >> As far as fold=over signs, why do you think they can't be deployed?
> >
> > Because they are useless?
>
> You didn't answer the question. The signs exist, and they are used, in
> spite of your personal views on the subject.

Read again. I did answer the question. They are useless in nearly every
power outage because they cannot possibly be deployed in a timely
manner before the power is restored. Those communities where they exist
have wasted money, because in the one time out of a thousand random
power failures that they might get there in time to unfold them, every
driver by then would have resorted to the all-way stop convention,
which is what all the fold-out signs would call for anyway.
>
> >> I have lived in places that regularly had power failures, generally
> >> with a 6 to 12 hour failure each year.
> >
> > Eeek. you ought to move.
> >
> >> They deployed portable stop signs at
> >> major intersections under such circumstances. The fold-over signs
> >> would be even easier.
> >
> > A place that experiences such unreliable power supply has bigger
> > problems than an occasional stupid driver who never heard of the
> > all-stop rule during a signal outage. Again, under most circumstances,
> > foldover signs would be pointless because of the time involved in
> > learning of the problem ---> dispatching a crew ---> getting through
> > horrendous traffic to the scene ---> unfolding the sign. By then 999
> > times out of 1,000, the signal is back working.
>
> You seem to think that people drive through dark intersections on
> purpose. I think they simply don't see them with a general power
> failure.

Unlikely. And if it's *that* dark they are obligated to proceed more
slowly.

You still miss my point though. If a signal goes out at 10 pm on the
darkest night of the year, these fold-out signs are pointless. How long
do you think it would take for plice or traffic crews to a) learn that
this has happened - probably a good 15 minutes to half hour, b)
decide to dispatch a crew - maybe a few more minutes, c) the crew to
arrive at a now-congested intersection - cvaries depending on the
city but again, at this time of night, could be another half hour at
least?

By then, the light has been out so long that traffic has built up to a
level that by its nature enforces the all-stop rule (even though I've
seen a second driver squeek through behind the next guy with the right
to go!)

*That* means the fold-out signs are pointless. The regular stop signs,
unfolded and permanent, by the way, are still illegal too.

> >> >> It's been a number of years since I was there, but they would have
> >> >> been cities in Orange County, in Southern California, like perhaps
> >> >> Anaheim or Santa Ana.
> >> >
> >> > I called Orange County's traffic engineering office. I was told
> >> > they have no such signs and have never had them. They can't recall
> >> > any instance of any city within the county using them either, as
> >> > cities try to conform to county practice for consistency's sake.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. The fact is that I have
> >> lived or worked in a city that had such signs. My best guess was in
> >> California, where I worked in the 1960s/70s. I wonder if the traffic
> >> engineering office can remember that far back? Whether you believe
> >> it or not, such arrangements have existed.
> >
> > What I am trying to prove is that these sings don't exist, haven't
> > existed within the memory of the Orange County traffic engineer who
> > has been there for 27 years, and that they are prohibited by MUTCD
> > precisely because they are safety hazards.
>
> Well, you haven't succeeded. The other poster provided photo evidence
> of the existence of such arrangements at one time in California. He
> suggested that they are no longer in place.

Well, we'd better hope so, since it would be an illegal act to have
them still be in place. Heck, the movie crew in 1963 might have taken
them back to the shop.

> >> >> >> I can recall many incidents when traffic signals went dark in
> >> >> >> other cities. These were relatively high speed collisions
> >> >> >> involving people who either didn't see that the light was out
> >> >> >> at the intersection, or assumed that they didn't have to stop.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Where was this? High speed drivers wouldn't stop for a sign
> >> >> > either if they're on a major road where the signal went dark.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes they would, since the signs are red, and reflectorized for
> >> >> easy visibility at night, so you can readily see them.
> >> >
> >> > Doubtful, even at night, at some major intersections where width is
> >> > 140 feet or more. But even so, most driving and power failing is
> >> > during daylight hours, making these signs even more problematic.
> >>
> >> Who's talking about 140 foot roads? These are simple intersections.
> >
> > I am talking about 140-foot wide roads. There are some.
>
> And you saw the broad streets in California with just such arrangements.
> Satisfied now?

I never said there might not have been isolated singular examples of
this patrently unsafe sitruation. You haven't show that this was a
widespread practive in Orange County, where an authority says it never
existed, nor that it was widespread aty all, other than being present
at two intersections in Los Angeles County where a movie chase scene
was being filmed 43 years ago. Now compelling and not very satisfying.
The fact thay such signage might have existed in the past wasn;t in
dispute; the scope and spread of its usage was.

What's also not in dispute: It is illegal to post these signs today
and as far back as I can see in the MUTCD, because of the inherent
hazard.

> In general, the fold-over signs are posted on much narrower streets.

That's not what the movie clip showed. In fact, the signs were *not*
apparent on the narrower side street, only on LBB.

> >> > But my point was that drivers who won't stop on the major through
> >> > street for a dark signal aren't the kind who will stop for a stop
> >> > sign at the side of that same intersection either.
> >>
> >> Yes they will.
> >
> > Bah. No they won't. Where is that getting us? You have faith that
> > they'll see a stop sign off to the side of a major wide roadway, but
> > not notice a huge mast arm or dangling overhead cable with hanging
> > signals that aren't working? My position is no less believable than
> > yours. At the end of the day, what matters is that these stop signs
> > you advocate are in fact prohibited for safety reasons.
>
> I have faith that they will see signs on typical minor intersections on
> city streets with two to four lanes.

