Too many stop signs everywhere!

[UCFKnights]

Couldn't an agency easily fabricate some traffic study that claims the four-way stop was installed because of heavy side-street traffic (if their new four-way stop is called into question)?

Why would heavy side street traffic warrant a four way stop? We finally had 2 of the stop signs removed from one of those here and it eliminated the major bottleneck that was there on a daily basis. If the side street has traffic issues, other improvements need to be made... such as adding turn lanes so multiple vehicles can go simultaneously on the side street or converting the intersection to some other format (roundabout, signal, etc). If heavy side street traffic is causing problems, slowing vehicles down with more stop signs isn't going to fix anything.

[jakeroot]

Couldn't an agency easily fabricate some traffic study that claims the four-way stop was installed because of heavy side-street traffic (if their new four-way stop is called into question)?

Why would heavy side street traffic warrant a four way stop? We finally had 2 of the stop signs removed from one of those here and it eliminated the major bottleneck that was there on a daily basis. If the side street has traffic issues, other improvements need to be made... such as adding turn lanes so multiple vehicles can go simultaneously on the side street or converting the intersection to some other format (roundabout, signal, etc). If heavy side street traffic is causing problems, slowing vehicles down with more stop signs isn't going to fix anything.

I completely agree, thus I fail to see the point of a four way stop in the first place. To me, it should go from a two way stop to a signal.

Does anyone have any idea why agencies use four way stops in the first place?

[jeffandnicole]

Couldn't an agency easily fabricate some traffic study that claims the four-way stop was installed because of heavy side-street traffic (if their new four-way stop is called into question)?

Why would heavy side street traffic warrant a four way stop? We finally had 2 of the stop signs removed from one of those here and it eliminated the major bottleneck that was there on a daily basis. If the side street has traffic issues, other improvements need to be made... such as adding turn lanes so multiple vehicles can go simultaneously on the side street or converting the intersection to some other format (roundabout, signal, etc). If heavy side street traffic is causing problems, slowing vehicles down with more stop signs isn't going to fix anything.

I completely agree, thus I fail to see the point of a four way stop in the first place. To me, it should go from a two way stop to a signal.

Does anyone have any idea why agencies use four way stops in the first place?

4 way stops are supposed to be used when traffic volumes are about equal on each of the 4 legs at the intersection.  Heavy traffic on one road combined with light(er) traffic on another road usually isn't a good match for a 4 way stop, which results in the congested traffic conditions mentioned.

Like everything else, 4 way stops are simply another tool in the road design/engineer's handbook.  And like everything else, there are times when they can be used correctly and effectively, and many, many times when they are used incorrectly, usually to appease a group of residents or politicians.  They are also very cheap.  Even a roundabout requires a great deal of money in order to design, engineer and construct it.

[UCFKnights]

Couldn't an agency easily fabricate some traffic study that claims the four-way stop was installed because of heavy side-street traffic (if their new four-way stop is called into question)?

Why would heavy side street traffic warrant a four way stop? We finally had 2 of the stop signs removed from one of those here and it eliminated the major bottleneck that was there on a daily basis. If the side street has traffic issues, other improvements need to be made... such as adding turn lanes so multiple vehicles can go simultaneously on the side street or converting the intersection to some other format (roundabout, signal, etc). If heavy side street traffic is causing problems, slowing vehicles down with more stop signs isn't going to fix anything.

I completely agree, thus I fail to see the point of a four way stop in the first place. To me, it should go from a two way stop to a signal.

Does anyone have any idea why agencies use four way stops in the first place?

4 way stops are supposed to be used when traffic volumes are about equal on each of the 4 legs at the intersection.  Heavy traffic on one road combined with light(er) traffic on another road usually isn't a good match for a 4 way stop, which results in the congested traffic conditions mentioned.

But how does it help that situation? It seems like on average, its just going to slow every vehicle down. The supposed "correct" use of the 4-way stop at best is supposed to make it "more fair" at the expense of slowing most people down. Its like when they set the timing on traffic signals to be equal for every phase, regardless of the traffic volume on the side street to need the time.

[jeffandnicole]

Couldn't an agency easily fabricate some traffic study that claims the four-way stop was installed because of heavy side-street traffic (if their new four-way stop is called into question)?

