If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?
On 3/6/2014 9:42 AM, Liam O'Connor wrote:
> LEGAL QUESTION: > What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed? > > DETAILS: > The three multi-way STOP signs in question are easily viewed > by pasting the following GPS coordinates into Google Maps: > 37.291379,-121.958411 > > The flagrantly illegal multi-way STOP signs are those facing > each other on Llewellyn Ave, which is abutted at that point > by Queens Ct. > > I live near that intersection, and I firmly believe that > those multi-way stop signs can't possibly be legal. > > But, how do I prove that they were illegally placed? > And, what is the process to have them removed, by law? > > MORE DETAILS: > I believe that the people who authorized the placement of those > two multi-way STOP signs themselved did not respect the law in > their very act of illegally authorizing their placement. The city will argue that the signs were not placed to control speed but to try to get drivers to not use Latimer and Llewellyn to get to the post office or to avoid the Hamilton/Winchester intersection. But even if they were placed to control speed, the fact that using stop signs to stop speeding is discouraged, it's not illegal. 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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?
LEGAL QUESTION:
What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed? DETAILS: The three multi-way STOP signs in question are easily viewed by pasting the following GPS coordinates into Google Maps: 37.291379,-121.958411 The flagrantly illegal multi-way STOP signs are those facing each other on Llewellyn Ave, which is abutted at that point by Queens Ct. I live near that intersection, and I firmly believe that those multi-way stop signs can't possibly be legal. But, how do I prove that they were illegally placed? And, what is the process to have them removed, by law? MORE DETAILS: I believe that the people who authorized the placement of those two multi-way STOP signs themselved did not respect the law in their very act of illegally authorizing their placement. I believe, the signs are not only unenforceable, but they are so obviously ridiculously placed as to cause knowledgeable drivers, such as I am, to disrespect them. REFERENCES: Page 2 of the December 2009 NHTSA MUTCD clearly warns: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r...2editionhl.pdf "A standard device used where it is not appropriate is ... objectionable ... because such misuse might result in disrespect..." Tellingly, page 50 of the NHTSA MUTCD warns administrators: "... STOP signs should not be used for speed control". Page 50 of the NHTSA MUTCD specifies: "A ... STOP sign should not be installed on the higher volume roadway unless justified by an engineering study." Page 52 of the NHTSA MUTCD, reaffirms: "The decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study." Page 52 of the NHTSA MUTCD states: "Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal." There are additional conditions on page 52 (e.g., minimum volumes of 200 units per hour on the side street, 300 vehicles per hour on the main street, five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period, 85th-percentile speeds exceeding 40mph, left-turn conflicts, high pedestrian volume, visibility issues, etc.), none of which, in my personal opinion, could possibly exist for this intersection. Note: There is absolutely no way the signs in question meet *any* of these requirements, and therefore their placement can't possibly have been based on a competent "engineering study". The two signs in question are those at the intersection visible in Google Maps by pasting this as the search: SUMMARY: I believe the multi-way signs at this location are an example of administrators abusing the law, and I would like to ask for your advice as to what measures are available to me, a local homeowner, for discovery of the justification as to why these signs were authorized, and, what the process would be for them to be removed. Please advise me. Thank you in advance. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?
["Followup-To:" header set to ba.transportation.]
On 2014-03-06, Liam O'Connor > wrote: > LEGAL QUESTION: > What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed? Hire an attorney. --keith -- (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?
Liam,
Looks ok to me. Especially with the driveway that is also a part of this intersection. Request the engineering study that was done for this intersection. A copy shouldn't be very expensive. That would be a good starting point. Good luck, Dave M. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?
On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:22:53 -0500, David L. Martel wrote:
> Request the engineering study that was done for this intersection. > A copy shouldn't be very expensive. > That would be a good starting point. Hi David, There was no engineering study. The traffic engineer called me back and told me that the people who put up the signs did NOT follow "normal" procedures. He said the "normal" procedure is to follow the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which, he said, generally comes out three years after the Federal MUTCD. He says there are differences, such as the school crosswalk color in California is yellow, but that I needed to obtain the manual to find out for myself whether the signs meet the California standards. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/ In addition, he told me that the process followed for "those" signs (there's a similar set at King's Court, very near to Queen's Court) was that there was a "warrant" but no "analysis". He said a "neighborhood survey" was used instead, and that the "City Council" authorized the city to install those signs. He informally agreed with me that it would be "very difficult" for those signs to meet today's standards, but, he said, there is no process for removal of those signs, as, he said, they do not revisit the justifications for those signs after the fact. So, he said, they're up permanently, even though they likely (by our informal assessment) don't even come close to meeting today's standards. I'm not sure what the next step is ... and I could use your advice! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?
