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

[Liam O'Connor]

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/2009r1r2/mutcd09r1r2editionhl.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.
.

[Mike Jacobs]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 10:13:52 PM UTC-5, Liam O'Connor wrote:
> LEGAL QUESTION:
> What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?

What is the process? Lengthy. And expensive. And probably not something for a
do-it-yourselfer, unless you're as good at legal research _and_ legal argument
as a typical lawyer _and_ want to devote large amounts of time and effort to
the attempt over a substantial period of months.

> 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

Okay. I looked. They appear just about as garden-variety as any stop signs I've
ever seen. Why do you insist they are "illegal?"

> The flagrantly illegal multi-way STOP signs are those facing
> each other on Llewellyn Ave, which is abutted at that point
> by Queens Ct.

Yes, it's a 3-way "T" intersection. The signs require every motorist
approaching that intersection from any direction to stop before continuing.

> I live near that intersection, and I firmly believe that
> those multi-way stop signs can't possibly be legal.

"Can't" is a word rarely heard in a legal context. Situations may be
improbable, but rarely are they 100% impossible. And there is always room for
differences of opinion; that is why we have horse races. And trials of disputed
cases.

You may be able to craft a decent argument that the signs in question don't
meet the NHTSA standards, or were otherwise erected for some improper purpose,
and should be removed. You will have to convince your local authorities --
whichever jurisdiction (city, county, or state) it is that put up the signs --
that they ought to take them down. This will typically require filing a written
petition with the appropriate authority, according to that authority's
published rules for filing of such complaints, leading up to an oral hearing in
some sort of administrative tribunal set up by the signposting agency itself,
followed by a written decision issued by the sign-posting authority either
granting or denying your request. If you are unhappy with that
administrative-level ruling, you can then file a complaint against that
governing authority, appealing that adverse decision, in whatever local court
has jurisdiction over such complaints, to try to get that ruling overturned.
Keep in mind that upon judicial review of the findings of an administrative
tribunal, the judge (who is, of course, a generalist, handling all types of
cases) typically is required by law to give great deference to the expertise of
the adminstrative agency that was charged by law to handle such matters in the
first place, both in terms of their original interpretation of the applicable
regulations, and their application of those regulations to your particular
case. That means the judge is not likely to overturn the administrative
decision unless they did something really egregious, such as failing to follow
their own procedural rules in a manner that deprived you of a reasonable
opportunity to present your case and be heard. Even if the judge agrees with
you on that, he is not likely to order the agency to take the signs down; he
will simply order them to give you a "mulligan" and have a _new_ hearing on
your petition, at which proper procedure will need to be followed. After which,
I bet you dollars to donuts, the traffic commissioners that you just put
through the wringer are _not_ likely to change their opinion that their
_original_ action in erecting the signs in the first place was somehow illegal.

> But, how do I prove that they were illegally placed?

You outline a pretty good argument in your own OP, assuming your local
authority is bound by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NHTSA MUTCD), _and_ assuming the
local agency agrees with your assessment that the streets in question fit the
definitions that you are trying to apply to them. But, there's the rub.

> And, what is the process to have them removed, by law?

I am not a CA lawyer and have no idea where to begin to look for your local
signposting authority's procedural rules. My suggestion is, if you really care
enough about this to devote a substantial portion of your life to it for the
next few months, make a nuisance of yourself down at the Public Works bureau of
whichever authority put up these signs, and see what they can tell you. They
are public servants, you are a member of the community they are supposed to
serve, you are not their enemy; so they are supposed to help you out, let you
copy stuff, give you access to their library of regulations, etc. It's as good
a place to start as any.

> 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.

Conclusory statements like that are not going to get you anywhere in convincing
others that some wrong was done. WHAT, specifically, about the placement of
these signs, do you contend was illegal? Focus on that, _not_ on your
conclusions that they _are_ illegal, which tells us nothing.

> 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.

Again, you're just stating conclusions, not giving any actual reasons
supporting those conclusions. That doesn't fly. You have to get down to brass
tacks.

<snip>

> Tellingly, page 50 of the NHTSA MUTCD warns administrators:
> "... STOP signs should not be used for speed control".

Why do you think that applies here? Isn't it just as likely (as the agency will
surely argue) that the signs were needed to give traffic entering the cross
street from the base of the T a reasonable chance to take a turn, especially
during heavy-traffic periods such as rush hour? That would be my first
assumption.

> 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."

BOTH of these roadways appear to be two-lane, residential roads with curbside
parking on both sides. NEITHER of them is a "higher volume roadway" as that
definition is intended to apply. It is not enough that the cross street has,
say, 50 vehicles per hour while the side street has 47. "Higher volume" refers
to a roadway that is DESIGNED FOR or ZONED FOR a higher volume of usage, such
as a 4-lane roadway versus a two-lane one, or a business/commercial street
versus a residential one. You have two streets that are of the same expected
volume capacity -- they are both two-lane residential streets.

> Page 52 of the NHTSA MUTCD, reaffirms:
> "The decision to install multi-way stop control should be
> based on an engineering study."

How do you know the local authorities did _not_ perform an engineering study?
And what other section will you point to as proof that _this_ statement should
apply in _your_ particular case? How are they linked?

> 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."

"Approximately" gives the authorities lots of "wiggle room" where you are
talking about two residential streets.

> 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.

I haven't double checked the MUTCD, and am not going to, but once again, I
doubt these are the _only_ reasons justifying a multi-way stop signage at a T
intersection. You are going to have to prove that your intersection is one to
which these criteria, and _only_ these criteria, suffice to justify a stop sign.

> 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".

You are going to have to prove that there isn't some _other_ basis that would
justify the signs. Have you bothered yet to actually _ask_ the folks down at
your Public Works or Traffic dept. why they decided to put up these signs? If
not, why not? I don't mean "pick up the phone" ask them. I mean "go down there
in person and lean on their counter and keep asking questions until you find
the right person who can help you" ask them.

If all this seems a bit much for you to bite off on your own, you will need to
hire a lawyer. The kind you want is one who is experienced in zoning / land use
/ public works issues. You will surely have to pay such a lawyer by-the-hour
since this is not the type of case anyone can take on a "contingent" fee (being
paid by a percentage of the money he recovers for you) and don't be surprised
if it costs as much as a decent wedding or a year at college.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.

Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685

[micky]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:13:52 -0800, "Liam O'Connor"
<liamo...@example.com> wrote:

>LEGAL QUESTION:
>What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?

Embedded**

>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

Why are they illegal? Why are they flagrantly illegal?

Why are they a bad idea?

Why might they be a good idea? To stop people from speeding down
Llewellyn?

What law do the signs violate?

I see that below you address these things. See below.

>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?

It would depend on the reason that their placement is illegal. What is
the reason?

>And, what is the process to have them removed, by law?

**You could ask the Bureau of Streets, or Traffic, or whatever they call
it, to remove them. If you give a clear convincing description of why
they violate the law and why they make things worse. and rebut
convincingly why they make things better, they might agree with you and
do it. Even if don't fully accomplish all three things, they might
still do it, but the odds are lower.

Be tactful and polite and don't raise your voice, but if you learn that
you have the law on your side, you can still be firm.

>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

I'm sure they're enforceable to the extent that the traffic cop will
write a ticket and the traffic court will issue a fine, and that if the
fine is not paid and an appeal is not filed, the fine will have penaties
added and eventually an offender, even of an illegal stop sign, will be
forced to pay the fine and penalties.

Traffic cops and traffic courts very rarely take it on themselves to
declare a law unconstitutional or a sign illegal, although maybe the
court will listen to you.

**But if you appeal the fine, you'll be dealing with a higher level
court that is more likely to do such things. So that's one way to
get into court.

**Another way would be to sue the city or county or whoever maintains
the signs at that intersection. Such a case would not be handled by
traffic court. I don't know if either method has an advantage over the
other.

For example, if you've gotten a fine, or a conviction for running a stop
sign, maybe you have more of an issue than just if you think the sign is
improper. I don't know. I am not a lawyer.

>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/2009r1r2/mutcd09r1r2editionhl.pdf
>"A standard device used where it is not appropriate is ...
>objectionable ... because such misuse might result in
>disrespect..."

What makes the signs "not approrpriate". Anyhow, this is not
boilerplate, that's the wrong word, and dictum is probably the wrong
word. It's there to rationalize the rest of the rules wherever the
rules are lenient.

Anyhow, I don't believe anything in this book is law unless California
has adopted it as law. Even then the book is 862 pages long and there
could be other California administrative decisions, statutes, or in
California, state Constitution amendments which dis-adopt specific parts
of this book.

I think what you'll find is that nothing in this book is binding on
California cities and towns. Did someone at the traffic department
say this is what they went by, or did you just find it by googling.
Even if it is what they often go by, I'd find out if it is binding on
them before I appeared in court, and even before making a request of the
dept. of Traffic.

You'll want to bring up the rules you quote and you probably will, and
if perhaps it's supposed to be binding, it would probably be a mistake
not to, but if it's not binding, you want to know how to phrase your
citing them. You can't just say "You have to obey this" if they don't.

>Tellingly, page 50 of the NHTSA MUTCD warns administrators:
>"... STOP signs should not be used for speed control".

They probably knew this when they put the sign there. Have you checked
how many accidents there were at that intersection, how many close
calls, how many children live in the n'hood, how many small children,
how many complaints about children unable to cross the street safely?

>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."

Why do you think there was no engineering study?

>Page 52 of the NHTSA MUTCD, reaffirms:
>"The decision to install multi-way stop control should be
>based on an engineering study."

Ditto.

>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

They want 5 crashes in 12 months. Around here 4 crashes in 4 years,
years, will probably bring a stop sign and I can't say they're wrong. .

>period, 85th-percentile speeds exceeding 40mph, left-turn conflicts,

So despite what the book said above, it seems speed can be a reason for
a multi-way stop sign. What were the speeds on that street prior to
the signs?

Why are you so against the signs. Do you want to speed down the street?

Ten years after I got here, they put a stop sign halfway down Falstaff
and I don't like having to stop there, but there are lots of kids in the
n'hood and I see their point.

>high pedestrian volume, visibility issues, etc.), none of which,
>in my personal opinion, could possibly exist for this intersection.

snip for space.

Signature should follow.
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a laywer.

[Pablo Amarillo]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:13:52 -0800, Liam O'Connor wrote:

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

> 37.291379,-121.958411

> Page 2 of the December 2009 NHTSA MUTCD clearly warns:
> http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/mutcd09r1r2editionhl.pdf

I think California has their own MUTCD they follow, not the Federal:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/mutcd/ca_mutcd2012.htm

They do some things differently in California.

Maybe California stop signs have different rules?
You'll have to check in the manual and tell us what you find.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/mutcd/pdf/camutcd2012/CAMUTCD2012.pdf

[deadrat]

On 3/4/14 9:13 PM, 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?

What makes you think these signs are illegal? You don't give your
municipality, but the coordinates point to San Jose. A traffic sign is
illegal if it was placed by someone without the proper authority to do
so. Private persons aren't likely to be able to erect legal stop signs
on public property, but that doesn't seem to be the case here as you
mention "administrators." Where I live, the city council votes to place
traffic signs on its streets. It seems that San Jose is no different.
Go here

http://www.sanjoseca.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=447

When you do, you'll find that 1) the Traffic Engineering Department
agrees with you about unwarranted stop signs, and 2) the city says it
obeys Caltrans standards, not the NHSTA. You might want to familiarize
yourself with these standards by going to www.dot.ca.gov.

Then call the Traffic Engineering Department, and ask them when the City
Council authorized the signs. You can then ask for the minutes of the
appropriate meeting and find out why the signs were authorized.

Only then can you dispute the placement and ask the City Council to
rescind its order. If you're right and convincing (or perhaps just
convincing), you'll prevail.

> 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.

If by "disrespect," you mean "disregard," then no "knowledgeable
drivers" disregard traffic signs. If only out of concern for other
drivers wjp don't share your sense of outrage and are expecting you to
conform to the signage.
>
> REFERENCES:
<to the NHSTA snipped/>
>
> SUMMARY:
<snip>
Don't lose more battles than you fight.
</snip>

[Barry Gold]

On 3/4/2014 7:13 PM, Liam O'Connor wrote:
> LEGAL QUESTION:
> What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?

