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

On 3/11/2014 8:51 PM, Arif Khokar wrote:
> 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?

Since you are not on the bicycling groups, you may not realize that
Scharf is the self-appointed "World's Greatest Expert".

--
T0m $herm@n

On 3/11/2014 1:49 AM, Gordon Burditt wrote:
> - 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.

Hey, that would be a good thing!

--
T0m $herm@n

On 3/9/2014 12:19 AM, Arif Khokar wrote:
> On 03/08/2014 10:30 PM, Liam O'Connor wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:33:43 -0500, Arif Khokar wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe you can find out what your neighbors think about the
>>> stop sign. If most of them have the same viewpoint
>>
>> On this, I doubt that the neighbors will be of like mind.
>> Most people in California are sheep. This isn't a political
>> ng, so, I really shouldn't delve deeper.
>
> I don't think there would be any harm in asking in an informal manner.
> Maybe you could phrase it as why do we need this stop sign here. There's
> hardly any traffic and it's quite easy to make a turn without having to
> stop. And then see what the response is.
>
> If no one is in favor, then you may be able to count on the relative
> apathy most people have regarding this issue. That is, you go to the
> appropriate government agency (make an appointment to speak with the
> correct official) and then claim that the stop sign isn't necessary. You
> can outline your reasoning as you have in numerous posts in this and the
> other thread (though I wouldn't go into you ignoring the stop sign part
> of it), and ask for it to be removed.
>
> Assuming no one in your neighborhood raises an objection, then it may
> just get removed and your neighbors will just think they removed it for
> a "reason."

Pay some kids from da 'hood to steal the signs, and the city may not
bother replacing them.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 3/12/2014 8:12 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.

Better than a four-way stop on roads with significant traffic. Until a
couple of years ago, this was a 4-way stop, and even with light (by
California standards), traffic on the 4-lane road would back way up
during commuting hours.

<https://goo.gl/maps/yzf5i>

--
T0m $herm@n

On 3/9/2014 2:28 PM, wrote:
> Arif Khokar:
>
> I thought "rotary" and "roundabout" described the same element.
>
No. In a rotary (aka traffic circle) entering traffic has the
right-of-way, while in a roundabout circulating traffic has the
right-of-way. The latter work much better than the former when properly
designed (design is *not* a trivial exercise, which is why specialized
roundabout consultants exist).

--
T0m $herm@n

On 3/9/2014 7:30 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>
>> I thought "rotary" and "roundabout" described the same element.
>
> they are the same. different regions use different names.
>
NO! NO! NO!

--
T0m $herm@n

On 3/11/2014 7:01 AM, None wrote:
> "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.

Do equestrians (as a person on an ass would be) have to stop at stop signs?

--
T0m $herm@n

On 03/15/2014 11:39 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 3/12/2014 8:12 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.
>
> Better than a four-way stop on roads with significant traffic. Until a
> couple of years ago, this was a 4-way stop, and even with light (by
> California standards), traffic on the 4-lane road would back way up
> during commuting hours.
>
> <https://goo.gl/maps/yzf5i>

A roundabout would have made far more sense if the traffic volumes on
the two roads were roughly equal.

On 3/15/14 10:45 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 3/11/2014 7:01 AM, None wrote:
>> "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.
>
> Do equestrians (as a person on an ass would be) have to stop at stop signs?

In California, a ridden animal counts as a vehicle. So, yes.

Don't make me check the other 50 jurisdictions.

"T0m $herman" > wrote in message
...
> No. In a rotary (aka traffic circle) entering traffic has the
> right-of-way,

In parts of the US only. In the northeast US and the rest of the
world, circulating traffic has the right of way over entering traffic
in traffic circles, rotaries, and roundabouts, regardless of the label
used.