Mickey channels one of my pet peeves:

Wouldn't we save a lot of gasoline quickly and cheaply if we replaced most of our "STOP" signs with "YIELD" signs? I'm sure there is a safety argument against this, but I'd like to hear it, along with up-to-date comparisons with countries that rely on "yield" more than "stop."

There is no valid safety argument against it. Requiring a full stop adds zero safety, though it is useful for revenue production. The notion that a full stop is somehow safer is...what's the word...oh, yeah. Idiotic.

I too got a ticket for this in Manhattan Beach many years ago, and was supremely irritated by it. It's particularly stupid at four-way stops. We could in fact waste less time and less fuel if such signs were yields rather than stops.

The other idiocy that I see (in southern California--south Florida is actually much better) is the notion that if there is a left green arrow, that once you lose it, you can no longer turn left on the green, even if there isn't another car within a mile. The purpose of green arrows should be to make it easier to make a left, not harder. Yeah, I know, it's partly to protect pedestrians, but either way, people should be allowed to exercise some judgment. There are few things more infuriating to me than sitting at an intersection with a green light to make a left turn in the middle of the night, and knowing that it will be illegal if I don't wait for the arrow.

And I should note that I just realized that there is a fourth thing that I prefer south Florida for, compared to southern California. In general, the traffic regulations are more sane (even if the drivers are much worse). You can turn left any time the traffic is clear, even at intersections with left-turn arrows, and you can do a U-turn almost anywhere. It's the default, whereas in California, you can only do one if given explicit permission from the signage.

[Late morning update]

A recurring theme in comments with which I heartily concur: we need to teach people to drive, not merely operate an automobile. It's far too easy to get a driver's license in this country.

I've never heard of "no left on green" except in certain intersections where there are explicit red arrows to signal that you're not allowed to turn without the arrow. In the midwest, such red arrows are usually only put in intersections with a) double left-turn lanes, b) highway interchanges, or c) areas where the visibility of oncoming traffic is limited and the speed limits are high enough that it's likely you would become a national highway statistic if you made a left, even if it looks clear.

Having never driven in SoCal (last time I was there, I was 7 year old), how do they regulate "no left on green light"? Do they use red arrows, or is it just a law, like the "no right on red unless otherwise posted" in certain provinces in Canadia?

Nice story on how brits save gas, and how their cooperative regulators want to overregulate it
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/10/do1001.xml

The arrow goes from green to red.

Or else there's a sign that says "Left turn on green arrow only."

What we need are more gas-saving roundabouts. One of my favorite things when visiting the UK or Australia are the abundance of roundabouts.

Anyway, in California, you must certainly *can* make a U-turn unless prohibited and any failure to turn left on an unprotected green signal is entirely the fault of the driver, not the many idiots in Sacramento (see Vehicle Code 21451)

21451. (a) A driver facing a circular green signal shall proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign prohibits a U-turn. Any driver, including one turning, shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.

(b) A driver facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, shall enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by that green arrow or any other movement that is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. A driver facing a left green arrow may also make a U-turn
unless prohibited by a sign. A driver shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection
or an adjacent crosswalk.

Oh, great. Replace stop signs with yield signs. What are you smoking?

Let's also do away with the red lights and just put blinking yellow ones everywhere.

In this "me first, right or wrong and if you don't like it I will sue you (or shoot you)" country, this is a great proposal to increase fuel economy! I don't know where you come up with these ridiculous ideas.

Although I do agree with you on the green arrows.

Stop signs at intersections are designed for pedestrian crossing...not vehicular traffic.

Robert

...unless prohibited by a sign.

Yes, and at most intersections in southern California, it is prohibited by a sign.

And Andy, spare me the straw men. The subject was stops signs, and particularly four-way stops, not red lights.

