Talk:Pittsburgh left

message: It refers to the counter-intuitive practice of giving left-turning vehicles precedence over vehicles going straight through intersections, which improves traffic flow.
Is that intended to mean that the Pittsburgh Left improves traffic flow, or that giving precedence to vehicles going straight improves traffic flow?  Either way, the sentence needs to be cleaned up.
: I agree that the sentence needs clarification - but it can't be as simple as an either/or thing.  Imagine a fast moving 4 lane road with vehicles going 50mph.  If you give priority to cars turning left then all of the oncoming traffic has to come to a screaming halt every time a car is sitting in the turn lane.  That can't be good for traffic flow.   On the other hand, if it's a really heavily used 2 lane road then the guy who is indicating left is blocking all of the traffic behind him.  The oncoming traffic (which isn't moving fast) could just as easily pause for 2 seconds to let him cross in order to unblock a gigantic tailback of traffic in the other lane.  So whether this is a good idea or not is heavily dependent on the nature of the road and the density of traffic it's carrying.   I don't think such a simple sentence can do justice to that.   On the other hand, everything I just wrote - whilst it seems very reasonable - is completely 'original research' and can't go into the article either unless we find some kind of authoritative source to back it up.   I'm therefore going to delete that sentence. SteveBaker 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says "The Pittsburgh Left involves two cars waiting at a traffic light or other stop signal", so why would the oncoming traffic have to come to a halt? AndrewAllen 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience this practice only occurs when someone is impatient and makes a quick left turn or the intersection is long (ie. the stop line for cars on the opposite lane is far away). Pendragon39 05:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: Having lived in the Mount Lebanon area of Pittsburgh for a while, I've seen a lot of the Pittsburgh left, and even a little bit of what people are starting to call the "Lebo Left," which consists of a Pittsburgh left being executed behind a car going straight, which is essentially anticipating the Pittsburgh left, but taking it before the opportunity actually comes. Has anyone else seen this? I'd like to include it in the article, but being such a folk thing, it almost certainly has no sources. V-Man737 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebo Left 

message: Good compromising. Thanks for the contributions! I hope to see more from you. V-Man737 05:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Props

message: Previously I had only heard of the "New York Left"...
I visited this article thinking I the "Pittsburgh Left" was a bad driving habit peculiar to Pittsburgh drivers.  While reading the article, I became convinced the "Pittsburgh Left" was actually a traffic law, until I read Legal Basis and the external reference "Pittsburgh Left" seen by many as a local right.  Perhaps the opening paragraph should clarify this better...that it's named after a local Pittsburgh custom adopted as a courtesy towards other drivers, not a "rule of the road" found in the Pittsburgh traffic code.  Or am I still wrong?! AndrewAllen 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *scratches head* uh, well, to be honest with you, that's how it struck me when I was living there. Before going there, I thought "Surely something like that is illegal!" But after a while, I became more and more convinced that it is actually a traffic law (Until I got pulled over). If you think it'd be better to put it a certain way, go right on ahead and do it. ^_^ V-Man737 03:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also unclear 

message: I've tagged the legal basis with  and  as it is vague, amorphous, and poorly referenced. Despite its title, it contains no references to black letter law establishing the practice. -- Mikeblas 23:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal basis 

message: The piece nonchalantly states, “The ‘Pittsburgh Left’ is also known as the ‘Yinzer Left’" then proclaims that a citation is needed for this little gem. Wow…. How encyclopedic. How thoroughly professional.  How Wikipedia. If a contribution is so flimsy that it requires a citation… then why would we want it out there included with the other stuff until that citation is produced?  I could make all sorts of unfounded, weak, unscholarly claims and slap them up on the page with the caveat that a citation is needed and then walk away and my ridiculous faux content could stay there for months as if it is fact. Do we really need the Yinzer claim up there without a citation? Isn’t there a better system than this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.86.162 (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yinzer Left 

message: Does a slang term for an illegal regional traffic operation that is not even exclusive to the region for which it is named deserve any article of its own, especially one this large?  And should it be linked to "Michigan Left", which is a legitimate traffic construction to which it is entirely unrelated?  This article AT BEST deserves to be a paragraph in the Pittsburgh transportation section.  This belongs in Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia.  Mal7798 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This practice was mentioned in the Boston Globe with various regional names; I added those with a reference.  I think this topic does deserve an article, it's an interesting, if everyday practice. -- -- Beland (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this merit an article?