Yes, that’s exactly what I meant. A group of three cars stops, and when it can, then moves through the intersection as a group. The second and third cars do not make another stop when they get up to the stop sign. I understand the motivation for this was that it was a good deal more efficient, with more throughput of traffic per time.
I don’t have a cite. This was about 1973 in Pennsylvania. This is what I think somebody explained to me. If it was true then, it may well not be any more. I imagine states generally are making their traffic law more similar to each other, with good reason.
Does anybody remember this or have any more info yeay or nay?
The three car rule is absolutely not the law in PA today. Every car must stop at a stop sign.
Edit:
PA Title 75, § 3323. Stop signs and yield signs
(b) Duties at stop signs.–Except when directed to proceed by a police officer or appropriately attired persons authorized to direct, control or regulate traffic, every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop at a clearly marked stop line or, if no stop line is present, before entering a crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if no crosswalk is present, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a clear view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering.
that’s not a little error, that’s a really major error. Americans driver more than people in most developed countries. Of course we have more auto fatalities per capita. That stat means nothing.
and by and large, Americans have fewer options other than driving. So old people who find driving hard drive, people drive to and from bars and parties where they expect to drink…
I have driven in Germany, and i quite like the little roundabouts that they have where we would have a four way stop sign. It’s a much better system. But i doubt that accounts for much of the difference in vehicle mortality.
All traffic, regardless of signage, yields to vehicles already in the intersection.
After EW traffic clears, the cars stopped at opposing stops signs simultaneously enter the intersection.
The left-turning car (#2) then yields to the car going straight (#1). After 1 passes, 2 turns. All other cars–regardless of their direction or intention–must wait until the intersection is clear.
To further clarify, with no defined order…so if you are turning left, but do not enter the intersection or if someone enters the intersection going straight you don’t have a set right of way just because you were first in my jurisdiction.
We also have some divergence that causes issues in my location though. E.G. you can take a right on a red arrow light unless there is a no turns on red sign.
If someone is a jerk and enters the roadway when you are turning left, and they are going straight you are still bound to yield despite their transgression on entering the intersection you were in if you are turning left.
I really wish that the policy had been defined around giving way vs right of way
I agree with RCW 46.61.185–let’s call this second straight-going car #3. The quote states that if #3 is in the intersection or constituting a hazard, #2 may not turn left. However in the OP #3 is clearly not in the intersection, and since #3 must stop at the stop sign before proceeding, and since #2is in the intersection, #3 must wait before entering the intersection, and #2 is free to turn between #1 and #3
I absolutely agree with this part. That why it’s so important to “simultaneously enter the intersection”–to communicate intent to other drivers.
If you were already *in *the intersection, they shouldn’t have entered at all, going any direction. If fact if a driver gets stuck in the intersection for some reason, the EW traffic yields to them too, despite having no stop sign.
I would argue that this isn’t just jerkish, but illegal on the part of car #3–they shouldn’t have entered the intersection until it was clear of all traffic. If #2–like a **lot **of drivers–didn’t enter the intersection after their stop, they can do so when it’s next clear of EW traffic. And at that point, they’ll need to wait for #3, who isn’t being jerkish at all to continue straight in front of them.
What to do, legally or practically, when someone else breaks traffic laws is (in my opinion) completely outside the scope of the OP.
I disagree, and I’ve seen your subsequent comments and your cites as well. I note that the guy (in the cite from the Atlantic) who wants to get rid of 4-way stops also opposes speed limits on general principle. :rolleyes:
I don’t have a problem with your suggestion that 4-ways should always be marked as such, and where I live they always are. What I have a problem with is the idea that 4-ways are somehow fundamentally flawed. They’re aren’t if you properly regard the purpose of a stop sign as meaning “stop, and do not proceed until it’s safe to do so”. If I’m stopped at an intersection and another vehicle is barrelling down a cross street and is close to that intersection, I don’t consider it “safe to proceed” until and unless it’s clear that it’s going to stop. The purpose of a 4-way stop is to add an extra layer of safety by having traffic in both directions come to a stop instead of just one (and additionally, as a means of speed control in residential neighborhoods). The extra signage denoting 4-way is there so you don’t sit there confused if and when the other vehicle does, in fact, come to a stop, not so that some driver in a hurry can roar ahead and just assume that that 40-ton tractor-trailer is going to stop for him.
