Bits are recognizable, but most of it doesn't work. What does "nothing that is stopped has right of way" mean?
1: You really are from the Midwest, aren't you?
That one actually seems backwards -- I'd think the rule is more like "If you want to stop, wherever you are is fine. People behind you might honk, but they'll manage."
1: It means that if someone is stopped at an intersection you don't have to worry about them -- just keep going through the intersection.
Either I don't understand what you mean, or it doesn't happen. That is, are you saying rear-ending a car stopped in front of you would be ordinary? Because I almost think that's less true here than in places where people drive more predictably.
1: I think that does not refer to the mobile vehicle becoming stopped part of it, but rather the rights (or more accurately lack thereof) of already stopped vehicles* (i.e. no one has to let any stopped vehicle in).
*As is clear from a moderately close reading of the rule.
But no worries, knee-jerk contrarianism against anyone attempting to characterize or stereotype one's hometown turns almost everybody into functional idiots. New Yorkers just get the opportunity more than most.
5: I think he was picturing cross-traffic at an intersection. The light turns green, but they're stopped and you're moving.
So it's saying people don't respect lights? The light changes, but traffic keeps flowing in the same direction because the stopped cars in the direction that now has the green haven't acquired right of way? That's still wrong, or at least it's a bad description of how people end up blocking intersections.
Funny, that was exactly the one I recognized most. If the light is green, but all the cars are jammed up, every pedestrian is going to cross against the light. Sure it's the cars' turn to go, but they can't, so.
That rule would have traffic flowing through intersections in the wrong direction, and that doesn't happen. Intersections are blocked by stopped traffic -- the first car in the intersection thought it could make it through, but traffic stopped ahead before it could clear the intersection. That guy made an honest mistake -- cars behind him in the intersection are behaving badly, but the thought process isn't "stopped care don't have right of way", it's more like "the intersection's already blocked for cross-traffic. If I ease out into the intersection, I'm not making things any worse [not actually true], and if traffic clears up ahead I get to jump the light."
10: Oh, for pedestrians, sure. Lights are guidelines -- if they're in your favor, you have the right of way, but if they're against you, you can still do anything that won't get you killed.
This thread is useless without pictures.
A better statement of that rule would be "Pedestrians and bicyclists always have the right of way, subject only to their own sense of self-preservation. Lights that appear to give cars the right of way are guidelines, indicating an interval in which pedestrians are less likely to enforce their rights."
I was reading it as describing how cars relate to other cars, and that's just wrong.
A better statement of that rule would be "Pedestrians and bicyclists always have the right of way, subject only to their own sense of self-preservation. Lights that appear to give cars the right of way are guidelines, indicating an interval in which pedestrians are less likely to enforce their rights."
Damn right. We were here before the cars and we'll be here in our rubber dinghies long after the cars have been submerged by the rising oceans. We're just temporarily allowing the cars the use of our land on the grounds that sometimes we need taxis.
16.last: It's like you didn't even read or believe 6.1. But never mind.
6.1 didn't explicitly reference pedestrians, just as the linked post didn't. Seriously, I didn't get it because the idea of pedestrians being rule-breakers is so alien to me. Traffic rules bind cars. The only rules that bind pedestrians are "Don't get killed, and it's uncool risking an accident by making it hard for someone to avoid killing you."
Exactly that attitude is probably what the linked post is talking about.
I have taken to screaming "DON'T BLOCK THE BOX!" at people who act like jerks by stopping in the middle of the street after the light is against them. This happens often at the big intersection I often traverse, which is within sight of a police station. Probably everyone just thinks I am a nutter.
I was confused by exactly the same thing that confused LizardBreath. There was no context to indicate that the rule was about pedestrians. Understanding it as a rule about pedestrian behavior makes sense.
And I'm not even from the city!