Why not to run red lights even when it's clear

[Serge Issakov]

One reason to not run red lights, Idaho style, even when it's clear...

...you might not notice the motorcycle...

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/147316

Serge

[Jason Meggs]

With all due respect:

Newspaper reports, whether or not based on a police investigation, are unfortunately not reliable information, and even if they were, a single incident is not necessarily an adequate basis for public policy. 

Even if it's true that the 68-year-old woman was crossing the intersection against the light at 5:40 AM and that the motorcyclist was traveling at a normal speed (and even if the motorcyclist was doing everything right), there is not enough information in the article to decide whether the bicyclist was operating "Idaho style;" in fact, it suggests strongly that she was not. Moreover, as this occured in Arizona, which does not yet have the Idaho Law, we would be speculating irresponsibly to assume she thought she was complying with existing law.

All evidence I'm aware of indicates that public safety and public benefit is served by the Idaho Law, not by the shoe-horning of bicyclist behavior into the relatively recent mold made for the automobile. 

Laws may be intended to benefit public safety, but are only one, quite inadequate, approach to solving public problems, and often have unexpected detrimental consequences.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=en.

[Bob Shanteau]

Jason Meggs wrote:
> All evidence I'm aware of indicates that public safety and public
> benefit is served by the Idaho Law, not by the shoe-horning of
> bicyclist behavior into the relatively recent mold made for the
> automobile.
>
> Laws may be intended to benefit public safety, but are only one, quite
> inadequate, approach to solving public problems, and often have
> unexpected detrimental consequences.

Hogwash. Transportation professionals know that safety of the highway
system is predicated on all users substantially following the rules of
the road. The rules of the road, as well as the roads themselves, are
designed for a limited amount of noncompliance (such as slowing to a
speed sufficient to allow yielding at stop signs), but running a red
light (whether by motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians) is universally
seen as unsafe.

For a thoroughly researched and well thought out work on highway safety,
see the book "Traffic Safety", by Leonard Evans
<http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/traffic-safety.htm>. Instead of
changing laws to match behavior, he argues that behavior needs to change
to match the rules:

***
Commercial pilots adhere to rules that incorporate knowledge accumulated
from many professional disciplines. They are guided by much more than
their own personal experience. Pilots do not learn by going to the limit
and, when something almost goes wrong, backing off a little. Road
drivers use their personal experience to choose what they think is a
safe speed or safe following distance. A large part of their decision is
that prior similar behavior has not led to a crash. Their understanding
may be augmented by experiencing crashes and near crashes. While
currently normal for road travel, such processes are clearly
unacceptable for flying.
***

Bob Shanteau
Transportation Engineering Liaison
California Association of Bicycling Organizations

[Bob Shanteau]

Steve McNeil wrote:
> I don't know if you have read any of the comments that follows the story, but one relative wrote that the cyclist was deaf and could not hear. She also didn't have good vision. And although I'd much rather have the green light before I proceed, there were a very few times that I did run the light when it appears that it just won't change for a cyclist.

Is there any way that you or someone else on the SDCBC list can check if
the traffic signal where this tragedy occurred detects bicyclists?

Now that Caltrans has adopted Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06
<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/policy/09-06.pdf>,
which revises the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,
we have a performance standard for bicycle detection at traffic actuated
signals. But because the supporting legislation only applies to new and
modified traffic actuated signals
<http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21450_5.htm>, it will take a
push from local advocates to get local agencies to implement the new
performance standard at existing signals. I have been recommending that
local bicycle plans include the retrofitting of existing signals to
detect bicycles. Perhaps we could even get the law changed to add the
retrofitting of existing signals to the list of elements contained in
bicycle plans.

[Jason Meggs]

Bob and all,

There is a difference between the laws of traffic and the traffic laws.

Without broaching a tired debate, despite the refreshing new findings which it would benefit from, a question:

What is the history of the adoption of stop sign rules?

Subquestion: How was the basis for the placement of stop signs generated?

(E.g., the criteria for when a stop sign is "warranted"?)

That would be very interesting and useful to know.

Does anyone know, or have any pointers?

Thank you.

Jason N. Meggs, MCP, MPH

p.s. Apologies to the SDCBC list, which I'm not a member of, and which may not be receiving my posts.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=.

[Bob Shanteau]

Jason Meggs wrote:

What is the history of the adoption of stop sign rules?

In the beginning, all intersections were uncontrolled. We have very few of those left today, because of the safety problem created by the ambiguity as a driver approaches an intersection without a sign and having to figure out whether it is an uncontrolled intersection or a 2-way stop where the other street has the stop sign from context. That leads to errors, which leads to accidents. So traffic engineers have over the years removed that ambiguity by eliminating uncontrolled intersections, which is why we have an overabundance of stop signs today. I have recently been thinking about how to remove that ambiguity in other ways, perhaps with a new "all-way yield" sign (currently prohibited by the California Vehicle Code), and am discussing it with other traffic engineers.