Why would heavy side street traffic warrant a four way stop? We finally had 2 of the stop signs removed from one of those here and it eliminated the major bottleneck that was there on a daily basis. If the side street has traffic issues, other improvements need to be made... such as adding turn lanes so multiple vehicles can go simultaneously on the side street or converting the intersection to some other format (roundabout, signal, etc). If heavy side street traffic is causing problems, slowing vehicles down with more stop signs isn't going to fix anything.

I completely agree, thus I fail to see the point of a four way stop in the first place. To me, it should go from a two way stop to a signal.

Does anyone have any idea why agencies use four way stops in the first place?

4 way stops are supposed to be used when traffic volumes are about equal on each of the 4 legs at the intersection.  Heavy traffic on one road combined with light(er) traffic on another road usually isn't a good match for a 4 way stop, which results in the congested traffic conditions mentioned.

But how does it help that situation? It seems like on average, its just going to slow every vehicle down. The supposed "correct" use of the 4-way stop at best is supposed to make it "more fair" at the expense of slowing most people down. Its like when they set the timing on traffic signals to be equal for every phase, regardless of the traffic volume on the side street to need the time.

If traffic was equally heavy, it would take much longer for traffic on the road with the 'Stop' signs to get thru the intersection, possibly resulting in congested conditions.  A 4 way stop would relieve some of that congestion on the side road, at the expense of possibly increasing congestion on the main road.

No doubt there are AADT volume limits when a 4 way stop eventually does no good.  When traffic is too light, a 4 way stop isn't an effective traffic control device because many drivers will simply see it as a speed deterrent...and many will treat it as a 4 way yield. When traffic is too heavy, traffic is too congested approaching the intersection, affecting other nearby driveways or intersections. 

[bzakharin]

I can think of only one valid use case for 4-way stop signs, when visibility is greatly impaired from all approaches due to terrain, vegetation, or an odd angle of intersecting roads, when traffic volume does not warrant a traffic light.

[Revive 755]

Does anyone have any idea why agencies use four way stops in the first place?

1) Opposition from residents to adding a traffic signal (supposedly adding a signal in some places would destroy the character of a neighborhood)
2) Opposition from residents to building a roundabout
3) An intersection has too many pedestrians to build a roundabout
4) ROW issues, such as needing ROW for a roundabout or for adding turn lanes for efficient operation if an intersection was signalized (signals without dedicated left turn lanes can have congestion and safety issues if a heavy through volume opposes a heavy left turn volume)
5) Costs - both initial and recurring (electricity for signals or lighting a roundabout)

[UCFKnights]

Couldn't an agency easily fabricate some traffic study that claims the four-way stop was installed because of heavy side-street traffic (if their new four-way stop is called into question)?

Why would heavy side street traffic warrant a four way stop? We finally had 2 of the stop signs removed from one of those here and it eliminated the major bottleneck that was there on a daily basis. If the side street has traffic issues, other improvements need to be made... such as adding turn lanes so multiple vehicles can go simultaneously on the side street or converting the intersection to some other format (roundabout, signal, etc). If heavy side street traffic is causing problems, slowing vehicles down with more stop signs isn't going to fix anything.

I completely agree, thus I fail to see the point of a four way stop in the first place. To me, it should go from a two way stop to a signal.

Does anyone have any idea why agencies use four way stops in the first place?

4 way stops are supposed to be used when traffic volumes are about equal on each of the 4 legs at the intersection.  Heavy traffic on one road combined with light(er) traffic on another road usually isn't a good match for a 4 way stop, which results in the congested traffic conditions mentioned.

But how does it help that situation? It seems like on average, its just going to slow every vehicle down. The supposed "correct" use of the 4-way stop at best is supposed to make it "more fair" at the expense of slowing most people down. Its like when they set the timing on traffic signals to be equal for every phase, regardless of the traffic volume on the side street to need the time.

If traffic was equally heavy, it would take much longer for traffic on the road with the 'Stop' signs to get thru the intersection, possibly resulting in congested conditions.  A 4 way stop would relieve some of that congestion on the side road, at the expense of possibly increasing congestion on the main road.

No doubt there are AADT volume limits when a 4 way stop eventually does no good.  When traffic is too light, a 4 way stop isn't an effective traffic control device because many drivers will simply see it as a speed deterrent...and many will treat it as a 4 way yield. When traffic is too heavy, traffic is too congested approaching the intersection, affecting other nearby driveways or intersections.

Except the volume limits on the main road that are causing the congestion and vehicles to be unable to go on the side road as a result of the stop sign is not going to possibly result in congested conditions... its GUARANTEED to. Now your spreading the problem from one road onto the other road of the intersection. There are multiple other solutions... just a 4 way stop isn't one.

