Talk:All-way stop

message: 4-way stop redirects here, but Four-way stop redirects to Stop sign. Bwuh? 86.132.138.205 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: While way too many articles deserve that tag, I don't see how this article does: To the best of my knowledge, no country but the US sports such (to me: strange) all-way stops. --128.196.208.15 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{globalize/USA}}</nowiki>? 

message: Someone used the term "two-way stop" once in the introductory paragraph to mean an all-way stop in which both streets are one-way, and then it says later in the paragraph that a two-way stop is the previous state of an intersection that has been converted to an all-way stop. Can someone please clarify this? Hellno2 15:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two-way stop? 

message: I don't think the first section should be called "North America" since it simply describes the concept of an all-way stop.  I'll try to change this. --SmilingBoy (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  North America? 

message: I sincerely doubt that four-way stops are appearing all around Europe. They would be incompatible with France's priority rules, and the UK highway code states that stop signs are where major and minor roads intersect. Where are they appearing? -- Q Chris (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to bump this, but there is a solitary example in Ireland (I've never seen it, but it was converted in 2010 and I assume it's still in four-way stop form): . The intersection (before conversion) can be seen at: . Of course, one example in Ireland doesn't prove anything about Europe in general, although, given that the Irish Rules of the Road also describe stop signs as appearing "at junctions with major roads" (), it does suggest they could be compatible with a UK-type situation.Grover Snodd (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: This sounds highly dubious to me. The "worst case delay" would be when there are a large number of cars waiting at the intersection, in which case traffic signals may be better, allowing the queue to move more quickly, giving different priorities to different directions, etc. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious - minimizes worst case delay. 

message: Surely this is only the case if you only take the direct cost of the junction, not the cost of congestion, delays, etc. For larger and more busy junctions this must outweigh the cost of provision or there would be no traffic signals! -- Q Chris (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably the case for intersections that don't quite or barely meet warrants for signalization, considering that four traffic signs can be installed for under US$1000, and traffic signals can cost 100 times that much. I agree that elaboration is needed. --Triskele Jim (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious - more cost effective than an active traffic signal. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on All-way stop. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.trivector.se/fileadmin/uploads/Traffic/Rapporter/flervagsstopp.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on All-way stop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120712045511/http://conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0 to http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The second sentence of bullet 5 in the operation section of the article is ambiguous. 
"If two vehicles arrive opposite each other at the same time, and no vehicles are on the right, then they may proceed at the same time if they are going straight ahead. If one vehicle is turning and one is going straight, the right-of-way goes to the car going straight."
Surely which car gets priority depends on which way the turning car is turning? It makes no sense for the car going straight to have priority if the car turning is turning right, as there is no clash of road use. Is that really the rule? If so then it needs to be clearly stated. 
94.175.102.211 (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation - not clear