Stop Signs Suck and We Should Get Rid of Them

Stop signs are inefficient and can be less safe for cyclists because they force vulnerable road users into longer, slower crossings—yet many cities keep them in place due to rule-following culture rather than safety outcomes. In practice, complete stops at stop signs are rare: neither drivers nor cyclists consistently stop, and even a staged San Francisco protest where cyclists fully stopped produced long queues stretching several blocks. That mismatch between the intended behavior and real-world behavior is a big part of why stop signs underperform.

The safety case centers on how stop signs change timing and attention. Bicycles are slow to accelerate from a full stop, so yielding can keep a rider moving through an intersection quickly. The transcript contrasts crossing times at a “Dutch Junction”: yielding at the stop sign takes under 2.5 seconds, while coming to a complete stop can take nearly 6 seconds—more than twice as long in the intersection. That extra time matters because cyclists are “vulnerable road users,” and during the slow movement they become easier to miss, especially when drivers have obstructed views from blind spots such as pillars.

Studies cited in the discussion add a quantitative layer: one study found 14% fewer crashes when cyclists are allowed to yield rather than stop, and another found that when crashes do occur, injuries are less serious. The underlying logic is that stop-sign rules imported from car traffic don’t translate well to bicycles. Car-focused laws assume fast movement and predictable sightlines, but cyclists accelerate differently and face different risk dynamics—so forcing a full stop can increase exposure without improving safety.

The transcript then argues that the Netherlands offers a model for replacing stop signs with design-based priority and traffic calming. Although stop-sign concepts appeared in the Netherlands during the German occupation in 1941, modern Dutch practice largely avoids stop signs, relying instead on junction layouts that control speed and clarify right-of-way. Priority markings with “shark’s teeth” indicate which road has precedence, and residential junctions use multiple calming elements—brick surfaces, narrow lanes, and especially raised junctions that function like a speed bump across the whole intersection. Continuous sidewalks and ramps set back from the junction help ensure drivers approach slowly even without signage.

This approach shifts attention from “the sign I stopped at” to the actual rule that matters: yielding the right-of-way. The transcript also notes that roundabouts can improve safety by reducing severe crash angles and slowing speeds, though they typically replace traffic lights rather than stop signs.

When stop signs do appear, the argument is narrower: they may be appropriate at junctions with poor visibility where stopping is safer for drivers. But the broader prescription is to remove stop signs first for bicycles, then redesign roads so car travel becomes as safe as Dutch streets—starting with the principle that good geometry and controlled speeds can do what signage often fails to do: reduce risk while keeping traffic moving.