If you need to do it with just signs... Reducing the speed on the main line may help to allow more vehicles to turn in between cars. If the vehicle counts are really the same, different turning movements may mean moving the stop signs to the "main" road and off of the side road to help the situation. Left turn restrictions can be implemented so the wait time for each vehicle is lessened (on both roads)

When the other signs can't manage the problem, a 4 way stop isn't going to either, short of rare visibility issues. Other small improvements can be made looking at each intersection... is the main line getting stopped by a lack of left turn lanes so there is no openings, and thats why the side street can't go? Is 70% of traffic turning right but being held up by the 30% making a left as that takes longer? Even short turning lanes can make a huge difference to reduce the weight time for all directions even on stop signs.

Near the house I grew up in, there was a 4 way stop that was always really congested. One day, someone crashed and knocked down the stop sign and the city didn't replace it very fast. Congestion was gone as people began to treat it as it wasn't there for a few weeks. Once they replaced it, someone started stealing it to get rid of the congestion every time they would put it up, it would disappear a few days later until they finally gave in and made it side streets only.

[Duke87]

Absolutely. Driving in Europe is like a breath of fresh air in that respect. But it's a totally different approach to driver responsibility that is unlikely to take hold in the litigious USA. Here it's assumed you won't know what to do without a billion signs telling you everything. There it's oftenassumed you will both know and act accordingly unless a sign tells you otherwise.

I wonder how much of it is American stupidity versus American rebelliousness/selfishness. It seems to me that plenty of people out there on the roads know damn well what the rules are but disregard them for the sake of their own convenience.

You put up yield signs, and you get drivers who just blow through them and cut off the vehicle they're supposed to yield to. When a crash inevitably occurs, you get a lot of he said/she said where people make excuses as to why they didn't yield and it creates headaches.
So, jurisdictions put up stop signs instead, to remove the ability of the driver to make the excuse they didn't see anyone coming because the sign says you're supposed to stop whether you see someone coming or not. But of course this is ridiculous to expect everyone follow to the letter, and the result is that a stop sign which really should be a yield is often unwittingly treated as one by most American drivers. Which then has the positive feedback effect of reinforcing that the rules are made to be broken, resulting in more problems. This seems to be a vicious cycle in many aspects of American society - the government attempts to solve a problem by making more draconian rules, and people respond by more flagrantly disregarding them.

That, ultimately, I think is why American roads have all sorts of nagging signage. It's not because we're incapable of remembering what the rules are without constant reminders. It's because, culturally, we disregard a lot of the rules whether there is a sign or not, but having a sign at least firmly establishes who is at fault if something bad happens.

[jeffandnicole]

Does anyone have any idea why agencies use four way stops in the first place?

1) Opposition from residents to adding a traffic signal (supposedly adding a signal in some places would destroy the character of a neighborhood)
2) Opposition from residents to building a roundabout
3) An intersection has too many pedestrians to build a roundabout
4) ROW issues, such as needing ROW for a roundabout or for adding turn lanes for efficient operation if an intersection was signalized (signals without dedicated left turn lanes can have congestion and safety issues if a heavy through volume opposes a heavy left turn volume)
5) Costs - both initial and recurring (electricity for signals or lighting a roundabout)

Roundabouts are fairly new...about 10, 15 years for the most part.  4 Way Stops have been around for decades.  So points 2 - 5 when referring to roundabouts aren't really valid, historically speaking, as agencies have been using 4 way stops long before roundabouts were really even part of the playbook.  It was either 2 way stop, 4 way stop, or traffic light.

They are valid reasons today however.

...There are multiple other solutions... just a 4 way stop isn't one...

You are almost right...there definitely are multiple other solutions.  They just all cost a lot more.

And a 4 way stop is a solution in the appropriate conditions.  There isn't a single traffic engineering design that is going to be the right one 100% of the time; and there isn't a single traffic engineering design that will be the wrong one 100% of the time.  That's why they study the death out of potential solutions before finally deciding on one.

[Pete from Boston]

I'm interested in knowing how many folks in cities have this objection to stop signs. I feel like where I live, they're such a fact of life that people don't even notice them.  Moreover, with lots of pedestrian and vehicle cross traffic (and aggressive drivers) they seem to serve a pretty useful purpose.

