Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You have the right of way when crossing against a signal? Why bother with signals then?


What is the alternative? That vehicles have no obligation to stop when a pedestrian is in the road?

I think your reasoning belongs with whatever lies behind the need for the "State law: Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalk" signs[1] which I find confusing in the USA. In which states am I not supposed to yield?

[1] https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/lg/K/Yield-To-In-Cro...


That when you disobey an explicit traffic signal, you’re responsible for your own fate?

Everyone has a duty to try and prevent an accident if possible, but you do generally get to trust that a green signal means no pedestrians are going to dart out.

Giving a green light when pedestrians actually have right of way is incredibly dangerous. Why not a 4-way stop or uncontrolled to avoid a false sense of security?


> That when you disobey an explicit traffic signal, you’re responsible for your own fate?

No. That is unreasonable for children, the blind, the intoxicated, the mentally ill, the distracted and the reckless.

It's fine for the driver to be annoyed by having to slow or stop, but they absolutely must do that whenever it's necessary.

> "GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear." [1]

The second part very important. You must always be able to stop the car within a visible distance, and green traffic lights don't change that.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-c...


As a way for cars to coordinate with each other, and to ensure there's a phase when cars stop.


Where I live the signals are compulsory for drivers and advisory for pedestrians. It is not unreasonable for the regulation to apply only to the people who choose to create the risk.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: