America does seem to have an absolutely enormous number of stop signs. Here in the UK 99% of what would be a stop in the US is just an implicit yield - a road joining another road is a yield. Obviously it's a yield - you'd be mad not to yield - so no need for a sign.
That is like ... blowing my American mind. I'm imagining whole swathes of code in self driving cars that are just commented out before they deliver to the UK.
There are lots of rules that are implicit on European roads. You have to actually read the signs. And as an American, it really requires studying before attempting to drive there.
As an example, in Germany, the speed limit on 2-lane highways is (from memory, it's been 5 years) 100 kph. But when you enter a town, which is designated by a specific sign that tells you the name of the town, the speed limit drops to 50 kph. There is no sign that says "speed limit is now 50 kph." It is implicit from the sign saying you are entering that town. Upon leaving the town, there will be a "speed restriction removed" sign. This doesn't mean there's no speed limit, it means the speed restriction has been removed and your speed limit is back to 100 kph.
Yield or "give way" signs make tons of sense. Think of a small two lane road that crosses a four-lane highway. The cars on the larger road have the right of way and cars entering or crossing must give way/yield to that traffic. There's generally no need for a stop sign, but we as Americans are used to it and see it as the only way to do things.
I find the UK's road sign for "National Speed Limit Applies" to be surely one of the worst designed road signs in history.
Much like your German example, it exists solely to tell you the speed limit has changed. Rather than put a number on a sign and be done with it, its an inexplicable white circle with a black line across it!
What is the "National Speed Limit" you ask? Again it depends on where you are, and even what you are driving. The only advantage I can think of is they don't need to replace these signs should the limits be changed...
That part also exists in Germany. The 100kph on the "Landstrasse" - which does not mean two lane highway, it could simply be the road connecting two small towns that doesn't look much different from the road in town except for no houses on either side - only applies to cars. Trucks have an automatic limit of 80kph. That is sooo dumb! Lots and lots of accidents because cars get stuck behind trucks and get aggravated. Especially on one lane ones that have enough traffic to make passing almost impossible. And since this is Germany, most of these aren't straight like you might expect from the US. These are usually very meandering, which makes it real hard to pass those trucks.
And never mind the actual highways, where there's no speed limit unless posted. And trucks still can only go 80kph. So you have 2 lane Autobahn. Trucks at 80-99kph on the right lane. 90-200kph cars on the left lane. The trucks that go 80 will have a bunch of trucks that want to go 90 trying to pass them. Then add the ups and downs where even the 90kph truck that's passing will slow to 75. Even if you're only cruising at 150kph (actually a pretty nice cruising speed), if you come up on an "elephant race" as they call it behind a bend in the road it's not fun. This extends to 3 lane highways too. Just that now you actually have cars switching from the middle lane to the left lane, because one truck is passing another. So you have an 80kph truck on the right, 90kph truck on the middle lane and a 100kph car in the left lane and the 200kph Mercedes or BMW approaching from the rear.
Truck have a massively higher kinetic energy. Therefore they have different regulations. I really wouldn't want trucks driving around with 130km/h (let's not even speak about the environmental impact). The big issue with trucks in Germany is that Germany is a transit country and with just in time delivery freight trafic on the roads increased massively. So there are many more trucks on the road than originally planned for.
The weird thing is that in Germany you have these competing speeds that make driving worse for everyone. That 20kph difference is responsible for a lot of bad behavior on smaller roads. On the Autobahn the differences are even bigger, even if there's more space (a second lane) but then like you mentioned there is a lot of traffic.
In the US and Canada for example the speed limit is just the same. Everyone goes at 100kph in Canada, truck or no truck. While you have people speeding there as well obviously, everyone is sort of going at the same speed.
in NJ, everyone is going about the same speed, but way over the limit. people seem to be pretty good about staying out of the passing lane in light traffic.
in VA, everyone does seem to more or less go the speed limit.
in MD, it's utter chaos. you'll see a minivan going exactly the speed limit in the left lane, people passing it 10-20 mph over the limit, and wild people weaving in and out of exit lanes to pass everyone else at even higher speeds.
