4 ms·

It's like rolling stops at stop signs, a majority of people do it, it's socially accepted! Could we use technology to prevent it? Yes. Should we? I'd hope not.

jjk7 2y ago
Automated speed enforcement cameras make me want to don a mask and sneak out at night with a drill and a can of spray foam.
- gretch 2y ago
  Why wouldn't you direct this same sense of vigilante justice toward people who speed excessively and hurt other people? Speeding does happen and it does kill people - https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813473.pdf https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... Just to be clear, I don't like red light cameras either, but if you are gonna put on a mask and fuck some shit up, why don't you wait outside of a bar and wait for drunk drivers?
  - grayhatter 2y ago
    > but if you are gonna put on a mask and fuck some shit up, why don't you wait outside of a bar and wait for drunk drivers? because one is damaging equipment that shouldn't exist, and the other involves ambushing a person on baseless suspicion. Presumably by force, given we're trying to fuck some shit up... I'm going to pretend to ignore the whataboutism distraction
    - SauciestGNU 2y ago
      Try this on as a thought experiment: stopping drunk driving (including via physical force) is community self defense. Someone choosing to drive while intoxicated is an assault against everyone else in the area, and it is morally acceptable to use various means, including violence, to prevent that behavior.
      - grayhatter 2y ago
        > Try this on as a thought experiment: this isn't a thought experiment, it's a simple rhetorical argument. But does calling it a thought experiment as if it was something wearable normally work? But to answer your argument, I already agree that it's ethical to use force, even if it rises to the level that causes harm. But only if you're correct that you're preventing impaired driving. Humans are famously bad at making solo judgments like this to the standard I'd require to consider it acceptable. I wont advocate for someone to do something when I believe a negative outcome is more likely than a positive result. But given violence means physical force with the intent to cause harm, I strongly disagree that the ethical way to behave involves intentionally causing injury. unintentional injury as an unfortunate byproduct is permissible in the is permissible in the "thought experiment" you propose, but only when it is actively avoided never when it's intentional. I.e. I think you meant to say physical force not violence.
  - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
    I take a different attitude about speeding. I don't think it's speeding itself that causes crashes, but aggressive driving, and speed merely exacerbates aggressive driving. It is possible to speed without being aggressive, and in those scenarios, I don't consider speed to be a significant risk. The German Autobahn have HALF the driver fatality rate as USA highways despite have wide sections with no speed limits. Speed is fine. Keep right except when passing and you won't force faster drivers to constantly change lanes to get around you.
- neuralRiot 2y ago
  Not giving ideas but a paintball gun works wonders.
- falcolas 2y ago
  A portable bandsaw, and discovered by the Brits (they're covertly fighting back against some pretty invasive automated monitoring), also makes short work of metal poles.
- yowzadave 2y ago
  Alternatively, you could just drive slower
- blactuary 2y ago
  Driving is the most dangerous thing we all do on a regular basis. You do not own the roads, you are not the center of the universe. Drive safely and try giving a crap about other people.
gretch 2y ago
Well yeah, it'd be extremely myopic to invent technology to solve this intermediary problem of rolling stops, rather than addressing the outcome via technology which we do all the time. In addition to standard car safety features, there are cars that will engage breaks automatically if they detect imminent and unavoidable collision. Also we have technology like traffic lights and red light cameras if stop signs are not good enough for the scale. In the case of this Amazon thing, what I hope is that the inefficiency of it strangles itself to death. For example, if I tried to start a restaurant and I decided that the people working in the kitchen had to keep their mouth closed or get fired, then my restaurant would quickly go out of business.
abfan1127 2y ago
I'd argue we should convert almost all stop signs with YIELD signs. Locations that actually require a STOP should probably be enforced.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  I find whole concept of 4-way stop extremely weird. Either you have yield sign or you have equal crossing. STOP signs are only used in cases where there is a reason, like poor visibility or greatly different speeds.
chrisfosterelli 2y ago
Do you know how many times I've almost been hit by a car doing a rolling stop while running? We should absolutely use technology to prevent this. I'm honestly not convinced by this line of reasoning at all. Most laws exist for a reason and should be followed. Or if they're bad laws, they should be changed.
- Noumenon72 2y ago
