Finally, California drivers can read a cell phone map (iPad too?)

On 3/7/2014 8:47 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article >, Don Kirkman
> > wrote:
>
>> In my state, California, Stop signs are red and hexagonal,
>
> Octoganal; that's the same for the entire country.
>

Octagonal; for those parts of the country with spell check.

In article >, News > wrote:

> On 3/7/2014 8:47 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article >, Don Kirkman
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> In my state, California, Stop signs are red and hexagonal,
> >
> > Octoganal; that's the same for the entire country.
> >
>
> Octagonal; for those parts of the country with spell check.


Unless you're using Siri, in which case it's "Octopus goal". ;-)

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 19:08:26 -0500, tlvp wrote:

> There's no earthly need for him to offer a plausible candidate for a reason
> to be justified in saying they "are almost certainly there for a reason".

Between you, me, and the next sign post, I "suspect" what
happened, is what SMS reported probably happened.

When they moved the post office from one location to near
these STOP signs, the neighborhood "worried" about traffic.

So, it made them feel good to put up a sign, whose only purpose
was to inconvenience traffic. The sign had no safety purpose
other than that, I suspect. By inconveniencing traffic, two
things, one may assume, would happen because most people follow
the law whether or not the law follows the law:
1. They might not use that roadway
2. If they do use the roadway, their speeds at that point
would have to approach zero temporarily, twice.

Neither of those reasons justifies putting up a STOP sign, a
according to the MUTCD, but, there it is, noneless, basically
a sham STOP sign, which, IMHO, deserves zero respect.

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:18:21 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> it doesn't alter the
> FACT that you have to stop at a Stop sign ... otherwise they'd be
> labelled and called "Please stop if you feel like it" signs. :-\

I don't disagree.

We "think" (SMS and I), that the signs were put up when the
post office moved into that area (but we would have to check
dates to confirm that).

What we "do" know is that the normal procedures for STOP
sign justification were clearly not followed. The town of
Campbell put them up based on a neighborhood "survey" in
the 1990s, which the town council voted upon.

That's all the justification they needed to put them UP.

Now, the question is, since they are certainly not deserving
of any respect whatsoever, is what the task will be to get
them to come down.

Not an easy question, but I've asked on the legal groups,
misc.legal, and misc.legal.moderated

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:14:32 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> The damn things aren't that cheap, so they don't go around just
> sticking one wherever they feel like it. There *IS* a reason - if you
> want to know what it is, then go and ask the people in charge of
> putting it there.

I agree with you but disagree with you a tiny bit.
a. There is certainly a "reason", I agree.
b. The signs are not cheaper than the "correct" approach.

The town traffic engineer already spoke to me about this.
He didn't know the "reason"; but he knew the facts of the case.
He also told me that, today, they'd use "quieting" methods.

The traffic engineer told me that, in the 90s, the neighborhood
was given a "survey" and that the town council voted to approve
the stop signs. We also know that no engineering study was ever
performed. We also can assume, based on our intimate knowledge of
that intersection, that, IMHO, there's absolutely no way that
a traffic study could possibly warrant the signs being there.

We are left to guess as to the "reason", but, like all political
corruption, this seems clear to me as merely the illegal
application of the wrong law for the wrong purpose.

Had they performed traffic quieting procedures, it would have
likely cost FAR more than putting up two signs (e.g., speed
bumps, enforcement overtime, artificial medians, artificial
striping, etc.).

In other words, the wrong approach was far cheaper than the
correct approach.

And, the only reason the wrong approach works, is that most
people are, IMHO, mindless sheep who wouldn't know a legally
emplaced STOP sign from an illegally emplaced one if it hit
them on the head.

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 11:19:07 -0800, Don Kirkman wrote:

> In my state, California, Stop signs are red and hexagonal, Yield signs
> are yellow and triangular. I assume most US states have similar
> distinctions.

Hey, just as an aside.
Do you know WHY they are the distinctive shape they are?

The reason, I read somewhere, I think in the 1976 MUTCD, is
that the OTHER driver (the one who does *not* have a STOP sign),
can *recognize* that there is a stop sign, merely from the back
of the sign.

