Talk:All-way stop

Neutrality

The overall tone of sections of this article is very pro-roundabout. An explanation of the pros and cons of all-way stops and roundabouts is fine, but it should not be overly critical of the use of all-way stops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.184.168 (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that the bulk of the article was written by someone familiar with roundabouts but only a passing knowledge of all-ways stops, ie. me. My goal was to explain them to the rest of the world, which for the vast majority of the world means comparing them to roundabouts. I will add a point about roundabouts being more difficult for learner drivers, though. What really needs doing is for a Canadian, South African or US citizen to write more about the history of the 4-way stop. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with both. Roundabouts caused confusion when they were first introduced around where I live. I love them, but people sometimes still mess up. Most people I know would say all-way stops are a necessary evil because 'there're so many dumb drivers out there...". I'm one of the few drivers who actually stops at stop signs regularly but recognise that they are overused.

I don't really have time now to do so, but if you look at the MUTCD archive at the FHWA's site or anywhere else I think you'll find that they've been around for at least sixty years, perhaps longer. And that they've become more numerous as the standards in the MUTCD have evolved. Other good places for sources are the individual state/provincial TCD manuals if you can find them.

US state laws usually only state the requirements for stop signs, and the respective Motor Vehicle Divisions write hard-to-find driver manuals that give their precise all-way stop protocols; these usually enshrine local variations but are comparable to the UK Highway Code. The federally funded Uniform Vehicle Code is only availble through private publishers. In general the information about the procedure at all-way stops is accurate and carefully worded. It would be nice to see more information on local variances though.Synchronism (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some pros and cons that aren't written- about both types. But really, roundabouts, the modern ones, are less complex for motorists because of one-way movement, channelization, curving, one step rules and elimination of crossing movements. It's possible to make an err or, but so much more simple not too. It is less fatiguing and more fuel-efficient to only stop necessarily, like at a yield sign. It's important to note how a roundabout is more realistically suited to driver behavior. That said, I agree there is a pro-roundabout bias, but in the whole of the article. Perhaps a mention of some of the other cons of roundabouts and further characterizations of the existing pros of all-way stops is in order: Roundabouts pose detours for pedestrians if they desire the safety of a crosswalk, bicyclists find them hazardous, and they are incompatible with historic districts; roundabouts seem to be motorist oriented. All-way stops can greatly increase pedestrian safety, and they are inexpensive to install... for example.75.161.76.30 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

4-way stop redirects here, but Four-way stop redirects to Stop sign. Bwuh? 86.132.138.205 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• • This article is relatively new. The Four-way stop redirect probably came first. I will correct this. Sebwite 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

{{globalize/USA}}?

While way too many articles deserve that tag, I don't see how this article does: To the best of my knowledge, no country but the US sports such (to me: strange) all-way stops. --128.196.208.15 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Although not much more "international," Canada also uses the 4-way stop. So maybe this tag should say "North America" rather than just referring to the USA. 24.28.154.193 13:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also used in South Africa. See the many results at http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=four-way-stop+site%3Aza SmilingBoy (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Two-way stop?

Someone used the term "two-way stop" once in the introductory paragraph to mean an all-way stop in which both streets are one-way, and then it says later in the paragraph that a two-way stop is the previous state of an intersection that has been converted to an all-way stop. Can someone please clarify this? Hellno2 15:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

North America?

I don't think the first section should be called "North America" since it simply describes the concept of an all-way stop. I'll try to change this. --SmilingBoy (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Article is about all-way stop, or roundabouts? Article needs trimming.

This article seems to have strayed away from discussing the subject (All-way stop) and onto discussing roundabouts. I'm probably as guilty of this as anyone. Can we get consensus on trimming down the commentary and focussing all-ways stops and reliable, third-party sourced information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilandi (talk • contribs) 11:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The comparison is way too long compared to the rest of the article. I don't normally advocate the deletion ('trimming') of text unless it is highly irrelevant and I'm not doing so here. That said, we need to break the current intro into several sections and add reliable information. It would be easiest to talk about all-way stops if the article were organized into by-country or jurisdiction section, as all-way stops are not always same. If not that, perhaps operation and location sections. Anyway a history section would also be great. I'll continue to work on this, especially looking for citations.

