36cd14e6   
   XPost: comp.mobile.ipad, comp.mobile.android   
   From: twsherman@REMOVE_THISsouthslope.net   
      
   On 3/2/2014 1:39 AM, Liam O'Connor wrote:   
   > On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 21:56:46 -0800, Savageduck wrote:   
   >   
   >> I don't think there would be a problem if you were indeed traveling "in   
   >> parallel directions".   
   >> It's that sudden T-bone that might be a tad problematic if you both   
   >> decided to ignore the stop signs. That sort of thing has been known to   
   >> happen.   
   >   
   > Everyone stops when they come out of a side street which   
   > T-bones the main street.   
   >   
   > Whether or not there is a stop sign, I think it's California   
   > law that you must stop anyway (I think).   
   >   
   > The signs that are there for "speed control" are the two on   
   > the parallel facing part of the same road.   
   >   
   > Those are the signs I blow by.   
   >   
   > There is absoloutely no safety problem doing so, but, of course,   
   > were a car to be TURNING (which almost never happens except   
   > when going home or coming back from home, which, for ten houses,   
   > is a minor occurrance) then they must stop when *entering*   
   > that roadway.   
   >   
   > Note that when you're turning INTO the culdesac, you can   
   > easily see if there are any pedestrians or cyclists, so,   
   > there's no need to stop when turning into the culdesac   
   > either.   
   >   
   > The only ones who need to stop are those LEAVING the   
   > culdesac, and, they always (naturally) do.   
   >   
   If I lived on Queens Court, I would know that the intersection with   
   Llewellyn Avenue is an all way stop.  So if I was on Queens Court   
   heading west, I would come to the intersection and stop, but I would   
   also expect cross-traffic to stop.  See the problem with running the   
   stop signs?   
      
   --   
   T0m $herm@n   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)