ca0f3a2b   
   XPost: comp.mobile.android, comp.mobile.ipad   
   From: nospam@nospam.com   
      
    > The town traffic engineer already spoke to me about this.   
    > He didn't know the "reason"; but he knew the facts of the case.   
    > He also told me that, today, they'd use "quieting" methods.   
    >   
    > The traffic engineer told me that, in the 90s, the neighborhood   
    > was given a "survey" and that the town council voted to approve   
    > the stop signs. We also know that no engineering study was ever   
    > performed. We also can assume, based on our intimate knowledge of   
    > that intersection, that, IMHO, there's absolutely no way that   
    > a traffic study could possibly warrant the signs being there.   
    >   
    > We are left to guess as to the "reason", but, like all political   
    > corruption, this seems clear to me as merely the illegal   
    > application of the wrong law for the wrong purpose.   
      
   In a perfect world where people don’t get distracted when driving a   
   vehicle and have a super memory for following every traffic rule, it’s   
   absolutely no need to use any kinds of signs.   
      
   In reality, people are easily distracted and do forget traffic rules, at   
   least, one a while.   
      
   Signs are placed at least for as a reminder.   
      
   We know based on known science that a person is more than likely to die   
   by jumping off a 10 story building or being hit by a train.  There is no   
   need for conducting experiments for every building and railroad   
   interaction to prove it.  In fact, it would be stupid and a waste of   
   resources to do so.   
      
   There are at least three approaches to solve problems: (1) prevention;   
   (2) fix the problem once for all – which then will become the first   
   approach; (3) fix the problem repeatedly. Obviously, not everyone will   
   agree and appreciate the same approach, but it’s the responsibility of   
   the person who is in charge to make the decision.   
      
      
   On 3/9/2014 4:26 AM, Liam O'Connor wrote:   
   > On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:14:32 +1300, Your Name wrote:   
   >   
   >> The damn things aren't that cheap, so they don't go around just   
   >> sticking one wherever they feel like it. There *IS* a reason - if you   
   >> want to know what it is, then go and ask the people in charge of   
   >> putting it there.   
   >   
   > I agree with you but disagree with you a tiny bit.   
   > a. There is certainly a "reason", I agree.   
   > b. The signs are not cheaper than the "correct" approach.   
   >   
   > The town traffic engineer already spoke to me about this.   
   > He didn't know the "reason"; but he knew the facts of the case.   
   > He also told me that, today, they'd use "quieting" methods.   
   >   
   > The traffic engineer told me that, in the 90s, the neighborhood   
   > was given a "survey" and that the town council voted to approve   
   > the stop signs. We also know that no engineering study was ever   
   > performed. We also can assume, based on our intimate knowledge of   
   > that intersection, that, IMHO, there's absolutely no way that   
   > a traffic study could possibly warrant the signs being there.   
   >   
   > We are left to guess as to the "reason", but, like all political   
   > corruption, this seems clear to me as merely the illegal   
   > application of the wrong law for the wrong purpose.   
   >   
   > Had they performed traffic quieting procedures, it would have   
   > likely cost FAR more than putting up two signs (e.g., speed   
   > bumps, enforcement overtime, artificial medians, artificial   
   > striping, etc.).   
   >   
   > In other words, the wrong approach was far cheaper than the   
   > correct approach.   
   >   
   > And, the only reason the wrong approach works, is that most   
   > people are, IMHO, mindless sheep who wouldn't know a legally   
   > emplaced STOP sign from an illegally emplaced one if it hit   
   > them on the head.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)