Several years ago I read an article (I don't remember where) explaining and arguing for a libertarian approach to traffic rules (in the US). The argument was if

Several years ago I read an article (I don't remember where) explaining and arguing for a libertarian approach to traffic rules (in the US). The argument was if you get rid of stop signs, people will tend to stop at intersections more, not less, because they don't know what to expect. I don't really agree with it but it was an article that I started reading with astonishment for how silly it was and by the end became convinced it was very reasonable even if you disagreed. Part of my skepticism about libertarian traffic control is that I was once in an area where there was a sort of legislative experiment with certain kinds of traffic lights. The legislature made the argument that they were unnecessary, the DoT pointed to studies that they improved traffic, and after awhile of this the DoT said "fine, we'll shut them off for awhile and see what happens." The result wasn't bad accidents, but it was absolutely horrible traffic congestion, and people begged the DoT to turn them back on. So they did and no one argued about it again. Now that I argue about it, the libertarian argument article was focused on safety, not traffic flow, so maybe they'd say their arguments still stand. But for me getting rid of the lights was a very negative thing.