Hacker News Reader

Comment by gthtjtkt | Hacker News Reader

I could be wrong, but I don't think that's illegal as long as there's a safe distance between them.

Otherwise, it would be practically impossible to make turns in a city...

Nope, it's a violation. In a crosswalk, the pedestrians have the right-of-way, and motorists must wait until they have walked through the area the car wants to turn through to go. Yes, this means that in cities, you often can't turn right until right at the end of the signal, when you can pass behind the pedestrians completing their crossing, but there isn't enough time for any pedestrians to start crossing and claim a right-of-way.

I was always taught that from the moment the pedestrian steps off the curb, you cannot turn in front of them. They have the right-of-way.

This is just impossible in some cities, especially when pedestrians are crossing a 5 lane road.

In LA, if you did this you'd cause significant traffic issues.

Got a source on that? I can't find any PA laws that support your statements.

Smiling at the underpinning argument that a law cannot exist if it would be impractical to actually enforce.

I believe "irrational" is the word you're looking for.

If the intersection is wide enough that you can turn while maintaining a safe distance, then what purpose would such a law serve? Why increase congestion for little or no benefit?

Once, at 2:30 AM in Arizona, I executed a legal right-on-red via a rolling stop. The streets were empty, and I endangered no one. This is not a contested fact.

But an officer, unidentifiable in the dark some hundred feet behind me, cited me for "not stopping at a red light" due to the fact my vehicle did not come to a complete stop.

Arizona has a state law, named after an unfortunate little girl killed by an asshole who blew through a red light, which makes any "red light violation" an automatic 3 points on your license and applies some certain minimum fine. (8 points triggers a suspension.)

Now despite the fact that there is an entire world of difference between (A) running a red light into cross traffic and (B) performing a California stop at an empty intersection, when I showed up to contest the ticket, the judge mocked me for my suggestion that, as I had endangered no one and not been reckless, I had not violated the spirit of the law and that the ticket should be dismissed. I had to pay the fine and accept the points. State law.

"Irrational" may well be the word I should have used, but it changes nothing. What purpose, indeed, was served by such a strict interpretation of the law?

"And I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions."

-- Jean-Luc Picard

I agree, a law that serves no purpose shouldn't exist (the only purpose that one served was probably political). That's part of the reason why I find it hard to believe there are laws stating you must wait for pedestrians who are on the far side of the road. I searched but couldn't find them... and since such laws would do little or nothing to enhance safety while significantly increasing congestion (which is dangerous in itself), I think it's reasonable to conclude there are none.

People are probably interpreting the word 'yield' far too generously.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com