Another major part of the problem is that driving on highways and since 2018 also Bundesstraßen (basically, Landstraßen with regional importance) costs tolls, and truckers try to save toll wherever they can.
> I find the UK's road sign for "National Speed Limit Applies" to be surely one of the worst designed road signs in history.
No its not my friend.
Because it is only telling you something that you should already know if you have passed your Theory Test.
Namely that the National Speed Limit is the default state.
Anyone who has passed the Theory Test will know what the NSL is based on the road they are on and the vehicle they are driving. Its not difficult, you've only got to be able to tell the pretty darn obvious difference between a built-up area, single carriageway, dual carriageway and motorway (and whether a central reservation is present or not).
Which is why you only (typically) find NSL signs:
- in locations where the context may normally dictate otherwise (e.g. presence of street lights)
- where temporary limits are changing back to NSL (e.g. after motorway roadworks)
Don't overthink it. Its a lot easier to understand and a lot more sensible than you're making it out to be.
Right, but not all drivers operating a vehicle in the UK are required to pass a UK driving theory test. Virtually all foreign drivers can arrive, show up to a rental car place on their foreign documents and just drive out. While in the best case scenario a driver may have a UK licence and passed a corresponding theory test, this is not guaranteed. There's zero requirement to have sat that test for almost all foreign cars entering the UK via train and ferry too.
As a counter example, a UK person visiting the US would have almost zero difficulty understanding any of the speed signage, as they all incorporate the actual speed limits. Similarly, there is zero expectation you have passed the theory element of a US drivers licence. The US has roads with different speed limits for different vehicles too and still manages to get clear signage with numbers.
Good signage can be clear regardless of any tests, virtually all other speed signage in the UK incorporates a number. Speaking from experience, even those who have sat a theory test can often not really understand that sign or forget its meaning. There's not even any guarantee a licenced UK citizen has ever sat a theory test, given those who gained a UK licence before the introduction of the theory test in 1996 have generally never been required to sit one. The pre 1996 "theory" element was some random questions from your tester during the practical.
The standard of driving in the US is also appalling because its basically seen as a god given right that you should be able to have a driving license, and so minimal barriers are put in place to get one.
I also know many UK peeps who learnt to drive before 1996 and never have I heard one of them bitch and moan about "how stupid the NSL sign is".
We all know the US is a bit of a nanny state and everyone is constantly covering their backsides to avoid getting sued, and that's probably why the US has explicit speed limit signs splattered at every opportunity. Because if the US had the NSL system, some smart-alec would have a crash and then open up a lawsuit because they were too dumb to figure out which of the four types of road they were on.
I'm sorry. I'll happily bitch and moan about other aspects of UK roads (e.g. not-so-smart motorways). But NSL ? Nah mate ... it makes sense and you know it. ;-)
As you can see from this link, most European countries use the "NSL" sign in some form. It's expected that drivers find what those limits are when they cross a border. There are signs at all land borders showing the limit, also on that page.
> Rather than put a number on a sign and be done with it, its an inexplicable white circle with a black line across it!
> […]
> it depends on […] what you are driving.
If it depends on what you’re driving they can’t put a single number on it. I would guess putting multiple numbers on wouldn’t be an improvement.
The USA sometimes has this on freeways where you’ll see a large 70 and below it TRUCKS 55.
Most other classes aren’t listed.
Likely the German way is better as the real law everywhere is “do not drive faster than is safe for conditions” but that is a number that changes day to day.
The sign has that design because it used to mean the end of the speed limit - you'll also hear it referred to as "deristricted" although that hasn't been accurate for many years. Rather than spend a vast amount of money replacing the signs and potentially also missing some and resulting in driver confusion, the National Speed Limit was introduced.
My comparison is driving in the US is mostly stateless and context free. While in Europe, you must know from context what type of road you are on, and also remember the current state you should be from the signs you saw earlier.
I find driving in the US easier because of that. I just which there was roundabout instead of stop signs everywhere.
>> My comparison is driving in the US is mostly stateless and context free.
