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

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:03:29 -0400, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

> 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.

for some circumstances the second part seems to implicate a conundrum
tantamount to paradox?
a teaching moment about conceptual limitations of law in potential
4-way intersection situations?
an illustration that inherently vague imprecations to be "careful" or
to be generally "reasonable" necessarily underlie seemingly bright
line rules such as those purporting to require yielding to other
traffic that has the right of way before proceeding?
if 4 drivers simultaneously arrive at a 4-way <Stop> sign intersection
and even if none are driving while talking on their cell phones while
using Twitter while also watching Netflix on their iPads, etc, if each
must yield to the one who has the right of way, which one has the
right of way?

On 03/12/2014 11:07 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:03:29 -0400, Arif Khokar >
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> for some circumstances the second part seems to implicate a conundrum
> tantamount to paradox?
> a teaching moment about conceptual limitations of law in potential
> 4-way intersection situations?

<snip>

You just explained why having a 4-way stop intersection is one of the
most stupid and idiotic way to handle traffic at lightly traveled
intersections. It makes far more sense to designated one road as the
minor one and post yield signs for that road only at the intersection.

"Liam O'Connor" > wrote in message
news:201e9$531f2830$43da7656
> If you have a *better* argument, please advise!

You could try to find a different dead hobby-horse to flog.

On 3/12/2014 6:12 PM, Arif Khokar wrote:
> On 03/12/2014 11:07 AM, wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:03:29 -0400, Arif Khokar >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> for some circumstances the second part seems to implicate a conundrum
>> tantamount to paradox?
>> a teaching moment about conceptual limitations of law in potential
>> 4-way intersection situations?
>
> <snip>
>
> You just explained why having a 4-way stop intersection is one of the
> most stupid and idiotic way to handle traffic at lightly traveled
> intersections. It makes far more sense to designated one road as the
> minor one and post yield signs for that road only at the intersection.

The reason for the stop signs at the intersection in question has
nothing to do with handling traffic. They are about two things: 1)
discouraging the use of this route as a bypass to major arterial roads,
2) reducing vehicle speeds. Yield signs on the minor road would not
accomplish either of these goals. There are various traffic calming
measures that could be used instead of stop signs but they cost more money.

On 03/14/2014 11:12 AM, sms wrote:
> On 3/12/2014 6:12 PM, Arif Khokar wrote:

>> You just explained why having a 4-way stop intersection is one of the
>> most stupid and idiotic way to handle traffic at lightly traveled
>> intersections. It makes far more sense to designated one road as the
>> minor one and post yield signs for that road only at the intersection.
>
> The reason for the stop signs at the intersection in question has
> nothing to do with handling traffic. They are about two things: 1)
> discouraging the use of this route as a bypass to major arterial roads,
> 2) reducing vehicle speeds.

That's not what stop signs are supposed to be used for according to the
FHWA MUTCD.

> Yield signs on the minor road would not
> accomplish either of these goals.

And how would you know this?

On 3/14/2014 10:51 AM, Arif Khokar wrote:
> On 03/14/2014 11:12 AM, sms wrote:
>> On 3/12/2014 6:12 PM, Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>>> You just explained why having a 4-way stop intersection is one of the
>>> most stupid and idiotic way to handle traffic at lightly traveled
>>> intersections. It makes far more sense to designated one road as the
>>> minor one and post yield signs for that road only at the intersection.
>>
>> The reason for the stop signs at the intersection in question has
>> nothing to do with handling traffic. They are about two things: 1)
>> discouraging the use of this route as a bypass to major arterial roads,
>> 2) reducing vehicle speeds.
>
> That's not what stop signs are supposed to be used for according to the
> FHWA MUTCD.

Immaterial. That's what they are being used for, It's not illegal to do
this, it's just not what is supposed to be done. Big difference.

>> Yield signs on the minor road would not
>> accomplish either of these goals.
>
> And how would you know this?

There would be no need to slow down if not for the stop signs. This
would make this route to the post office a much more desirable route. I
used to live in that area and understand why they did what they did.

On 03/14/2014 06:52 PM, sms wrote:
> On 3/14/2014 10:51 AM, Arif Khokar wrote:

>>> The reason for the stop signs at the intersection in question has
>>> nothing to do with handling traffic. They are about two things: 1)
>>> discouraging the use of this route as a bypass to major arterial roads,
>>> 2) reducing vehicle speeds.
>>
>> That's not what stop signs are supposed to be used for according to the
>> FHWA MUTCD.
>
> Immaterial.

That doesn't change the facts I stated above.

>>> Yield signs on the minor road would not
>>> accomplish either of these goals.
>>
>> And how would you know this?
>
> There would be no need to slow down if not for the stop signs.

You have to check for opposing traffic before proceeding. That requires
slowing down to some extent.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote

> It makes far more sense to designated one road as the minor one and post
> yield signs for that road only at the intersection.

Most communities DO designate one street as the main and put stops only on
the lesser street. The trick, of course, is that the designated main street
has to be consistent for many blocks, but this has often been taken care of
in the original street design anyway. Many cities create a main
thoroughfare every 8 blocks (1 mile) or so.

On 03/14/2014 08:56 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote
>
>> It makes far more sense to designated one road as the minor one and post
>> yield signs for that road only at the intersection.
>
> Most communities DO designate one street as the main and put stops only on
> the lesser street. The trick, of course, is that the designated main street
> has to be consistent for many blocks, but this has often been taken care of
> in the original street design anyway. Many cities create a main
> thoroughfare every 8 blocks (1 mile) or so.

While that may be true, that doesn't explain the fact that in many
areas, there are intersections with 4-way stop signs. What I'm
proposing is to replace the 4 way stop with yield signs controlling the
designated "minor" road.

Unless there's a visibility issue, there's no need to have to come to a
full stop prior to yielding to through traffic. Any stop sign where a
lot of traffic ends up making a "rolling stop" instead of a full stop
could just as well be replaced by a yield sign.

wrote:

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

If that's the case, they might not even be city stop signs. We've had a few
instances of disgruntled residents posting their own road markings.

The OP should contact the city engineering department and find the
background on why these signs were put in place. Even if they were placed
by the city, the 'why' might be interesting.

If I had to guess, I'd say the signs were put up for the benefit of the
residents on Queen's Court who don't like to wait for crossing traffic. The
location doesn't appear to need 'traffic calming', as traffic is going to
have to slow in a few hundred feet to the south due to the turn onto
Latimer.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloody typical, they've gone back to metric without telling us.