  The pressure on the law to break it -- compared to stop lights, where almost no one does -- does reveal that there is something bad about the law. The positive effects are: - encourage turn taking - help pedestrians in the 1% of urban areas where there actually are any - bright line rule that's easy for police to enforce - keep people from getting complacent about cross traffic The negative effects are - a complete stop takes more time than is needed to ensure the intersection is clear, which is a constant daily time drain and a reminder that you are following the rule because others will punish you and not because it's a good idea. Being lax on the rolling stops and just doing enforcement around those busy areas and high-speed stop sign ignorers seems like a nice equilibrium to keep the good effects and minimize the bad ones. Maybe nicer than we could achieve by letting the kind of people who participate in politics revisit the issue. Do you live in an urban area so dense that you can't wait for cars to clear the intersection before you run out in front?
  - limit499karma 2y ago
    > .. a reminder that you are following the rule because others will punish you and not because it's a good idea. It's a bad idea according to you. Do you have actual data that proves rolling stop provides sufficient utility that a stop sign is supposed to provide? There does not exist a single society today or in history where every single member of the said society agrees with every single rule governing them. If you are only prevented from following your society's various rules because of 'fear of punishment' then you sir are a frustrated anti-social. It's not supposed to be because of "fear". > time drain Ridiculous. Traffic safety is more important that your illusory 'loss' of whatever handful of minutes per day.
  - blactuary 2y ago
undersuit 2y ago
Should we use technology to prevent it? YES Why do people roll through stop signs? Complaints about acceleration and uselessness. I easily see two fixes for acceleration. Make stopping and starting less jarring on occupants and reduce the need for the driver to switch from gas to brake pedals. Uselessness can be resolved by a number of ways, make the area around the stop more open for better visibility, but we can definitely use technology to prevent people from rolling through stop signs. Set up sensors so that only one roadway has an active stop sign, when the sensors detect a single vehicle the stop sign on their way can be disabled. When the sensors detect intersecting vehicles both stop signs are activated.
- mathgeek 2y ago
  Traffic circles work wonders for these behaviors.
  - smegger001 2y ago
    depends if you live in neighbor hood laid out on a grid like I happen to, having a 4 way stop at every cross street on the grid is annoying and lead to starting and stopping every 200-150 feet it's stupid as there is virtually no traffic. but building a roundabout in the middle of every one of those intersections would be massive overkill and waste of space as it would take out each corner house on said grid. the best approach would be a low speed limit replace the stop signs with yield sign and turn the streets into alternating one-ways so you only have to check one direction for on coming traffic at each intersection
    - medvezhenok 2y ago
      Interestingly enough, I lived in a part of Quebec City called Limoilou which is laid out exactly like you describe. Low speed limit, alternating one ways, very few stop signs. I think there are some boroughs in NYC that are like that as well. I have turned the wrong way down a one way street one too many times, even after living there for several years:) surprisingly easy to do when not on GPS (not all one ways are properly marked)
    - 2y ago
diediediei 2y ago
[flagged]
citrin_ru 2y ago
It's hard to drive in the US without rolling at stop sign because they are everywhere. EU and the rest of the world use two different signs: yield and stop. Yield tells that you need to give way but can go without stopping if it is safe and stop tells you must stop (used rarely, mostly in places with poor view). IMHO yield sign is a better solution then lax enforcement of stop signs. And all-way stop can be replaced by roundabouts and mini roundabouts (I'm not a fan of high traffic multi-lane roundabouts but in places with low traffic, where all-way stops usually are used they work great).
- blactuary 2y ago
  It's actually incredibly easy. There's a pedal called the brake, you apply pressure to it until your car comes to a complete stop.
  - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
    I'm not convinced that coming to a complete stop is any safer than just slowing to 2-3 mph before continuing. The real danger is from proceeding without looking around, but there's no way to enforce looking around. Coming to a complete stop doesn't change it. Someone who's going to proceed without giving proper attention is going to do so whether or not they come to a complete stop.
- WrongAssumption 2y ago
  The US has yield signs. The yield sign was in fact invented in the US. The first one in the world was installed in Tulsa Oklahoma in the 50s.
  - citrin_ru 2y ago
    Then why they are so rare on the road compare to stop signs? I haven’t seen stats but my impression that in EU/UK there are at least 10x more yield signs than stop signs.
    - 2y ago
cafard 2y ago
There are stop-sign cameras in Washington, DC, and there is a lot of complaining about them on the neighborhood listserv now and then.