Understanding speeds, perhaps, but driving? There are many things that require context and state like the rightmost lane becoming an exit lane requiring action to continue straight ahead. You have left turns from right lanes in some states. There are different U-turn laws in adjacent states. Stop signs permitting right turns without stops in some states through tiny exception text.
GP's comment makes more sense if you consider driving safely/legally and actually navigating to be separate problems. in general, this is a good way to look at it; misunderstanding right-of-way is much more serious than taking a wrong (but legal) turn.
there are some cases where there is an implied state/town speed limit, but other than that, all the information you need to drive safely/legally is on signage in front of you or a hundred feet back.
Everywhere I've driven in the US with HOV lanes, also has the restricted lane(s) separated from the unrestricted lanes by a single or double solid line and the lanes themselves have a diamond painted in them every X number of feet.
Even if you aren't able to read the entire sign, there are other clues that should alert you to the fact that you might not want to be in that lane.
The question of interest is not merely "is this an HOV lane" but "can I use it at this time" and "is there anything the sign says other than the usual stuff that I would need to know". You're supposed to read all road signs, and only after reading can you be sure that their information is redundant.
Yet HOV lanes can be minimum 2 people most of the time, minimum 4 people during certain hours. If you're in a car with 2 people, you want to know if you're allowed to use the HOV lane or not.
It's admittedly (probably) not from Colorado, yeah. Though the important part you need to read is really the hours, since the other stuff doesn't tend to vary. Which they helpfully used a smaller font for, to make sure so you don't forget to squint at the most relevant part.
It's definitely distracting to have so much text, since you're still supposed to quickly read all of it, just in case it might say something other than what you expect. Not sure how that's supposed to work at 65+ mph.
Ehhh. There's reading text, and understanding symbols.
For example, the first time you see a sign in the UK denoting whether you or the oncoming lane has right of way through a narrow spot the meaning may not be totally obvious.
For what is worth the same happens in Romania and, judging by other people commenting in here, in most of Europe. Around my parts of the continent (Bucharest) a stop sign is in place only if you really, really need to stop for the safety of traffic (usually to ensure better visibility, you see the perpendicular traffic better while you're at a complete stop).
More exactly the "need to stop for ensuring safety" has come first, followed by the Stop sign itself, while in the US it looks like the Stop sign has come first, no matter the actual "neediness" related to traffic safety.
An extremely-well-traveled travel photo-blogger I read sometimes, who has a thing for signs (among other things, like fire hydrants), noted that only one or two other countries in the world come anywhere close to the US when it comes to posting rules on things. He framed it as practically the defining feature of American cities and towns: signs with rules on them, everywhere.
I think that’s because their driving license tests are so easy to pass.
It seems they can’t assume drivers recognize a “no U-turn” sign, even though there’s a clear similarity with other signs (round with a red edge and a diagonal red line means forbidden, black arrows mean driving directions)
Weirdly, they do assume their population and tourists can understand written English when passing such signs at speed in a car and even know what a ped xing is.
I agree. Signage is out of control in most of the US. On the roads, but not just on the roads. It's visual noise, often redundant or stating what already is apparent, and I think it's stress-inducing. It's probably related to the litigiousness of American society. If someone got hurt, and there wasn't a sign telling him to not do the clearly dangerous or stupid thing he did, a lawsuit will be filed.
I had a driving examiner try to fail me for that very offense when I took my test long ago. I was in a neighborhood, on the vertical part of a T intersection with no stop sign present. I slowed until I had a clear view that there was no traffic approaching from either direction, then proceeded.
I complained when I returned. Asked to be shown where that rule was present in the state's official driver's manual. It wasn't in there. I passed.
Same in Turkey, and I presume through most of continental Europe. Most stop signs were removed in late 90s and converted into either implicit yields (i.e. nothing, ‘don’t be stupid’ rule) or traffic lights. Right now they’re trialling allowing California style allowed right turn at red lights.
> California style allowed right turn at red lights.
How are these different from other 'right turns on red' in the US ?
I find turning on red to be a pretty bad idea, because Americans rarely stop fully and look out for pedestrians. I think a majority of pedestrian accidents occurs on turn on reds/stops .
