Conflicting road signs

Mena · 01-07-2008 11:29am #1

Quick one, in the case of conflicting road signs, which takes precedence? The case in point is a dotted line, upside down triangle and the word "Yield" on the road surface (as is normal), and a stop sign planted right next to it.

Zube · 01-07-2008 11:32am

Which is worse, driving through a Stop sign or stopping at a Yield?

Alun · 01-07-2008 11:33am

I believe the road markings take priority, but I'm not sure. Couldn't find anything in the RotR about it.

It annoys the hell out of me though .. just down the road from me they've redesigned, and re-tarmacced a T junction, with huge sight-lines in both directions. They've put down brand new shiny STOP markings on the junction (totally unnecessarily) but left the ancient, rusting YIELD sign in place, and that was over 6 months ago now !!!!!!

Spud83 · 01-07-2008 11:38am

Zube wrote: »

Which is worse, driving through a Stop sign or stopping at a Yield?

I would take this approach and stop. Shouldn't you always take the safety first approach?

EDIT: From the rules of the road

Road markings are a traffic sign in the form and design of a marking on the surface of the road. They have the same standing as upright signs.

So they both seem to have the same standing none over rule the other so it definitely should be safety first approach.

L1011 · 01-07-2008 11:40am

Mena wrote: »

Quick one, in the case of conflicting road signs, which takes precedence? The case in point is a dotted line, upside down triangle and the word "Yield" on the road surface (as is normal), and a stop sign planted right next to it.

You live in the same housing estate as me, then?

craichoe · 01-07-2008 12:45pm

I'd say common bloody sense prevails,

If its safe to go then do, if not then don't

Alun · 01-07-2008 12:57pm

craichoe wrote: »

I'd say common bloody sense prevails,

If its safe to go then do, if not then don't

Well of course you do, but that wasn't the question the OP asked, which was which legally takes precedence (if any), which is a perfectly valid question to ask.

Anyway, it's a bloody stupid situation that we even have to ask such a question in the first place though ...

Mena · 01-07-2008 1:02pm

Zube wrote: »

Which is worse, driving through a Stop sign or stopping at a Yield?

Good question

alanmurphy83 wrote: »

I would take this approach and stop. Shouldn't you always take the safety first approach?

EDIT: From the rules of the road

So they both seem to have the same standing none over rule the other so it definitely should be safety first approach.

Pretty obvious that safety should be first. At the location in question, you have clear visibility to say the least, and a stop sign is in no way needed. I yield there like I always have, I'm just wondering what I'm going to say to the copper that pulls me over (like that will ever happen).

craichoe wrote: »

I'd say common bloody sense prevails,

If its safe to go then do, if not then don't

:rolleyes:

Steve · 01-07-2008 1:11pm

I would think the "stop" takes precedence over the "yield" regardless of where they are placed.

From here:

Stop Sign and Line
20. (1) A driver of a vehicle shall stop the vehicle in advance of traffic sign number RRM 017 [stop line] or traffic sign number RUS 027 [stop sign].

(2) Where both traffic signs referred to in sub-article (1) are provided, a driver of a vehicle shall stop the vehicle in advance of traffic sign number RRM 017 [stop line].

Yield Sign and Line
21. A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction at which traffic sign number RUS 026 [yield sign] or traffic sign number RRM 018 [yield line] has been provided, shall yield the right of way to traffic on the major road.

Alun · 01-07-2008 1:16pm

stevec wrote: »

I would think the "stop" takes precedence over the "yield" regardless of where they are placed.

From here:

Not sure how you deduce that from what you quoted. All that says is that where there is both a stop line and a stop sign, that you stop at the line, not the sign. Having a paragraph in the statutes that explicitly covered the eventuality of two conflicting road signs would be highly unlikely I think.

Steve · 01-07-2008 1:24pm

Alun wrote: »

Not sure how you deduce that from what you quoted. All that says is that where there is both a stop line and a stop sign, that you stop at the line, not the sign.

My logic is that regardless of whatever else is there, you must still physically stop at the [stop] sign as per [20. (1)]. so in effect you still comply with both signs, the stop being the more 'powerfull' of the two.

Alun wrote: »

Having a paragraph in the statutes that explicitly covered the eventuality of two conflicting road signs would be highly unlikely I think.

Agreed.

craichoe · 01-07-2008 1:43pm

Alun wrote: »

Well of course you do, but that wasn't the question the OP asked, which was which legally takes precedence (if any), which is a perfectly valid question to ask.

Anyway, it's a bloody stupid situation that we even have to ask such a question in the first place though ...

Well without a court case to reference determining legality via this thread is impossible. Rules of the road are not law, they are a guide and give the general rules of the road. Traffic legislation on Signage etc probably doesnt even take conflicting signage into account.

Hence common sense prevails

Mena · 01-07-2008 2:33pm

craichoe wrote: »

.
Hence common sense prevails

Common sense is very subjective though. In this particular case common sense would be to yield should there be any traffic. There is no reason to stop.

Steve · 01-07-2008 2:52pm

Mena wrote: »

and a stop sign planted right next to it.

Mena wrote: »

There is no reason to stop.

I think the traffic corps would disagree.

Alun · 01-07-2008 3:03pm

stevec wrote: »

I think the traffic corps would disagree.

I think what he meant is that the situation, not the signage, gives no reason to stop.

It's like the situation I described near to me .. there was always a Yield sign there before they opened up the junction and chopped down a few old trees, and it was a perfectly valid situation to have a Yield sign in IMO. Now that they've actually improved the junction, they go and slap Stop lines on it which makes no sense at all.

Steve · 01-07-2008 3:31pm

Alun wrote: »

I think what he meant is that the situation, not the signage, gives no reason to stop.

It's like the situation I described near to me .. there was always a Yield sign there before they opened up the junction and chopped down a few old trees, and it was a perfectly valid situation to have a Yield sign in IMO. Now that they've actually improved the junction, they go and slap Stop lines on it which makes no sense at all.

There's a lot of signage in this country that can only have been commissioned by blithering fools locked away in a council office somewhere whom I can't believe actually bothered to look at the place the signs are being put because they don't even drive a car and it's too far to go on their bicycle.

/pauses to wipe spittle from corner of mouth.

In the case you described, the said fool probably mis-spelt the reference number in box 3 of the 'rusty sign removal form 33054-B' and so the worker, realising it was more than his jobs worth to summon up common sense, left it there. Besides, it was tea break anyway and he was feeling a bit drained from a heavy mornings shovel leaning.:pac:

I understand what you are saying, however, I don't know what the OP's junction is like but technically, the stop sign in itself is a (legally) valid reason to stop.

Mena · 01-07-2008 3:58pm

stevec wrote: »

I think the traffic corps would disagree.

I don't know. As I said, it's the perfect location for a yield sign. You can see for miles (well, far enough) and there is a yield sign on the road.

It's ambiguous and I would contend you'd get away with it if it went to court, though one can never be sure.

This being said, I drove through it 25 minutes ago, there was a Traffic Corps car in front of me. He yielded :pac::pac:

Conflicting road signs

Comments