> 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.

Nothing in this posting convinces me that the STOP sign is illegal. The
street view shows a quiet T-intersection in a residential area, but does
not give us any idea what the street looks like at peak traffic times.
There are plenty of streets that have very little traffic most of the
day, then have a bunch of cars going through as fast as they can during
rush hour, because the nearby main arteries are congested. This is
referred to as "cut through" traffic.

Looking at the map, I see that the intersection in question is
immediately adjacent to a very busy artery, which gets quite congested
at rush hour. (I spent most of a year doing on-site Tech Support, our
customer was Intel. I was at home in LA 2 weeks out of three, one week
out of three I worked at the customer site. IIRC I used the San Tomas
Expressway to commute from the corporate apartment allocated to our use.
And I had it relatively easy: there were two of us up there, so we got
to use the HOV lanes, bypassing most of the congestion.

So this looks like a perfect place for "cut-through" traffic for drivers
bypassing the over-busy STE and/or the equally busy Winchester Blvd.

Also keep in mind that the NHTSA rules are rules _for traffic
engineers_, and apply to the _Federal Government_. Individual states
may or may not adopt those rules into their vehicle and/or civil codes.
To prove the sign is illegal, you would have to comb through
California statute law to see if those rules apply to California's own
traffic engineers -- and if so, whether they are only recommendations or
actually have the force of law, forbidding placing stop signs except
where specified by the NHTSA rules.

If they _are_ illegal, you could hire a lawyer and sue for an injunction
against enforcement of the stop sign. YOu might even win, but don't
expect it to be cheap.

[micky]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:13:52 -0800, "Liam O'Connor"

<liamo...@example.com> wrote:

>
>
>Page 2 of the December 2009 NHTSA MUTCD clearly warns:
>http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/mutcd09r1r2editionhl.pdf
>"A standard device used where it is not appropriate is ...
>objectionable ... because such misuse might result in
>disrespect..."

BTW, this is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

1) I see a good reason why certain aspects of traffic control signs and
lights should be uniform, so someone quickly recognizes what they mean.

2) And I see why it's an advantage if the Uniform Commercial Code and
other uniform laws are adopted in their entirety (even though most
aren't) because when one is doing commerce, etc. there are no signs
popping up saying what the law is. And it helps people who travel if
the law is the same in every state.

But in the case of signs placed where this Manual suggests they
shoudln't be, the signs are there to be seen. It's not like paragraph
2. It's not that someone who doesn't know the traffic law in a
particular town won't know what the law is. He'll see the sign.

And it's not like paragraph 1, because they are using standard red**
octagonal stop signs with the word STOP on them, so they are uniform in
that regard.


Also, maybe the stop sign is there because Eastfield Families First is
right there on the west side of LLewellyn, north and south of Queens,
and they treat child victims of trauma and abuse, and maybe some of
these kids have gone for a walk and tried to cross the street and gotten
hurt or come close. (Maybe they even rent a house on Queens so they
have to cross Llewellyn) For confidentiality reasons, EMQFF would not
discuss this with families in the n'hood, like if a neighborhood child
was hurt, everyone might learn about it. Plus they get new residents
all the time, at a faster rate I'm sure than children are born to those
who live in the houses. Whatever the details, maybe EMQFF requested
the stop signs. Most towns will do all they can to cooperate with what
is described by one Yelp reviewer as "Silicon Valley's local treasure
for helping children in troubled homes or dealing with mental health
issues".

At some or all of their locations, they also treat children who are drug
addicts. But I think locking one's car doors will remove any danger
from that.


**How many of you remember when stop signs were yellow, because red
faded a lot.

[Mike Anderson]

On 3/4/2014 10:13 PM, Liam O'Connor wrote:
> Page 2 of the December 2009 NHTSA MUTCD clearly warns:
> http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/mutcd09r1r2editionhl.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.

Section 2B.07 Multi-Way Stop Applications
Support:
....

05 Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include:
A. The need to control left-turn conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that
generate high pedestrian volumes;
C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting
traffic and is not able to negotiate the
intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and
D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through)
streets of similar design and operating
characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic
operational characteristics of
the intersection.

Seems to me that B would apply here (as the area seems to be fairly
heavily populated and a business or two in the area as well. Although
I'd have also put in marked crosswalks in such a case. But then again,
I'm neither a traffic engineer nor a lawyer so this is just personal
opinion.)

[John F. Carr]

In article <oeafh9ha7mu68m8c8...@4ax.com>,

micky <mis...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>Tellingly, page 50 of the NHTSA MUTCD warns administrators:
>>"... STOP signs should not be used for speed control".
>
>They probably knew this when they put the sign there. Have you checked
>how many accidents there were at that intersection, how many close
>calls, how many children live in the n'hood, how many small children,
>how many complaints about children unable to cross the street safely?

If you're talking about a city council acting under the general
police power, all of those things and more could be considered.

But long ago policy makers realized if they let every town make
up its own rules there would be a combination of chaos, carnage,
and abusive practices. They decided that certain traffic control
decisions should be made based on uniform engineering standards
rather than local political standards.

For example, in my state one way streets are a political decision
and all way stop signs are an engineering decision.

When the decision to post a sign is regulated, "close calls" may
not be a legitimate reason. In some situations only reportable
accidents may be considered, i.e. those with personal injury or
property damage above a certain dollar value. I look for the
phrase "an accident waiting to happen" because it means "there
have been no accidents at this location." The area is safe as it is.

The presence of pedestrians or children is not at all unusual.
It should not justify making an exception to a rule that was
written with knowledge that it would apply in residential areas.

Whether a California city could prevail in court by citing generalized
child safety concerns, I can't say. That would be an illegal reason
in my state.

If everything goes on schedule, there will be a new set of rules
for stop signs in 2016. They will probably be more quantitative.
The people responsible for traffic sign standards recognize that
current stop sign standards are abused.

--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)

[Liam O'Connor]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:58:51 -0500, Mike Anderson wrote:

> Section 2B.07 Multi-Way Stop Applications

Hi Mike,

Thank you for that intelligent reading and analysis.
It was my mistake for not explaining that the foot
traffic is nearly nil at that intersection, which is a
datapoint you would not have known, without me saying so.

