[tylerrobinson]

> They're mostly superfluous, and could be done away with, replaced with proper education for drivers, and yield signs where priority is ambiguous. Stop signs can serve a purpose where the view is obscured, and the driver genuinely needs to come to a complete stop to evaluate if they can proceed safely. When they're planted everywhere, they mean nothing.

Help me out here. You want fewer or no stop signs and instead to rely on “proper education for drivers”? What is the problem you’re aiming to solve with that?

[btbuildem]

Fewer stop signs is the goal. There's the general concept of a "priority road" and "yield" or "subordinate road". Traffic on the priority road has priority. At equal intersections, the vehicle on the right has the right of way. In ambiguous situations we use explicit yield signs (the upside-down red triangle) to indicate which traffic is to yield. Stop signs are generally reserved for situations like a blind turn, intersection at a hill, etc - where someone unfamiliar with the setting would not know they won't be aware of hazards, so the signs indicate the need to stop no matter what.

The way stop signs are used in North America basically assumes that everyone is incredibly stupid and cannot be trusted with a dull stick. Perhaps that has something to do with this individualistic bend and a hatred for collective well-being and the general fabric of society; I don't know.

Cherry on top are speed bumps placed 30' before a stop sign. That's just plain moronic. A speed bump (or a raised crosswalk) would work perfectly well with a stop sign -- both signage and physical infrastructure indicating the need to stop. But, of course we won't build it that way!

[seadan83]

Over reliance on signaling.

The idea comes from intersections in southeast Asia for example. It's a massive free for all with higher safety rates than signalled intersections. In the face of uncertainty, drivers slow and focus on situational awareness and negotiation. That this is actually safer, is counterintuitive.

Which goes go the larger thesis, over reliance on signaling. An idea that if you blindly follow the rules, that you'll be safe. It's the reason you should hesitate look both ways when proceeding from an intersection - to make sure someone else is not barreling thru, and that you're not blindly proceeding on the green to then get t-boned.

[reaperducer]

The idea comes from intersections in southeast Asia for example. It's a massive free for all with higher safety rates than signalled intersections.

"Safety" rates in southeast Asian nations are not the same thing as collision rates.

In most of the southeast Asian nations I've visited, people don't care all that much if their cars get dinged up, scratched, or sideswiped at intersections. It's just part of the gradual demolition derby of life.

That won't fly in high-income places where people value how their cars look.

[thorncorona]

> It's just part of the gradual demolition derby of life.

unrelated but i love the poetry in this sentence :)

[seadan83]

Generally agree, but the principle of paying attention and proceeding with caution vs blinding trust in signaling remains. Another example would be roundabouts.