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

On 3/10/2014 5:46 PM, Arif Khokar wrote:
> On 03/09/2014 02:57 PM, sms wrote:
>
>> A lot of stop signs could conceivably be replaced by a flashing
>> yellow/flashing red traffic light that only changes to solid red when a
>> pedestrian pushes a button to cross.
>
> A lot of stop signs could just as well be replaced by yield signs.
>
>> But you're talking tens of
>> thousands of dollars versus maybe $1000 for four stop signs and some
>> paint.
>
> Two yield signs for the designated minor road would even be cheaper.

The Yield signs would not achieve the desired outcome the the Stop signs
have achieved.

> It's likely that residents of that area lobbied for the stop signs when
> the post office was moved from Latimer (east of Winchester) over to
> Hamilton and Llewellyn.
>
> Once ill-advised stop signs are installed it's extremely hard to get
> them removed, but these stop signs were not ill-advised.

Is there anything illegal (there would be plenty of *stupid*, but
that's not illegal) about a city ordinance that says "existing STOP
signs shall not be removed" on the ground that a second traffic
study and actual removal costs too much?

Not even if:
- The STOP sign is now in the middle of an airport landing
strip and is a hazard to air traffic.
- The STOP sign was originally placed on private property
which has now been taken for public use.
- The STOP sign is now in the middle of a reservoir and causes
boat and fish traffic congestion.
- A couple dozen STOP signs were placed when a truckload of
STOP signs overturned. Once placed, they can't be removed.
- The original STOP sign was placed to stop Ankylosaurus stampedes,
and that hasn't been a problem in, literally, eons.
- The original placement of the STOP sign was due to a
typographical error, even though it now prevents anyone
in a particular parking garage with a vehicle larger than a
motorcycle from exiting.
- STOP signs originally on toll booths may not be removed even
if the toll booths have been demolished.
- STOP signs may not be removed to be replaced by a stop light.

On 03/10/2014 11:52 PM, sms wrote:
> On 3/10/2014 5:46 PM, Arif Khokar wrote:

>>> But you're talking tens of
>>> thousands of dollars versus maybe $1000 for four stop signs and some
>>> paint.
>>
>> Two yield signs for the designated minor road would even be cheaper.
>
> The Yield signs would not achieve the desired outcome the the Stop signs
> have achieved.

If people are essentially treating the existing stop signs like yield
signs, then there would be no difference in outcome (other than the fact
that one cannot be cited for not coming to a full stop for a yield sign).

"Liam O'Connor" > wrote in message
worldhosting.com...
> LEGAL QUESTION:
> What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?

The most important thing you should do is whine about it on Usenet.

That will get you scads of answers, most of which will have nothing to
do with any legal proceedings. But your real goal is just to whine
about it; that's obvious. If you really cared about this supposedly
illegal stop sign, you might actually get off your enormous ass and do
something about it. But whining on Usenet is probably the best you can
do, given your limited reasoning and social skills.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:01:03 -0400, None wrote:

> The most important thing you should do is whine about it on Usenet.

Point taken!

Advice is to contact the local authorities and perform discovery.
That step is awiting the traffic engineer's paperwork.

After that, I don't have the legal resources to sue, nor the time and
energy to canvass the neighborhood (both of which were suggested), so, I
will merely ask that the signs be removed.

The logic will be that they are "no longer needed".

Note, this is not my real objective, which is that they're illegal in the
first place; but advice here has suggested taking the "no longer needed"
tack vice the "illegally placed" tack.

Do you concur?

On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:46:18 -0400, Arif Khokar wrote:

> Two yield signs for the designated minor road would even be cheaper.

Normally, I don't see "yeild" signs on T intersections though.
So, a yield sign "might" cause confusion.

However, nobody in their right mind would not stop when entering Llewellyn
from Queens (or Kings) Court. It's natural to stop when entering a main
street from a side street.

So that particular stop sign (on Queens Ct.) was never in question.

On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 09:08:46 -0700, sms wrote:

> I only know of one instance of someone lobbying for a stop sign, and it
> was my sister. She had to go through the neighborhood and gather the
> signatures of a majority of the residents before the city would even
> consider a stop sign.

I have received perhaps three or four "petitions" to emplace traffic
control devices over the years.

I, myself, had not responded to a single one, most of which (perhaps all?)
came from the town in the form of an official snail mail soliciting
comments.

IIRC, all of those devices were eventually emplaced, but, I was not part of
the process, so I can say no more about that.

However, in this case, it's unlikely that I can do much more, myself, than
to ask for the documentation (which I have done), and then to draft a
letter asking for the stop signs on Llewellyn to be removed.

My argument?

I don't know, but my "real" argument is that they don't belong there; but I
have been advised (here and elsewhere) to take a more political tack.

Therefore, I think my argument will be that they are "no longer needed"
vice "they shouldn't be there in the first place".

If you have a *better* argument, please advise!

On 3/11/2014 3:56 AM, Arif Khokar wrote:
> On 03/10/2014 11:52 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 3/10/2014 5:46 PM, Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>>>> But you're talking tens of
>>>> thousands of dollars versus maybe $1000 for four stop signs and some
>>>> paint.
>>>
>>> Two yield signs for the designated minor road would even be cheaper.
>>
>> The Yield signs would not achieve the desired outcome the the Stop signs
>> have achieved.
>
> If people are essentially treating the existing stop signs like yield
> signs, then there would be no difference in outcome (other than the fact
> that one cannot be cited for not coming to a full stop for a yield sign).

There is no evidence that people are not stopping at the stop signs.

On 03/11/2014 02:55 PM, sms wrote:
> On 3/11/2014 3:56 AM, Arif Khokar wrote:

>>> The Yield signs would not achieve the desired outcome the the Stop signs
>>> have achieved.
>>
>> If people are essentially treating the existing stop signs like yield
>> signs, then there would be no difference in outcome (other than the fact
>> that one cannot be cited for not coming to a full stop for a yield sign).
>
> There is no evidence that people are not stopping at the stop signs.

And I'm sure that there's no evidence that people are not obeying the
speed limit either. Do you have statistics for the percentage of
vehicular traffic complying with these stop signs?

On 03/11/2014 11:10 AM, Liam O'Connor wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:46:18 -0400, Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>> Two yield signs for the designated minor road would even be cheaper.
>
> Normally, I don't see "yeild" signs on T intersections though.
> So, a yield sign "might" cause confusion.

A lot of people argue that other drivers can't handle a given situation
like a yield sign or a roundabout. I never bought that argument because
no evidence (other than the anecdotal type) that there is any
significant level of driver confusion other than what would normally
occur when the traffic configuration is changed at a given location.

There are two parts to complying with a stop sign. The first part is to
come to a complete stop. The second part is to yield to other traffic
that has the right of way before proceeding through the intersection. A
yield sign only has the latter requirement. Quite simply, when one
doesn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, but still yields to
traffic that has the right of way, they're essentially treating the stop
sign like a yield sign.

Actually posting a yield sign shouldn't cause confusion in that case
since drivers were essentially doing what a yield sign requires at a
stop sign.

> However, nobody in their right mind would not stop when entering Llewellyn
> from Queens (or Kings) Court. It's natural to stop when entering a main
> street from a side street.

It's actually normal to come to a complete stop at an intersection where
you cannot see conflicting traffic until you're about to enter it.
That's why posting stop signs in locations where it's quite easy to see
approaching traffic as you approach the intersection is not necessary.

In fact, if you're making a right turn onto Llewellyn and you have
sufficient visibility, there's nothing unsafe about simply slowing down
and confirming there's no approaching traffic before making the right
turn. Coming to a full stop isn't really necessary.