In any case, there's just no legal justification for
those stop signs. In fact, none of those exceptions apply
at that location, particularly not the pedestrian traffic.

To update the discovery process, I finally received a call back
from the Campbell traffic engineer. He told me that there was
*never* any traffic study at that Queens Ct. intersection
(nor at the similarly signed sister intersection 100 feet
north on Llewellyn, at Kings Ct).

He agreed, informally, with me that none of the conditions
for emplacing a sign could possibly be met today.

He also agreed that the "normal" procedure "should" have been
to follow the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, which, he said, generally comes out three years
after the Federal MUTCD (and which mirros the Federal MUTCD
in almost all respects related to STOP signs).
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/

However, he said, the signs were erected in the 1990s,
by an act of a neighborhood "survey", after which the
"city council" voted upon a "warrant" to "authorize" them.

He said I am the first person to ever object to a traffic
sign in the town, that he knows of. And, he offered no method
of legal removal.

It is obvious to all that these signs can't possibly meet
the legal justification which a traffic study would provide,
what would the legal pundits here suggestt as the next
series of steps for me to ask that they be removed?
.

[micky]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:20:41 -0800, "Liam O'Connor"
<liamo...@example.com> wrote:

>
>
>It is obvious to all that these signs can't possibly meet

Why do you say that? It is not obvious to me.

>the legal justification which a traffic study would provide,
>what would the legal pundits here suggestt as the next
>series of steps for me to ask that they be removed?

Since I'm not your lawyer and I have no duty to you, and afaik you're
not in the category of someone "entitled" to legal counsel or any
counsel, I would not give you any more suggestions until you said why
you wanted it removed.

I asked you before "Why are you so against the signs" but you didn't
say, so I've centered this post around that question. I don't mean
becaue they are iyo illegally placed, unless that is absolutely the only
reason. I mean how do they cause you or someone you know a problem or
a disadvantage or harm? Are you delayed frequently because these
signs are there? (the only reason that I can think of) If so, I'd ask
how often? Are there other stop signs you've tried or you want to get
removed?

For I might prefer the position of those who wanted it in the first
place. Who probably outnumbered you then and probably still do, and
who might have had better reasons and more reasons than yours. They are
not here to speak for themselves**, but I don't even know your reason.

**The traffic engineer you talked to may well have been going by the
written record only and not known every reason that the signs were put
in in the 1990's. I presume an "act of a neighborhood survey" that
was done was some sort of poll of the neighbors. It probably did not
record their reasons, or their reasons were multiple and were not all
recorded, or were summarized, and whatever was recorded may appear on
the paper record but not on the computer record which the man you talked
to was using. Or if not a poll, I would like to know what it
was.

Anything you do do will end up taking, as well as your time and money,
time and money from the citizens whose government will have to
reinvestigate this. If an engineering study wasn't done before, they'll
probably do one now. They may have to do another neighborhood survey.
They will definitely contact the EMQFF and probably defer to them again
if they were one of those requesting the stop sign.

Did the man you talked to know that a large child trauma and abuse
teatment center was on two "corners" of the intersection? You could
have told him to see if he thought that was important. I presume these
kids are not in locked wards. For anyone 5 or more, old enough to walk
to school, for example, kiddy prison would be continued abuse, or at
least simlar to it. So I assume the children may be too busy to walk
around outside much, but if they wanted to, they could. You didn't
spend dawn to dusk there watching the intersection, did you? And what
about dusk to dawn? And what about tomorrow?

Anyhow we still don't know what the EMQFF feels about this. You could
talk to them first, before you do anything else and before you
accidentally try to run over their reasonable desires for the safety of
heir kids, which they may well have, even if it is unimaginable now.
Talking to them now may save you a lot of wasted time and money later.


--

I think you can tell, but just to be sure:

I am not a lawyer.

[Liam O'Connor]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:29:22 -0800 (PST), Mike Jacobs wrote:

> You are going to have to prove that there isn't some _other_ basis that would
> justify the signs. Have you bothered yet to actually _ask_ the folks down at
> your Public Works or Traffic dept. why they decided to put up these signs?

I reported in another post that there was no legal justification
for the sign, other than a "survey" was sent out in the 1990s, to
the local residents, and the "town council" voted to put the
signs up.

The town traffic engineer, Matthew. J. Yue, confirmed that "normal"
procedures were never followed. That is, there was never a traffic
study done, which is the correct procedure.

As we are all aware, just putting up a red octagon does not make
it a legally enforcable traffic control device. Witness, for just
one example, the myriad unenforcable STOP signs in shopping mall
access roads (i.e., private property).

In researching the legality of an illegally placed stop sign,
I find this statement:
"Every stop sign installed for speed control is illegal."
"Every all-way stop at a low volume intersection is illegal."
in this blog article for STOP signs in Massachusetts:
http://blog.motorists.org/decorative-red-octagons/

The New York Times pondered the issue of unlawful STOP signs here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/30stop.html

The big loser is our confidence in a legal system that allows
such illegal signage to be enforced, even though it appears to
be unenforceable because they're not placed legally.
.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 18:41:14 -0500, micky wrote:

> So despite what the book said above, it seems speed can be a reason for
> a multi-way stop sign. What were the speeds on that street prior to
> the signs?

This paper concludes that multi way stop signs do not control
speed in most cases.

Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct!
W. Martin Bretherton Jr., P.E.(M)
http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/aha99b49.pdf

This government page says stop signs should never be used
for speed control.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D01/PlanningPrograms/trafficstudies/Pages/Multiwaystop.aspx

This government PDF says both of the above:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/fhwasa09027/resources/Iowa%20Traffic%20and%20Safety%20FS-%20Unsignalized%20Intersections.pdf

This article says they are not effective for speed control:
Responding to Citizen Requests for Multiway Stops, by Patricia B. Noyes
http://patnoyes.com/Library/Stop%20Sign%20Article%20-%20ITE%20Journal.pdf

This state document describes the "proper" procedures for
warranting multiway stop signs:
http://www.montclairnjusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1796:procedure-for-implementing-multiway-stop-intersections&catid=274:traffic-engineering-and-safety&Itemid=678

Here are state guidelines for stop sign removal procedures:
http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/reports/signs_removal.pdf

What all this means?
I don't know.
But it does appear to be a rampant problem in that power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The states are clearly abusing our faith in the law, which,
in and of itself, erodes our faith in the law.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

"Liam O'Connor" <liamo...@example.com> wrote:

My suggestion would be to sue the city and ask for a writ of
mandate requiring that they take the signs down. Without a court
order, you won't have much if any leverage.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[deadrat]

On 3/6/14 3:20 PM, Liam O'Connor wrote:
<snip/>

>
> It is obvious to all that these signs can't possibly meet
> the legal justification which a traffic study would provide,

Traffic studies don't provide legal justifications; they provide traffic
engineering justifications. The city council is likely empowered to
erect the stop signs it deems necessary, subject to the constraints
placed upon it by the state. For instance, if city streets are also
designed state roads, then state law will likely constrain the city council.

If the city council voted to place the stop sign in the first place,
then it's going to take their vote to remove one.

> what would the legal pundits here suggestt as the next
> series of steps for me to ask that they be removed?

This is likely not a legal fight you have the time, energy, money, or
leverage to win. Treat it as a political matter. Talk to the
councilman who represents you. If the council is elected at large, do
some research and find the most reasonable member. It would help if you
had your own traffic study, however informal, information from the
police on traffic problems in the vicinity of the intersection, the
concurring opinion of the traffic department, and the written agreement
of everybody within a four-block radius of the intersection. Then go to
your selected council member and ask him to introduce a motion to remove
the offending sign. Preferably during his next campaign for office.

Your hurdle is that no one will get blamed for any mishaps because the
sign is in place, but any accident attributed to the absence of the sign
will trigger a search for the blameworthy. For a politician, not doing
anything here is safer than acting.

[Mike Anderson]

On 3/9/2014 1:02 AM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 18:41:14 -0500, micky wrote:
>
>> So despite what the book said above, it seems speed can be a reason for
>> a multi-way stop sign. What were the speeds on that street prior to
>> the signs?
>
> This paper concludes that multi way stop signs do not control
> speed in most cases.
>
> Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct!
> W. Martin Bretherton Jr., P.E.(M)
> http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/aha99b49.pdf

"16. Multi-way stops can reduce cut-through traffic volume if many
intersections along the road are controlled by stop signs. If enough
stop signs are installed on a residential or collector street motorists
may go another way because of the inconvenience of having to start and
stop at so many intersections. This includes the many drivers that will
not stop but slowly ’cruise’ through the stop signs. This driving
behavior has been nicknamed the ’California cruise’. Cited by two
references. (Reference 14, 61)."

The signs may have been installed for this very reason (i.e. NOT to
control speed but to eliminate the cut-through traffic, as another
poster had hypothesized.)

> This government page says stop signs should never be used
> for speed control.
> http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D01/PlanningPrograms/trafficstudies/Pages/Multiwaystop.aspx

From that page: "The Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(OMUTCD) states "Multiway stop control can be useful as a safety measure
at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns
associated with multiway stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all
road users expecting other road users to stop. Multiway stop control is

used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is
approximately equal.""

Note the part reading "all road users expecting other road users to
stop. Multiway stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the

intersecting roads is approximately equal."

<snip others>

Are these signs warranted? I dunno. But just saying "using stop signs
for speed control doesn't work" doesn't show that they are not warranted.

[Barry Gold]

On 3/8/2014 10:02 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> This article says they are not effective for speed control:
> Responding to Citizen Requests for Multiway Stops, by Patricia B. Noyes
> http://patnoyes.com/Library/Stop%20Sign%20Article%20-%20ITE%20Journal.pdf

[snip]

> What all this means?
> I don't know.

I suspect "traffic calming" devices -- speed bumps and chicanes -- are
more effective at controlling speed than stop signs. However, they are
also more expensive to install, and may create problems for fire trucks.

[nos...@isp.com]

On 8 Mar 2014, Ann Marie Brest <annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>> [ The OP said he is annoyed by some <Stop> signs in his
>> iCalif. city and assumes they are "illegal" even though
>> his city's traffic engineer told him and he does not
>> have reason to disbelieve that that they were erected
>> pursuant to a city council vote about twenty years ago. ]

>
> This paper concludes that multi way stop signs do not control
> speed in most cases.
> Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct!
> W. Martin Bretherton Jr., P.E.(M)
> http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/aha99b49.pdf
>
> This government page says stop signs should never be used
> for speed control.
> http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D01/PlanningPrograms/trafficstudies/Pages/Multiwaystop.aspx

The cited information, re. another state than the OP's, does not say
"never" or that the use of such a sign would be (as the OP put it)
"illegal" and, as noted, tells one nothing about the signs to which
the OP referred.

> This government PDF says both of the above:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/fhwasa09027/resources/Iowa%20Traffic%20and%20Safety%20FS-%20Unsignalized%20Intersections.pdf
>
> This article says they are not effective for speed control:
> Responding to Citizen Requests for Multiway Stops, by Patricia B. Noyes
> http://patnoyes.com/Library/Stop%20Sign%20Article%20-%20ITE%20Journal.pdf
>

> [ .... snips .... - other comparable URLs ]
>
> What all this means?

That lots of traffic engineers and others claiming to be expert
believe that some commonly made assumptions about presumed benefits
from the use of <Stop> signs aren't always correct.

> I don't know.

This is a rather odd confession since the texts at the cited URLs
appear to be virtually self-explanatory.

> But it does appear to be a rampant problem in that power
> corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

How does the use of such an at once shop-warn while emotionally
overwrought cliché advance the OP's desire to convince his
municipality's governing body to remove some <Stop> signs that he
experiences as irksome?

How indeed does some municipality's or other relevant agency's
erection of a <Stop> sign somewhere evidence the exercise of anything
even remotely approaching "absolute power"?

>

[Angelique Begnaud]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 20:24:21 +0000, John F. Carr wrote:

> If you're talking about a city council acting under the general
> police power, all of those things and more could be considered.

I would print a petition and post it to the sign on weatherproof
material, asking drivers *not* to stop at that sign, and to
contest any ticket received in the process.

