• Warl0k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    even the traffic engineers agreed that a stop sign was an appropriate treatment for this intersection when they rejected it on the basis that the traffic volume wasn’t high enough to warrant installing one

    I’m not sure I follow your reasoning here.

    • SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      They allegedly did a study to see whether there was enough traffic, a step which requires a certain commitment of resources. If the placement of a stop sign would’ve harmed safety by displacing traffic flow, then they could’ve cited that without spending time on a study. But they didn’t, from which we can conclude that a stop sign is okay there.

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Ah, I understand. Thank you.

        That’s a decent example of what I’ve been saying - basing a conclusion like that on the wording of an uncited press statement is pretty spurious. There simply may have been more reasons and this was judged the easiest to explain (which happens frequently), and without more information we simply aren’t equipped to make an informed judgement. Much as he wasn’t when he made the initial decision, but admittedly we’re facing far less severe consequences for being wrong.

        • SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Thanks for the excellent reply. I don’t exactly agree, but I love that it’s logical, clear, and respectful.