It took three traffic light changes to get through a short distance from Daylight Donuts to Mills Avenue Tuesday.

Granted, it was close to 3 p.m., in time for a shift change at the hospital and the dismissal of school.

My delay was compounded by a good Samaritan just in front of me who gave two buses permission to cut ahead in line, and then scanned the territory for others who might want to do the same.

That act of charity is fine, unless you’re at the end of the line.

I’d never had to wait for more than two light changes in that area. More people simply are driving; Las Vegas has a number of areas which create a rush-quarter-hour; and in time, the city will need to address things like bypasses and better traffic flow. That would be simply “terraffic.”

Meanwhile, a co-worker said he’d driven along Cerrillos Road in Santa Fe the day before, maintained a constant speed and was able to hit about a dozen green lights — because, unlike Las Vegas, traffic lights are synchronized to allow this to happen.

It’s unfair to compare Las Vegas with a much larger city, inasmuch as it’s hard to find more than two traffic lights in a row in this burg. However, efficient traffic flow doesn’t appear to be the issue here.

Let me explain:

This week, motorists who travel downtown on Seventh encountered three new sets of stop signs, at Friedman, Washington and Columbia. So as not to leave out those who travel on Sixth and Eighth, the city placed two signs on Washington.

We can understand the rationale some residents give for wanting more stop signs, in addition to wanting to slow down traffic. One Sixth Street resident said the action is “to take back our neighborhood.” Another said he’s seen people going 70 mph on Sixth.

But is the influx of stop signs really going to accomplish its purpose? If, according to Tuesday’s news account, the move is designed to discourage motorists from using those thoroughfares, we wonder about the rationale.

Wouldn’t lacing the pavement with roofing nails or installing more speed humps/bumps discourage traffic as well? Seventh Street, by its very nature, is a popular thoroughfare, the route many people from the north side, Taos, Mora and Storrie Lake take to go downtown.

My fear is that the stopulation syndrome will simply create more traffic jams caused by more cars going slower and stopping three extra times.

So traffic goes slower, which means the congestion clears slower. And if efficient traffic flow is the aim, as it should be, why not make some of the intersections two-way stops, by providing the right-of-way to those on Washington, Friedman, Baca and other east-west routes?

Two-way stops at least spell out the rules. Four-way stops create too much of that “we-go-first/no!-I-go-first” decision making.

Part of the reasoning also is to reroute some of the traffic to Grand. If that’s successful, let’s ignore the extra gas at about three bucks a gallon that motorists will be burning. In addition, more cars on Grand may be an economic boon to that area, which so far has only three traffic lights and no stop signs. Yet, it’s congested for anyone attempting a left turn.

As traffic flow increases on Grand, will businesses located around Seventh and Eighth begin to feel the loss? Any Saturday afternoon glimpse of Downtown New Town ought to convince the city that more traffic, not less, is desirable.

For a long time, Eighth Street was practically free of stop signs. Then one day motorists were greeted by a new four-way stop on Baca Avenue. “Why, pray tell, is there suddenly a stop sign there?” people asked. “Well, it’s to stop people from speeding in a hospital zone,” officials explained. “Remember, patients like it quiet.”

Did anybody ever consider how much noisier a car is, equipped with headers, glasspacks, subwoofers and amplifiers, when it’s taking off?

So is the plan to have each vehicle stop (and start again) at virtually every intersection really a good idea? Did anyone ever compute the amount of pollution vehicles spew into the atmosphere when subjected to constant stop-and-go driving?

Stop signs ought not be used for “making it more difficult and time-consuming for motorists” to use particular routes. If speeding is the problem, effective traffic enforcement ought to be the solution.

And let’s not make heavily traveled roads too difficult and time-consuming — especially for the tourists.

Or they could choose to bypass Las Vegas altogether.

•••

A trip to Pino’s Quick Lube on Saturday almost resulted in there being one fewer citizen. The popular flea market north of town draws hundreds of customers, many of whom park any which way.

There’s a sign instructing people not to park on the paved shoulder alongside the market. But there’s also a glitch: to some people, signs are merely suggestions, and that’s why I almost cut the population by one.

The early arrivers generally park as close to the flea market as they can. Later arrivers, parking parallel, fill up the next row, then a third row, until only the shoulder of North Grand remains. And they park there as well.

A customer was leaving the market and walked past two or three rows of cars. When he walked past the final car, parked on the shoulder, he apparently didn’t realize, “Hey, I’m on the highway now, where people go 60.” He must have thought he was in a parking lot.

But because my destination was just beyond the flea market, I’d slowed my car to about 20. I still needed to stop suddenly. The height of the SUV parked with other vehicles on the shoulder shielded the man completely.

Naturally, I’m thankful there was no accident, but it rankles me that the almost-victim never even looked up, appearing oblivious to it all.