Asklemmy

43880 readers

1753 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

133

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

submitted 7 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

[–] eatabagofbooger@lemmy.ml 37 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

At a guess, these are for pedestrian crossings. The idea is that you come to a stop before the line, then push out to where you can see cross traffic, then go. Shouldn’t cost more than a couple seconds and is way better than charging right up through where pedestrians might reasonably step out before looking both ways.

And yeah, sometimes these are in places where you might not expect pedestrians, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be pedestrians. Especially in the US where infra is terrible. Moreover, these things are often governed by regulations that hold for all intersections rather than having different rules for different roads depending on whether you think pedestrians are likely to be there or not.

In fact, I’d argue that the fact that you don’t expect a pedestrian to be at a certain intersection is a good reason to have more regulations to encourage drivers to watch out for pedestrians, not less.

[–] Paraneoptera@sopuli.xyz 3 points 7 months ago

This answer is spot on. I know this varies by state but in my state every intersection is legally a crosswalk, regardless of markings, and drivers are required to stop at them and yield right of way to pedestrians. This applies whether the pedestrians are in the crosswalk or appear to be attempting to enter the crosswalk. The area legally designated as crosswalk is the space between the stop sign and the road, and in the vast majority of cases in suburban areas is unmarked. There is no way in most of these that a driver will be able to see pedestrians or cyclists coming, especially from the right, unless they stop at that stop sign. The correct procedure is to stop at the sign, determine that the pedestrian way is clear, and then pull forward to the road. There's almost 1 pedestrian death an hour in the US and most of these deaths are avoidable from the driver's point of view just by following this and other legally mandated procedures.