Yielding at Stop Signs
Uploaded by
James A. MontanyeYielding at Stop Signs
Uploaded by
James A. MontanyeYielding at Stop Signs: A Modest Proposal
James A. Montanye
Scholars and public administrators exposed to the principles of classical liberalism
appreciate the utility of spontaneous social norms. Norms emerge because they tend to
maximize the value derived from scarce economic resources. Space and time are two
resources with highly valued alternative uses that often become allocated efficiently
through social norms.
Laws often follow established social norms. Law and economics scholar Eric
Posner explains that
Many legal rules are best understood as efforts to harness the independent
regulatory power of social norms. These efforts sometimes succeed and
sometimes fail; what is important to understand is that social norms are unlikely
to change as a result of simple, discrete, low-cost interventions by government …
Although social norms are constantly changing as a result of decentralized,
undirected interactions, the only way for individuals to self-consciously change
them in a direction they seek is to violate them. Not just to violate them, but to
violate them in a public and decisive way.1
Social rules that attempt self-consciously to change social norms are imposed for
a variety of reasons that are unrelated to efficiency, and which often work against it.
Reasons for their imposition include political and bureaucratic ignorance, hubris,
veniality, and normative social and moral objectives. There is also an overarching
predilection among progressive social administrators for imposing rules, and a correlative
disdain for relying upon spontaneous norms. This pattern follows in part from an
influential 1982 article which argued that spontaneous and unenforceable behavioral
norms inevitably “lead to the breakdown of community controls” and ultimately to social
chaos (Broken Windows - The Atlantic, p. 3).
A relevant case study along this line examines the trend among local communities
to employ surveillance cameras for deterring and punishing sensibly cautious, albeit
freethinking drivers who “roll” through STOP signs when there is no evident necessity
for coming to a full stop. Similar traffic control programs are widely employed to identify
1
Posner, Eric. 2000. Law and Social Norms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p.8.
drivers who roll through red and yellow traffic signals, and who exceed posted speed
limits.
Several local jurisdictions within Prince George’s County, Maryland have
adopted STOP sign camera programs, while others are studying their feasibility. One
study in Greenbelt, Maryland showed that 2,880 out of 3,102 vehicles (93 percent)
photographed at a single intersection committed a rolling stop. A more comprehensive
study likely would reveal that the incidence of rolling-stop violations is inversely
proportional to the practical necessity of coming to a full stop.
The conclusion to be drawn from this data is that rolling-stop violations facilitate
traffic flow (rather like right-turn-on-red rules that were enacted years ago to reduce
energy consumption and air pollution) without correspondingly increasing the incidence
of accidents involving vehicles and pedestrians. Nevertheless, a Maryland traffic
administrator interviewed by a blithe local television transportation reporter explained
that his narrow administrative function was to promote traffic and pedestrian safety by
faithfully (and blindly) enforcing the letter of traffic law (Greenbelt enforces full stop signs with
cameras – NBC4 Washington). The opportunity for revenue enhancement through low cost
electronic surveillance and ticketing programs surely had not escape administrative notice.
A plausible alternative approach for promoting traffic and pedestrian safety—one
that is likely to reduce the incidence of rear-end collisions at intersections as well—
would replace STOP signs with equally familiar but presently less ubiquitous YIELD
signs; STOP signs would remain in place only where a full stop clearly is warranted, and
where installing traffic lights is impractical. YIELD signs aptly signal that cross-traffic
and pedestrians in crosswalks have the right of way, and so would function as effectively
as STOP signs do under prevailing driving norms. YIELD signs also would lessen the
omnipresent threat of official intimidation and coercion, thereby making driving a less
stressful and otherwise unpleasant experience. Placement of STOP and YIELD signs
turns on the whim of traffic control administrators, making this alternative’s
implementation straightforward.
Enforcing the letter of STOP sign rules through electronic surveillance and
punishment is an unnecessarily coercive approach to a situation that presently is
addressed efficiently through spontaneous driving norms. Empirical evidence gathered by
surveillance cameras reveals that STOP sign enforcement at many intersections is better
relaxed or abandoned instead of being increased, except where evidence demonstrates
that enforcement is essential to traffic and pedestrian safety.
