STOP SIGNS
and
OUTDATED WARRANTS
This Presentation is the Personal View
of
Chris Thomson
The 2011 removal of ALL Stop Sign Control on T Junctions (4) in
Main St Peterborough not meeting current warrants was
endorsed by the District Council of Peterborough on 18/7/2011.
Note:- No adverse results & not 1 complaint to date (10/08/12).
20th Roads & Works Conference
Victor Harbor
Background
• 1994, 18 years ago … until the present
– The current warrant for Stop signs in AS 1742.2
first appeared in the 1994 edition & the crash
component was removed in 1996.
– In Jan 2003 the default urban speed limit was
lowered from 60kph to 50kph. That reduced the
minimum sight distance from 40m to 30m, which
further reduced the number of Stop Signs meeting
current warrants.
– STANDARDS AUSTRALIA did not intend for faded
or damaged Stop Signs to be continually replaced
without any consideration being given to review,
especially given that we are all aware that the
warrant for a Stop Sign had changed significantly.
– STANDARDS AUSTRALIA trusts that State Road
Authorities will act responsibility to ensure
Compliance, Uniformity and Credibility, just as
they display with line marking.
– Line marking, is routinely reviewed and changed,
as Standards change.
– Why do we not treat Stop Signs in the same
manner?
• What have our States Road Authority &
Local Government done in regards to
reviewing outdated Stop Sign warrants
since 1994?
• Remember, that’s 18 years?
I SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING
S F A
We have to
Stop Fooling Around
STOP choosing to ignore the issue
STOP intentionally avoiding the issue
DPTI. South Australia’s Governing
Road Authority
Our Leaders, have elected to ignore the
issue of Outdated Stop Sign Warrants
unless there is a major upgrade at the
given location whilst continuously citing:• Compliance
• Uniformity and
• Credibility in any correspondence on the
issue whether it be written or verbal in the
past 18 years.
Local Government Road Authorities
•
•
•
•
We are no better, we have been NEGLIGENT in our
duties as “responsible” road authorities as we have also
elected to ignore the issue of Outdated Stop Sign
Warrants unless there is a major upgrade at the given
location.
Compliance
Uniformity
Credibility are the keys to the effective use of traffic
control devices that lead to greater compliance and
safety by road users.
Uniformity and Credibility will only be achieved if we
review and update outdated warrants.
SO WHY DON’T WE APPLY THE
CURRENT WARRANTS?
• Scared of possible public criticism?
• The general public's perception is that:SIGNS FIX EVERYTHING
and we all know that is far from reality.
• Scared of the WHAT IF FACTOR?
What if there's an accident shortly after
removing a sign that is not warranted?
• What happens if a review finds that we
should undertake an upgrade of the T
Junction or Intersection to fix what stop
signs didn’t?
• Is it Cost?
• Lack of resources to conduct review?
• Reluctance to accept change?
• Don’t see it as a priority?
• Or is it because we just don’t give a shit!
Seriously
By DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
we are ALL being
NEGLIGENT
As “Responsible Road Authorities”
We have a responsibility to ensure:-
Compliance
Uniformity
Credibility
THE LACK OF
•
•
•
•
Compliance
Uniformity
Credibility
Directly leads to DIMINISHING LACK OF
CREDIBILITY and Non Compliance which
has the potential to create a hazard to
road users.
The LGAMLS may be defending a Council one day if
there’s an accident and someone claims lack of
Compliance, Uniformity and Credibility as a contributing
factor to their accident.
STANDARDS AUSTRALIA
• The Standards Australia team comprise of
Highly Qualified Traffic Engineers from
each States Road Authority.
• They have conducted research from
around the world and have ended up
basing 1742.2 largely on the UK model
which has been working fine for decades.
• If it works in the UK surely it will work here!
SO WHY BE SCARED TO REVIEW?
Should the warrant for a Stop Sign NOT be met
the following rules apply.
• INTERSECTIONS - a GIVE WAY sign shall be used if
the warrant for a Stop is not met.
• A GIVE WAY SIGN still has a requirement by LAW to
STOP if necessary.
• There is also nothing in LAW to prevent you stopping at
a GIVE WAY sign if so desired.
• T JUNCTIONS, if the warrant for a STOP SIGN is not
met the T JUNCTION RULE applies. (Special situations,
if met, allow for or call for a Give Way sign)
• The T JUNCTION RULE still has a requirement by LAW
to GIVE WAY and STOP if necessary.
