5 ms·

It's called a Pittsburgh Left?! When I first came to the US to Boston it drove me crazy, to me it was the epitome of uncivilized American driving "how dare you

It's called a Pittsburgh Left?! When I first came to the US to Boston it drove me crazy, to me it was the epitome of uncivilized American driving "how dare you cut in front of me without my permission!" But it makes sense at the right kind of intersection, and of course I adopted it because otherwise I'd be the odd one holding up the traffic making people frustrated.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>how dare you cut in front of me without my permission Allow me to fill in between the lines: "What is this, some sort of (mostly still) free country where people are not given harsh punishments for all behavior that prioritizes the individual over the group?" (sarcasm implied)
- mikeash 9y ago
  People are harshly punished for the Pittsburgh Left, it's just that the punishment is somewhat random and handed out by physics rather than lawmen.
- sampo 9y ago
  Wikipedia doesn't present it as quite so selfish: "By accepting a modest delay in going straight, the opposing traffic has saved the left-turning traffic waiting an entire light cycle to turn left, as well as saved an equivalent amount of time for all the cars that otherwise would have been stuck behind the left-turning car. In situations where there is so much oncoming, straight traffic that a left turn would not be otherwise possible during any part of the light cycle, the Pittsburgh left can allow a line of left turning traffic to proceed incrementally." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_left
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    It's not the safest bit of driving, but it's enormously pro-social. As that quote suggests, the problem isn't "I want to turn left" but rather "there are 30 cars behind me going straight, with no room to pass me on the right". If people just wanted to turn left, this would happen everywhere. Instead, I see it almost exclusively in cities with narrow streets lacking left turn lanes. In extreme cases, it's even personally beneficial for the yielding driver - the alternative is sometimes gridlock that circles back around to them. None of which makes it safe, but it's pretty obviously common for reasons other than selfishness.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      >I want to turn left but rather "there are 30 cars behind me going straight, with no room to pass me on the right. Thank you. I'm going to use this reasoning next time someone complains.
    - ryandrake 9y ago
      I had no idea that 1. this had a name and 2. it was illegal. I've done that Left so many times back when I lived in Pennsylvania, I figured it was totally acceptable. I've been in situations stuck behind a left-turner for 5+ light cycles because he couldn't/wouldn't turn left due to unrelenting oncoming traffic. What's the legal solution? You can't wait forever! (We don't seem to have this problem out here in California, where every street has at least four lanes!)
      - Bartweiss 9y ago
        As far as I know, the only legal solution is that one car gets to enter the intersection and then turn left after the signal has gone red. Of course, that's often a terrible answer - clearing one car per light cycle is a route to spectacular gridlock. (And with Boston drivers consistently running newly-red lights or blocking intersections, you sometimes don't even clear one car per cycle.) Wikipedia does hint at a legal kludge, though - "I judged oncoming traffic to be moving so slowly that I could safely turn". The idea I guess being that it's not a change to driving rules, it's just slow acceleration and a legal turn. I can't imagine that would hold up real well legally, especially if people are flashing headlights and making an invitation. On the other hand, I've never heard of this leading to a ticket in Boston - it just can't compete with the other violations that happen constantly!

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

>how dare you cut in front of me without my permission Allow me to fill in between the lines: "What is this, some sort of (mostly still) free country where people are not given harsh punishments for all behavior that prioritizes the individual over the group?" (sarcasm implied)

mikeash 9y ago
People are harshly punished for the Pittsburgh Left, it's just that the punishment is somewhat random and handed out by physics rather than lawmen.
sampo 9y ago
Wikipedia doesn't present it as quite so selfish: "By accepting a modest delay in going straight, the opposing traffic has saved the left-turning traffic waiting an entire light cycle to turn left, as well as saved an equivalent amount of time for all the cars that otherwise would have been stuck behind the left-turning car. In situations where there is so much oncoming, straight traffic that a left turn would not be otherwise possible during any part of the light cycle, the Pittsburgh left can allow a line of left turning traffic to proceed incrementally." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_left
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  It's not the safest bit of driving, but it's enormously pro-social. As that quote suggests, the problem isn't "I want to turn left" but rather "there are 30 cars behind me going straight, with no room to pass me on the right". If people just wanted to turn left, this would happen everywhere. Instead, I see it almost exclusively in cities with narrow streets lacking left turn lanes. In extreme cases, it's even personally beneficial for the yielding driver - the alternative is sometimes gridlock that circles back around to them. None of which makes it safe, but it's pretty obviously common for reasons other than selfishness.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    >I want to turn left but rather "there are 30 cars behind me going straight, with no room to pass me on the right. Thank you. I'm going to use this reasoning next time someone complains.
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    I had no idea that 1. this had a name and 2. it was illegal. I've done that Left so many times back when I lived in Pennsylvania, I figured it was totally acceptable. I've been in situations stuck behind a left-turner for 5+ light cycles because he couldn't/wouldn't turn left due to unrelenting oncoming traffic. What's the legal solution? You can't wait forever! (We don't seem to have this problem out here in California, where every street has at least four lanes!)
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      As far as I know, the only legal solution is that one car gets to enter the intersection and then turn left after the signal has gone red. Of course, that's often a terrible answer - clearing one car per light cycle is a route to spectacular gridlock. (And with Boston drivers consistently running newly-red lights or blocking intersections, you sometimes don't even clear one car per cycle.) Wikipedia does hint at a legal kludge, though - "I judged oncoming traffic to be moving so slowly that I could safely turn". The idea I guess being that it's not a change to driving rules, it's just slow acceleration and a legal turn. I can't imagine that would hold up real well legally, especially if people are flashing headlights and making an invitation. On the other hand, I've never heard of this leading to a ticket in Boston - it just can't compete with the other violations that happen constantly!