c1f7d3a9   
   XPost: misc.legal, ca.driving, ba.transportation   
   From: liamoconnor@example.com   
      
   On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:00:22 -0800, sms wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Hi SMS,   
   I don't disagree with you one bit. I realize you live in the   
   area, so, you're familiar with the mentality of the towns.   
      
   > I would phrase any discussion with the city as follows:   
   > "how can we replace these stop signs with another type   
   > of traffic calming device   
      
   Wow. You're good. Yes, that is a better approach. I would   
   be more tactless, in saying, "you can'tt enforce those signs,   
   so, you must remove them because they don't even follow your   
   own rules for signs".   
      
   Knowing that intersection perfectly well, I doubt there is   
   *any* need for traffic calming anyway. I subscribe to your   
   theory that people were *worried* about the post office   
   traffic.   
      
   I seriously doubt there is *any* appreciable post office   
   traffic on Llewellyn, simply because Hamilton is a mulei-lane   
   road which now has a stoplight at Llewellyn, which didn't   
   exist in the 1990s (which itself discourages traffic).   
      
   Also, Hamilton has a concrete barrier, which they put up   
   about 10 years ago, which also didn't exist in the 1990s.   
      
   So, I suspect a *lot* has changed since those signs were   
   put up. Seems to me the traffic study is actually warranted.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)