XPost: misc.legal, ca.driving, ba.transportation   
   From: scharf.steven@geemail.com   
      
   On 3/12/2014 6:12 PM, Arif Khokar wrote:   
   > On 03/12/2014 11:07 AM, zeno@skoouvelea.net 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?   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   The reason for the stop signs at the intersection in question has   
   nothing to do with handling traffic. They are about two things: 1)   
   discouraging the use of this route as a bypass to major arterial roads,   
   2) reducing vehicle speeds. Yield signs on the minor road would not   
   accomplish either of these goals. There are various traffic calming   
   measures that could be used instead of stop signs but they cost more money.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)