I would stick that petition on the backside of the sign (but
not on the front).

For the front, I'd bolt the petition on a board to the holed
pole that the sign is attached to so that the town could
remove it when the signatures get full.

[Barry Gold]

On 3/8/2014 9:33 PM, Liam O'Connor wrote:
> The big loser is our confidence in a legal system that allows
> such illegal signage to be enforced, even though it appears to
> be unenforceable because they're not placed legally.

If you really think they are unenforceable, you are of course allowed to
try running them repeatedly(*) until you get a ticket, then argue the
case in court. And then -- since the traffic court judge will almost
certainly find you guilty -- take it to an appeals court.

Just remember: "not in compliance with the National Traffic ENgineering
standards" does not necessarily equal "illegal" and/or "unenforceable".
You could end up having to pay a substantial fine and either go to
traffic school or have your car insurance rates go up for three years.

Frankly, if I were a lawyer I would advise you to let it go, or if you
have a bunch of money to spend, sue for an injunction against
enforcement and/or a Writ of Mandamus to compel taking it down.

(*) If you want to try this at all, do it at slow speeds, say about
5MPH, so that if there _is_ another car at the intersection you will be
able to stop before you hit it.

[nos...@isp.com]

On 9 Mar 2014, "Stuart A. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:

> "Liam O'Connor" <liamo...@example.com> wrote:
>

>> { [ paraphrasing fairly to preserve content re. the
>> issues of law the OP raised: ] There's just no legal
>> justification for the <Stop> signs that bother me.
>> But while my city's traffic engineer told me that
>> a formal traffic study did not precede the signs'
>> emplacement in the 1990s and that "normal"
>> procedure "should" have been to follow Calif.'s
>> then MUTCD recommendations, he said that they
>> were erected in response to a neighborhood survey
>> and pursuant to a city council's resolution and
>> appropriation of funds for this purpose and he did
>> did not say that they violated any then substantive
>> recommendation in that manual or violated any then
>> or presently applicable law. }

>
> My suggestion would be to sue the city and ask for a
> writ of mandate requiring that they take the signs down.
> Without a court order, you won't have much if any leverage.

It is not at all unreasonable to observe that governmental entities
often will not act unless judicially compelled to do so. Still, it is
possible that, as a practical matter, the OP's city council would
respond favorably to a well-presented factual showing (not yet made by
the OP) and request, perhaps especially if made by a meaningfully
sized group of residents rather than by only one, how/why the signs
objected to ought be removed

Of course, too, one also may imagine ways to lay a foundation for
successful litigated relief if a municipality did not acquiesce in a
request for removal of a local <Stop> sign. But even if he was
willing and able to sue, if an attempted mandamus or other lawsuit by
the OP seeking removal of the signs of interest to him was based only
on what he has so far said in this thread and in other postings from
him I've seen in another news group, it almost certainly would and
should be futile for him to sue.

Calif. law has comparatively strict standing to sue requirements in
mandamus cases but he has not yet shown that he could meet them. For
the sort of proceeding likely to be required in the circumstances the
OP summarizes they are in substance that the petitioner must prove a
special to him interest to be served or particular right of his to be
preserved or protected through the issuance of the writ as
distinguished from rights and obligations of members of the public in
general.

In contrast, the OP has not said how - or even that - he has been
actually much less specially aggrieved by the erection or presence of
the signs to which he objects. However, mandamus relief as against a
Calif. municipality generally must be denied if, as therefore so far
has been so for the OP, the would-be petitioner is not able to prove
that he would gain a specific and direct benefit from the writ's
issuance and suffer direct law redressable detriment if the writ is
denied.

Even if, however, one nevertheless posited that the OP somehow could
overcome the threshold bar of lack of standing to sue by artfully
drafted allegation, there remains the necessity of proof in a mandamus
proceeding. But as a substantive matter, there is not anything in
what the OP has so far posted that shows that the potential respondent
has violated a clear right of his or of anyone else or that there was
or is or would be anything arbitrary or capricious or a clear abuse of
discretion (in the law-significant senses of those terms) in the
city's non-removal of the signs in question.

The OP instead has so far asserted then repeated a belief that the
signs he doesn't like are "illegal" then, evidently more important to
him than citing any statute or regulation or judicial decision to such
effect, has merely attempted to reinforce his conclusorily stated
assumption of what is/isn't "legal" in the circumstances by indicating
that the erection years ago and continued presence of the signs to
which he objects insults his intelligence to the point of evoking an
emotional reaction approaching revulsion.

[micky]

On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 21:33:12 -0800, "Liam O'Connor"
<liamo...@example.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:29:22 -0800 (PST), Mike Jacobs wrote:
>
>> You are going to have to prove that there isn't some _other_ basis that would
>> justify the signs. Have you bothered yet to actually _ask_ the folks down at
>> your Public Works or Traffic dept. why they decided to put up these signs?
>
>I reported in another post that there was no legal justification
>for the sign, other than a "survey" was sent out in the 1990s, to
>the local residents, and the "town council" voted to put the
>signs up.

Yes you reported (said) all that but I didn't take your conclusion as
conclusive, that there was no legal justification.

>The town traffic engineer, Matthew. J. Yue, confirmed that "normal"
>procedures were never followed. That is, there was never a traffic
>study done, which is the correct procedure.
>
>As we are all aware, just putting up a red octagon does not make
>it a legally enforcable traffic control device. Witness, for just
>one example, the myriad unenforcable STOP signs in shopping mall
>access roads (i.e., private property).

This example is irrelevant to your situation, because the stop sign you
are complaining about IS NOT in a mall, it's ON a street.

And a bunch of kids could probably erect a stop sign in the middle of
the night, and if a cop who didn't know kids put it up, who figured the
traffic dept. put it up on his day off, saw someone ignore it and not
stop, he'd probably issue a ticket, which would be enforced like any
other ticket. No one would bother to check if it were put up legally or
not.** Because 99% of the time that would be a waste of time. That's
how the world works.