[NJ]

I'm interested in knowing how many folks in cities have this objection to stop signs. I feel like where I live, they're such a fact of life that people don't even notice them.  Moreover, with lots of pedestrian and vehicle cross traffic (and aggressive drivers) they seem to serve a pretty useful purpose.

Come to NJ or most US suburbs you will see massive stop signs everywhere; most unnecessary in light traffic areas as well... Annoying!

[Pete from Boston]

I'm interested in knowing how many folks in cities have this objection to stop signs. I feel like where I live, they're such a fact of life that people don't even notice them.  Moreover, with lots of pedestrian and vehicle cross traffic (and aggressive drivers) they seem to serve a pretty useful purpose.

Come to NJ or most US suburbs you will see massive stop signs everywhere; most unnecessary in light traffic areas as well... Annoying!

Lived there for decades.  Had no serious problem with it, but again, I'm asking about in cities, where traffic flow is inherently different than on the streets of Waldwick or wherever.

[Zeffy]

I'm interested in knowing how many folks in cities have this objection to stop signs. I feel like where I live, they're such a fact of life that people don't even notice them.  Moreover, with lots of pedestrian and vehicle cross traffic (and aggressive drivers) they seem to serve a pretty useful purpose.

Come to NJ or most US suburbs you will see massive stop signs everywhere; most unnecessary in light traffic areas as well... Annoying!

I live here. I have no problems with stop signs.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm interested in knowing how many folks in cities have this objection to stop signs. I feel like where I live, they're such a fact of life that people don't even notice them.  Moreover, with lots of pedestrian and vehicle cross traffic (and aggressive drivers) they seem to serve a pretty useful purpose.

Come to NJ or most US suburbs you will see massive stop signs everywhere; most unnecessary in light traffic areas as well... Annoying!

I'm thinking you're annoyed at just about everything.

[PHLBOS]

I'm interested in knowing how many folks in cities have this objection to stop signs. I feel like where I live, they're such a fact of life that people don't even notice them.  Moreover, with lots of pedestrian and vehicle cross traffic (and aggressive drivers) they seem to serve a pretty useful purpose.

Come to NJ or most US suburbs you will see massive stop signs everywhere; most unnecessary in light traffic areas as well... Annoying!

You would hate southeastern PA.  Just about every non-PennDOT (local-maintained) road has many of them erected as a means of low-cost speed-control (MUTCD be damned).  Rather than rehash such, click on one of the older thread links in my earlier post for more info & details.

[roadman]

You put up yield signs, and you get drivers who just blow through them and cut off the vehicle they're supposed to yield to. When a crash inevitably occurs, you get a lot of he said/she said where people make excuses as to why they didn't yield and it creates headaches.

Which is why standards of fault exist.  In Massachusetts, colliding with a vehicle after disregarding a Yield sign satisfies one or more of three specific standards of fault:

(08) Failure to Proceed with Due Caution from a Traffic Control Signal or Sign. The Operator
fails to obey a traffic control signal or sign, or fails to proceed with due caution from a traffic
control signal or sign, and thereafter collides with another vehicle.

(20) Failure to Obey the Rules and Regulations for Driving. The Operator violates a specified
provision of M.G.L. chs. 85, 89 or 90, or fails to obey a specified regulation in
350 CMR:Department of Conservation and Recreation, 540 CMR: Registry of Motor Vehicles,
720 CMR: Department of Highways or 740 CMR: Massachusetts Port Authority, and thereafter
collides with another vehicle.

(26) Collision While Merging onto a Highway, or into a Rotary. The Operator, when merging
onto a highway, or into a rotary, thereafter collides with another vehicle already on the highway,
or in the rotary.

[bzakharin]

You put up yield signs, and you get drivers who just blow through them and cut off the vehicle they're supposed to yield to. When a crash inevitably occurs, you get a lot of he said/she said where people make excuses as to why they didn't yield and it creates headaches.

Which is why standards of fault exist.  In Massachusetts, colliding with a vehicle after disregarding a Yield sign satisfies one or more of three specific standards of fault:

(08) Failure to Proceed with Due Caution from a Traffic Control Signal or Sign. The Operator
fails to obey a traffic control signal or sign, or fails to proceed with due caution from a traffic
control signal or sign, and thereafter collides with another vehicle.

(20) Failure to Obey the Rules and Regulations for Driving. The Operator violates a specified
provision of M.G.L. chs. 85, 89 or 90, or fails to obey a specified regulation in
350 CMR:Department of Conservation and Recreation, 540 CMR: Registry of Motor Vehicles,
720 CMR: Department of Highways or 740 CMR: Massachusetts Port Authority, and thereafter
collides with another vehicle.