As far as the history of stop signs and the laws for drivers approaching them, I found the following in a book in my library:

***

CHAPTER VIII

REGULATION OF TRAFFIC MOVING ON CONFLICTING ROUTES

If all vehicles moved in the same direction and there was never any necessity for one vehicle to cross the path of another, the traffic problem would be greatly simplified. As in connection with the question of speed, so in regard to crossing, the interests of the individual would seem to demand that he be permitted to move when and as he pleased. The interests of the many, however, demand that each individual have the same privilege of using the street surface and that the movement of all be so regulated that the conflicts which naturally arise shall be controlled with the greatest amount of safety.

The intersection is the crux of the entire street system. No matter to what extent movement be expedited and rendered safe in the general flow of traffic, unless the intersections-the places where vehicle routes conflict--be properly controlled, the street system cannot be used to its fullest efficiency.

The intersection.is not only the point which controls movement of traffic but it is likewise the place where the greatest hazards exist. Certain and safe movements of the streams of traffic through these crucial points in the street system will do much to reduce the numbers of street accidents.

As has been pointed out in a preceding chapter, the ultimate solution for the problem of intersecting routes-rail and vehicle, vehicle and vehicle, and vehicle and pedestrian-lies in a physical separation of the warring elements so that it is impossible for them to come into conflict.
...
When all traffic was composed of horse-drawn vehicles, a definite regulation settling the rights of drivers on conflicting routes was not so necessary. Tangles resulted at intersections it is true, but speed of movement was not considered so essential. With present-day motor traffic, facilitation of cross-traffic movement, and clear regulations regarding the manner of its crossing are imperative. Delays render the motor car less useful, and the speed of vehicles makes conflicts hazardous.
...
Boulevard Stop Regulation. - In every city there are certain streets which, because of their location, width, or the amount and type of traffic which they carry appear to be of paramount importance in the traffic system. Just as in railroad practice where the trains on the main line are given a right-of-way over those entering from the sidings, or crossing on inferior lines, so in the regulation of street traffic there has been a tendency of late to designate certain important thoroughfares as "Boulevard Stop Streets," or "Traffic Way," and to give vehicles traveling on them priority over all vehicles entering from side streets or crossing on intersecting ways. This regulation was first used in Chicago for the park boulevards, and proved so successful that it has been adopted by a number of other cities, among them, Detroit, New Orleans, and Los Angeles. The Chicago ordinance provides that it shall be unlawful for any vehicle to be driven onto any boulevard without first bringing the vehicle to a full and complete stop. While this regulation does not definitely grant the right of way to the vehicle traveling on the boulevard the effect is practically the same. The result of the regulation is that drivers on the boulevard street can move at a speed of from 25 to 30 miles per hour without fear of sudden obstruction from vehicles entering from side streets. Experience with the system in the cities where it has been tried does not appear to indicate that it creates undue hazard. The safety of the plan will depend upon the rigidity of enforcement and the willingness of the public to abide by the provision. Dangers will result if drivers on the right-of-way streets are given an assurance of freedom from interference which in fact does not exist.

The success of the plan depends to no small degree upon the distinct and adequate marking of the boulevards. The public cannot be expected to remember at which streets they must stop before proceeding. One city attempted to install the system after advising the public through the newspapers, but without erecting signs. The regulation was almost universally disobeyed. The plan used in Detroit provides paint signs on the pavement showing that the cross street being approached is a boulevard stop street, and indicating by a line the place where the stop must be made. Even with these precautions, violations are not infrequent.

The purpose of the boulevard stop regulation is to expedite the movement of traffic on certain streets of major importance, and to this end places an obligation on all person entering such streets to do so in an especially cautious manner. The privilege of unmolested passage given to drivers on the right-of-way streets should never be understood to free them from the exercise of due caution in their relations with other drivers upon or entering the street. The city of New Orleans adds to its right-of-way regulations the following desirable definition of the respective rights of drivers:

The right-of-way herein given shall not be construed to mean that vehicles may be driven through street intersections in a reckless manner or at a speed beyond control, nor that they may take advantage of such right-of-way to drive through intersections regardless of the rights of vehicles on intersecting streets. The right-of-way given applies only when two vehicles approaching intersecting streets arrive at the intersection at approximately the same time, and does not authorize the vehicle traveling on the right-of way streets to disregard the rights of vehicles which have already entered the intersection from an intersecting street. (City of New Orleans, Ordinances Governing Street Traffic, art. 1, sec. 7, part G, 1923.)

When two boulevard stop streets intersect vehicles on both of the protected streets should be required to come to a full stop before entering the intersection. Where this rule has been used it has had the very desirable effect of relieving intersections which formerly were badly congested. Drivers having stopped their vehicles tend to wait for a suitable opening before entering the crossing.
***

Notice that drivers were required to STOP at boulevard stops, but not necessarily YIELD. That came later.

Here is an early sign. Notice that it was manufactured by the Auto Club of Southern California. AAA did the same in Northern California, which explains why they are members of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee.