On 2014-03-06, Liam O'Connor > wrote:
> LEGAL QUESTION: > What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed? > > DETAILS: > The three multi-way STOP signs in question are easily viewed > by pasting the following GPS coordinates into Google Maps: > 37.291379,-121.958411 > > The flagrantly illegal multi-way STOP signs are those facing > each other on Llewellyn Ave, which is abutted at that point > by Queens Ct. > > I live near that intersection, and I firmly believe that > those multi-way stop signs can't possibly be legal. > > But, how do I prove that they were illegally placed? > And, what is the process to have them removed, by law? > > MORE DETAILS: > I believe that the people who authorized the placement of those > two multi-way STOP signs themselved did not respect the law in > their very act of illegally authorizing their placement. > > I believe, the signs are not only unenforceable, but they are > so obviously ridiculously placed as to cause knowledgeable > drivers, such as I am, to disrespect them. > > REFERENCES: > > Page 2 of the December 2009 NHTSA MUTCD clearly warns: > http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r...2editionhl.pdf > "A standard device used where it is not appropriate is ... > objectionable ... because such misuse might result in > disrespect..." > > Tellingly, page 50 of the NHTSA MUTCD warns administrators: > "... STOP signs should not be used for speed control". > > Page 50 of the NHTSA MUTCD specifies: > "A ... STOP sign should not be installed on the higher volume > roadway unless justified by an engineering study." > > Page 52 of the NHTSA MUTCD, reaffirms: > "The decision to install multi-way stop control should be > based on an engineering study." > > Page 52 of the NHTSA MUTCD states: > "Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic > on the intersecting roads is approximately equal." > > There are additional conditions on page 52 (e.g., minimum volumes > of 200 units per hour on the side street, 300 vehicles per hour > on the main street, five or more reported crashes in a 12-month > period, 85th-percentile speeds exceeding 40mph, left-turn conflicts, > high pedestrian volume, visibility issues, etc.), none of which, > in my personal opinion, could possibly exist for this intersection. > > Note: There is absolutely no way the signs in question > meet *any* of these requirements, and therefore their > placement can't possibly have been based on a competent > "engineering study". > > The two signs in question are those at the intersection > visible in Google Maps by pasting this as the search: > > SUMMARY: > I believe the multi-way signs at this location are an > example of administrators abusing the law, and I would > like to ask for your advice as to what measures are > available to me, a local homeowner, for discovery of > the justification as to why these signs were authorized, > and, what the process would be for them to be removed. > > Please advise me. > Thank you in advance. Sadly 'feels good' trumps established engineering practices and standards and what works in the USA. Judges to elected office holders will be ignorant of the MUTCD, ITE, the state vehicle code, sign manual, etc and so forth. For the typical american traffic devices and road design are to be done by what feels right. What feels good. Then everyone is supposed to obey or be punished. Red means stop, green means go is about the limit of their abilities. Trying to explain to them the proper engineering of systems to be used by humans is like trying to teach a pig nuclear physics. In fact it might be easier to teach a pig how to run a nuclear power plant. The political powers that be, the ones who aren't running scams for traffic tickets*, simply cannot comprehend something more complex than forcing people to obey something the government demands. I can't tell you what will work, but my experience says that relying on the above won't work. They don't care. They feel, they don't think. *yeah, some of them understand but they ain't givin' up their cash cow. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?
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). Nonetheless, your analysis is probably correct if the post office was moved in the 1990s, since the traffic engineer in Campbell told me that no traffic study was ever performed. Given that all reasonable people would agree that: 1. The signs are not being used as STOP signs 2. The signs were not placed by the "normal" process The question is what do I do to get them removed? Is there an existing process, where such things are reviewed by someone 'other' than the town of Campbell itself? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?
On 3/6/2014 3:40 PM, Liam O'Connor wrote:
> But, such misuse is precisely why the MUTCD says not to misuse > STOP signs. Right, they say to not misuse them. But it's not illegal for a city to misuse them. > Nobody who knows anything about the purpose of STOP signs > would treat them with anything other than sheer disdain. I would obey them because the alternative is worse. Fighting a ticket is almost always a hopeless endeavor no matter how sure you are that you are right. Telling a judge "yes I ran the stop sign but the MUTCD says not to misuse stop signs and I feel that this installation is misusing them" would not be successful. > The question is what do I do to get them removed? I know only of instances where residents lobbied to have stop signs installed, and it required the collection of signatures of those on the affected streets, then a study of the impact and need for the stop sign. Later they removed it because they reconfigured the problem area making a street one-way, and eliminating the need for the sign. I would ask the Campbell Public Works director what the procedure is to try to install new, or remove existing, traffic control devices. But it's extremely hard to get a stop sign removed, even when it's no longer needed. City councils feel that if they remove a stop sign and then there's a serious accident at the intersection, that the city will have liability. I used to live in Campbell and still own property there. Campbell is one of the better smaller cities in terms of responsiveness to resident's concerns. The police are also pretty good compared to cities like Cupertino and Saratoga that lack their own police departments. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?
On 3/6/2014 3:47 PM, 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. 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. I would phrase any discussion with the city as follows: "how can we replace these stop signs with another type of traffic calming device that don't inconvenience local residents but that still discourage the use of these streets by non-residents?" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ticket for stop sign | MM | General | 5 | July 21st 08 03:16 AM |
__ Vigilante makes Citizen DUI Stop of suspected Drunk Driver <= commits vehicle burglary in the process __ | Larry Bud | Driving | 3 | July 20th 07 02:07 AM |
Stop sign cameras... | Brent P[_1_] | Driving | 130 | May 16th 07 02:22 AM |
Why stop sign is the only one being used? | bat | Driving | 28 | June 3rd 06 03:32 AM |
Mercedes Diesel that wont stop when the key is removed | Elliott P | Technology | 3 | March 28th 06 05:17 AM |