(26) Collision While Merging onto a Highway, or into a Rotary. The Operator, when merging
onto a highway, or into a rotary, thereafter collides with another vehicle already on the highway,
or in the rotary.

I think the point is that the person disregarding a Yield sign will argue that he didn't see the other vehicle for some reason, and so thought he could proceed without stopping. The thinking is that with a stop sign there, he would have had to stop whether or not he saw the other vehicle, so the accident would not have happened. Though, had he arrived 3 seconds earlier and stopped, maybe he would still not have seen the other vehicle and the accident would have still happened.

[Mergingtraffic]

You put up yield signs, and you get drivers who just blow through them and cut off the vehicle they're supposed to yield to. When a crash inevitably occurs, you get a lot of he said/she said where people make excuses as to why they didn't yield and it creates headaches.

Which is why standards of fault exist.  In Massachusetts, colliding with a vehicle after disregarding a Yield sign satisfies one or more of three specific standards of fault:

(08) Failure to Proceed with Due Caution from a Traffic Control Signal or Sign. The Operator
fails to obey a traffic control signal or sign, or fails to proceed with due caution from a traffic
control signal or sign, and thereafter collides with another vehicle.

(20) Failure to Obey the Rules and Regulations for Driving. The Operator violates a specified
provision of M.G.L. chs. 85, 89 or 90, or fails to obey a specified regulation in
350 CMR:Department of Conservation and Recreation, 540 CMR: Registry of Motor Vehicles,
720 CMR: Department of Highways or 740 CMR: Massachusetts Port Authority, and thereafter
collides with another vehicle.

(26) Collision While Merging onto a Highway, or into a Rotary. The Operator, when merging
onto a highway, or into a rotary, thereafter collides with another vehicle already on the highway,
or in the rotary.

I think the point is that the person disregarding a Yield sign will argue that he didn't see the other vehicle for some reason, and so thought he could proceed without stopping. The thinking is that with a stop sign there, he would have had to stop whether or not he saw the other vehicle, so the accident would not have happened. Though, had he arrived 3 seconds earlier and stopped, maybe he would still not have seen the other vehicle and the accident would have still happened.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Derby,+CT/@41.3281008,-73.086696,202m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e7dfd46c33ef77:0xd7673e0e77692d28!6m1!1e1

This is why I hate the above linked on-ramp b/c nobody adheres to the YIELD sign at the end of the ramp and they just merge right on forcing traffic on the mainline to swerve.  That's why I'd rather see stop signs at the end.

[jeffandnicole]

You put up yield signs, and you get drivers who just blow through them and cut off the vehicle they're supposed to yield to. When a crash inevitably occurs, you get a lot of he said/she said where people make excuses as to why they didn't yield and it creates headaches.

Which is why standards of fault exist.  In Massachusetts, colliding with a vehicle after disregarding a Yield sign satisfies one or more of three specific standards of fault:

(08) Failure to Proceed with Due Caution from a Traffic Control Signal or Sign. The Operator
fails to obey a traffic control signal or sign, or fails to proceed with due caution from a traffic
control signal or sign, and thereafter collides with another vehicle.

(20) Failure to Obey the Rules and Regulations for Driving. The Operator violates a specified
provision of M.G.L. chs. 85, 89 or 90, or fails to obey a specified regulation in
350 CMR:Department of Conservation and Recreation, 540 CMR: Registry of Motor Vehicles,
720 CMR: Department of Highways or 740 CMR: Massachusetts Port Authority, and thereafter
collides with another vehicle.

(26) Collision While Merging onto a Highway, or into a Rotary. The Operator, when merging
onto a highway, or into a rotary, thereafter collides with another vehicle already on the highway,
or in the rotary.

I think the point is that the person disregarding a Yield sign will argue that he didn't see the other vehicle for some reason, and so thought he could proceed without stopping. The thinking is that with a stop sign there, he would have had to stop whether or not he saw the other vehicle, so the accident would not have happened. Though, had he arrived 3 seconds earlier and stopped, maybe he would still not have seen the other vehicle and the accident would have still happened.

There's been many an accident where someone stopped at a stop sign, then proceeded, never seeing the other person for whatever reason.