There is nothing in LAW preventing you from stopping at
a T Junction if so desired.
AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS
What are they?
• Are they Standards where each State and
Local Government just picks & chooses
which ones they might want to use?
• or modify individual ones to suit their own
perceived local ideas and ignore the rest?
• Is that really going to achieve a truly
National Standard throughout Australia?
NO
• AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS should reflect the same
message wherever it is used throughout Australia.
• Road users can then be confident that if they approach a
Stop Sign, there really is a restricted sight distance issue
making it vital that they should Stop.
• The same goes for any other form of TCD, it needs to
reflect the same message of Consistency, Uniformity
and Credibility throughout Australia.
• Only then have we achieved:REAL AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS
that are truly Uniform and Credible
My Objective
• Is to convince you, our leaders within Local
Government to UNITE in the common goal and
strive for:• Compliance, Uniformity & Credibility of ALL
traffic control devices, including Stop Signs!!
• To have the LGA seek consistency from DPTI
and promote consistency within Local Gov’t.
Unless we can achieve that we might as tear up
the M of LR&TR for TCD’s and AS 1742.2-2009
and just go off and do our own thing.
The
Minister
DPTI
Local
Gov’t
Rail
Authorities
Examples where Stop Warrants Not Met
• Adelaide Example
• Palmer Place and Montefiore Hill Rd T Junctions.
Recently, in the space of just 6 minutes (on a Sunday
Arvo) while I was waiting for my Son outside of Aquinas
College I observed a total of 11 cars leave Palmer Place
and enter Montefiore Hill Rd.
• 9 of the 11 slowed down to maybe 10-15kph and then
drove straight through without stopping.
• 1 of those 11 had to wait as there was an oncoming car
and the other one, a learner driver, slowed, stopped for a
micro second and drove on. If he was not under driver
instruction I am positive he too would have driven
straight through.
• Why was non compliance so high, probably because the
sight distance far exceeds the need for a stop sign and
drivers just don’t see or feel a need to stop.
• A classic case of the STOP warrant not being met
followed by high non compliance leading to diminishing
credibility for a stop sign.
Crystal Brook Example
• Intersection of Gadd Ave and Darbon Tce,
take a good look at the attached image.
• The red lines indicate the minimum sight
distance observed. Way over the 40m
required. (60K Zone)
pprox 720 to
ere, seen from
oth sides
Approx 760m to
here, seen from N
side only
Minimum
observed SD is
approx 420m,
only 40m
required
Minimum
observed SD is in
excess of 200m,
only 40m required
Crystal Brook Example
• Sight distance clearly exceeds the 40
metre minimum sight distance required.
• Stop Signs at that location clearly do not
meet current warrants.
HOW TO MEASURE SIGHT
DISTANCE
• My recent experience in Peterborough with the
four T Junctions being reviewed demonstrated
that DPTI were interpreting how to measure our
situation differently to myself.
• To resolve the issue I contacted STANDARDS
AUSTRALIA seeking their confirmation as they,
the authors, would surely know how to interpret
what they wrote.
• Their response was that my interpretation was
correct.
• Result, DPTI removed ALL Stop Sign control
from Main St Peterborough.
• My next slide demonstrates Standards
Australia’s answer.
MEASURING EXAMPLE
•
•
Where there is kerb and seal but NO edge lines you measure 3m back from kerb face
alignment. This is represented by the Blue Lines
Where there is Kerb and Seal AND there are edge lines you measure 3m back from
the edge line. This is represented by the Green Lines.
Note the extra sight distance. DPTI then agreed to remove the Stop Sign control in all
four of Peterborough's Examples on their road. (Only after Council consented with
the removal)
Main St
Edge Line
Kerb Line
Typical Side St
•
BUSINESS CASE to SUPPORT REVIEW
1.
•
•
•
•
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
Under delegated powers by the Minister, DPTI are
THE PRINCIPAL ROAD AUTHORITY in South
Australia under which ALL other road/rail authorities
are granted their delegated powers.
DPTI state that road authorities acting under those
delegated powers shall comply with the Manual of
Legal Responsibilities and Technical Requirements for
Traffic Control Devices.
That document also calls up numerous Australian
Standards which shall be adhered to.
DPTI SHOULD NOT be demanding that other road
authorities acting under their delegated powers adhere
to Codes/Standards that IT is not willing to promote by
leading the way. See the NOTICE TO COUNCILS
FOR THE USE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES etc
Dated 27/4/2010 and The Code it refers to.
