Have you ever found yourselves at 2:00 am at a 4-Stop crossing, wondering what possible sense it makes to come to a full stop only to gear the car back into full power in order to cross an intersection devoid of any signs of cars for miles? Or perhaps experienced crossing miles and miles of wilderness in a useless stop-and-go fashion, simply because every possible intersection has preventively been equipped with stop signs? What does it do to our environment to bring our cars continuously to a stop, only to use the extra-gas to get started again? It is frustrating for oneself - and everyone around - to hear your car is just taking another big gulp rather than parsimoniously sipping the gas as it was before it hit the stop sign. In Holland, two cities are experiencing the complete absence of traffic signs, except for an overall speed limit. Hans Monderman, a traffic engineer, studied the impact of traffic signs as well as the impact of their absence. While in their absence safety went up, pedestrians and drivers paradoxically felt the contrary: and it is exactly this ambiguity he was looking for. Rather than clarity, he had created confusion and ambiguity. Unsure of what space belonged to them, what kind of road or intersection was creeping up, drivers tended to become more mindful about the environment through which they were driving: a village, a residential area. Rather than give drivers a simple behavioral mandate—say, a speed limit sign or a stop sign - he forced a different, more social and more sustainable course of action. In this way he used context to change behavior. A Silicon Valley Venture Capitalist, Gary Lauder, came up with another creative idea and shows us how one stop sign can cost society over $2 million… http://www.responsibilityproject.com/films/ted-talk-gary-lauder#fbid=2ArXT_IVSrM Do you also think we would drive more carefully and use less energy if we were forced not to rely on the excessive number of stop signs we have?”