Cycling UK Forum

The cops in New York adopted a 'broken windows' policy (AKA 'no tolerance'), went after even minor offences and improved safety a great deal
[not sure if I would view having a window broken as a minor offence]

There is lots of talk about how compliance with traffic law could be achieved, usually with expensive equipment, such as average speed checks (section control) over distances of several miles. The speeding criminals get post weeks later and typically have to pay a pocket-money fine

As a cyclist first I have always been interested in law enforcement but while driving I experienced how it should be done

Many many years ago I was driving a small van through London. The lanes kinked and I found myself in a bus lane*

Before I could say 'Djamoladin Abdujaparov' a policeperson on a motorcycle pulled me over
'Can't you read? That is a bus lane! Can't [sic] drive there mate. Get aaaht of it!' He roared

Almost all drivers ignore STOP signs (alternative observations welcome). I think the cops should stop them and teach them to read. They could warn against speeding and other traffic crimes too, it is well known that those caught for one offence are often committing others

By treating my momentary lapse in an 'impolite' way the cop earned my respect

That is what the police should be doing! Anyone disagree?

I have tried to accommodate all shades of 'opinion' in the answers. Changing ones vote is permitted

* I am ashamed to admit this, but the crime/offence is spent

Never mind stop signs, speed limits are broken much more frequently.

I've not voted (as there is more than one option I agree with) but it does raise the difficult question about policing our roads (or policing in general) in that we seem to have moved to a "priority" based policing system. Resource limitations, bureaucracy and limited budgets have pushed the police to prioritise what they police so I regard it as a far broader question than Stop signs but more how we should be policing society.

I suspect that pulling over an (alleged) offender at a stop sign even for a "firm word" would require a report be written and filed, that the (alleged) offender would need to be given some record of the incident, etc. (all so that subsequent claims about "un-justified" could be defended, etc).

Ian

Psamathe wrote:I've not voted (as there is more than one option I agree with) but it does raise the difficult question about policing our roads (or policing in general) in that we seem to have moved to a "priority" based policing system. Resource limitations, bureaucracy and limited budgets have pushed the police to prioritise what they police so I regard it as a far broader question than Stop signs but more how we should be policing society.

I suspect that pulling over an (alleged) offender at a stop sign even for a "firm word" would require a report be written and filed, that the (alleged) offender would need to be given some record of the incident, etc. (all so that subsequent claims about "un-justified" could be defended, etc).

Ian

Please try to vote, choose the nearest single option to your opinion. I enabled the option 'change my vote' too so you can alter it later
I want the results to be as representative as possible

Do Americans have Give way signs?
While the absence of give signs wouldn't bother me much when driving, it would be a pain when cycling:
so , if Give way signs do not exist in USA, would it not be fairer for Stop signs to count as Give ways to cyclists where visibility allows, with proviso of slowing a lot before sign just like one should?

Obviously, as in UK STOP signs are only used where visibility is restricted, cyclists should obey them by stopping.

Stop means stop that is the law
I did read that in trumpland there are junctions where all four roads have give way signs
It is unclear what should happen if two or more vehicles reach the junction at the same time, wait a while maybe? Or do lifestyle tanks generally have priority over there? Get thee before me, satan! I would prefer to have one in front of me than behind

If this applies only to STOP signs, there are relatively few of these, as has already been pointed out. AFAIK, they need the specific authorisation from the transport ministry and no new authorisations are give. The rationale there is that new junctions with poor visibility should not be built.

If you went back to the days of HALT signs, I think it was common for them to be enforced by prosecution and that persisted till non-camera traffic enforcement wilted.

If this is a zero-tolerance policy for all traffic offences, it's never been feasible for as long as I can remember.

Cyril Haearn wrote:I did read that in trumpland there are junctions where all four roads have give way signs

No. They are 4 way stop junctions. The first to arrive proceeds and other follow in a clockwise direction. Hence if 2 arrive at the same instant then priority goes to the one from the right.

Give Way signs in the USA are YIELD, an inverted triangle.

In the US, stop means all wheels stop rotating. When living in Washington state I recall the derisory comments about cyclists in particular making a "California Stop" by not coming to a complete halt.

Danke, rechts vor links, right before left, like in Germany

German law is the same, ALL wheels stop rotating, a policeman told me

Cyril Haearn wrote:

Psamathe wrote:I've not voted (as there is more than one option I agree with) but it does raise the difficult question about policing our roads (or policing in general) in that we seem to have moved to a "priority" based policing system. Resource limitations, bureaucracy and limited budgets have pushed the police to prioritise what they police so I regard it as a far broader question than Stop signs but more how we should be policing society.

I suspect that pulling over an (alleged) offender at a stop sign even for a "firm word" would require a report be written and filed, that the (alleged) offender would need to be given some record of the incident, etc. (all so that subsequent claims about "un-justified" could be defended, etc).

Ian

Please try to vote, choose the nearest single option to your opinion. I enabled the option 'change my vote' too so you can alter it later
I want the results to be as representative as possible :wink:

What is the difference between

Yes
Yes, Stop means Stop
Yes, drivers must be taught to read

e.g. if stop didn't mean stop then why would the Police talk to a driver about not stopping?

Ian

Zero tolerance is all very well if you have enough coppers to do it. I believe that 99% of people who break the law do so because they think they will get away with it, and sadly, these days, they are often right for "lesser" offences.

Si wrote:Zero tolerance is all very well if you have enough coppers to do it. I believe that 99% of people who break the law do so because they think they will get away with it, and sadly, these days, they are often right for "lesser" offences.

+1 nothing stops(sorry)crime better than the overwhelming chance of being caught.

There used to be a commercially published mag called Police Review. One of its regular contributors was a former policeman who used the pen name C.H Rolph. A lot of his stock-in-trade was recycled from The Times newspaper, presumably because his editor thought police officers didn't read serious newspapers.

For some reason, I remember one of his pieces from about 1967 - not a rework of something he'd read, which might by why I remember it - where he described how policing without discretion might operate. IIRC, he walked along a street mentally noting all the offences he spotted in the first thirty yards, pointing out that if he had stopped and dealt properly with the first he'd have been bogged down to the extent of achieving nothing useful all day.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peop ... 29112.html

The Home Office decided years ago that police officers walking along the street looking for offences and dealing with a selection of them was a waste of money.

thirdcrank wrote:The Home Office decided years ago that police officers walking along the street looking for offences and dealing with a selection of them was a waste of money.

But was the HO correct? There are different ways to calculate the costs and benefits. It could be that it isn't worth it if one thinks in the short term, but it becomes worth it if one considers the societal effects.

I don't have a view either way, but a decision made by bean counters is rarely best for society. Not the bean counters' fault - they only have to balance this year's books.

Regardless of the law, society changes its opinion on what is acceptable. Hence offences that are now acceptable are no longer policed. Motoring examples are easy to find - pavement driving (how else do they come to be on the pavement), parking close to junctions, parking facing the wrong way at night, use of front foglights (pre DRL). All these became acceptable because "other people do it". Many of the perpetrators no longer realise what they are doing is illegal. So the individual fails to come to a full stop at a sign because that is the common practice and must therefore be OK.