jjk7 2y ago

Automated speed enforcement cameras make me want to don a mask and sneak out at night with a drill and a can of spray foam.

gretch 2y ago
Why wouldn't you direct this same sense of vigilante justice toward people who speed excessively and hurt other people? Speeding does happen and it does kill people - https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813473.pdf https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... Just to be clear, I don't like red light cameras either, but if you are gonna put on a mask and fuck some shit up, why don't you wait outside of a bar and wait for drunk drivers?
- grayhatter 2y ago
  > but if you are gonna put on a mask and fuck some shit up, why don't you wait outside of a bar and wait for drunk drivers? because one is damaging equipment that shouldn't exist, and the other involves ambushing a person on baseless suspicion. Presumably by force, given we're trying to fuck some shit up... I'm going to pretend to ignore the whataboutism distraction
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    Try this on as a thought experiment: stopping drunk driving (including via physical force) is community self defense. Someone choosing to drive while intoxicated is an assault against everyone else in the area, and it is morally acceptable to use various means, including violence, to prevent that behavior.
    - grayhatter 2y ago
      > Try this on as a thought experiment: this isn't a thought experiment, it's a simple rhetorical argument. But does calling it a thought experiment as if it was something wearable normally work? But to answer your argument, I already agree that it's ethical to use force, even if it rises to the level that causes harm. But only if you're correct that you're preventing impaired driving. Humans are famously bad at making solo judgments like this to the standard I'd require to consider it acceptable. I wont advocate for someone to do something when I believe a negative outcome is more likely than a positive result. But given violence means physical force with the intent to cause harm, I strongly disagree that the ethical way to behave involves intentionally causing injury. unintentional injury as an unfortunate byproduct is permissible in the is permissible in the "thought experiment" you propose, but only when it is actively avoided never when it's intentional. I.e. I think you meant to say physical force not violence.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  I take a different attitude about speeding. I don't think it's speeding itself that causes crashes, but aggressive driving, and speed merely exacerbates aggressive driving. It is possible to speed without being aggressive, and in those scenarios, I don't consider speed to be a significant risk. The German Autobahn have HALF the driver fatality rate as USA highways despite have wide sections with no speed limits. Speed is fine. Keep right except when passing and you won't force faster drivers to constantly change lanes to get around you.
neuralRiot 2y ago
Not giving ideas but a paintball gun works wonders.
falcolas 2y ago
A portable bandsaw, and discovered by the Brits (they're covertly fighting back against some pretty invasive automated monitoring), also makes short work of metal poles.
yowzadave 2y ago
Alternatively, you could just drive slower
blactuary 2y ago
Driving is the most dangerous thing we all do on a regular basis. You do not own the roads, you are not the center of the universe. Drive safely and try giving a crap about other people.

gretch 2y ago

Well yeah, it'd be extremely myopic to invent technology to solve this intermediary problem of rolling stops, rather than addressing the outcome via technology which we do all the time. In addition to standard car safety features, there are cars that will engage breaks automatically if they detect imminent and unavoidable collision. Also we have technology like traffic lights and red light cameras if stop signs are not good enough for the scale. In the case of this Amazon thing, what I hope is that the inefficiency of it strangles itself to death. For example, if I tried to start a restaurant and I decided that the people working in the kitchen had to keep their mouth closed or get fired, then my restaurant would quickly go out of business.

abfan1127 2y ago

I'd argue we should convert almost all stop signs with YIELD signs. Locations that actually require a STOP should probably be enforced.

Ekaros 2y ago
I find whole concept of 4-way stop extremely weird. Either you have yield sign or you have equal crossing. STOP signs are only used in cases where there is a reason, like poor visibility or greatly different speeds.

chrisfosterelli 2y ago

Do you know how many times I've almost been hit by a car doing a rolling stop while running? We should absolutely use technology to prevent this. I'm honestly not convinced by this line of reasoning at all. Most laws exist for a reason and should be followed. Or if they're bad laws, they should be changed.