• Out dated line marking would have been painted with the
best of intention at the time of the existing warrant but as
warrants change DPTI update the line marking.
People like me don’t have to go thru months or years of
lobbying trying to get it to happen. DPTI just get on and
Do It. (They don’t seek Councils consent prior to doing it)
• I don’t understand why DPTI seem to show such a
defiant attitude towards reviewing Stop Signs, especially
in the simple cases where REMOVAL ONLY is the likely
outcome. (It’s been 18 years of defiance so far)
• DPTI’s policy of dealing with Stop Signs in isolation only
when some action is being taken to upgrade or
somehow alter the intersection is being blatantly defiant
of AS 1742.2-2009 in relation to the lack of credibility
that inappropriate use promotes.
2. SAFETY
STANDARDS AUSTRALIA Comprising of
highly educated and professional Traffic
Engineers from all over Australia have, through
much research from around the world
determined that:The over-use of Stop signs hides those
locations where it is vital to stop every time.
It also leads to drivers treating Stop signs like
Give Way signs. Once this has occurred the
credibility of the STOP sign has been lost.
3.
RESPONSE FROM THE MINISTER (2001)
“The conditions present at intersections at the time the
Stop signs were installed may no longer exist. Sight
distance restrictions or a crash history that previously
justified, may have changed the use of the signs –
and, for this reason, it is desirable that intersections be
reviewed to determine the most appropriate traffic
controls based on current traffic flow, sight distances
and intersection geometry”. (That was 11 years ago)
Response from a DPTI Regional Manager 2011
“In order to maintain the credibility of signage, 'Stop'
signs must only be used where it is imperative that
drivers stop before entering the intersection, due to
restricted sight distance caused by immoveable
obstructions, etc.” (1 year ago)
4.
COST SAVINGS (long term)
There is no doubt in my mind that at least 80% of ALL
out dated stop signs would not meet current warrants.
Throughout South Australia that is possibly thousands
of signs/posts and pavement markings.
Many signs and posts would become redundant
therefore no further purchase or maintenance and in
each of those cases and no more pavement marking
to be maintained.
How much saving in dollar terms would that amount
to??
I would suggest many hundreds of thousands of
dollars across the state, maybe heaps more.
5. RESPONSE FROM STANDARDS AUSTRALIA
• As a result of my enquiry to Standards Australia I submit
the comment received on 30/1/12 regarding the changed
warrant for Stop Signs from Rob Morgan, a Member
from 1984 to present.
• “I am not aware of any problems with the warrants that
have been used since 1994. Across Melbourne I am
aware of only two Councils that changed all their signs.
These are now part of larger Councils (amalgamated in
around 1994, 1995). They are the former Box Hill CC
and former Waverley CC. In Box Hill CC they ended up
with four Stop signs (out of 500 or 1,000 - can't
remember).”
• Whether it was four out of 500 or four out of 1000
doesn’t matter much, it reinforces the fact that most Stop
Signs no longer meet current warrants and nothing bad
happens BECAUSE they are removed where not
required.
6. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
•
•
•
•
•
An unintended consequence of Stop Signs being used
where the warrant is not met is often Over Policing.
By this I mean instances where a driver approaches a
Stop Sign and stops just over the line, checks to see if
safe to move on etc, and is then slapped with a fine of
nearly $400 and 3 demerit points.
In instances like this the driver has, in a safety sense
fully complied with the safety intent of the stop sign.
That being to check and see if safe to proceed and
if/when safe to do so moves on.
Sadly not so from a Police compliance point of view.
All too many times a normally law abiding person
accidentally breaks the law while still behaving in a
perfectly safe manner.
• Local Police know where these easy guaranteed pinches
are and have been known to take advantage of the motorist
that is behaving in a safe manner but unfortunately
breaches the law.
• Where sight distances exceed the need for a stop sign non
compliance is an unintended but real consequence.
• Drivers, after seeing the road is clear often don’t quite stop,
not because they deliberately chose to break the law but
because of human nature. Once we determine it is safe to
move on we often do it as a subconscious act.
• Could all those people here who have never ever broken
any road rule please raise your hand.
• I would go as far as to say that the rest of you, along with
me and most other people have at some stage, accidentally
not come to a full and complete stop on or before the line.
Conclusion
• Lets get our heads out of the sand and
think towards the future and start
reviewing Out dated Warrants.
