Yeah, I think that’s a personal parenthetical record (for me).
I agree with much thaty you say here. Handmade signs are probably not enforceable. Remember, though, that it says, “traffic control devices” and not signs. It is us to the city engineer to determine what mechanisms are required to give notice of the traffic controls. And signs come in many sizes.
Is that code you are para-phrasing? What if the car ahead is stopped in front of the stop sign and you are only 10 feet behind the stop sign?
Not as to view in my scenario.
No big deal, just totally unneccesary for safety reasons in my scenario.
Do the various laws cited above really lead you to believe that a judge would buy this argument?
Nobody has yet cited a stop sign law that provides for an exception that would exempt a driver from stopping at the intersection if the driver really and truly believes it would be safe to proceed without stopping. It seems to me that you’re aruging with the wisdom of the law, rather than questioning what the law is; because all these laws seem to be in concurrence that a driver must stop at an intersection, period.
Massachusetts is the state where even today they try to deal with rush by allowing cars to drive in the breakdown lane on certain Interstate highways. That means that you can be in the exit lane and get creamed when you start to exit and someone else is just driving through the exit. Og forbid there is an actual breakdown too.
I would believe just about any screwy traffic law you told me they had here at some point.
Sorry, I read too quickly and now I see the code that was cited:
[START]22450. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection, or railroad grade crossing shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection.
If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway or railroad grade crossing.[STOP]
… so when approaching a stop sign (regardless of where you last stopped) you must stop at the limit line, the crosswalk or, if neither of the above, the entrance.
Does the entrance include the shoulder?
I’ll be on the lookout to see if there are any intersections where the stop sign is set so far back that I could be behind a stopped car but in front of the sign. In that case when I started up again I would no longer be approaching a stop sign.
Nobody has yet cited a stop sign law that says if you are stopped at a stop sign, and also behind another car stopped beyond the stop sign, that you have to start and stop to make it look good.
And yes, this happens to me. Many of the stop signs around here have easily enough room for a car to fit between the stop sign and the intersecting roadway. Often, I’m stopped behind a stopped car. That driver goes, and I’m already stopped at the stop sign. If it’s a four-way stop, I wait my turn, but when there are no other cars coming, I just go.
Would you please point to any of the laws cited above which states that cars are supposed to stop at the stop sign? By my reading, all of the above statutes clearly state that cars are supposed to stop at an indicated line, at a crosswalk, or at a suitable position if niether a line nor a crosswalk is indicated.
If one car is stopped at, beyond, a line or crosswalk, and the car behind is not yet at the line or crosswalk, then yes, the second car clearly has to stop at the line or the crosswalk, regardless of where the stop sign is located. That is precisely what all of these statutes say.
Ravenman: Your post #3 has the law quoted where it starts by saying “vehicle approaching a stop sign”
In the scenarios immediately above we have stopped beyond the stop sign already and are no longer approaching it when we start back up.
Yes, I should have said stop line, not stop sign, based on the quoted laws. That doesn’t change the point that it’s quite possible to be stopped at the stop line even though there is a car stopped in front of you. I believe this is the question What the … !!! is wondering about. Nothing in the quoted laws says you have to start and stop again in this instance. You’re already satisfying the law, because you’re already stopped at the stop sign.
According to the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices, “In the absence of a marked crosswalk, the stop line or yield line should be placed at the desired stopping or yielding point, but should be placed no more than 30 feet nor less than 4 feet from the nearest edge of the intersecting traveled way.” (cite (PDF)) so there can be plenty of room in front of the stop line.
People here usually stop 1 car length after it, so I stop at the correct location only, sometimes, manytimes going as soon as they clear the intersection.
What the… and Zen: I asked this once before, but didn’t get a response: Do you really think that any traffic court judge would buy your argument?
On another example, let’s say two cars approach a busy intersection at which cars are lining up to proceed through the stop signs. The first car drifts beyond the stop line while the one immediately behind it stops right at the stop line. Both cars come to a complete stop. Do you argue that both cars may proceed together without allowing cross-raffic to proceed between each of the two cars?
It is the 1st car which is causing the problem here, not the 2nd. He is stopped where he shouldn’t, you are stopped waiting for the intersection to clear.
This is how I take it.
To further muddy the waters on question #2
In Texas, at least, you are required to stop exiting a parking lot if you cross a sidewalk, whether there is a stop sign or not. I guess this case would be covered by the pedestrian crosswalk rule cited above.
He might if I have the law on my side and the facts are as I stated (clearly no one in sight and a perfect view in all directions). More importantly a cop might buy my argument.
As to your other example, I would definately stop again in a “busy intersection”.
What, in the law, indicates that someone at a busy intersection has to “stop twice” but someone at an intersection that is not believed to be busy only has to “stop once”?
Nothing. We’re just trying to understand exactly what “stop” means.
I believe a judge would buy my argument, because the judge will look at the law, look at my actions, and recognize that I followed the law. Unlike What the … !!!, I’m less sure of a police officer. There, I think it depends on the officer, and his/her mood.
No, and I’ve already said as much. In that case, I take my arrival time at the intersection as when the car in front of me leaves. I wait for all the cars stopped at other entrances to the intersection to go, then I go. If it’s only busy from the direction I’m coming from, with no traffic from other directions, I go as soon as the car in front of me has driven far enough that it’s safe for me to start moving.
What, in the law, indicates that you ever have to “stop twice”? Got a cite? Otherwise, if the answer is “nothing”, why do you think a traffic judge wouldn’t throw out a ticket for not stopping twice?
Exactly. The first car is pulled too far into the intersection. You are legally stopped behind that car and within the legal boundaries of the law (near enough to the stop sign and intersection to clearly see everything). I do this all the time, especially if the car in front of me rolls through the stop sign.
If I’m stopped behind the car in front of me yet still within 6 feet or so of the stop sign I won’t crawl ahead five feet and then stop again, it’s just silly.