8 ms·

There are tons of traffic laws that make things technically illegal even if they're perfectly safe ("no U-turn"), for the purpose of keeping traffic flow orderl

by avalys 3y ago

There are tons of traffic laws that make things technically illegal even if they're perfectly safe ("no U-turn"), for the purpose of keeping traffic flow orderly and efficient. Not sure why this should be any different or why pedestrians should not be expected to follow traffic laws, or why the law should allow pedestrians to step into traffic whenever and wherever they want.

rrradical 3y ago
U-turns are not perfectly safe. Last week I saw a U-turner almost a hit a biker as they backed up after not being able to complete the turn in one pass. Can they be done safely? Sure. But that's not the same as perfectly safe.
- interestica 3y ago
  > as they backed up That's no longer a U-turn
  - pixl97 3y ago
    When you start looking at the average size of an American 4 wheeled land yacht you'll understand why U-turns are illegal.
    - interestica 3y ago
      Are they illegal across the USA?
- wilsynet 3y ago
  Cars also hit bikes when cars are backing up, making turns, driving above the speed limit, driving below the speed limit, when the driver opens the door. Really, many varied circumstances that have nothing to do with making a U-turn. Perhaps the phrase “perfectly safe” is wrong. Maybe “otherwise intrinsically safe” would be more accurate. Having said all that, I do wonder if we have U-turn accident statistics.
scubbo 3y ago
> for the purpose of keeping traffic flow orderly and efficient. Not sure why this should be any difference Because I'm saying that the act of crossing the road _itself_ should not be illegal - merely the act of crossing it unsafely. By definition, this is not disruptive to traffic flow. > why pedestrians should not be expected to follow traffic laws They should. This is begging the question - I'm saying that the law itself is flawed, not that a law should exist and be flouted. > why the law should allow pedestrians to step into traffic whenever and wherever they want This is a strawman. Pedestrians should be allowed to step into _roads_ (not into traffic) whenever and wherever it is safe to do so.

by avalys 3y ago

rrradical 3y ago

U-turns are not perfectly safe. Last week I saw a U-turner almost a hit a biker as they backed up after not being able to complete the turn in one pass. Can they be done safely? Sure. But that's not the same as perfectly safe.

interestica 3y ago
> as they backed up That's no longer a U-turn
- pixl97 3y ago
  When you start looking at the average size of an American 4 wheeled land yacht you'll understand why U-turns are illegal.
  - interestica 3y ago
    Are they illegal across the USA?
wilsynet 3y ago
Cars also hit bikes when cars are backing up, making turns, driving above the speed limit, driving below the speed limit, when the driver opens the door. Really, many varied circumstances that have nothing to do with making a U-turn. Perhaps the phrase “perfectly safe” is wrong. Maybe “otherwise intrinsically safe” would be more accurate. Having said all that, I do wonder if we have U-turn accident statistics.

scubbo 3y ago

> for the purpose of keeping traffic flow orderly and efficient. Not sure why this should be any difference Because I'm saying that the act of crossing the road _itself_ should not be illegal - merely the act of crossing it unsafely. By definition, this is not disruptive to traffic flow. > why pedestrians should not be expected to follow traffic laws They should. This is begging the question - I'm saying that the law itself is flawed, not that a law should exist and be flouted. > why the law should allow pedestrians to step into traffic whenever and wherever they want This is a strawman. Pedestrians should be allowed to step into _roads_ (not into traffic) whenever and wherever it is safe to do so.