urbanknight

From my observations, most people treat them like green lights, but I think I have only ever seen them in merging lanes and not at a true 4 direction intersection.

chaadster

Interesting assessment. I was guessing that if people treated yields like green lights, yield sign locations would be common scenes of accidents. I don’t see that around here, but maybe my observations are not as comprehensive or insightful as yours.

We have a couple of intersection yields here, but not as 4-way controls: the signs also say crossing traffic does not stop. We also have yields at all traffic roundabouts here, and there, too, they seem to work because people don’t go sailing into the circle with reckless abandon.

urbanknight

Well like I said, I have only seen them around here for merge lanes, and I have seen many close calls on those, but I wouldn't really know how people would treat them at a 4 way intersection. My observations are mostly limited to the big metropolitan city where people are always in a hurry and distracted by everything. We Angelinos have forgotten how to think for ourselves and are therefore not likely to stop or even slow for a railroad track that doesn't have a crossing guard, or slow down for a blind curve or intersection. You haven't lived until you've been through an intersection with 3 lanes in every direction plus turn lanes when the signal is out!

njkayaker

It was the only direct outcome you mentioned. It's one sided. You don't seem to have any awareness of other possible outcomes.

It could be a minor issue or one that is outweighed by overall increases in "safety".

I never claimed traffic calming was intended to reduce "driver frustration".

Your point appears to be that traffic calming is bad (because it increases "driver frustration" which leads to ""dangerous and risky driving").

SJX426 

Around the DC area, yellow lights are treated like green ones. 2 seconds after green is much safer than going on green.
I think the culture around this area is about seeing what you can get by with. If people don't obey traffic laws, they likely don't obey others that are not "convenient" regardless of others safety. Lack of enforcement is an enabler.

wolfchild

I just ride through without stopping and feel absolutely no guilt about doing it...I do the same with red lights, if there is no traffic i just go through.

spclark 

This reflects my perception and experiences as well, both from driving my personal motor vehicle as well as a school bus for a few years then a commuter bus (built on an F-550 truck chassis) for a few more.

DO NOT move ahead when a red changes to green without a 'one... two...' count whilst looking BOTH WAYS.

Timing is everything in life.

Ignore the angry horns coming from behind, they're not the ones who'll get nailed by a red-runner if you're first away.

LV2TNDM

In the SF East Bay (and Bay Area in general), obeying traffic laws seems to be a thing of the past. Blowing red lights & stop signs is the new normal.

A friend feels strongly that PD has basically said, "You want to support BLM or whatever, good luck with society!" LE has disappeared from our streets as far as traffic enforcement is concerned. They're punishing us for asking for unbiased, fair policing that doesn't murder detainees. How rude of us! Not sure how true this is, but it sure seems like it may have some truth to it.

And although most of the egregious behavior I see is from the typical driver demographic, I consider ALL drivers scofflaws. How many "successful professionals" cannot be bothered to put the phone down? Even with their own kids in the car? A LOT!

Yeah, it's VERY discouraging. Disgusting, really.

LV2TNDM

Problem with this is it takes the public hostage and blames OTHERS for irresponsible choices and behavior. "You try to remove ANY of our GOD-GIVEN CARS, we'll kill you!" That's some sick rationalization right there! Personally, I don't like giving in to terrorists.

bruce19

That's exactly what I do. I am more interested in safety than obedience to signs when they don't affect the situation.

njkayaker

??? What the heck are you talking about?

spclark 

I'm with you on that.

What I grew up understanding as Common Sense.

An increasingly rare commodity apparently in this day and age.

spclark 

There's a 'Waldorf School' between where I live and where I work part-time. It's 3/4 mile between those two points, residential streets.

I avoid the two blocks that school fronts on during school time when it's time for me to be on my way to work. There are numerous stop signs at the intersections adjacent to that stretch, I've seen way too many instances of parents completely ignoring not only the stop signs but also other peoples' kids trying to cross the streets, or getting out of vehicles by opening doors into the traffic lanes so they can get their kids out of the back seat while other parents are maneuvering for parking spaces at the curb. Even parents double-parking in the middle of the street to let their kids out close to the school's entrance instead of maybe parking a block away where bare curb space is ample... but then of course the kids would have to cross a street to get to the school.

I used to drive a school bus. My route was picking up special needs kids from urban and rural homes. There was one stretch on that route where I routinely had a vehicle that would PASS ME IN A POSTED NO PASSING ZONE where oncoming traffic was hidden by road topography.

I spoke with the bus company's Safety Officer more than once about this, got nowhere.

I tried to get the local PD to take note, giving them the vehicle license number and videos I took of the activity, even to the extent of giving them the times when this activity would most likely occur.

Only to be met with indifference.

This was a decade ago, in a different state from where I am now. I have a county sheriff now as a neighbor who's given me opportunity to discuss how this kind of behavior is looked upon and it's not much different here and now than back there and then.They have other priorities that have to come first and lack manpower as well as backing to enforce the law that covers this kind of behavior.

RB1-luvr

There is a stop sign in front of my house (lots of kids in our neighborhood). A large % slow and go through it, and way too many cruise right through without even slowing. Very few completely stop. It's maddening.

LV2TNDM

Lotta people using the terrible term "accident" in this thread.

