3 ms·
I intended the first meaning if my original comment wasn't clear. I agree that could be read either way and indeed, convention is useful in some situations. As
by n0us 11y ago
I intended the first meaning if my original comment wasn't clear. I agree that could be read either way and indeed, convention is useful in some situations. As far as driving on one side of the road or the other, if there were a compelling reason to switch sides of the road and it were practical to do so then it might make sense to switch. I don't believe that is the case, especially because road safety relies on a homogeneous rule set. Writing is not this way and using one style when it is appropriate does not affect the legibility of another independent body of text as long as the rule set is applied consistently in a particular body.
- wpietri 11y agoI don't think the drive-on-the-right rule is only about safety. It's also about efficiency. We could also be safe without the rule, we'd just go a lot slower. I note that we have the same stay-on-the-right rule for walking, and it'd be hard to argue that it's mainly about safety there. As the author explains, for journalists the rule is widely consistent by country, which is a sign that, as with driving, there's something pushing us toward consistency. Given that there's a switching cost, and given that journalists change employers (and often write for multiple publications), and given that material gets reused between publications), I think there's good reason to have widespread agreement.