3 ms·

> 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? Every now and then I bump into some

> 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? Every now and then I bump into someone like this who realizes that they're breaking the law and in the wrong, then tries to tell me I should still change my behaviour because they might kill me anyway.

Noumenon72 2y ago
I bet you do bump into them, by not taking common precautions to keep out of their way. But I was always trained to behave as though cars couldn't see me, not because they might decide to break the law but just because you never know.
- chrisfosterelli 2y ago
  It's striking to me that the difference for you between "my time is too important to stop" and "I was always trained to stop anyway" is just whether it's you or someone else that would get hurt from your actions.
  - medvezhenok 2y ago
    No, I think stop signs are a horrible design flaw that we have to live with, and rolling stops are the least bad way to work around that urban design flaw. It is asinine to force arbitrary stops at random intersections that have no time-of-day or traffic sensitivity (i.e. am I alone on the roads at 2AM, or are children walking to school at 8AM). Or to put them at intersections with clear cross visibility (what exactly is the stop for?). Or the 4-way stop sign mess. It is totally reasonable to require full stops in the latter case, but silly in the former. Unfortunately, stop signs make no distinction between the two. The only reason to fully stop at stop signs is actually the a pillar / b pillar blind spots, or obstructed view from the road. If you were hypothetically driving an open top car in an open neighborhood (or a motorcycle, bike, scooter, moped), there's no new "information" you'll gain by fully stopping rather than slowing down (where as if you have an A/B pillar blind spot, a full stop can give someone time to appear from behind it). See also: "Stop Signs suck and we should get rid of them" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42oQN7fy_eM&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42oQN7fy_eM&t=1s

Noumenon72 2y ago

I bet you do bump into them, by not taking common precautions to keep out of their way. But I was always trained to behave as though cars couldn't see me, not because they might decide to break the law but just because you never know.

chrisfosterelli 2y ago
It's striking to me that the difference for you between "my time is too important to stop" and "I was always trained to stop anyway" is just whether it's you or someone else that would get hurt from your actions.
- medvezhenok 2y ago
  No, I think stop signs are a horrible design flaw that we have to live with, and rolling stops are the least bad way to work around that urban design flaw. It is asinine to force arbitrary stops at random intersections that have no time-of-day or traffic sensitivity (i.e. am I alone on the roads at 2AM, or are children walking to school at 8AM). Or to put them at intersections with clear cross visibility (what exactly is the stop for?). Or the 4-way stop sign mess. It is totally reasonable to require full stops in the latter case, but silly in the former. Unfortunately, stop signs make no distinction between the two. The only reason to fully stop at stop signs is actually the a pillar / b pillar blind spots, or obstructed view from the road. If you were hypothetically driving an open top car in an open neighborhood (or a motorcycle, bike, scooter, moped), there's no new "information" you'll gain by fully stopping rather than slowing down (where as if you have an A/B pillar blind spot, a full stop can give someone time to appear from behind it). See also: "Stop Signs suck and we should get rid of them" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42oQN7fy_eM&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42oQN7fy_eM&t=1s