I strongly urge you all to STOP using this horrible word! It's deeply embedded in the American psyche that any collision in a car is an "accident," an "act of god," the convergence of circumstances completely beyond anyone's control. The reality is that VERY FEW collisions are the result of the above. The VAST MAJORITY of crashes are the result of irresponsible behavior of drivers. Drivers CHOOSE to drive poorly and wreck as a result.

Like the woman interviewed on the Bay Area news a few weeks ago. "I was on my phone when this guy slammed into me!" she exclaimed. An out-of-control RV smashed into her on the freeway. And she readily admits she was on the phone! (Sure it could have been hands-free and legal...) But maybe, just MAYBE if you CHOSE to instead place ALL of your attention on driving, you could have AVOIDED being hit! Like if you had been checking your mirrors regularly instead of yakking on the phone, you could have seen it coming and taken evasive action! But nope, this "poor lady" was the victim of "unavoidable circumstance." I call BS!

And when a collision occurs, why START the discussion or evaluation of the incident with a word that implies innocence on the parties involved? Isn't that a rather subjective way to begin the conversation? It MIGHT have been an "accident," but why assume as much before any facts are known? And given driver behavior today, it's a RARE case indeed where a collision was totally unavoidable and everyone was driving responsibly. Very rare.

SFPD has prohibited the use of this word in their official reports. Good on them.

So we should use more appropriate language: crash, collision, wreck or incident are excellent alternatives.

Any cyclist using the "a" word is inadvertently aiding and abetting the entitlement of drivers that promotes a society and justice system that repeatedly refuses to hold drivers responsible for egregious behavior behind the wheel. This is why you can kill behind the wheel and face ZERO consequence. Like the Oakland driver a few years ago who doored a cyclist (violation of CVC 22517) which threw him into the path of a bus, killing him. This driver was neither detained nor cited, but instead was allowed to leave the scene to attend a damn hair salon appointment! Sorry, but if you violate the vehicle code and kill someone, the rest of your day should be "ruined." I'd expect that person to spend hours and hours at the local police station showing proof of vehicle registration, insurance and proper maintenance. Also submit to a drug screening and have phone records investigated. Again, you just KILLED SOMEONE!

But not in the USA.
Driver: "It was just an accident and I didn't MEAN to kill him!"
Police Officer: "Ok, fine driver, please be on your way. Sorry for the inconvenience and all the blood."

Yeah, the word "accident" is part of the problem.

Maelochs

A&S, folks. Enough exaggeration, fiction, and lunacy ... there is a section for this stuff.

Clyde1820

It seems to have gotten more common since the COVID mess struck. I think many such people have "snapped," to the point they're far less likely to tolerate one more limit on them going about their business.

Once was, it was referred to as a "Hollywood stop." Nowadays, it's seemingly everywhere, and often not even just the tap-and-go type "stop."

spclark 

"TAXI" stop since I got my license back in '65.

What may result is willful, never an 'accident'.

urbanknight

While I do believe "collision" might be a better term, I see this argument from time to time and wonder where it comes from. By its very definition, accident does NOT imply an act of god or something beyond anyone's control. It simply means the consequence was not intended, and it definitely leaves room for fault.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
accident (noun)
1.an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance
2. an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance

Maelochs

I see this the way I see the term "housing challenged" having the effect of lowering the number of homeless people ......

bikelif3

Even worse, cars must come to a "complete" stop at all stop signs before proceeding, even if there is no other traffic is in sight. Nobody does it, but I've been ticketed for this.

njkayaker

Look at more definitions. The Oxford definition indicates "luck", "chance", "fate", "destiny", "providence" (god) as synonyms. I suspect you realize this but are ignoring it here for some reason.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionari...ent?q=accident

Note that the dictionaries list the "collision" meaning separate from the "luck" meaning. The problem is that people are familiar with both (and the other definition can color what they read).

People don't compartmentalize definitions. So, while the author might intend one meaning, the audience often gets another (or is influenced by the other). Good writers choose words based on being aware of this.


There is a lot of "baggage" with the word accident containing things things like "unexpected" and "unforeseen" and "luck" and "chance" and "providence".

This baggage actually is trying to explain (poorly!) the cause of the event. When, especially at the first report, the explanation isn't known.

Much of the baggage in accident suggests "unavoidable" (due to "luck" or "chance" or "twist of fate").

While people using "accident" aren't intending to include this baggage the baggage is there regardless.

Of course. some of the events called "accidents" aren't "unplanned": people can intentionally run into things.



"Collision" merely describes what happens. It doesn't provide any explanation. It's a much-more neutral word.

urbanknight

Synonyms do not necessarily have the exact same definition (as a matter of fact, they rarely do), so it would be disingenuous to think that they are completely interchangeable. You wouldn't say "I got an excellent check-up at the doctor and then found a hundred dollar bill! What accident!" or "We were meant to be together, so it was accident that brought us together". I have had people apologize for something by saying "Sorry, it was an accident" meaning (1) they own the responsibility and (2) it was unintentional. I can't think of a time someone has called an intentional collision an "accident", and would even argue that collision softens it as "assault" would be the only appropriate word.

But I digress, collision would indeed be a more accurate word.

njkayaker

??? I never claimed they had the "exact same definition" or "completely interchangeable". Anyway, if they had the "exact same definition", there wouldn't be this issue!

urbanknight

You told me to read more definitions and then only listed synonyms. The two definitions in your link agree with me, so I’m not sure what point you were trying to make. I just know that almost everybody I know associates “accident” with unintentional, and not faultless.