A stop sign is one of our most valuable and effective control devices when used at the right place and under the right conditions. It is intended to help drivers and pedestrians at an intersection decide who has the right-of-way.

Some common misuse of stop signs is to arbitrarily interrupt through traffic, either by causing it to stop or by causing such an inconvenience as to force the traffic to use other routes. Where stop signs are installed as “nuisances” or “speed breakers,” there is a high incidence of intentional violation. In those locations where vehicles do stop, the speed reduction is effective only in the immediate vicinity of the stop sign, and frequently speeds are actually higher between intersections. For these reasons, it should not be used as a speed control device.

A school crossing may look dangerous, but adding a stop sign might make the intersection worse. Children can often cross the street where there are normal, periodic gaps in traffic. Putting stop signs at a location can actually eliminate these periodic gaps, creating a situation of indecision for pedestrians and motorists.

When stop signs are installed at an intersection, motorists become accustomed to the intersections and do not necessarily notice anything out of the ordinary when children are present. Crossing guards that are only present when they are needed are a more effective and desirable option than permanent stop signs in alerting motorists of the need to watch for children crossing the road.

Most drivers are reasonable and prudent with no intention of maliciously violating traffic regulations; however, when an unreasonable restriction is imposed, it may result in flagrant violations. In such cases, the stop sign can create a false sense of security in a pedestrian and an attitude of contempt in a motorist. These two attitudes can and often do conflict with tragic results.

Well-developed, nationally recognized guidelines help to indicate when such controls become necessary. These guidelines take into consideration, among other things, the probability of vehicles arriving at an intersection at the same time, the length of time traffic must wait to enter, and the availability of safe crossing opportunities.

A number of years back, the City of San Diego published some startling results of a very extensive study of the relative safety of marked and unmarked crosswalks. San Diego looked at 400 intersections for five years (without signals or four-way stops) that had a marked crosswalk on one side and an unmarked crosswalk on the other. About two and one-half times as many pedestrians used the marked crosswalk, but about six times as many accidents were reported in the marked crosswalks! Long Beach studied pedestrian safety for three years (1972-74) and found eight times as many reported pedestrian accidents at intersections with marked crosswalks than at those without. One explanation of this apparent contradiction of common sense is the false security pedestrians feel at the marked crosswalk. Two painted lines do not provide protection against an oncoming vehicle and the real burden of safety has to be on the pedestrian to be alert and cautious while crossing any street. A pedestrian can stop in less than three feet, while a vehicle traveling at 25 mph will require 60 feet and at 35 mph approximately 100 feet.

Pedestrian crosswalk marking is a method of encouraging pedestrians to use a particular crossing. Such marked crossings may not be as safe as an unmarked crossing at the same location. Therefore, crosswalks should be marked only where necessary for the guidance and control of pedestrians, to direct them to the safest potential routes.

The control of speeding in residential neighborhoods, while maintaining acceptably safe street and roadway conditions, is a widespread concern which requires persistent law enforcement effort. The inability of posted speed limit signs to curb the intentional violator leads to frequent demands for installation of “speed bumps” in public streets and alleys. However, actual tests of various experimental designs have demonstrated the physical inability of a speed bump to control all types of lightweight and heavyweight vehicles successfully. In fact, a soft-sprung sedan is encouraged to increase speed for a better ride, while some vehicles may lose control.

The courts have held public agencies liable for personal injuries resulting from faulty design. Increased hazard to the unwary; challenges to the daredevils; disruption of the movement of both emergency and service vehicles; and undesirable increase in noise have caused speed bumps to be officially rejected as a standard traffic control device on public streets and alleys.

An often heard neighborhood request concerns the posting of generalized warning signs with “SLOW-CHILDREN AT PLAY” or other similar messages. Parental concern for the safety of children in the street near homes and a misplaced but widespread public faith in traffic signs to provide protection often prompt these requests.

Although some other states have posted such signs in residential areas, no factual evidence has been presented to document their success in reducing pedestrian accidents, operating speeds or legal liability. Studies have shown that many types of signs attempting to warn of normal conditions in residential areas have failed to achieve the desired safety benefits. If signs encourage parents and children to believe they have an added degree of protection, which the signs do not and cannot provide, a great disservice results.

Because of these serious considerations, Minnesota law does not recognize, and Federal Standards discourage, use of “Children at Play” signs. Specific warnings for schools, playgrounds, parks and other recreational facilities are available for use where clearly justified. Children should not be encouraged to play within the street. The sign has long been rejected since it is a direct and open suggestion that this behavior is acceptable.