Hacker News Reader

Comment by sathackr | Hacker News Reader

So the signs are there so that the police have probable cause to stop someone that they otherwise wouldn't have probable cause to stop.

Does anyone else see a problem with making otherwise perfectly legal and safe behavior(turning on to a side street) illegal just to legalize an otherwise unconstitutional traffic stop?

Seems like another slippery slope we ought not to be sliding down.

View on HN

Not only are right turns safe, but they are safer than left turns, because the A column can more easily block pedestrians crossing a street parallel to the cars motion before the turn. And so a single right turn is safer than a single left turn, and this proposed law is going to make people perhaps do 3x as many left turns as they would have right turns.

What's an 'A column' on a traffic junction?

And why would pedestrians be crossing if the traffic is moving?

The A column is the structure of the car between the windshield and the driver and passenger windows. The B Columns are subsequently the structure between the first and second row of seats (I think).

The A, B, C and D columns are counted front to back. No magic ;)

Notably the thick and angled A columns of modern cars create fairly large blind spots to the front left and right, while wide B columns are problematic for larger drivers, since the B column blocks visibility over the shoulder.

> No magic ;)

Well you need to know that they refer to columns in the car's body in the first place.

Exactly. I'm a "car guy" and didn't connect "A column" to a car part. "A pillar" I'd have understood immediately.

Also commonly known as “a pillar”.

Sorry, it is the support beam between the body and the roof of the car that is closest to the driver.

Think of it another way: the locals overwhelmingly agreed to change the rules because they probably understood that while they could adapt to the rule, outsiders probably would not be as well-informed.

Someone making a right turn after hours paints themselves as a potential outsider who doesn’t know the rules and, given the location’s history, is probably there to solicit sex.

I like that the community was empowered to make this change.

Mistreating outsiders because they are outsiders isn't justifiable just because it is popular. The idea that they are "probably there to solicit sex" is not relevant (nor is it defensible based on available evidence).

The city is empowered to make the change. The court are empowered to overturn it as an unconditional restrictions on our liberty. Specificially the fourth amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things .

That just shows how smart the idea is of having a constitution and separating government powers.

And by the way, I guess UPS trucks can’t deliver at night now. Stuck between a rock and a hard place mwahaha

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/16/world/ups-trucks-no-left-...

The ability of a group of people to indulge into abusive ideas with the power of the state seems quite appalling to me.

Not to mention that this law will surely induce racial and social biases.

I am sure no single old lady will ever be fined or otherwise harrassed by incurring in this violation. This clearly means that law enforcement is using this rule to expand its mandate.

This is just bad legislation.

The government is required to respect privacy, not to be stupid. An area's status as a crime hotspot can reasonably cast suspicion on those visiting it late at night.

> The government is required to respect privacy, not to be stupid

There's absolutely no requirement to 'respect privacy.'

The 4th amendment doesn't use that word, but that's the general thrust.

In Roe vs Wade the Supreme Court found a right to privacy. The fact that this is not in the Bill of Rights is irrelevant, as per the Ninth Amendment.

It depends how you define privacy.

This proposed law does sound stupid to me and not just for reasons parent said. I also strongly disagree with "area is considered crimey, therefore we effectively void protections for citizens entering it".

I also think that laws designed to be broken so that you can throw false "should have follow law" excuses once cops selectively enforce it are lowering respect to law enforcement.

They can suspect all they want, but stopping an questioning someone simply due to their presence on a public street, in the absence of an exceptional situation or investigation, is not acceptable.

Indeed, though note that in many places (notably New York City), people can be stopped on the street with even less of a pretense of probable cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_Cit...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com