Editors should avoid adding to the worldwide comparisons section of this article. If they want to provide useful and reliable citations to that text that's fine. Much of NPOV disputes for this article are referring to that section, so please tread carefully.

The contributions citing AA may be referencing safety facts about roundabouts in the UK, but does not contribute any information about all-way stops. That would be fine except that the reference doesn't come from a direct source, the DFT. So now that there is a reference to the same statistics from the the DFT is it really necessary or appropriate to have a quasi-advertisement masquerading as a reference? No it's totally inappropriate. Call it an external link (it is not an encyclopedic reference) and it can stay.Synchronism (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel the detailed comparison with roundabouts is unwarranted, despite minor nitpicks like the UK AA reference. Most people in North America will know what an all way stop is (at the very least, they will have learned about them while learning to drive) and they won't be the people accessing this page. Most readers will be other English speakers who have no idea what they are and need an explanation that they can relate to. Like other Brits who have posted here, my initial reaction on hearing about them was 'Why would anybody use this crazy system? Hope I never have to navigate through one'. The article explains the rationale quite well. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We're having problems getting US drivers to stop saying 'Why would anybody use this crazy system? Hope I never have to navigate through one' about roundabouts! Guidance on all-way stops says they can be used as an interim measure until a badly needed signal can be installed. Perhaps it should say "signal or roundabout>"--Triskele Jim (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There has been a recent tendency in Britain to replace mini roundabouts (the closest equivalent to a US all-way stop) with signaled junctions, sometimes of considerable complexity. These are much less efficient at managing traffic conflicts but are perceived as safer for pedestrians and cyclists. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

I don't follow this article. A map of most European cities will show plenty of four-way intersections without roundabouts in them and with seemingly no traffic lights. The concept expressed in this article that roads never crossed each other making a 4-way intersections in the Middle Ages is hard to believe and doesn't look to be true. My question is, are Europeans just more patient then Americans, are there different yielding rules, etc? Without four-way stops at crossroads with volume insufficient to warrant either a roundabout or a traffic light, how does it work? In the US, intersections where only the (relatively) minor road yields can get quite backed up, and poor sight lines and speeding traffic on the through street is dangerous! Thanks, CSZero (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about the middle ages. The article is clearly about an intersection system where all vehicles must stop before crossing. To answer: the yielding rules are applied differently. All-way stop is not employed in Europe, however uncontrolled intersections (where vehicles yield to the right -not necessarily stop) are used more frequently. Roundabouts are becoming more popular worldwide, but are definitely a feature of European roads. Any sugggestions for improvement?Synchronism (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The section I'm referring to is this one. It doesn't make any sense that crossroads are being (somewhat) suggested as some sort of 19th century invention:

One reason for this difference is historical development patterns, in that most parts of North America were developed on a grid pattern and after the advent of the automobile, which resulted in a much higher incidence of four-legged intersections compared to Europe. In Europe, where most roads developed centuries before, three-legged intersections are much more common, particularly in urban settings

I understand the point that unlike the US, much of Europe is not on a grid, but grids and four way intersections are different things. Also, I can think of at least one local intersection that is 3-legged (I live in New England so as far as America goes, our street system is ancient) and we made it an all-way stop recently. The reason being that through traffic on the straight street was fairly heavy, and the most common maneuver from the street that ended as this intersection was a left-hand turn. Backups and dangerous cutoffs were fairly common. Maybe Americans drive faster? It's extremely risky, as this situation was, to make a turn across oncoming traffic that is moving at 30-40 MPH when volume is significant enough that a wait for a safe break could easily take 30 seconds to a minute per car.

To improve the article, I'd suggest showing graphics or photographs on how these sorts of intersections are controlled in Europe, and the volumes they can handle if that data is available. I did a small amount of research on my own and saw that often circles are painted in standard intersections, turning them into roundabouts, which forces traffic to slow somewhat and go around the circle without needing to widen the intersection for a proper roundabout. My gut feeling is that speed is the real reason for four way stops in the US. My neighborhood is nearly 200 years old and has no four way stops. The traffic lights work for the major intersections, but combined with one-way streets and narrow, sometimes cobblestoned streets, traffic is slow enough for traffic that needs to stop for through traffic to enter the main flow safely.