Some cities still have ordinances on their books that refer to boulevard stops. Here's the one for Ross in Marin County:

***
<http://www.townofross.org/pdf/resource_center/municipal_code/10.20%20Stop%20Intersections.pdf>
Chapter 10.20
STOP INTERSECTIONS
Sections:
10.20.010 Boulevard or arterials--Designated.
10.20.020 Full stops required.
10.20.030 Control signs.
10.20.040 Designation of stop intersections.

10.20.010 Boulevard or arterials--Designated. The following streets are declared to constitute boulevards or main arteries for the purpose of this chapter, namely: Red Hill and Ross
Landing Road, Lagunitas Road, Poplar Avenue, Winship Avenue, Wellington Avenue, Wordsworth Avenue, and Bolinas Avenue from and including the intersection of Shady Lane therewith to and including the intersection of Glenwood Road therewith. (Prior code §3611 (part)).

10.20.020 Full stops required. Every operator of a vehicle traversing any street intersecting any boulevard or main artery shall bring the vehicle to a full stop at the place where the street meets the nearest property line of the boulevard or main artery before entering the boulevard or main artery, provided the property line is clearly marked or sign posted as required in this chapter, except at intersections where and when traffic is subject to stop and go signals or directions. (Prior code §3611 (part)).

10.20.030 Control signs. The chief of police shall cause to be placed and maintained upon each and every street intersecting a boulevard or main artery, and at or near the property line of the boulevard or main artery, appropriate signs upon the street or devices or marks in the roadway, such signs, devices or marks to bear the word "STOP" or the words "ARTERIAL STOP" or "BOULEVARD STOP" in such position and with letters of a size to be clearly legible from a distance of fifty feet along the street intersecting the boulevard or main artery. (Prior code §3611 (part)).

10.20.040 Designation of stop intersections. Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this chapter, it is unlawful for any person, or the driver, operator, owner or person in control of any automobile, motor vehicle, or other vehicle, to enter into or upon or to cross or travel upon the following intersection areas without first bringing the automobile, motor vehicle or other vehicle to a complete stop immediately prior to entering or traveling upon the intersection.
***

Subquestion: How was the basis for the placement of stop signs generated?

Are you asking where the warrants for stop sign installation came from? That depends on whether you mean 2-way or all-way stops. The 1925 text says that certain streets were designated boulevards (now called through streets), and that all traffic on side streets was required to stop. If you mean warrants for all-way stops, I would need to do more research to answer that question.

Bob Shanteau
Transportation Engineering Liaison
California Association of Bicycling Organizations

Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE
Consulting Traffic Engineer
13 Primrose Cir
Seaside, CA 93955-4133
Voice: (831) 394-9420
Cell: (831) 917-0248
FAX: (831) 394-6045

[Jason Meggs]

Bob,

Thanks for that piece of history.  It's not clear that the boulevard idea was done for safety; it was done for providing uninterrupted passage at relatively high speeds, to maximize motor vehicle efficiency.

The complete history of how stop signs (and stop lights, to add to the question) came to be, and whether any solid safety criteria were used, is of great interest.

Jason

--

[Bob Shanteau]

Jason Meggs wrote:

Thanks for that piece of history. It's not clear that the boulevard idea was done for safety; it was done for providing uninterrupted passage at relatively high speeds, to maximize motor vehicle efficiency.

Both safety and efficiency are major considerations for traffic engineers. From the 1925 book:

"The intersection is the crux of the entire street system. No matter to what extent movement be expedited and rendered safe in the general flow of traffic, unless the intersections-the places where vehicle routes conflict--be properly controlled, the street system cannot be used to its fullest efficiency."

"The purpose of the boulevard stop regulation is to expedite the movement of traffic on certain streets of major importance, and to this end places an obligation on all person entering such streets to do so in an especially cautious manner."

Besides, is expediting through traffic on "certain streets of major importance" so terrible? After all, bicyclists use main streets.

Bob Shanteau

[Jason Meggs]

Out of respect for this forum I will not debate this.

However, I would still be most interested in the complete history of stop signs and signals, particularly with regards to safety.  Were there valid safety studies done during the course of their evolution? What criteria have existed over the evolution of these practices, and how have they changed? How were they chosen?  Were they tested along the way? Are they valid today?

Let us not assume that the dominant practices we see are the only ones to be.  Uncontrolled intersections are still in use in this country, and protected by policy in places like Portland.  The notion of "naked streets" is a growing school of thought with professional adherents, and claims of improved safety along with other benefits.  In practice, many stop signs are treated as yield signs here and elsewhere; should they simply be yield signs? In some countries, yield signs are used much more commonly than stop signs -- why do they work there (or, do they)?  The existing institutions of traffic control in this country, of any country, and certainly this state, do not carry a presumption of serving the best interests of the public and deserve constant re-examination, independent of how difficult it may be to change them.

Please, all, if you reply, reply only with answers that do not beg the question.

--

[Serge Issakov]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Frank Paiano <wonde...@juno.com> wrote:

>One reason to not run red lights, Idaho style, even when it's clear...

Idaho says that stop light become a stop sign for a bicyclist.   You can not blame the Idaho law for this accident.

Good point.

Serge