[ssl-3]

It's all pretty nuanced. I don't know where to draw a line.

For instance: Busy intersections with 4-way stop signs are an interesting example of how laws don't quite fit.

It's obviously important to get the order right since nobody wants to be in a car crash today. But the law (often -- we've got 50 states worth of driving laws and they aren't all the same) says something very specific and simplistic about the order: First-come, first-served; if order is unclear, yield to the right. Always wait for the intersection to be completely clear before proceeding.

That sounds nice and neat and it looks good on paper. It was surely at least a very easy system to describe and then write down.

But reality is very different: 4 way stops are an elaborate dance of drivers executing moves simultaneously and without conflict. For instance: Two opposite, straight-going cars can proceed concurrently works fine. All 4 directions can turn right, concurrently. Opposing left turns at the same time? Sure! While others are also turning right? Why not.

When there's room for a move and it creates no conflict, then that move works fine.

We all were taught how these intersections are supposed to work, but then reality ultimately shows us how they do work. And the dance works. It's efficient. Nobody gets ticketed for safely dancing that dance. (And broadly-speaking, a timid law-abiding driver who doesn't know the dance will be let through...eventually.)

The main problem with the dance is that it's difficult to adequately describe and write down and thus codify in law.

But maybe we should try, anyway.

[testing22321]

You’ve done a great job of explaining exactly how 4 way stops are terrible , and why they should be eliminated.

Only two countries make heavy use of them, so it seems less effort to get rid of them and the AI driverless world will be better without them

[ssl-3]

What I've described is the reality that I, along with self-driving Waymos in California, exist within.

There isn't a generation alive that didn't grow up with this reality in these places.

---

Now, if you want me to agree that there are much better methods than stop signs to control traffic at intersections, then sure: I can agree with that. Absolutely.

But I'll agree only on one condition: That you cease immediately with all attempts to make perfect be the enemy of good.

[testing22321]

> There isn't a generation alive that didn't grow up with this reality in these places.

Less than 5% of the world’s population have to deal with them.

We don’t need to aim anywhere near perfect- good enough would be a vast improvement

[ssl-3]

Cool beans. We seem to be sufficiently agreeable.

Suppose we set forth on straightening out the laws (because the existing laws are bullshit compared to reality, and they're not even made of paper these days so they're easy to adjust), while concurrently working on a better solution than a 4-way stop.

What do we aim for?

I love roundabouts, but as-implemented they're very often big-enough to create property-acquisition issues. In previous discussions, I've heard of such things as "mini roundabouts" that can make that a non-issue, but AFAIK I've never actually seen one with my own eyes, much less driven through one. And while I love roundabouts and understand them well, I keep seeing people screw them up even in places where they've existed for over a decade, now.

I've heard from Norway that painting sharks teeth on the pavement is sufficient (which, I guess, is functionally like a US-centric Yield sign), but that seems like a complete non-starter since that's a completely new construct and continuing-education for licensed drivers is rather completely non-existent.

And Yield signs can work, but they're also unusual so people screw those up, too. I live directly next to a busy intersection that uses a yield sign in an unusual town in Ohio that has several intersections that are controlled by yield signs. Crashes are surprisingly rare, but the cacophony of car horns [even when things are actually flowing properly] is sometimes rather amazing to behold.

But this is a strange and unusual little city, and as far as I can tell, the last time anyone looked at the traffic situation here with a strong engineering mindset was circa 1953. It has clever intersection designs that I've never seen anywhere else (and some of them are good, but many are confusing).

And when an old friend was a driving instructor, he told me that he'd take students through the intersection next to my house to demonstrate that yield signs are things that actually exist, and teach them how to use them. But he didn't get to teach everyone (and has subsequently died).

I've studied thousands of intersections, both by driving for decades and reviewing how they work, and also by having spent way too many hundreds (thousands?) of hours fixing maps on Waze.

So that's a non-exhaustive list of some possible solutions, and some possible detriments, and some background on my perspective.

What do you have for options? Your perspective surely differs from my own.

(And remember, whatever it is: It needs to be able to let a giant US-centric fire truck pass through. Maybe the size of these things isn't really ideal either; maybe smaller trucks would be better. But giant is what we've got right now.)

[testing22321]

I get your point, and you’re basically saying the US has too much inertia to improve anything.

Pretty sad really

[ssl-3]

We used to call it "momentum", but yeah: Inertia fits well-enough.

[qazxcvbnmlp]

The nuance for four-way stops is pretty simple. First come, first serve queue. Except you are allowed to jump out of order if you jumping out of order doesn't slow the people ahead of you down.