Thanks, CSZero (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

One last thing - an uncontrolled 4-way intersection, under reasonable volume, functions as a four way stop does anyhow, right? You're always arriving at the intersection after someone to your right who was queued up behind another car is already there. Traffic takes turns in a counter-clockwise direction passing through. Is there different signage for this than there is for say, an intersection where crossing traffic must yield to the main street? CSZero (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

According to US practice, if an uncontrolled intersection has enough volume to have queues, it should not be an uncontrolled access. Hans Monderman has shown this does not have to be so, but US uncontrolled intersections tend to have traffic volumes under 150 vehicles per day, and all-way stop intersections should have volumes in the 4000 vehicle per day range.--Triskele Jim (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So, would it be correct to say then that Europeans don't have fewer four-way stops because of intersection geometry (as I feel this article implies) but rather are trained to drive in uncontrolled intersections? Perhaps your point is what should be made in the article - that countries like the US have a lack of uncontrolled intersections. Something like "Aside from roundabouts, Europeans are trained to be more used to uncontrolled intersections where standards state that one must yield to traffic in the intersection, or, in the case of a tie, traffic to the right. The end result is something that resembles what is called the 'California Stop' in the US." The question is how does a car at speed determine if an upcoming intersection is uncontrolled or cross streets stop? In the US, all-way stops force drivers to slow down coming up on cross streets, otherwise they may pass through at speed. Uncontrolled intersections with no signage here would lead to confusion and accidents as nobody slows down for conflicting traffic. There must be some way that this is dealt with. CSZero (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No you have it backwards. To be sure: All-way stop is not used in Europe and there are uncontrolled intersections in the US where traffic yields to the right or to traffic on the crossing road if it is a T-intersection (in some countries all uncontrolled intersections are yield-to-the right). It is important that you understand this for this thread to continue productively.

The end result is not necessarily like a California stop, because there is no general obligation to stop that is being ignored. A warning sign may be used to mark an uncontrolled intersection, and in countries that are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals if an intersection is not uncontrolled then priority signs are used to make the right-of-way clear to all approaching drivers. I don't know of much literature on the comparative research of traffic engineering and law, but licensing requirements are generally not prohibitive in the US. Synchronism (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My wording must've been unclear because that is what I meant. I was just trying to say that this article seems to imply that the types of intersections that warrant all-way stops (four-legged intersections too small for roundabouts) are rare in Europe. I find that extremely hard to believe. It seems to me that it's more likely that the drivers are trained to drive in situations involving uncontrolled intersections, uncontrolled intersections being largely a foreign concept in the US. What I meant by being like a California Stop is that, law aside, the actual behavior of vehicles is about the same: Cars coming to an intersection with no waiting traffic slow down to make sure it is safe to roll through, then proceed. Cars coming to an intersection where other legs are queued must come to a full stop while waiting for their turn. Perhaps it would be more illustrative and clearer for me to say that it's more like intersections have yield signs for either some of or all of the entry points? Americans 'get' that Yield may mean "proceed with caution" or "stop." Thanks for the link to Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Signs_and_Signals, that was very helpful as to how this works. There are signs there that say if you have priority at the next intersection or if someone else does or if nobody does - I see how that would work. The whole point of me asking all these questions is because the concept of not utilizing the all-way stop, the topic of this article, I think would strike many Americans as crazy - the reason being is we see them go up at intersections that didn't work as two-way stops, so can't fathom how fewer regulations would help. What I'm learning (I think) is that other countries utilize priority laws more, which, in practice, operates a lot like intersections with yield signs instead (or a California stop), which I understand.

So, finally... I think we should 1.) Take out that bit about Europe having comparatively few four-way intersections as misleading. The bit about roundabouts being more common for intersections of moderate volume I think should stay. 2.) Discuss how priority rules and priority signage at intersections are used more typically in Europe, a concept fairly foreign to American drivers. I think this would clarify how the European system works: The need for all traffic to stop regardless of other cars is eliminated (this is already mentioned), but a focus on priority causes cars to slow when approaching intersections - something the US two-way stop lacks, and is often the cause of four-way stops being built here as a safety measure. CSZero (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is misleading in its assertion that four way stops exist because of US grid road systems or (even more dubiously) automatic transmission cars. The big difference in Europe is that *all* open road junctions have a priority, either signed (by far the commonest system in developed Europe) or implied ('give way to the right'). Where there is genuinely no priority, a roundabout or signalled intersection is used. See this excerpt from the UK Highway Code. --Ef80 (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Germany (e.g.; and Europe, with few exceptions) does not have 4-way stops. Does this mean that roads do not intersect? No. They do. Does this mean that there are roundabouts in every intersection? No, though there are some (and though in France you might start to guess they do). The thing is, if two roads intersect, the driver of the more important one has the right of way, and the driver on the other one has to yield - and mostly, only to yield, a stop sign only being put there if necessary. (In case no official has yet determined which road is more important, there is a "right before left" fallback.)--2001:A61:3A73:B101:E4FC:8A27:AA92:994B (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Dubious

I sincerely doubt that four-way stops are appearing all around Europe. They would be incompatible with France's priority rules, and the UK highway code states that stop signs are where major and minor roads intersect. Where are they appearing? -- Q Chris (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bump this, but there is a solitary example in Ireland (I've never seen it, but it was converted in 2010 and I assume it's still in four-way stop form): [1]. The intersection (before conversion) can be seen at: [2]. Of course, one example in Ireland doesn't prove anything about Europe in general, although, given that the Irish Rules of the Road also describe stop signs as appearing "at junctions with major roads" ([3]), it does suggest they could be compatible with a UK-type situation.Grover Snodd (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - minimizes worst case delay.

This sounds highly dubious to me. The "worst case delay" would be when there are a large number of cars waiting at the intersection, in which case traffic signals may be better, allowing the queue to move more quickly, giving different priorities to different directions, etc. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - more cost effective than an active traffic signal.

Surely this is only the case if you only take the direct cost of the junction, not the cost of congestion, delays, etc. For larger and more busy junctions this must outweigh the cost of provision or there would be no traffic signals! -- Q Chris (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It is probably the case for intersections that don't quite or barely meet warrants for signalization, considering that four traffic signs can be installed for under US$1000, and traffic signals can cost 100 times that much. I agree that elaboration is needed. --Triskele Jim (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Advantages/disadvantages -- compared to what?

• "wasted fuel and vehicle wear by requiring all drivers to stop, even when conflicting traffic is not present" is given as a disadvantage -- but traffic signals have much the same problem (unless they are "smart" traffic signals).
• "reduced respect for stop signs if drivers perceive a complete stop to be unnecessary in the absence of conflicting traffic." is given as a disadvantage -- but 2-way stop signs have the same problem, as do non-smart traffic signals.
• Surely an advantage, compared to roundabouts, is that no additional land is required.
• An advantage compared to traffic lights, is lower cost (of running the intersection, not counting possible congestion), lower energy consumption and lower light pollution. Also, cars never have to wait unnecessarily for a cycle change at an empty intersection. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The first point is talking about all other types of traffic control, especially uncontrolled intersections (yield to the right) and intersections where one road has priority. In any case traffic signals, and other forms of regulation, do not require all vehicles to stop. Though surely there are some very poorly timed traffic lights that are worse, they can be adjusted. In general, high-traffic intersections need lights to avoid gridlock and past a certain threshold all-way stops are not feasible.

The reduced respect argument can apply to other types of traffic control too. But because more road users, all of them, are "inconvenienced" it leads to greater disrespect than a standard stop sign intersection, a traffic signal (smart or otherwise) whose timing can be adjusted or other regulation.

The space issue is a good example of an advantage over roundabouts specifically, but not necessarily other types of control. The same for cost vis a vis traffic lights. Those are specific advantages of the all-way stop to other specific right-of-way regulations and they could be added to the list of benefits with references.

A problem with the lists is that there is a lot of unsourced information there currently. I will remove it.Synchronism (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on All-way stop. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.trivector.se/fileadmin/uploads/Traffic/Rapporter/flervagsstopp.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All-way stop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120712045511/http://conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0 to http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Operation - not clear

The second sentence of bullet 5 in the operation section of the article is ambiguous.

"If two vehicles arrive opposite each other at the same time, and no vehicles are on the right, then they may proceed at the same time if they are going straight ahead. If one vehicle is turning and one is going straight, the right-of-way goes to the car going straight."

Surely which car gets priority depends on which way the turning car is turning? It makes no sense for the car going straight to have priority if the car turning is turning right, as there is no clash of road use. Is that really the rule? If so then it needs to be clearly stated.

94.175.102.211 (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)