Noumenon72 2y ago
The pressure on the law to break it -- compared to stop lights, where almost no one does -- does reveal that there is something bad about the law. The positive effects are: - encourage turn taking - help pedestrians in the 1% of urban areas where there actually are any - bright line rule that's easy for police to enforce - keep people from getting complacent about cross traffic The negative effects are - a complete stop takes more time than is needed to ensure the intersection is clear, which is a constant daily time drain and a reminder that you are following the rule because others will punish you and not because it's a good idea. Being lax on the rolling stops and just doing enforcement around those busy areas and high-speed stop sign ignorers seems like a nice equilibrium to keep the good effects and minimize the bad ones. Maybe nicer than we could achieve by letting the kind of people who participate in politics revisit the issue. Do you live in an urban area so dense that you can't wait for cars to clear the intersection before you run out in front?
- limit499karma 2y ago
  > .. a reminder that you are following the rule because others will punish you and not because it's a good idea. It's a bad idea according to you. Do you have actual data that proves rolling stop provides sufficient utility that a stop sign is supposed to provide? There does not exist a single society today or in history where every single member of the said society agrees with every single rule governing them. If you are only prevented from following your society's various rules because of 'fear of punishment' then you sir are a frustrated anti-social. It's not supposed to be because of "fear". > time drain Ridiculous. Traffic safety is more important that your illusory 'loss' of whatever handful of minutes per day.
- blactuary 2y ago

undersuit 2y ago

Should we use technology to prevent it? YES Why do people roll through stop signs? Complaints about acceleration and uselessness. I easily see two fixes for acceleration. Make stopping and starting less jarring on occupants and reduce the need for the driver to switch from gas to brake pedals. Uselessness can be resolved by a number of ways, make the area around the stop more open for better visibility, but we can definitely use technology to prevent people from rolling through stop signs. Set up sensors so that only one roadway has an active stop sign, when the sensors detect a single vehicle the stop sign on their way can be disabled. When the sensors detect intersecting vehicles both stop signs are activated.

mathgeek 2y ago
Traffic circles work wonders for these behaviors.
- smegger001 2y ago
  depends if you live in neighbor hood laid out on a grid like I happen to, having a 4 way stop at every cross street on the grid is annoying and lead to starting and stopping every 200-150 feet it's stupid as there is virtually no traffic. but building a roundabout in the middle of every one of those intersections would be massive overkill and waste of space as it would take out each corner house on said grid. the best approach would be a low speed limit replace the stop signs with yield sign and turn the streets into alternating one-ways so you only have to check one direction for on coming traffic at each intersection
  - medvezhenok 2y ago
    Interestingly enough, I lived in a part of Quebec City called Limoilou which is laid out exactly like you describe. Low speed limit, alternating one ways, very few stop signs. I think there are some boroughs in NYC that are like that as well. I have turned the wrong way down a one way street one too many times, even after living there for several years:) surprisingly easy to do when not on GPS (not all one ways are properly marked)
  - 2y ago

diediediei 2y ago

[flagged]

citrin_ru 2y ago

It's hard to drive in the US without rolling at stop sign because they are everywhere. EU and the rest of the world use two different signs: yield and stop. Yield tells that you need to give way but can go without stopping if it is safe and stop tells you must stop (used rarely, mostly in places with poor view). IMHO yield sign is a better solution then lax enforcement of stop signs. And all-way stop can be replaced by roundabouts and mini roundabouts (I'm not a fan of high traffic multi-lane roundabouts but in places with low traffic, where all-way stops usually are used they work great).

blactuary 2y ago
It's actually incredibly easy. There's a pedal called the brake, you apply pressure to it until your car comes to a complete stop.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  I'm not convinced that coming to a complete stop is any safer than just slowing to 2-3 mph before continuing. The real danger is from proceeding without looking around, but there's no way to enforce looking around. Coming to a complete stop doesn't change it. Someone who's going to proceed without giving proper attention is going to do so whether or not they come to a complete stop.
WrongAssumption 2y ago
The US has yield signs. The yield sign was in fact invented in the US. The first one in the world was installed in Tulsa Oklahoma in the 50s.
- citrin_ru 2y ago
  Then why they are so rare on the road compare to stop signs? I haven’t seen stats but my impression that in EU/UK there are at least 10x more yield signs than stop signs.
  - 2y ago

cafard 2y ago

There are stop-sign cameras in Washington, DC, and there is a lot of complaining about them on the neighborhood listserv now and then.