The mix of two-ways and 4-ways is never a problem for the defensive driver, though I agree that 4-ways should be (and are) marked. They may be a problem for aggressive drivers in a hurry – perhaps like the author of your cited Atlantic article who seems to dislike both stop signs and speed limits – but drivers like that are a risk in their own right.
@Disgscen - My apologies - I missed the part of the OP question where he asks about cars that are already in the intersection - I guess probably because you seem to have made that bit up on your own.
Of course, if cars are already in the intersection then they have right of way over all others. That said however, (in the described scenario) the car turning left would have no legal basis to enter the intersection since they must legally yield the ROW to every car going straight from the opposite direction.
The scenario you’re describing says the car turning left illegally enters the intersection either before or immediately after the first car going straight so they can turn left before the other cars going straight can go.
Back to the OP: can this be done? Of course, but it is illegal. Immediately after the intersection is “cleared” of EW cars, the first NS car to have ROW is the one going straight, regardless of their order of arrival. As soon as that first NS straight car clears the intersection, the next NS straight car now has ROW. If the car turning left as you decrsibe enters the intersection they have done so illegally.
It would be interesting to hear from someone who actually knows the law how this would work. I was told many years ago by a police officer friend that you cannot “give yourself the right of way by doing someone illegal” Like in this this case entering intersection when you have no legal basis to do so.
[In my case - I sped up to pass a slower car and changed back into his lane. I did a fast change ahead of the car I was passing since I misjudged the oncoming cars, I was about a car length ahead him when I changed back into his lane. A cop pulled me over and gave me a warning for making an illegal lane change. I said “How was it illegal? I was in front of the car, I had the ROW?” He said that “You cannot give yourself the ROW by doing something illegal.” I asked a cop friend and he agreed. ]
No. The two cars facing each other legally enter the intersection (both initially going straight) simultaneously. The car wishing to turn left then stops and waits for the car going straight to clear the way. Then they turn left.
Likewise. They work great. There. Here, on the other hand, where I’ve seen people go the wrong way around the circle, and where many folks don’t yield when they should or yield when they shouldn’t, they don’t work very well. Maybe we will learn…
It’s possible. I was up in the Green Bay area this past weekend, and nobody seemed to have any issue navigating the many roundabouts there. But maybe it’s the Central/Northern European blood…
And here’s where this whole controversy conflicts with my common sense. Cars A and B are lined up opposing C, who wants to turn left. Car A enters the intersection and so does Car C; C just doesn’t begin his left turn; he does yield the right-of-way to A, but does so while already in the intersection. As soon as A is past, C can turn. The driver of Car B, unless he’s blind or an obnoxious oaf, has seen C’s turn signal and delays his motion by one second or so to let C pass in front of him.
But as has been explained over and over, car C cannot enter the intersection legally in this case. Pulling into the intersection and waiting for it to clear is only legal at a stop light, not a stop sign.
Car C can legally enter the intersection, because it was clear. At the same time, car A can legally pull into the clear intersection.
After entering the intersection, car C, wanting to turn left, must wait for car A to pass.
If any car wanting to turn left can’t proceed unless there’s no other car across from them, what happens when two cars facing each other both want to turn left?
C can’t legally enter the intersection from a stop sign unless cross traffic is clear and there is no one going straight or turning right from the other side. In other words, a left turner at a stop sign can’t enter the intersection unless it’s clear from all three other sides.
Two cars facing each other that are turning left can turn simultaneously if cross traffic is clear.
This is the part I don’t accept, and nobody has supported by logic or a cite. All the cites in favor of this are some variation of “must yield”, which I agree with. My point is that one can legally enter an empty intersection and yield.
Following my interpretation (ignoring the cross traffic), a car will need to wait for between 0 and 1 cars before turning, and there is zero confusion from the other stopped cars. With the alternative interpretation, a car (and every car behind) will need to wait for between 0 and infinite cars before they can turn. And confusion–even between people who agree with this interpretation–is rampant.
There is no alternative interpretation. It’s not legal to enter the intersection from a stop sign unless you can complete your maneuver without stopping in the intersection. If you are in the intersection, you are not yielding.
In traffic terms, I would argue this means not getting in the way of the other car. You’re adding the intersection to this–that’s a *very *specific claim.
You’ve repeatedly (mostly implicitly) asserted this additional meaning to the term ‘yield’. I have no doubt that such an obvious addition to a word’s plain meaning will be recorded somewhere–I admit any dictionary of traffic terms would be preferable to the OED in this case. So you’ll have no trouble documenting that this meaning exists outside your mind, right?