For example see fig. 71 at https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/older-road-user/handbo...

In these cases there's usually some other violation that is occurring, e.g., cars parked too close to the intersection, or shrubbery not properly cut back. As you note, the result is often they have to go beyond the stop sign. Even worse, I often end up so far in the street that if there was a car that was within its lane, but on the right-most side of it, they'd hit me (fortunately most drivers are aware enough to stop).

I think the right fix here isn't total enforcement nor relaxed enforcement, but relaxed signage. If sight lines are good enough that it's safe to roll through, that should be a yield, not a stop. Stop should mean, you actually need to come to a complete stop to safely navigate this intersection. Then you can enforce it without qualms.

There are too many failure points there to trust mediocre meat sacks to follow that process correctly. Remember that driving rules and restrictions are not written assuming an alert, effective, and skilled driver operating a well maintained vehicle, they are written assuming an average person who has successfully completed a driver's test driving something that passes basic road worthiness checks.

I do disagree about the rolling stop though. After drunk driving, drivers getting too relaxed and working off of predictive execution has to be the biggest cause of road accidents. A driver rolling past a stop at high speed in a school zone cant react fast enough to kids running past or even just walking on predictive execution themselves because they think the car will stop.

Obviously there are degrees to rolling stops. one so slow that the driver can react easily (and is scanning so they can see the thing they need to react to) is fine, but some of the "rolling stops" ive seen in residential neighborhoods are crazy. Those definitely need to be made an example of.

Obviously thats when police discretion comes in. The police officer is the one issuing the ticket at the end of the day, so you need to trust that law enforcement wont be corrupt and pedantic. No amount of technology is gonna fix that

you as a human of course know not to hit a person walking thru an intersection. But a drunk person might think "eh I never fully stop and I don't see anyone".

We must all follow the rules to a TEE, ie; stopping even if completely clear, to signal to the lowest common denominators "this is the rule, you must stop regardless."

If this where not the case, by your logic, you can blow thru red lights, make left turns on red, drive against traffic etc. "as long as it's clear."

I personally am okay with enshittification of AI traffic cams if it promotes more aggressive traffic compliance. The police sure aren't.

Why bother rolling the stop, it should be ok to blow through it at full speed if you're sure it's clear.

I could support this if you combined it with criminal and civil liability when you guess wrong and run someone over while blowing your stop-sign. Right now, that's a $500 ticket at best, and it happens every day.

The whole problem is that people don't look for pedestrians -- they look for another car that might hit them. So they are looking the wrong way. And then they tell the cops some sob-story about how the dead pedestrian "came out of nowhere".

In the US a 15 year old can get a learner's permit and start driving (with an adult) the same day. They can be licensed to drive on their own at 16 by passing a fairly cursory written exam and a short road test. No formal/classroom instruction is required.

Another part is truck design. Same reason: American trucks have elongated noses for the engine, whereas European trucks have the driver sitting directly above the engine.

On top of that, European countries have much more strict testing requirements on vehicles. Basically, every 2-4 years you have to have your vehicle inspected for roadworthiness - foundational stuff such as structural rust, worn-down tires or brakes gets caught much, much earlier than in the US.

But also we have a serious problem where taking away someone's license to drive is to sentence them to poverty if not homelessness and starvation. We don't have decent public transit and there are very few jobs within walking distance of most residential areas. Those jobs that do exist don't pay a living wage because pegging minimum wage to inflation or even the poverty line is "communism" and an "attack on businesses".

Our problems with car fatalities is really only one small symptom of the ongoing collapse of American society.

Given the way American streets are set up, rigorously enforcing stop signs is probably beneficial, but I think other factors about how streets are arranged and how people drive are more important.

Most of shops i visit , other family members, my job , parks etc are all within about 5km of me.

The longest drive i do to visit a family member is 90km, every few months.

Anytime i've visited the US even going to the nearest shop seemed like a very long drive.

So if all other things are equal, theres just more opportunity for accidents.

What incentive structure could make these things be more benficial than just money grabbing? Laws that revenue from citations must be spend for direct public benefit only? With public audit?

This isnt alot better, but at least its a provate vendor that gets data to the government who then decide to cite whats supposed to be dangerous behavior. Theres obviously corruption there, but these people are at least somewhat beholden tp the public through local elections and stuff. The toyota executives are not

So they set a speed limit of 20mph on any mixed use street, and create separated pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure for any street with higher speed limits.

The latter is super expensive, but it's what you need if you want usually zero fatalities and to go faster than 20mph.

Actually zero all the time is impossible, of course. It's possible that a 5mph collision with a frail pedestrian will kill them. So Norway and Sweden sometimes have a fatality. But a goal of "zero pedestrian fatalities most years" is actually feasible for polities with fewer than 10 million citizens.

"One must know when it is enough. Those who know when it is enough will not perish."

I think it's good to aim for zero traffic deaths, as in many countries the situation is so bad that a lot of improvement is feasible.

The long tail would definitely be much harder to tackle, but I don't expect this to be a serious problem in practice.