Not when they're not unfolded, which is what would happen for 999 of
1,000 random instances over 30 years.

> >> There are many drivers who think you can drive right
> >> through a light as long as it isn't working.
> >
> > Cite? They're wrong. They're few. I don't know of any. In fact,
> > traffic usually builds up quickly at intersections during traffic
> > outages, so even the occasional fool who thinks he can just go through
> > and damn the cross traffic won't be able to anyway.
>
> You have obviously never been driving during a general power failure.
> Otherwise, you have seen people driving through dark signals.

Well I have and I haven't. Have driven through large power outages
and haven't seen people not observing the all-stop convention.

> It is
> very common. The people who do it are often on a major arterial, and
> believe that the people on the minor cross street should be stopping.

They are quickly enough refuted by the vast majority of drivers who, by
their observance of the procedure, force such idiots to stop because
all the cars ahead of them are obeying the law. When everyone else is
stopping, it quickly becomes apparent even to the dull-minded what is
going on.

Besides, in any case, your solution of fold-out signs won't change
this one whit. By the time anyone in authority learns that a soignal
has ghone out and manages to get a responsible authority to the scene,
the drivers have worked it out.

> >> You see it immediately
> >> after power failures.
> >
> > Yeah, if the power goes out as people are approaching. But those on
> > the cross street who had the red are still stopped.
> >
> > This points out, by the way, the very problem with your position. The
> > biggest hazard comes at the moment of the outage. Your stop signs
> > would do no good then because people are still coming to realize that
> > power has just gone out. If you posted a crew at each foldover sign,
> > 24/7 and somehow could foresee each power outage and have them on the
> > radio ready to flip the sign when it occurred, that might work.
>
> My position wasn't that the problem only appeared at the time of the
> outage, only that you could see people running lights very soon after.
> You are reading too much into my comments.

Technically, they're not running lights if the lights aren't
working. However, even though it takes a short period of time for the
drivers in the platoons to process what has happened to the signals,
drivers in my experience very quickly learn and fall into the
procedure. Even those who don't - who jump their turn or tail
through on someone else's bumper ahead - know the rules and they
wouldn't stop for a sign either even if somehow in the first two
hours someone got their to unlock it.

We call these drivers assholes. They go through the red light when it
*is* working. Stop sign? Bah.

> >> These are law-abiding people who would never think
> >> about running a red light, they simply don't know any better.
> >
> > If they're law-abiding people, they already know the all-stop rule.
> > Everyone is taught it. If they forgot, they soon remember because
> > 99.99 percent of the drivers are coming to a stop at a dark signal.
>
> You're dreaming. My experience is that maybe 3/4 of the people will
> stop, and a good proportion of those only if they see conflicting
> traffic.

You undermine your own point. They stop when they see conflicting
traffic precisely because they know they must - they know the rule.
If they don't stop because the coast is clear, it doesn't mean they
don't know the rule or didn't see the signal. It just means
they're cheating.

> >> >> You can't see the
> >> >> dark traffic lights at night, and wouldn't know they were even
> >> >> there, if you were unfamiliar with the street. Nightime is the
> >> >> most dangerous with traffic signal failures.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Drivers have been taught for decades that in a power failure,
> >> >> > the intersection is an all-stop with the rules that then apply
> >> >> > for proceeding. The trade-off in confusion by posting stop signs
> >> >> > at all intersections with signals is too great. Stop means stop.
> >> >> > I would expect most experienced drivers to presume they can only
> >> >> > proceed on green after a full stop.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, you are wrong. The situation existed in California for
> >> >> years without people stopping at signaled intersections.
> >> >
> >> > Whether I am wrong has yet to be determined. So far, you're wrong
> >> > about Orange County, according to the county's traffic engineering
> >> > office.
> >>
> >> Others have posted that foldover signs exist in some places, and you
> >> have expressed doubt about that as well, yet I have seen those too,
> >> and can support those other posters.
> >
> > I didn't try to disprove the existence of foldover signs. I questioned
> > their utility. I only checked Orange County, where you spoke of actual
> > stop signs being posted and displayed, and they said they were not.
>
> They were wrong.

Really? You mean you've now come up with an instance in Orange
County? Post it here:
______________.

They were right.

> > Foldover signs are not prohibited in the MUTCD. They're merely
> > useless, not hazardous, because they are not displayed unless needed (
> > and by the time they're deployed, they're probably not needed
> > anymore).
>
> They are useful. You really haven't been around much, have you?

More than you, son. Tell me how they're useful when they cannot
possibly deployed until a lengthy period of time after an outage might
randomly hit, by which time drivers already are observing the rules?

> >> I originally posted my observations to try to help explain why the
> >> arrangment might have existed, not to debate about whether it was
> >> right or wrong. I never recall any problem with the signs, on spite
> >> of your views on the subject.
> >
> > Yet MUTCD prohibits them precisely because of the problems traffic
> > engineers say they would cause!
>
> I don't care what the MUTCD says, the signs did exist. My original post
> was simply to say that, and why they were there. You have repeatedly
> challenged my facts, and they have now been supported with photos. Get
> over it.

Ooops! You forgot that Orange County is not home to Long Beach! You get
over it.

.