Sure, but politicians and staff are both guilty of either:
a) Accepting that position and just installing the light
b) Staff oppose the installation of the light w/standard language around 'warrants' without actually identifying a preferable way to improve safety/perception of same.
****
To flip the above. Staff need to say 'No', but then also provide alternatives to address any real or perceived issue.
Even I find that I can identify a useful project to staff of this type (road diet/bump out etc.) and get a private nod of approval, and, then something to the effect of......it probably has to wait until road reconstruction (in 2036) .......
That doesn't work, traffic lights can by--pass the 'it must wait for major road work' rule; but road diets cannot.
Where lights cost upwards of $250,000 per set to install (sometimes more); I think that's a sum that should automatically be available for alternative works in the same location.
Once staff provide a good solution; Council needs to back them up; not thwart them to win two dozen votes.