Regardless if one blows thru a yield/stop sign or slows or stops at a yield/stop sign, if an accident occurs, the person going thru the yield/stop sign is probably going to get the ticket.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Derby,+CT/@41.3281008,-73.086696,202m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e7dfd46c33ef77:0xd7673e0e77692d28!6m1!1e1

This is why I hate the above linked on-ramp b/c nobody adheres to the YIELD sign at the end of the ramp and they just merge right on forcing traffic on the mainline to swerve.  That's why I'd rather see stop signs at the end.

It's an old GSV so I don't know if it's still valid, but the yield sign for this merge is far back from the merge, and small.  A larger yield sign with a 'No Merge Area' sign can help in situations like this.  A Stop sign really isn't beneficial, because you're forcing traffic that does stop to start from 0 mph onto a 55 mph highway at a point where there's limited sight distance behind you to begin with (due to the curve in the road).  And many people aren't going to stop anyway. 

I'm not sure about CT law, but using NJ for example, the penalty is exactly the same for a stop or yield sign:  It's "Failure to Yield at an Intersection" (39:4-90) or "Failure to Observe Stop or Yield Sign" (39:4-144), assessing 2 points.

[silverback1065]

Am I the only person who is sick and tired of all the unnecessary stop signs everywhere in America when many of those could be replaced with yield signs? In Europe, stop signs are rarely used and yield signs are extensively used unlike in North America where stop signs are common and seen everywhere. 

You could say the exact same thing about traffic lights too.  One big problem that I've learned working as an engineer is that, at times, a lot of traffic decisions are completely out of our hands, I find it very frustrating.  A lot of things like speed limits, stop signs and signals in certain situations are simply there because the mayor or county/city counsel wanted them there for reasons that are often misguided, or in the case with many signals, promised to the developer. 

[vdeane]

That is why it should be illegal for political officials to intervene like that.

[hbelkins]

That is why it should be illegal for political officials to intervene like that.

Couldn't disagree more. While I'd rather see speed limits set by the 85th percentile or something similar, placement of signals and such are decisions that need to be made in the best interests of the traveling public. If the public presses for a signal to be placed somewhere for safety reasons, even if it doesn't meet standard criteria (which is the plain-language term I prefer over "warrants"), then it's incumbent upon the elected or appointed officials to do what their bosses (the voters and taxpayers) demand. I know one signal in my area that was installed, even after being denied repeatedly by the engineers, because the locals demanded it and got politicians involved.

That's also why I prefer the agency head not be a PE. Engineers feel compelled to use only engineering judgment in making decisions instead of other factors that are important. A non-PE cabinet secretary can make those decisions.

[silverback1065]

That is why it should be illegal for political officials to intervene like that.

Couldn't disagree more. While I'd rather see speed limits set by the 85th percentile or something similar, placement of signals and such are decisions that need to be made in the best interests of the traveling public. If the public presses for a signal to be placed somewhere for safety reasons, even if it doesn't meet standard criteria (which is the plain-language term I prefer over "warrants"), then it's incumbent upon the elected or appointed officials to do what their bosses (the voters and taxpayers) demand. I know one signal in my area that was installed, even after being denied repeatedly by the engineers, because the locals demanded it and got politicians involved.

That's also why I prefer the agency head not be a PE. Engineers feel compelled to use only engineering judgment in making decisions instead of other factors that are important. A non-PE cabinet secretary can make those decisions.

I couldn't disagree more with that comment, going with your logic, we don't need engineers, just let the public (who think they know everything) design everything. And what judgment does the public use? Their gut feeling? Engineers can be wrong, but I trust an engineer over someone who has a gut feeling.  Yes, there are times where the public can be right, but I'll defer to the engineer 99% of the time.  Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, but that's how I read it.

[vdeane]

That is why it should be illegal for political officials to intervene like that.

Couldn't disagree more. While I'd rather see speed limits set by the 85th percentile or something similar, placement of signals and such are decisions that need to be made in the best interests of the traveling public. If the public presses for a signal to be placed somewhere for safety reasons, even if it doesn't meet standard criteria (which is the plain-language term I prefer over "warrants"), then it's incumbent upon the elected or appointed officials to do what their bosses (the voters and taxpayers) demand. I know one signal in my area that was installed, even after being denied repeatedly by the engineers, because the locals demanded it and got politicians involved.

That's also why I prefer the agency head not be a PE. Engineers feel compelled to use only engineering judgment in making decisions instead of other factors that are important. A non-PE cabinet secretary can make those decisions.

Trouble is, residents often try to lower speed limits, add stop signs, etc. not because of safety, but because "we don't want them damn motorists going down our street".