What? Or is "dude" your sum total point?

Are we really in a situation where it's heretical to turn left when there's no traffic? Ok then.

If you didn't notice my other comment, we didn't see the sign. So maybe reserve judgement for whoever you like to judge.

The point of traffic laws are to mold behavior into healthy patterns, not to generate money for the city. That's the goal, anyway. If you're really defending a "don't turn left without an arrow under any circumstances," then I couldn't disagree more strongly with your stance.

> The point of traffic laws are to mold behavior into healthy patterns,

You haven't done traffic studies. You don't know the traffic flow at that intersection. You don't know how often there were accidents before that sign was placed. You say that the point of traffic laws is to mold behavior into healthy patterns, but unless you're perched up above that intersection for a month, 24/7, taking notes, you have no idea what is or isn't healthy there.

It's a Chesterton's fence situation.

> If you're really defending a "don't turn left without an arrow under any circumstances," then I couldn't disagree more strongly with your stance.

I'm not. See above.

> Are we really in a situation where it's heretical to turn left when there's no traffic?

It's not heretical, but it is illegal. If you do illegal things, you can expect to eventually get caught. You're not fighting segregated schools here, this isn't a moral crusade.

> If you didn't notice my other comment, we didn't see the sign.

I actually didn't. I do apologize; you sounded totally unrepentant about it in the comment I replied to.

That no-left sign is there for a reason. For example, there's a similar innocentlylooking intersection near my place. There were identical crashes weekly. It was especially dangerous with seemingly no traffic due to poor visibility for incoming traffic. Now left turn is forbidden and all is good.