That is, the octagonal and triangular shapes tell the OTHER
driver that you have the respective signage applying to you.

That's pretty neat!

On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 09:53:43 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> You'll probably find the Stop sign is octaganal. :-)

And, it is that way expressly so the guy facing the
BACK side of the sign, knows that the other guy has
a stop sign.

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:47:10 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Octoganal; that's the same for the entire country.

Did you also know that the sign MUST be a certain width
and distance above the ground in order to be legal?

That is, any other size or distance is unenforceable.

Also, ALL the STOP signs on private property (e.g.,
in a mall parking lot) are, as far as I know, legally
uninforcible.

Note: I'm not talking about how an insurance company might
find "fault"; I'm talking about the fact you can not, AFAIK,
get a ticket, for running a mall parking lot stop sign.

Still, it's likely a good idea to at least go very slowly
through them, since pedestrians abound at such places.

Luckily, most people drive prudently, even if almost
everyone already knows that none of those private STOP
signs are legally binding.

In article
dhosting.com>, Liam
O'Connor > wrote:

> Also, ALL the STOP signs on private property (e.g.,
> in a mall parking lot) are, as far as I know, legally
> uninforcible.

this is true.

> The town traffic engineer already spoke to me about this.
> He didn't know the "reason"; but he knew the facts of the case.
> He also told me that, today, they'd use "quieting" methods.
>
> The traffic engineer told me that, in the 90s, the neighborhood
> was given a "survey" and that the town council voted to approve
> the stop signs. We also know that no engineering study was ever
> performed. We also can assume, based on our intimate knowledge of
> that intersection, that, IMHO, there's absolutely no way that
> a traffic study could possibly warrant the signs being there.
>
> We are left to guess as to the "reason", but, like all political
> corruption, this seems clear to me as merely the illegal
> application of the wrong law for the wrong purpose.

In a perfect world where people don’t get distracted when driving a
vehicle and have a super memory for following every traffic rule, it’s
absolutely no need to use any kinds of signs.

In reality, people are easily distracted and do forget traffic rules, at
least, one a while.

Signs are placed at least for as a reminder.

We know based on known science that a person is more than likely to die
by jumping off a 10 story building or being hit by a train. There is no
need for conducting experiments for every building and railroad
interaction to prove it. In fact, it would be stupid and a waste of
resources to do so.

There are at least three approaches to solve problems: (1) prevention;
(2) fix the problem once for all – which then will become the first
approach; (3) fix the problem repeatedly. Obviously, not everyone will
agree and appreciate the same approach, but it’s the responsibility of
the person who is in charge to make the decision.


On 3/9/2014 4:26 AM, Liam O'Connor wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:14:32 +1300, Your Name wrote:
>
>> The damn things aren't that cheap, so they don't go around just
>> sticking one wherever they feel like it. There *IS* a reason - if you
>> want to know what it is, then go and ask the people in charge of
>> putting it there.
>
> I agree with you but disagree with you a tiny bit.
> a. There is certainly a "reason", I agree.
> b. The signs are not cheaper than the "correct" approach.
>
> The town traffic engineer already spoke to me about this.
> He didn't know the "reason"; but he knew the facts of the case.
> He also told me that, today, they'd use "quieting" methods.
>
> The traffic engineer told me that, in the 90s, the neighborhood
> was given a "survey" and that the town council voted to approve
> the stop signs. We also know that no engineering study was ever
> performed. We also can assume, based on our intimate knowledge of
> that intersection, that, IMHO, there's absolutely no way that
> a traffic study could possibly warrant the signs being there.
>
> We are left to guess as to the "reason", but, like all political
> corruption, this seems clear to me as merely the illegal
> application of the wrong law for the wrong purpose.
>
> Had they performed traffic quieting procedures, it would have
> likely cost FAR more than putting up two signs (e.g., speed
> bumps, enforcement overtime, artificial medians, artificial
> striping, etc.).
>
> In other words, the wrong approach was far cheaper than the
> correct approach.
>
> And, the only reason the wrong approach works, is that most
> people are, IMHO, mindless sheep who wouldn't know a legally
> emplaced STOP sign from an illegally emplaced one if it hit
> them on the head.
>