• The vast majority of straight forward
Intersections and T Junctions will require
NO WORKS AT ALL,
other than sign/line removal or change to
Give Way and they could be tackled
promptly.
• Some may require minor improvement works
which can then be budgeted for.
• Finally, there is no disputing that some sites will
require MAJOR UPGRADES but at least they
will be formally identified and can be placed
into a 5 or 10 year programme for a major
upgrade and then at least those sites will be:-
IN A PLAN
instead of on the
Never Never Plan
THINK ABOUT IT!!!
End of Presentation
Additional Info
• Reference material supporting this
presentation is available in the following
slides.
• There was just far too much to include into
the15 minute presentation.
REFERENCED DOCUMENTS/ORGANISATIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NOTICE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS FOR THE USE OF,
AND POWER TO GRANT GENERAL APPROVAL FOR THE USE OF,
TAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
Road Traffic Act, 1961 Document dated17/3/2010
Conformity with the Road Traffic Act
A.1 and B.1 both state:All traffic control devices must conform to the requirements of the Act and
associated Rules and Regulations.
NOTICE TO COUNCILS FOR THE USE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES Dated 27/4/2009
A.2 Conformity with the Road Traffic Act
All traffic control devices must conform to the requirements of the Act and
associated Rules and Regulations.
Extracts from The Legal Responsibilities and
Technical Requirements for TCD’s
and my responses which are in blue Italics.
Pge 3
1.4 Legal Requirements
•
•
•
•
•
Traffic control devices shall be installed, maintained, altered, operated and removed
with the proper approval.
Without this approval the person may be guilty of an offence under section 21 of the
Road Traffic Act 1961 (‘the Act’)
(http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/ROAD%20TRAFFIC%20ACT%201961
I would interpret “maintained” not to just include the physical maintenance of the sign
but to include maintaining its “right to remain there” if standards change. This view is
supported by Standards Australia as at June 2012. They go as far as suggesting
negligence if not reviewed by the end of the life of the sign.
DPTI seems to change line marking as standards change but neglect to do the same
with signs.
DPTI does not wait and see or ask whether Councils support the change in line
marking before changing it, they “Just Do It”
Pge 6
1.5 Application of devices
•
•
•
•
Signs and other traffic control devices lose their effectiveness if used
unnecessarily or too frequently.
Their use shall be restricted to the minimum required to aid the safe and
orderly movement of road users.
Application of this Code ensures the consistent use of traffic control devices
across the state.
DPTI’s current practices, to date, do nothing whatsoever (from my
observations) to remove old signage that does not meet current warrants so
it makes a mockery of 1.5 above.
1.6. Road safety
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Traffic control devices should assist in the creation of a safer road environment.
The incorrect or inappropriate installation of any traffic control device has the potential
to create a hazard to road users due to:
misuse of the device;
incorrect installation;
inappropriate location of the device;
physical changes to the road environment;
driver’s perception; or
legal implications under the Road Traffic Act 1961
(http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/ROAD%20TRAFFIC%20ACT%201961.aspx)
It is important to select the most appropriate traffic control device(s) with consideration
given to the likely impacts on all road users. Failure to do so may create potentially
hazardous situations.
All the above points are obviously important but even without there being any accident
the last point on Legal Implications is a huge one. Especially with Stop Signs.
1.6. Road safety, Cont’d
•
•
•
•
•
Where people cannot perceive any need to stop and without intentionally
disobeying the law, the natural tendency is to slow down to the point where
you either need to stop or determine it is safe to proceed.
In so many cases people tend to move off without completely stopping,
completely unaware that they had actually committed an offence, albeit it a
safe act in the vast majority of cases.
I have watched with interest the T Junctions in Peterborough, both before
the removal of Stop Signs and after the removal.
Essentially little has changed, people slow down and stop when the need
arises, (not always on the line, often just a little over it), some stop anyhow
and almost every one that does not stop still slows right down and if safe to
do so they move on again, just like they did before but they don’t get
booked now for not stopping where there is no need to stop.
These people, who are just ordinary law abiding citizens were faced with
hefty fines/loss of demerit points and maybe even the loss of their job, due
in part to sign that just shouldn’t be there and just “succumbing to human
nature”, not intentional law breakers.
Excerpts from Standards Australia Emails to Me
•
•
•
Rob Morgan, Standards Australia 3/1/12
The advice in the 1994 and 2002 editions about accidents/crashes is there
because our experience has been that it is all too easy to install a Stop sign
if there is a crash history, but it quite often does not address the causes of
the crash problem.
