If an all-way stop isn't appropriate, is it legally enforceable?

[LPCJr]

Where I live, all-way stops are grossly overused at intersections that have nowhere near the traffic volume to justify their use.  Are these still "legal"?  If it was never appropriate for the stop sign to be there, could you make an argument that they can't be enforced?

A few examples in my area:
https://goo.gl/maps/J9twXy1y7ysqZzN78
https://goo.gl/maps/N7DP6n9hZpdATWon7
https://goo.gl/maps/q8PuFtdzAukLC1oN6

Is there anything that can be done to make a municipality use stop signs appropriately?  I feel like they should be paying for my brake jobs because I have to unnecessarily stop all the time.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Where I live, all-way stops are grossly overused at intersections that have nowhere near the traffic volume to justify their use.  Are these still "legal"? 

Yes.

If it was never appropriate for the stop sign to be there, could you make an argument that they can't be enforced?

No.

Is there anything that can be done to make a municipality use stop signs appropriately?

Talk to your city legislators.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Not familiar with the applicable law, but a couple of thoughts come to mind: first, there may have been serious speeding such that enough people complained, and all-way stop signs were imposed as means to (ostensibly) slow traffic down; or, since the examples you cite look like newer subdivisions, the all-way stop signs were added as a condition of development.

[Scott5114]

Yes, they're legal, and no, you can't make an argument that they can't be enforced. Pretty much every state vehicle code will say "you must stop at a stop sign" with no further reference to the sign having to comply with Manual on Uniform Control Devices (MUTCD) sign warrants to be enforceable. (Now, if a municipality were to use, say, orange stop signs, you could probably get a ticket thrown out by saying it's not legally a stop sign since it doesn't match the MUTCD standard for a stop sign.)

Is there anything that can be done? Well, not in the way that you think. The MUTCD is enforced by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) withholding federal funding, preventing it from being spent on non-compliant signage. But FHWA only pays state DOTs, and it's the state DOTs that disburse some of that funding to the municipalities. The state DOT could theoretically do the same thing, but most of the time they don't care as much about it as the feds do.

Now what you can do is raise hell at a city council meeting, and bring the MUTCD in with you and say these signs don't meet federal sign warrants as listed here, here, and here. But in order for that to work, you need to 1) live in the city in question and 2) not have Mrs. Grubershaker stand up right after you and give an impassioned speech that won't you think of her children, who will surely dive face first into the path of the nearest motor vehicle unless there is a stop sign preventing them from dying before they can grow up into a common-grade moron.

[LPCJr]

Not familiar with the applicable law, but a couple of thoughts come to mind: first, there may have been serious speeding such that enough people complained, and all-way stop signs were imposed as means to (ostensibly) slow traffic down; or, since the examples you cite look like newer subdivisions, the all-way stop signs were added as a condition of development.

I think both points you mention are plausible.  However, looking at the MUTCD neither seems to be a legitimate justification for the use of an all-way stop.

[davewiecking]

If the town council tells their Public Works folks to install a stop sign, it's legal. Yes, you CAN argue anything you wish. I'd try "there's no stop line on the ground; I was going to stop when I found it."  But I wouldn't expect to be successful. Each of the intersections seems to have potential issues with vegetation restricting sight distances.

[hbelkins]

If the town council tells their Public Works folks to install a stop sign, it's legal. Yes, you CAN argue anything you wish. I'd try "there's no stop line on the ground; I was going to stop when I found it."  But I wouldn't expect to be successful. Each of the intersections seems to have potential issues with vegetation restricting sight distances.

A stop bar is not required. On most Kentucky state highways, stop bars not at traffic signals are installed only in places where a stop sign can't be placed at the location where traffic is supposed to stop.

[Hobart]

Yes, even if the stop sign is dumb, it is legally enforceable as a stop sign.

I would consider looking around for policemen and rolling all of them.

[jeffandnicole]

In most cases, a stop sign needs to be authorized to be installed.  But also in most cases, there's great latitude as to where they can be installed.  As long as they're at an intersection, the only way you can get out of such a ticket is by researching to determine if the appropriate authorizations were completed for its installation.

In Pennsylvania, the towns do tend to overutilize them and create all-way stop intersections, and most people assume it's to control speed.  In that sense, they are illegal - stop signs can't be used as a speed control device.  Without being stopped for a speeding ticket, the best you can do is go to the town council meetings and tell the town council that you object to the stop signs and that they should remove them, or conduct proper studies to have them removed.  They'll then thank you for your commentary and move on to the next speaker.  It will be memorialized in the minute's meetings, and you'll never hear of it again.

If you actually get stopped and get a ticket, then you can gather evidence to present to the town's judge that the stop sign is illegal.  When they declare you guilty, you then can appeal the conviction. When the next judge denies you, you can then appeal it again further up to State court.

Hope you have a lot of money.  The lawsuits aren't cheap.  And hope you have a lot of solid evidence.  Because "your opinion" in itself isn't going to convince anyone.

[webny99]

There's a stop sign near me that was installed specifically as a traffic calming measure, and people blow through it all the time, sometimes without even slowing down. I think some people don't even notice it, which is somewhat forgivable given the location (It's somewhat comparable to the ones linked in the OP, probably worse than the first one but not as bad as the other two). We used to sometimes see cops on the side street watching for cars that didn't stop, but I haven't seen them there in several years now.

[7/8]

Driving in the Montreal area, there seems to a ton of stop signs used for traffic calming.

For example, four-lane Blvd Cartier in Laval, if you zoom in, you can see three all-way stop intersections (and these side streets have way less traffic than the main road). And there's still plenty more on this stretch.

Another awful one was two-lane Rue Roger Pilon in Dollard-des-Ormeaux, which has 11 stop signs in the 3.2 km between Blvd St-Jean and Blvd Sources. (GSV links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). Our Air-bnb was near the middle of this stretch, so no matter which way we went, we'd have to go through several of these stop signs (and they were never busy!)

I forget where it was, but I almost missed one of the stop signs on a four-lane road since it was only posted on the right side and I was in the left-lane. That's very dangerous, and again it was for a much smaller side street.

Yes, even if the stop sign is dumb, it is legally enforceable as a stop sign.

I would consider looking around for policemen and rolling all of them.

Yep, slow down enough to check for cross-traffic, pedestrians, and cops and if you're good, roll through. If only Roger Pilon was designed like this to encourage slower speeds at the intersections for pedestrian safety, but you don't need to stop if it's safe to proceed.

[Big John]

MUTCD discourages, but does not prohibit the stop sign as a speed control device

MUTCD 2B.04

05 YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control.

says "should" instead of "shall".

[steviep24]

This brings up this question: Are mid block stop signs legal? Such as seen here.

[webny99]

This brings up this question: Are mid block stop signs legal? Such as seen here.

That is terrible! It looks like something rigged up by the two neighbors in an apparent attempt to calm traffic, but if that's a major concern, that's what speed humps are for. I don't see any need for a crosswalk here, much less a stop sign. And even if the crosswalk is somehow justified (maybe the two homes operate day cares or something?), it still doesn't need a stop sign. It should be signed like this or this (or both). I really can't believe this is real, I'll have to check it out sometime when I'm on that side of town.