In addition, I challenge your notion that mall stop signs are not
enforceable. Can a mall cop issue a citation to someone for running a
mall stop sign? Probably not. Can a city cop, a sheriff, or a state
trooper? Maybe not. So in that way they are not enforceable. But
if there is a collision, will the driver who failed to stop at a stop
sign be found civility liable in court for the collision, assuming the
other driver wasn't doing something else negligent, or equally or more
negligent? Yes, I'm sure he will. So in that way, they are
enforceable.

In addition most malls conform their stop sign usage to established
rules designed by traffic engineers for malls in general, and unless the
shopping center is v. small, most times I think a traffic engineer is
hired for each individual shopping center or mall. One thing one can
note is that at the first intersection within a mall, incoming traffic
(from the public streets outside) will NOT have a stop sign, but any
intersecting road will be required to stop. I figure that is for 2
reasons. 1) The mall designers, mall cops, and city cops don't want
traffic entering the mall to stop so that it backs up onto the street,
obstructing thru traffic. 2) Traffic from outside the mall may be going
faster than is wanted within the mall, and they want to give it time and
space to slow down, and not require it to fully slow down on the street
outside. Especially when the entrance is not a sharp right turn, but a
curved entry.

>In researching the legality of an illegally placed stop sign,
>I find this statement:
> "Every stop sign installed for speed control is illegal."
> "Every all-way stop at a low volume intersection is illegal."
>in this blog article for STOP signs in Massachusetts:
> http://blog.motorists.org/decorative-red-octagons/

A) He's talking about Massachusetts. How much does that have to do with
California? Not much.

B) These are statements by a blogger. "By John Carr, [National
Motorists Association] Massachusetts Activist" If he were a blogger for
legal marijuana, we might think of him as a hippie freak. Okay, he's
not that but his most official title seems to be activist and blogger.
IOW, no one official. Plus, if he was striving to get the law correct
for Mass., he wasn't striving to get the law correct for California.


"You’re probably familiar with the demands for traffic calming stop
signs. If politicians don’t install them they get blamed for anything
bad that happens. If they do install stop signs they can blame increased
accidents on bad drivers and relocated traffic jams are somebody else’s
problem.

This is known as a negative externality: the people who make a deal
(complaining residents and politicians) do not suffer the adverse
effects on third parties (drivers and residents of nearby streets)."

Are you saying the stop sign at Queens Ct or Kings Ct. causes negative
externality? Tell us about that. What it is in this case. How bad it
is. If it doesn't cause that, then the argument in this blog is
inapplicable.


"The volume warrants for a stop sign are not met and there were 3
accidents on record during the last 3 years (where 5 are normally a
baseline requirement)." FWIW in an earlier post, you said that the
requirement was 5 accidents in 12 *months* and I said that around here
I'd expect a sign if there were 4 accidents in 4 years. It looks like I
was closer to the real standard, which seems to be 5 accidents in 3
years..

"We’ve been lied to so many times by signs that we learned to judge for
ourselves. We recognize that some stop signs ought to be obeyed, in
spirit if not in letter, some stop signs ought not to be obeyed," This
last clause is a terrible idea. I thought you were against teaching
disrespect for the traffic signs, but he says not to obey some signs.
Despite his theme, that people observe and know that some signs are
placed wrong, I say the vast vast majority of people don't do that at
all. One sign is like any other to them. If you disobey one and don't
get caught and others see that, that really encourages disrespect.

"What is important is that we agree with each other on the rules..."

That will never happen. Never ever.

" not that we agree with the government on the rules."

>The New York Times pondered the issue of unlawful STOP signs here:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/30stop.html

A pinko liberal paper. Untrustworthy. Okay, I'm kidding -- it's a good
paper. And it's a very enjoyable article. But your sign is "on the
books", so the story is inapplicable. .

>The big loser is our confidence in a legal system that allows
>such illegal signage to be enforced, even though it appears to
>be unenforceable because they're not placed legally.

I have a lot of doubts about the government. Heck, 3 of my last 5
county councilmen have gone to jail or not run again in order to hide a
scandal. And the governor was Spiro Agnew. But even assuming you are
right and it's illegally placed and that many are, it doesn't shake my
confidence in the traffic department or the police. I don't believe
for a moment that anyone in the traffic dept. gets some kick out of
putting up stop signs where there shouldn't be one. I believe 99.9% of
those guys are normal people doing what they think best for traffic, and
their judgment in many times is better than a one rule fits all. And if
somewhere an illegal sign was pushed through by the 0.1% of the people
involved who is a crackpot megalomaniac, I think it's better that he
expresses his psychoses with improper stop signs than with any other
likely means, like wife beating, road rage, or terrorist bombs. In
fact I think traffic is the perfect job for the man.


Afterword:

**(For years before and after I met her, to get to work in the morning,
my girlfriend had to wait behind cars turning left (only when the light
was green) so that she could turn right (when the light was green, or
red after coming to a stop and when there was adequate time to do so
safely.) There was enough width for two lanes, so that the
left-turners could have waited in the left lane while all the right
turners quickly stopped and continued. But the drivers were too
thoughless to pull to the left, so others could drive by on the right.

My plan was that between dawn and 8AM, we would get out there in work
clothes with hard hats. with masking tape and yellow lane spray paint***
and paint a yellow stripe so that everyone would divide into two lanes.
Later I improved the plan with the use of yellow lane tape instead of
paint. I thought we'd put down several short pieces going back 3 or 4
car lengths. It would take less than 10 minutes, maybe less than 5
But she never agreed to it, and if she had, I probably would have been
scared to do it. We're not 20 anymore when we could still get away with
things like this. But it would have worked and would have saved her 5
minutes or more every morning.

***Because of her job, she received in the mail catalogues for
floodlights, building maintenance supplies, and parking lot products,
including yellow lane paint and tape, and she bought from these places
so she could have bought the tape too, and paid for it herself.

The NYTimes article above says " Mr. Livingston said it was likely that
some residents put them up without permission; " Wow, if they put up
stop signs, we could surely have put down lane tape. Quicker and
easier.

[Mike Jacobs]

On Sunday, March 9, 2014 12:33:12 AM UTC-5, Liam O'Connor wrote:

> I reported in another post that there was no legal justification
> for the sign, other than a "survey" was sent out in the 1990s, to
> the local residents, and the "town council" voted to put the
> signs up.