I disagree that with Rand and Kaus on the safety of stop signs. My perspective is having HS age kids (mine don't drive yet, but I'm afraid to give them a car at their school) and watching new drivers do exactly what they suggest. The problem is that when an intersection has stop signs and a decent volume of traffic, their plan becomes an issue of no one wanting to give up right of way. Sure, it's a libertarian view, but so is out-right anarchy. Remember, Rand and Mickey, you guys are the geezers...

However, I would like to see that law changed about red lights. Red lights should be like stop signs. If one comes to a complete stop and the intersection is clear, then a driver should be allowed to proceed. I find this would be particularly useful on rural highways. It just seems absurd that a dozen or so cars driving on the highway must idle a few seconds at a red light with no cross traffic.

Perhaps, if rules with traffic lights were modified, then maybe we could replace more stop signs on busier intersections, and eventually get to Rand and Mickey's idea. Of course, we could always go back to the bygone days of early automobiles where the driver was required to step out of their car and fire a shotgun in the air before proceeding (saw that in a History Channel documentary about traffic laws).

Ah. In northern California -- at least Contra Costa County -- they are fairly moderate with the No U-Turn signs.

Just got back from a trip to Scotland. Lovely country, friendly people.

In my completely unscientific survey, most traffic lights I saw were speficially to stop traffic to allow pedestrians to cross city roads. Intersections were almost always controlled by roundabouts. Traffic moved along quite well, pedestrians seemed relatively safe.

I admit, as an American pedestrian dealing with cars on the other side of the road, I found crossing roundabouts challenging. Scots had no difficulty, since they instinctively know which direction the traffic comes from. :^)

Roundabouts keep the traffic moving and lower gas use and emissions. Seems a win-win situation. With the caveat that we actually begin to teach kids how to drive rather than just how to operate a vehicle.

Leland said "However, I would like to see that law changed about red lights. Red lights should be like stop signs...."

As a motorcyclist, I agree with that one. It's common to get stuck at a red light that will not turn green for a motorcycle. You either have to wait for a car to come up behind you and trigger it for you (could be a looooong wait), or run the red light.

Running the light at an empty intersection is acceptable. But I have been stuck being the only one turning left with a red left arrow and a constant stream of cars coming the other way. Bleah.

Roundabouts solve that problem, too.

Red lights should be like stop signs. If one comes to a complete stop and the intersection is clear, then a driver should be allowed to proceed.

Yes, that's another long-time thought I've had. Not just "right turn on red," but "go straight on red," if it makes sense to do so.

From observance where I reside after a storm has knocked out lights, the lights either flash yellow or red, but either way, the traffic is far worse than when the lights are working normally. There is a prevalent problem with "I gotta be in front" Syndrome that drivers can't yield correctly. As for stop signs being yields...I don't know Rand.

Another thought I had, as a budding traffic planner...

When there's no traffic, I don't know enough people that actually come to complete stops at 4-way stops to believe that eliminating stop signs for yield signs would actually cause people to use less gas... In fact, when I was growing up, I specifically recall people referring to "rolling stops" and "California stops" interchangably.

Roundabouts certainly work, but it can be hard to back-fill them into areas that weren't designed for them, as they take up an appreciable amount of land to implement correctly. I've also seen someone take a left turn into a roundabout in Peoria before because they were completely unfamiliar with the concept. Not a situation I want to relive any time soon. I also read a few studies that showed that a completely unmarked (no ped lanes, no crosswalks, no signage) roundabout in a downtown area was actually *safer* than one fully adorned with paint and signs. People paid more attention to their surroundings to navigate without harm or incident, instead of relying on the signs to keep them safe.

One of the problems I see, though, is that, even though "Yield" means "yield to other traffic", people tend to ignore that concept just as much as they ignore the "onramps merge with highway, onramp yields to highway traffic" or "lane ends ahead; reduced lane yields to maintained lane" signs. Nobody seems to have any sense of what it actually means to yield to anyone else. Perhaps it's a cynical view of our society, but as a motorcyclist, I always feel "under attack" from other people on the road, no matter how visible I seem. Or, to put it another way, the right-of-way gives way to physics every day of the week.