Congratulations to Peterborough for applying the warrant. The overuse of Stop signs hides those locations where it is vital to stop every time. It
also leads to drivers treating Stop signs like Give Way signs. As the
standard says, the system needs credibility, which the old (pre-1994)
warrants were unable to provide. And as people in the UK, Box Hill and
Waverley know, there is nothing in law that prevents you stopping at a Give
Way sign.
It is not the role of the standard to instruct road authorities what they must
do. I can think of many examples of standards and state guidelines that
large parts of local government take no notice of. It is really up to each state
road authority to apply pressure to have the warrant for Stop signs applied
consistently. It's a pretty basic issue and it's a sad commentary of the level
of traffic engineering expertise that we still need to be discussing it.
•
David Freeman, Standards Australia to Me 29/6/11
•
The confusion here I believe arises from the fact that we did not intend that
the 3m clearance would necessarily be measured from the stop line. It will if
there is no upstream edge or parking lane line, but if there is you measure
to the prolongation of these through the intersection.
The stop line will normally be in prolongation of the kerb line on a kerbed
road but if no kerb, it may need to be set back if there is an unsealed
shoulder or set back to edge of seal if there is a sealed shoulder. We don't
necessarily require an approaching side road driver to be able see a gap in
the cross traffic from the stop line. He is required to stop there but in many
cases he will then need to ease out into the intersection to find a gap.
Rachel Cole, Standards Australia to Me 28/6/11
Dear Chris,
I have received the following response to your enquiry:
The 'edge of through lane' is to be taken as the prolongation of the major
road edge line or parking lane line if there is one, otherwise the major road
kerb line. Parked vehicles are not considered to be permanent obstructions.
•
•
•
•
•
The following slides contain my
questions to DPTI raised between 6/6/12
to 22/6/12
that remain unanswered as at 10/8/2012.
Unanswered Questions
• Is there a reason why DPTI has continuously (at
least in the past 11 years of my experience) thru
both the Minister and DPTI Officers always cited
Compliance, Uniformity & Credibility but have not
been willing to practice what they preach as an
organisation ? In regard to Out Dated Stop Sign
warrants.
• Is there a reason why DPTI has been reluctant to
encourage other delegated road and rail authorities
to review and rectify out dated Stop Sign Warrants
that don’t meet current warrants?
Unanswered Questions Cont’d
• Is there a reason why DPTI has not set the
example by reviewing out dated Stop Sign
Warrants since 1994 and even more so since
1996 when the crash component was removed?
(Excluding situations where major upgrades are
involved).
• Is there a reason why out dated line marking is
continually reviewed and rectified (at least when
required under normal routine maintenance) and
Stop Signs are not reviewed when requiring
routine replacement due to normal deterioration
that comes with age or damage. (Especially
where it is reasonable to expect that current
installation will not meet current warrants)
Unanswered Questions Cont’d
• In support of DPTI policies and practices do you
have good reasons for not supporting the review
of out dated Stop Sign warrants both within DPTI
and Councils etc?
• If a Stop Sign not meeting current warrants is
identified at a rail crossing during an audit by
DPTI, will the auditor advise that the Stop Sign is
not compliant and request review to a compliant
installation?
• If not why not?
(I have subsequently found out (by accident) that
DPTI do know when a Stop Sign is incorrectly
used on a Rail Crossing but don’t act on it.
I have no answer as to why).
Unanswered Questions Cont’d
• If there is a Stop Sign NOT meeting
current warrants on a road, and
review/removal is required and the road
authority does not wish to remove for what
ever reason what action will DPTI take to
ensure compliance?
• Why does DPTI bother to insist on
complying with standards (In The Code)
when there is clearly no intention to follow
it through??
Unanswered Questions Cont’d
• Why does the Minister and ALL DPTI
officers ALWAYS cite credibility of signs,
compliance, uniformity of installations etc
when queried on sign installations when
they are clearly not prepared enforce or at
least encourage review of out dated stop
sign warrants?
• Why is outdated line marking ALWAYS
upgraded when warrants change?
• Why aren’t outdated stop sign warrants
reviewed after warrants change?
• A Senior DPTI officer advised that my
questions would not be answered without being
formally raised and discussed at Management
Team Level where they would then determine
what their answers may be.
• As at 10/8/2012 I have still not received any
answers to my questions.
• Doe’s that really promote confidence in the
credibility of our leaders if they can’t answer
what I thought were simple questions?