[karthikb]

Not the gp, but there are situations where that kind of activity is absolutely necessary. Think about driving behind an Uber that stops in the right lane immediately after clearing the intersection, then puts their hazard lights on to wait for a passenger. Your options are either (1) stop behind the Uber, potentially blocking the crosswalk and the intersection when the light changes, or (2) make a lane change in the middle of the intersection and pass the stopped Uber.

[true_religion]

I thought this scenario is about changing lanes within the intersection, as opposed to just outside of it where you could potentially block the crosswalk?

If I had enough space to get into the crosswalk, I'd do so to hopefully nudge the Uber along where I can safely make a lane change on the actual street. If the Uber doesn't get nudged along and there's no other legal way to move... then I'm "stuck in traffic" quite literally.

It's not absolutely necessary to avoid traffic by breaking traffic laws.

In the DC metro area, lots of times traffic is created by exactly the same scenario. I don't feel bad about it; the root cause was the Uber driver or more traffic up ahead combined with the limitations of human response time.

[karthikb]

If you're following at a distance, you might see the Uber stop before you enter the crosswalk. The problem with nudging into the crosswalk is that when the light changes, you're now forcing pedestrians out into the lanes which increases the chances that they get hit by a car.

Blocking the crosswalk is also a traffic violation. In the Uber scenario I presented, it's really not a question about if you want to break a law, it's which law would you rather break.

[true_religion]

> Blocking the crosswalk is also a traffic violation.

"Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic..."

Washington State Law. RCW 46.61.570. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.570

Your mileage may vary though depending on your legal jurisdiction, but lawmakers generally do not write 'average' laws to be unreasonable in eyes of the average person.

What is "supposed" to happen in lawmakers eyes, is that traffic grinds to a halt. Pedestrians stop crossing the road at that particular point and thus don't get hit by cars, and either the Uber driver intentionally causing all these hardships moves or gets ticketed.

Unless crossing the road, or moving around traffic is a matter of life or death ... no one is supposed to break the law and everyone is supposed to be temporarily inconvenienced. Just because someone else broke the law doesn't give the next people rights to break the law in order to ease their convenience.

[jessaustin]

Do you really think that exception would allow a driver to avoid a fine? Without going to traffic court and discovering that the judge is a close relative?

[true_religion]

The answer depends on how corrupt your local law enforcement is...