The city ultimately determined the intersection did not meet the required traffic volume for additional stop signs

For the record, this is 100% a lie. Every single warrant document (list of criteria) used by an engineer will have two magic words written at the bottom of the list:

"Engineering judgement."

That means there is no such thing as a "required traffic volume" for a stop sign or any other kind of signal or marking. If the engineer, in his professional judgement, agrees that one is warranted, it's warranted.

Engineers who hide behind things like warrants, pretending their hands are tied by them, are cowards and aren't doing their jobs properly.

The city engineer who refused to approve the stop sign didn't want to approve it because he cared more about drivers' convenience than he did children's safety, but was too chickenshit to tell it to the dad's face.

The city ultimately determined the intersection did not meet the required traffic volume for additional stop signs,

It shouldn't be about how much traffic there is. If people are going too fast and/or there's a visibility issue and/or there's danger of kids walking into the street, there needs to be a stop sign because that actually slows people down and makes it safer for everyone involved. Even my carbrain understands that.

Just install these instead:

That's a hard line to walk. Being so afraid your kid will get hit by a car that you do something that could get you sent to prison, where you certainly won't be able to do anything for said kid.

The city officials need to be the ones facing consequences for this, not him.

Anarchism meets the state.

Direct action and taking charge of the change you want to see is great, states fucking things up because they’re not the ones in power is pathetic.

Our own neighborhoods don't belong to us.

And once someone (probably a child) gets hit and dies, the city will say how sorry this tragedy is... will claim they'll do something, and then do nothing. Because words are cheap. Oh, and they'll act like this wasn't avoidable, there was no way to know this kind of thing could happen.

Bureaucracy at its finest

I don't have a problem with this.

Random people don't get to decide where stop signs go and do not go.

How about if someone just decided to remove a stop sign.

Huh, always weird when I see local news on my Lemmy feed.

FYI, South Bay is especially car brained, even my LA. We have a major refinery, some car manufacturer HQs, and I'm pretty sure more mechanics per capita than most of Cali. Long history with the automotive industry going back to the founding of a lot of these little cities.

It's a shame, too. The beach cities are lovely places to walk and somehow have terrible biking and public transportation infrastructure. The people there can be a bit entitled, though (and it's it just me or did this guy do it right outside his fucking home? Lol). But I don't know a solution, it's practically every other day someone is mowed down 'round here by a muscle car, and the areas East of El Segundo have a lot more waking families since we can't afford cars.

A little hope, though. I saw they mentioned the Sawtelle area too. I used to live there, and not only did they 180 on that case, Stoner Park is now surrounded by mini roundabouts. So change does happen after this type of thing, and their jurisdiction is LA itself, not a smaller city in a city.

Brb, adding a bike lane to the nearest stroad

Ok let's change the headline up a bit: California father arrested after erasing crosswalk paint and taking down stop signs from near the children's park.

imo if you are going to start changing how the road is, start blocking it or start damaging the road to force a speedbump or hole. It's a lot cheaper than spending 1000$ on a sign they can easily just take down, a lot faster and less likely to get caught in the act.