>I find turning on red to be a pretty bad idea, because Americans rarely stop fully and look out for pedestrians. I think a majority of pedestrian accidents occurs on turn on reds/stops.
"Americans rarely stop fully and look out for pedestrians"
Rarely is being heavily abused in this statement. It's just not true. Otherwise pedestrian fatalities would be vastly higher than they are. Additionally, regional driving habits differ drastically. People in Colorado and California drive far more aggressively than they do in Iowa or even more densely populated areas on the east coast, where policing is far more rigorous.
I live in suburbia where there are few pedestrians. When I am out running, I would guesstimate that only about 20% of drivers actually stop before turning right on red. About 90% of drivers, even the ones that stopped, also never even glance in the direction they are turning, looking only for traffic coming from the left. By the time they have starting looking right, they have already crossed through the crosswalk.
The only reason there aren't more injuries to pedestrians is that there aren't very many to begin with and those that are on foot operate on the assumption that every driver is out to kill them.
The US, for various reasons that primarily relate to privatized healthcare and a proliferation of lawyers, had absurdly high rates of lawsuits and liability around driving. Most road signs here are excessive for the purposes of making it as straightforward as possible to assign liability to a driver in the event of an acccident.
A prime example of this is the "No U-Turn" signs all over the US. People make U-turns at these spots all the time. The sign is really just there to ensure that any accident resulting from said U-turn is always, no matter what, the turner's fault in a legal sense.
I'd be far happier if we were just allowed to ignore the signs and have strict liability for the consequences if we screw up doing so. Being subject to fines and harassment by law enforcement is what I don't like.
a) That's possible depending on how you quantify ability because average is influenced by outliers.
b) Is that supposed to be a rebuttal or something? I think "do whatever but strict liability if you F up" would be fine even for average and below average drivers. That's mostly how things already work in practice.
Being allowed to turn right on red is the law in every US state. The only real exception is that it's banned in a few downtowns and, obviously, wherever a sign says otherwise.
One counterexample, right turn on red is not allowed anywhere in any borough of NYC. And outer Queens/Brooklyn/Staten Island are indistinguishable (to me) from the rest of Long Island (suburb). (i.e. not just downtown/busy areas of NYC)
Right turn on red really doesn't belong anywhere where people could be on the street. Drivers turning red will often pull forward into the crosswalk and there may be a walk signal.
In a right turn on green scenario, the driver mainly needs to be looking for pedestrians crossing and they will be crossing a different direction. In a right turn on red, their primary focus is on cars, limiting their attention on pedestrians. It also encourages creeping out into the crosswalk, blocking people from crossing on a signal.
That makes sense. Being European I’m often annoyed at not being allowed to turn right on red. Allowing it at non-pedestrian intersections would perhaps be a fair compromise.
Yes, NYC is not just pragmatically anti-car (which to some extent it needs to be), it is also ideologically anti-car, and that manifests in stupid rules like that.
I’m not a huge fan of right-turn-on-red but one thing I don’t often seen brought up is that right-turn-on-green is problematic as well, for this very reason. When your light (to go forward) turns green, the pedestrian crossing on your right often also turns green, which means there are now pedestrians trying to cross your path. It’s definitely better because you’re only have to focus on pedestrians and not traffic, but “green=go” is a thing that has led several cars to almost hit me at street crossings.
Better than right turn on green, where the same thing occurs. With right turn on red, cars must stop before turning. Furthermore, cars are not permitted to turn if there are pedestrians crossing.
How is that California-style? That's the general rule in USA/Canada (not sure about Mexico). Some dense cities like New York and Montreal forbid right-turns on red city-wide, but those are the exception.
There's a belief that stop signs will slow traffic. Instead, they'll often result in people flooring it between stops, making up for lost time or whatever.
Other traffic calming measures do more to slow drivers down and improve safety while potentially making the entire drive faster, or at least more pleasant and efficient due to a steady speed.
I think we're starting to recognize that, but it's a lot easier to toss up another sign than to move a curb, and stop signs are seen as less of an "anti-car" measure.
Stopping and start every block also burns more fuel, increases pollution (cars emit most when accelerating), increases brake and tire wear, and makes drivers more frustrated and aggressive.
