Asklemmy

43744 readers

1186 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

132

Why are Stop Lines (in the US, at least) often set too far back to see any crossing traffic? (sub.wetshaving.social)

submitted 6 months ago by walden@sub.wetshaving.social to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've seen them called "Stop Lines", "Balk Line", etc. The thick line painted on the road at a Stop Sign.

You're supposed to stop before the line, but a lot of the time there's a bush or other obstruction so you can't see any crossing traffic. You have to creep forward until you can see anything.

Is there a reason for this? Is it done on purpose? It makes sense if there's a crosswalk or something, but I see it a lot where there shouldn't be any pedestrian activity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 67 points 6 months ago (6 children)

I see it a lot where there shouldn’t be any pedestrian activity.

This is a carbrained perspective. If an intersection is designed for cars to the exclusion of other uses, then others are unlikely to use it, which perpetuates car dependency. Even if all cars were electrified, car dependency would still be a massive problem in the US.

[–] walden@sub.wetshaving.social 20 points 6 months ago (5 children)

I guess my thought process is if they placed the line a tad further forward where you can see crossing traffic, including pedestrians, more people would actually stop at the designated spot. The way I see it most often now is people ignore the line completely (boy who cried wolf effect maybe), further endangering pedestrians.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 22 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Regulatory measures shouldn't be relaxed because people aren't following them, they should be enforced better. Of course how to do that in many situations such as this is the question. Other things are similar, like group speeding or smart phone use while driving.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 20 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Sometimes relaxing regulatory measures leads to people following them better, as they better match the intent of the regulation rather than being seen as absurd. It also lowers the 'benefit' of deviancy from that regulation.

Sometimes you're right, you regulate more extremely than the intent because people will follow it better, or it makes it easier to enforce.

The point is there's not a one size fits all.

load more comments (3 replies)