|
|
| Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting (292631) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Apr 23 12:38:33 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Apr 23 12:31:46 2014. They will never remove a stop sign because someone requests its removal.No, but a STOP sign could be removed because an engineering analysis shows it isn't warranted. In my neighborhood, there is an intersection where all traffic on one of the streets is away from the intersection, so no vehicles should ever be approaching the intersection anyway on one of the streets. Yet there is a stop sign anyway on the through street. If you suggest it's removal, the response will be that it is needed so cars stop for pedestrians crossing. Is this response actual or hypothetical? But logically, since cars supposed to stop for pedestrians anyway, there is no reason for the stop sign. No, cars aren't supposed to stop for pedestrians. Absent the STOP sign, cars would have the right of way at that crossing. New York City Traffic Rules, §4-04(b)(2). But we have many that act as speed bumps so cars shouldn't be able to travel long distances without being forced to stop frequently. We shouldn't use stop signs for speed control, but for what they were intended. Absolutely. |
|
|
|