What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?

And in the ground view, two of the three stops are just written on the pavement.

On 2014-03-06, Liam O'Connor > wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 23:20:51 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
>
>> They feel, they don't think.
>
> I must say that was a surprisingly eloquent description of
> *why* the signs were placed there. I don't disagree.
>
> It felt good to them to inconvenience traffic on that
> road, so as to discourage traffic on that road.
>
> They used an artificial STOP sign because most people inherently
> resepect such signs, more so than they respect speed limit &
> caution signs.
>
> However, they used the wrong sign for the wrong purpose.
> And they know it.
>
> The question now, is how to reverse that decision.

Once enough nonsencical stop signs are used people stop respecting the
nonsensical ones and occasionally the ones that make sense.

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:47:41 PM UTC-8, Liam O'Connor wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 23:20:51 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
>

<snp>

> However, they used the wrong sign for the wrong purpose.
> And they know it.

> The question now, is how to reverse that decision.

You could try getting up a petition from the users of the road to have it removed. That might force the powers-that-be to revisit the reasons for it being there.

Harry K

Liam,

Politics may be a solution. I've no idea what sort of government your
town uses but there are probably elected officials who represent your
locale.Someone at his office will gladly listen to your complaint. Will they
do anything? I think they will give you a nice cup of coffee, but who knows?
Most likely there are neighborhood "political action" committees. Speak with
them. Speak with a few of the local religous leaders. They'll usually know
who is running the neighborhood.
Begin by marshalling your arguments. Why shouldn't the intersection be a
three-way stop? A waste of gas and time? A cause of accidents? I don't find
"it's illegal" to be a very credible argument. Lose it or put it way down
the list.
Expect to meet opposition. Lots of folks with kids will live near your
intersection. They won't like you. Be ready to win them over.

Good luck,
Dave M.

Liam O'Connor > writes:

>
>I'm not sure what the next step is ... and I could use your
>advice!
>

Pay your ticket, and stop at the stop sign.

Liam O'Connor > writes:
>On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 06:52:30 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> the fact that using stop signs to stop speeding is discouraged,
>> it's not illegal.
>
>Hi SMS,
>
>I usually see you over in a.h.r, so it's nice to see you here,
>on the legal side of things.
>
>I don't disagree with you that the signs are, most likely,
>misused as speed limitors, instead of as STOP signs.
>
>But, such misuse is precisely why the MUTCD says not to misuse
>STOP signs.
>
>Nobody who knows anything about the purpose of STOP signs
>would treat them with anything other than sheer disdain.
>
>I, myself, blow through them all the time, as I treat them
>with disdain, which is the only way they should be treated
>(IMHO).

Such arrogance is astounding.

Stop at the damn sign before you kill someone.

On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 08:28:13 -0500, "David L. Martel"
> wrote:

> Liam,
> ...... I don't find
> "it's illegal" to be a very credible argument. Lose it or put it way down
> the list.

AND put "flagrantly illegal" AND "firmly believe"
[as if "believe" is not sufficient when one has a
basis more than unilaterally felt emotion for belief]
AND saying you know something is so because you
"can't possibly believe" the opposite AND "obviously
ridiculously" AND "absolutely no way" and so on, etc.,
even further down the list in trying to construct an
actually credible argument.

On 03/07/2014 10:36 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Liam O'Connor > writes:

>> I, myself, blow through them all the time, as I treat them
>> with disdain, which is the only way they should be treated
>> (IMHO).
>
> Such arrogance is astounding.
>
> Stop at the damn sign before you kill someone.

No one is going to get killed, so calm down Beavis.

On 03/06/2014 04:25 PM, Liam O'Connor wrote:

> He said a "neighborhood survey" was used instead, and that the
> "City Council" authorized the city to install those signs.

Is there a home owners association that manages the neighborhood where
you live? Maybe you can find out what your neighbors think about the
stop sign. If most of them have the same viewpoint you do, you may have
success in terms of getting the stop sign removed.

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:00:22 -0800, sms wrote:

> Stop signs are often used for traffic calming even when other traffic
> calming measures would be more appropriate. Stop signs are relatively
> cheap to install while proper traffic calming is not cheap.

Hi SMS,
I don't disagree with you one bit. I realize you live in the
area, so, you're familiar with the mentality of the towns.

> I would phrase any discussion with the city as follows:
> "how can we replace these stop signs with another type
> of traffic calming device

Wow. You're good. Yes, that is a better approach. I would
be more tactless, in saying, "you can'tt enforce those signs,
so, you must remove them because they don't even follow your
own rules for signs".

Knowing that intersection perfectly well, I doubt there is
*any* need for traffic calming anyway. I subscribe to your
theory that people were *worried* about the post office
traffic.

I seriously doubt there is *any* appreciable post office
traffic on Llewellyn, simply because Hamilton is a mulei-lane
road which now has a stoplight at Llewellyn, which didn't
exist in the 1990s (which itself discourages traffic).

Also, Hamilton has a concrete barrier, which they put up
about 10 years ago, which also didn't exist in the 1990s.

So, I suspect a *lot* has changed since those signs were
put up. Seems to me the traffic study is actually warranted.