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.
I guess my thought process is if they placed the line a tad further forward where you can see crossing traffic, including pedestrians, more people would actually stop at the designated spot. The way I see it most often now is people ignore the line completely (boy who cried wolf effect maybe), further endangering pedestrians.
Regulatory measures shouldn’t be relaxed because people aren’t following them, they should be enforced better. Of course how to do that in many situations such as this is the question. Other things are similar, like group speeding or smart phone use while driving.
Traffic laws aren’t enforced where I am, but I wish they were. People routinely run stop signs.
Same here. When I stop at a stop sign and there is a car behind me, I routinely take bets in my head to see if the next car just goes through it. Most often they do. Running red lights is another…if you are at a red light waiting for it to change to green, always wait a split second before going and also give a glance both ways. Don’t assume because the light is good there isn’t someone trying to beat the red. Or just going through an obvious red because they’re more important than everyone else in their head. I’ve gone through many a yellow light thinking to myself that I really cut it close, then I notice one or even more people have followed me through the intersection. Boy they get upset too if you actually stop for that yellow.
Sometimes relaxing regulatory measures leads to people following them better, as they better match the intent of the regulation rather than being seen as absurd. It also lowers the ‘benefit’ of deviancy from that regulation.
Sometimes you’re right, you regulate more extremely than the intent because people will follow it better, or it makes it easier to enforce.
The point is there’s not a one size fits all.