Unless you can research and provide citations to show that the town council was
legally bound to observe the MUTCD as the governing law on this subject at the
time the signs were erected 20 years ago, the town council was legally free to
erect stop signs based on just such an informal, low-cost basis.

> The town traffic engineer, Matthew. J. Yue, confirmed that "normal"
> procedures were never followed. That is, there was never a traffic
> study done, which is the correct procedure.

"Correct" meaning what? The "best practices" approach as set forth in MUTCD,
which may indeed be true? Or the legally binding, _only_ permissible way to do
it? Those are very different propositions. It is _not_ sufficient for you to
make your case, to merely point to a paragraph in the MUTCD that was not
followed; you have to prove up, by solid legal reasons, that the town council
exceeded its legally permitted authority in erecting the signs _without_
following the MUTCD. You haven't given us any indication yet that this is so.

Moreover, you haven't seemed to consider the most likely reason the signs were
erected (apart from the kids' home on the corner) -- a "T" intersection of 3
two-lane streets may become extremely congested during rush hours if the
traffic on the cross-bar streets does not have to stop and take turns. People
waiting on the side street for an opportunity to turn left may have to wait a
long time for a sufficient space to open to do so safely, and meanwhile, other
traffic will jam up behind the left-turner. Since he is occupying the only lane
going in that direction, other traffic can't go around him, even if they want
to turn right (which is more easily done, even if the cross-traffic does not
have to stop). Likewise, someone coming from the "right" cross-arm of the "T"
who wants to turn left onto the intersecting road, will also have to wait a
potentially long time during rush hour before the oncoming traffic from the
"left" cross-arm of the same road lets up enough for him to do so safely -- and
traffic will pile up behind him on the right cross-arm, again because they have
no way to safely go around the left-turning vehicle. All of this is mitigated
if each of the 3 arms of the "T" have to stop when they reach it, and take
turns. Doing so speeds up the flow of traffic as a whole, even if (during times
of light traffic) it does slightly impede the speed of an individual vehicle.
However, speed control is _not_ the justification for such signs; turn-taking
is.

This is explicitly recognized in the paragraph of the MUTCD which another
poster quoted on this thread, which explicitly says that "left-turn conflicts"
are a valid reason to install a stop sign (even if, as you have not yet proven,
the MUTCD is legally binding on this town council to restrict their flexibility
in placing signs). Such a justification would not require any of the _other_
reasons (frequent accidents, high pedestrian traffic, etc.) to be shown; it is
sufficient, even standing alone, to justify the signs.

> As we are all aware, just putting up a red octagon does not make
> it a legally enforcable traffic control device. Witness, for just
> one example, the myriad unenforcable STOP signs in shopping mall
> access roads (i.e., private property).

Just because the signs are not emplaced by a legally constituted governmental
authority does not mean they are "illegal." Sure, no cop will write you a
ticket if you blow through a privately placed stop sign on a mall parking lot.
But if you do so and have a collision with someone who had the right-of-way
(either by virtue of being on a superior roadway, or because he got to the
intersection first, had already stopped, and rightfully assumed you would too)
then it is very likely the crash will be deemed to be YOUR fault and not the
other guy's. Getting a ticket is a minor annoyance; getting sued or requiring
your auto insurance to pay out on a substantial liability claim is a much more
meaningful reason for "enforcement" of such privately placed signs.

> The big loser is our confidence in a legal system that allows
> such illegal signage to be enforced, even though it appears to
> be unenforceable because they're not placed legally.

You have not yet to my satisfaction established the truth of a single word in
that sentence, sufficient to justify the loss of confidence in the legal system
which (I agree) is a likely and expected outcome _IF_ the town council acted in
blatant disregard of binding applicable law which put a mandatory restriction
on their freedom to order certain sign placements.

A final thought -- the signs have been there for 2 decades. No one has
complained about them being there, in all that time, until you did just now.
Doesn't that say something to you about the "legality" of the signs, at least
in terms of their acceptance by all those people who are affected by them? The
big thing to keep in mind is that "the law" is not just some abstract formula
written in books and imposed without rhyme or reason. No, it is supposed to be
both the embodiment of an ideal that is agreed to and shared by the majority of
the citizens, as well as a realistic guideline for actual behavior, one with
some flexibility in its interpretation because, you know, words do have
meanings, but they do NOT have invariant, inflexible, absolute meaning. All
words are metaphors; so, all laws are subject to interpretation based on the
"real" facts on the ground, what the citizens (and their elected
representatives) really want _or_ are pleased to allow to persist, and a "rule
of reasonableness." The long and short of it is, taking an overly formulaic,
purely "logical" approach to most legal matters is almost always going to lead
you astray. Forgive me if I say that sounds like what you are doing here.

Another poster suggested treating this as a political matter, not a purely
legal one. I agree that is your best approach. If you can convince the town
council -- or even just an influential member -- that there is good reason to
TAKE DOWN the signs, you will get results. If instead you insist on butting
heads with the town council based on _your_ interpretation of the MUTCD, a
standard which may not even be binding law in this case, then you can count on
them to butt right back, and all you are going to do is expend a whole lot of
time and money (and force the town authorities to do likewise) until the matter
is resolved, with no guarantee that the outcome will be one you like.

Whatever you may decide to do, first ask yourself if what you are doing is for
the common good, or if instead you are disregarding what most people want
simply to satisfy a private pet peeve of yours, or to make _your_ daily travel
easier. If you really consider all the factors and can answer that question
honestly to yourself, the proper path will be abundantly clear to you. Good
luck,

[John F. Carr]

In article <4ea7c$53169675$43da7656$11...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>,

Liam O'Connor <liamo...@example.com> wrote:

>LEGAL QUESTION:
>What is the process to have an illegal STOP sign removed?

I just read a newspaper article about a lawsuit against illegal stop
signs in California and it reminded me of this old thread.

<http://www.cerescourier.com/section/11/article/4078/>

A city posted stop signs in violation of the state sign manual.
Residents sued. The lawsuit was settled on terms giving the city
a complete legal victory in return for agreeing to a more open
political process.

If California law allowed legal challenges to stop signs, this
would have been a good case to fight. I don't know if the
settlement was forced by a weak legal case, or if the city's
political concessions were satisfactory. I suspect the former.

--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)