3 ms·

> most Americans don't seem to understand how yield signs work I'm not sure people even agree on how stop signs work. Imagine this scenario: Car A arrives at

> most Americans don't seem to understand how yield signs work I'm not sure people even agree on how stop signs work. Imagine this scenario: Car A arrives at a 4-way stop sign, intending to turn left. 1 second later, Car B arrives from the opposite direction, intending to continue straight. Who gets to cross the intersection first? Is it: A) Car A because they arrived at the intersection earlier, or B) Car B because, after stopping, they are continuing straight, and thus are not required to yield to a car that's turning?

alar44 5y ago
Car A. FIFO.
jedberg 5y ago
Good point. Legally Car A of course, but people definitely follow B more often than not.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > Legally Car A of course Not 'of course'. One second is arguably reaching the intersection at the same time.
  - kyleee 5y ago
    who argues that arriving at a different time is actually the same time?
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      Do I really have to explain that part out loud? Fine. Pretend instead of "1 second" it was a tenth of a second. Or a hundredth of a second. Surely at that point both cars are arriving "at the same time". "same time" is not measured with a laser interferometer. It's about human perception. So yes, sometimes "different times" are "at the same time"! Especially when you're measuring something with a very vague threshold like "arriving" at an intersection. In the opposite direction, if it was ten seconds, then it's blatantly obvious that the cars aren't arriving at the same time. At one second, "same time" and "not the same time" arguments are both plausible, and in the real world I think I'd lean toward treating it as the "same time". But it's not an objective truth either way. One second is in the fuzzy range.
godshatter 5y ago
Whoever is brave enough or impatient enough or aggressive enough to go first is how it seems to play out. This is a good thing in my opinion, because I really don't like sitting in a stalemate where my way of doing things (I'm usually in camp A) conflicts with their way and no one is brave enough to just go. So now you have a full intersection of cars with cars behind them and someone (maybe me) is going to get impatient and just go (usually at the exact second the other person decides the same thing). So I tend to be more aggressive and just start out slowly ready if the other person does the same thing if I perceive it to be "my turn".
function_seven 5y ago
My solution to this conundrum is to anticipate the opposing straight driver's arrival, and match it. I.e. try to arrive at the intersection simultaneously and a beat later so we can then both go at the same time, with them continuing straight and me turning left behind them. Or, I might get there a bit faster so It's crystal clear that I was first and I can get my turn over with while they're still coming to a stop. But that gray area in between is no good, for the reason you say: people don't agree on the order of operations. Better to avoid it entirely.

alar44 5y ago

Car A. FIFO.

jedberg 5y ago

Good point. Legally Car A of course, but people definitely follow B more often than not.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> Legally Car A of course Not 'of course'. One second is arguably reaching the intersection at the same time.
- kyleee 5y ago
  who argues that arriving at a different time is actually the same time?
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    Do I really have to explain that part out loud? Fine. Pretend instead of "1 second" it was a tenth of a second. Or a hundredth of a second. Surely at that point both cars are arriving "at the same time". "same time" is not measured with a laser interferometer. It's about human perception. So yes, sometimes "different times" are "at the same time"! Especially when you're measuring something with a very vague threshold like "arriving" at an intersection. In the opposite direction, if it was ten seconds, then it's blatantly obvious that the cars aren't arriving at the same time. At one second, "same time" and "not the same time" arguments are both plausible, and in the real world I think I'd lean toward treating it as the "same time". But it's not an objective truth either way. One second is in the fuzzy range.

godshatter 5y ago

Whoever is brave enough or impatient enough or aggressive enough to go first is how it seems to play out. This is a good thing in my opinion, because I really don't like sitting in a stalemate where my way of doing things (I'm usually in camp A) conflicts with their way and no one is brave enough to just go. So now you have a full intersection of cars with cars behind them and someone (maybe me) is going to get impatient and just go (usually at the exact second the other person decides the same thing). So I tend to be more aggressive and just start out slowly ready if the other person does the same thing if I perceive it to be "my turn".

function_seven 5y ago

My solution to this conundrum is to anticipate the opposing straight driver's arrival, and match it. I.e. try to arrive at the intersection simultaneously and a beat later so we can then both go at the same time, with them continuing straight and me turning left behind them. Or, I might get there a bit faster so It's crystal clear that I was first and I can get my turn over with while they're still coming to a stop. But that gray area in between is no good, for the reason you say: people don't agree on the order of operations. Better to avoid it entirely.