3 ms·

Because the "honored rule" isn't honored well enough, as "about 57% of car crashes involving pedestrians happened because drivers failed to yield to people in a

Because the "honored rule" isn't honored well enough, as "about 57% of car crashes involving pedestrians happened because drivers failed to yield to people in all intersections", quoting one of the listed study results, and "crashes increased by more than 20% in states that allowed RTOR" quoting another. Some rules are more honored than others. Consistent rules are more likely to be followed than ones that differ by state and even by city. Rules which require more situational awareness - you may turn right if the light red, traffic is clear from the left, no people are in the crosswalk, and no one from the right is about to cross - are harder to follow than ones which require situational awareness - you may not move if the light is red. Rules with personal choices are more subject to peer pressure. You aren't required to turn right on red, but if you don't, you may get honked at. This may encourage people to make the wrong decision, and turn even when not clear. If RTOR is illegal, honking is no longer peer pressure but only an "I am an asshole" indicator.

_heimdall 3y ago
Where do we draw the line on that approach? Depending on were I am in the US, it's common to see most drivers on the highways or interstates doing 10-25mph above the speed limit. Sticking to the speed limit often leaves you getting honked at, having drivers riding your tail, etc. Should we keep decreasing the speed limit until people follow the rules? > Rules with personal choices are more subject to peer pressure. A society with rules designed to remove personal choice for fear of peer pressure sounds absolutely miserable. I would never want to live in a world where rules are created by a higher authority with the specific goal of removing my ability to make decisions because it has been decided that its better for me that way.
- eesmith 3y ago
  It sounds like you are asking how basic lawmaking works. You must surely know that lines are changed all the time. I don't know what more you expect from me which you don't already know or can get from an intro civics course. > Should we keep decreasing the speed limit until people follow the rules? That seems like a totally different topic. You commented that "Replacing one honored rule with another rule seemed illogical." I pointed out why that high-level characterization can be logical. The devil is in the details, and the balance of factors concerning RTOR may be far different than the laws on speed limits. Besides, the article points out the laws changed from the honored rule of no RTOR to a new rule. Using your characterization, that change was also illogical, right? Even though the article points out how it was to save fuel during the gas crisis. Now that cars are much more efficient, it is certainly logical to ask if those those savings are still worthwhile. > I would never want to live in a world where rules are created by a higher authority with the specific goal of removing my ability to make decisions because it has been decided that its better for me that way. How is that relevant? I said was that it's one of several factors to consider when changing a rule, in order to decide if the rule change was logical. I did not say it was or should be "the specific goal." I assume you do not generally [1] run a red light whenever you see the cross-traffic is clear, even though that law was created by a higher authority with the specific goal of removing your ability to make a decision that would be allowed with a blinking red light. I assume you also don't often drive when it's likely your blood-alcohol level is beyond the legal limit, even though that law has also removed your ability to make the decision if you are sober enough to drive safely, justified on the belief that it's better for you that way. How do you manage to live in a world where one-way streets have severely restricted your ability to go in one direction? I could go on, but I think you understand that I simply don't see how your comment has any bearing on the topic, except to understand that you are strongly against a whole lot of traffic laws that most people think are reasonable. [1] Yes, there are exceptional cases when it's legal to run a red light, like if you are on a motorcycle, the traffic detector appears to be broken and you've been sitting there for minutes while no other traffic is present. https://www.startribune.com/the-drive-what-to-do-if-traffic-light-is-stuck-on-red/256910231/ https://www.startribune.com/the-drive-what-to-do-if-traffic-... . I believe it's still illegal if you are in a car, but it's an affirmative defense the judge will likely accept - same as if your passenger had a heart attack and you are heading straight to the ER.

_heimdall 3y ago

Where do we draw the line on that approach? Depending on were I am in the US, it's common to see most drivers on the highways or interstates doing 10-25mph above the speed limit. Sticking to the speed limit often leaves you getting honked at, having drivers riding your tail, etc. Should we keep decreasing the speed limit until people follow the rules? > Rules with personal choices are more subject to peer pressure. A society with rules designed to remove personal choice for fear of peer pressure sounds absolutely miserable. I would never want to live in a world where rules are created by a higher authority with the specific goal of removing my ability to make decisions because it has been decided that its better for me that way.

eesmith 3y ago
It sounds like you are asking how basic lawmaking works. You must surely know that lines are changed all the time. I don't know what more you expect from me which you don't already know or can get from an intro civics course. > Should we keep decreasing the speed limit until people follow the rules? That seems like a totally different topic. You commented that "Replacing one honored rule with another rule seemed illogical." I pointed out why that high-level characterization can be logical. The devil is in the details, and the balance of factors concerning RTOR may be far different than the laws on speed limits. Besides, the article points out the laws changed from the honored rule of no RTOR to a new rule. Using your characterization, that change was also illogical, right? Even though the article points out how it was to save fuel during the gas crisis. Now that cars are much more efficient, it is certainly logical to ask if those those savings are still worthwhile. > I would never want to live in a world where rules are created by a higher authority with the specific goal of removing my ability to make decisions because it has been decided that its better for me that way. How is that relevant? I said was that it's one of several factors to consider when changing a rule, in order to decide if the rule change was logical. I did not say it was or should be "the specific goal." I assume you do not generally [1] run a red light whenever you see the cross-traffic is clear, even though that law was created by a higher authority with the specific goal of removing your ability to make a decision that would be allowed with a blinking red light. I assume you also don't often drive when it's likely your blood-alcohol level is beyond the legal limit, even though that law has also removed your ability to make the decision if you are sober enough to drive safely, justified on the belief that it's better for you that way. How do you manage to live in a world where one-way streets have severely restricted your ability to go in one direction? I could go on, but I think you understand that I simply don't see how your comment has any bearing on the topic, except to understand that you are strongly against a whole lot of traffic laws that most people think are reasonable. [1] Yes, there are exceptional cases when it's legal to run a red light, like if you are on a motorcycle, the traffic detector appears to be broken and you've been sitting there for minutes while no other traffic is present. https://www.startribune.com/the-drive-what-to-do-if-traffic-light-is-stuck-on-red/256910231/ https://www.startribune.com/the-drive-what-to-do-if-traffic-... . I believe it's still illegal if you are in a car, but it's an affirmative defense the judge will likely accept - same as if your passenger had a heart attack and you are heading straight to the ER.