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.
Others had pointed the reasons, I wanted to add that you have to stop at the line, and if something obstructs your sight (at stop signs, not traffic lights) you have to go a bit forward and stop again.
Speaking of obstructing your sight, I’ve been test driving a lot bc I’m looking for my midlife crisis car rn. I’ve never had a shorter car before and I’m looking at maybe a Porsche rn which sits low.
The amount of bushes placed where you need to see oncoming traffic is stupid. Also all the blackout tinted windows that keep you from seeing traffic in front. I’m second guessing owning a shorter car
I see it a lot where there shouldn’t be any pedestrian activity.
This is a carbrained perspective. If an intersection is designed for cars to the exclusion of other uses, then others are unlikely to use it, which perpetuates car dependency. Even if all cars were electrified, car dependency would still be a massive problem in the US.
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.