In the end, as MJ Drake said, we need to start teaching people how to drive, rather than just how to operate a car. Lane etiquette rules come rather readily to mind...

Personally, as a life-long SoCal resident, I'd say I've very rarely seen the signs prohibiting left turns on green lights. Maybe it's where I drive (LAX area, the San Fernando Valley, and points north). Rand, where do you see all these signs?

I've very rarely seen the signs prohibiting left turns on green lights.

I lived in the South Bay for almost a quarter of a century. I wasn't referring to green lights, per se. I was referring to green lights that have a left-turn arrow. Obviously, if there's no arrow, one can make a turn on green. But most of the intersections that have arrows prohibit left turns when the arrow isn't lit.

Here in the Upper Left Washington many intersections with green arrow signals have a sign allowing left turns as long as the main light is green. (Sorry, I can't remember the exact wording. The ones with a large green circle on them.)

When I lived in Montana a couple of decades ago, most intersections in the residential areas of towns like Great Falls or Bozeman were "uncontrolled", which meant 4-way yield. The local paper did one of those investigation things on the premise that they were more dangerous than 4-way stop, and came to the conclusion they were actually safer.

SMALL roundabouts are the key! I loved the ones in New Zealand that were not much larger than a 'normal' intersection. The problem is that we seem to build roundabouts large enough that it feels like you are taking a trip rather than going through an intersection. If they are small then you do not have to slow down very much at all if there is no oncoming traffic.

I just got back from Chicago and they have lots of those hexagonal red signs that read 'STOP'. At least, that's what I think they read. To a Chicagoan it clearly meant 'YIELD'...even to the cops in the area. I wonder if they have special glasses so they can see the true meaning of the signs...maybe it's an acronym...'Slow Temporarily On Pedestrian'.

For the past couple of decades we've been childproofing our society. Now you folks are suggesting that cars and motorways be designed for adults.

I doubt the politicians will go for it. They prefer childlike, helpless, voters.

I just got back from Chicago and they have lots of those hexagonal red signs that read 'STOP'.

Well, clearly they weren't meant to be actual stop signs, if they were hexagons instead of octagons. ;-)

Presumably, wherever you were at, they probably also followed the "must apex at opposing lane's corner when turning left" rule, as well? That one was always one of my favorites in the Chicago 'burbs...

I've driven in southern Florida, and I'm quite surprised to learn they actually have traffic laws. Judging from the near-random maneuvers of the locals, I'll bet they'd be surprised too. It's one thing if you're a farmer stopping in the middle of a country road to chat with your neighbor coming the other way; it's quite another to do it in Coral Gables in the middle of the afternoon.

Miami is installing small roundabouts in some side-street intersections that previously had two- or four-way stops. These roundabouts seem to work well.

I don't know how effective better driver training (in the sense of formal training, as I think Rand meant) would be at reducing accidents. My guess is that increased, and less-arbitrary, enforcement of rules against dangerous driving practices would be more effective.

Roundabouts in California are traditionally used to HURT the traffic flow by the urban planners, not HELP it. Their main purpose is to make people slow down by making streets narrow and twisty. If they only put them at 4-stop intersections, it would actually be an advance from what we have now. So I would be a bit cautious with advocating roundabouts.

The intersection with the highest number of accidents in the state is the one freeway offramp on I-17 with a roundabout at the end of the offramp. Also Semi trucks have a disconcerting habit of going straight through the roundabout since they can not actually turn that well.

Yes, good point about using roundabouts to impede traffic. I agree that such "traffic calming" roundabouts are a bad thing and that it's important to distinguish between them and roundabouts that ease traffic through intersections. We could use more good ideas such as congestion pricing, and roundabouts at four-way intersections, and fewer ideologically based traffic-rationing systems.