Broken windows policy - STOP signs!

[thirdcrank]

... 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.

I must have posted before, that in the twilight of my career, I had to get up early during a night week and travel to Odsal in Bradford to have this explained. I was tired, grumpy and probably affected by demob happiness. The general drift, explained by a senior officer of some practical experience to a roomful of incredulous but respectful colleagues, was that patrolling police were ineffective. This was based on Home Office research showing that patrolling police witnessed very little serious crime. (Thinks) Might this be because they were deterring it? I came close to pointing out that anybody coming into that room would have been unlikely to offend so the question was how far we might be spread apart before that deterrent effect was reduced. I bit my tongue.

I think it's fair to say that visible policing only deters things which mainly happen in public. Of interest to vulnerable road users are driving offences, which are deterred by visible police patrols. The priorities have changed to things which tend to happen behind closed doors and so demand a bigger detective effort.

A lot of this is perception, of course, but perceptions are important. As a panda car driver many years ago, a lot of what appeared to be patrolling was driving from one reported incident (not only as in crash) to another. One illusion replaced by others perhaps: reports of crackdowns, tweets and twittering, PCSO's etc. Meanwhile drivers believe that the chance of detection is small if they are careful about cameras.

[Cugel]

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.

We can't afford the required number of traffic policemen, even though we should afford more than we do now, given the death and injury rates caused by motorised transport. Personally, I'm for automated policemen such as speed detectors but hope to see others invented to deal with close passes, phone use and so forth. Such technologies are not beyond the bounds of possibility these days.

Of course, Joseph Public and his Clarksonesque mates would object and vote agin any politician making such proposals. Joe would cry that these devices are made only to generate fine-income and to persecute freedom-loving Toads such as hisself. He cares not for the freedom of others, even from death or being paraplegic. He is also incapable of controlling himself and therefore cannot help but speed, answer the phone, pay no attention to the road and so forth. As such, he feels he should be exempt from those difficult traffic laws. "It's not my fault".

******

The fundamental problem is the car/van/lorry and the road infrastructure. They are technologies inviting inept humans (of whom there are droves, perhaps including you & me) to make fatal mistakes, every day, every time we use them. Ban 'em! (Some chance).

Cugel

[Cyril Haearn]

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

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

I try to offer many shades of opinion as possible, there are more 'no' than 'yes' options
Unfortunately I can not change or augment the list of answers now because the results would be zeroed. Maybe I could have added an answer 'no, so what?' which might have suited some people (glad I didn't think of that)
Just got home from a cycle ride, very glad to see all votes are for Yes, 100%!

[Stevek76]

Have a no then

I find stop signs much like speed limits, often arbitrary and bearing little relation to what is actually safe which at any rate varies based on conditions and vehicle. My rather idealistic stance is the same, if you're not fit to judge what's safe to do at a junction you shouldn't be driving in the first place, you shouldn't need a sign to tell you that.

That aside, given the current government created limit on police time, even in road safety there are better things to do than sit at a stop junction. Is there a specific safety record issue at any of the limited number of stop signs around?

And I'm not sure it does much for police visibility either, for that to work you need there to be the perception that you could be caught anywhere, not just at a handful of lightly trafficked junctions. They'd do better just driving around randomly and using the dash cam footage to send out careless/red light/phone fines.

[Psamathe]

.... even in road safety there are better things to do than sit at a stop junction. Is there a specific safety record issue at any of the limited number of stop signs around?.....

Good point. We (as a society) have o compromise. We could never afford a Policeman for every stop sign. If I had to make a choice I'd prefer limited resources put into e.g. Mobile phone use whilst driving, speeding, close passes, etc.

Ian

[bovlomov]

.... even in road safety there are better things to do than sit at a stop junction. Is there a specific safety record issue at any of the limited number of stop signs around?.....

Good point. We (as a society) have o compromise. We could never afford a Policeman for every stop sign. If I had to make a choice I'd prefer limited resources put into e.g. Mobile phone use whilst driving, speeding, close passes, etc.

But the people who get caught for e.g. Mobile phone use whilst driving, speeding, close passes, etc, will say that it's a waste of police time and they should use their precious resources to catch the real villains like murderers and muggers. I don't know at what point the wrongdoers stop with that line of argument. Do murderers say, when they are caught, that it's a waste of limited resources, and the police should be out catching serial killers?

Sorry. I'm not disagreeing with your point. It just struck me that it might be used in more extreme circumstances.

[Cyril Haearn]

My suggested action would be particularly efficient use of police time, in a shift they could deal with dozens of offenders*, no equipment needed, just one cop to observe and one to stop the drivers and give them a stern talking to, they would also mention other offences (speeding, phone, parking..)

A talking-to seconds after the offence is far more effective than getting a letter weeks later

Can't think of anything cheaper. I read how the cops were out filming tailgaters and speeders on the motorway, apparently they caught two, spent a lot of time on therapy conversations, calibrating the equipment takes a lot if time, and the whole costs €€
After two had been caught the shift was over apparently

* substitute 'criminals' or 'illiterates' if you like

[thirdcrank]

A system which people believe will inevitably never result in anything more than a warning is hardly likely to deter anybody from anything. It might be relatively inexpensive, because the (un)enforcers would need no training in the relevant law. They could warn people about anything they "knew" was wrong.

[Vorpal]

Why not put cameras on them? Especially if there are safety reasons for using a stop sign, like a blind junction, high crash rate, etc.

Do Americans have Give way signs?

yes, it's a 'yield' sign

http://www.trafficsign.us/yellowyield.html

[Cunobelin]

Interestingly, Manchester police did this a few years ago.
They Equipped Smart Cars with video and placed them strategically

Then sent out Notices for phones, crossing white lines, in the cycle area, and a whole range more

Commence the bleating of the hard oppressed motorists

These cameras killed thousands each year because drivers had to look out for them instead of watching the road and all the usual excuses why drivers should not be censured for driving illegally

Best was the AA who claimed that by issuing fines the Police were “failing to engage with the motoring public”

[reohn2]

Interestingly, Manchester police did this a few years ago.
They Equipped Smart Cars with video and placed them strategically

Then sent out Notices for phones, crossing white lines, in the cycle area, and a whole range more

Commence the bleating of the hard oppressed motorists

These cameras killed thousands each year because drivers had to look out for them instead of watching the road and all the usual excuses why drivers should not be censured for driving illegally

I remember that one,there's a similar excuse for speeding camerasmotorists claiming they have spend too much time watching the speedo and not concentrating on the road

Best was the AA who claimed that by issuing fines the Police were “failing to engage with the motoring public”

Yeah right

[Psamathe]

My suggested action would be particularly efficient use of police time, in a shift they could deal with dozens of offenders*, no equipment needed, just one cop to observe and one to stop the drivers and give them a stern talking to, they would also mention other offences (speeding, phone, parking..)

A talking-to seconds after the offence is far more effective than getting a letter weeks later

Can't think of anything cheaper. I read how the cops were out filming tailgaters and speeders on the motorway, apparently they caught two, spent a lot of time on therapy conversations, calibrating the equipment takes a lot if time, and the whole costs €€
After two had been caught the shift was over apparently

* substitute 'criminals' or 'illiterates' if you like

I suspect that two officers at a stop line would catch virtually nobody. They would have to be wearing hi-vis, in clear view of motorists, etc. Last week I was driving through a village (30 mph, at 30 mph) and way in the distance saw the hi-vis, immediately knew "speed trap" and it was.

Plus, pull people over and records need to be made, paperwork given to the driver, statistics compiled (so should one sector claim they are being targeted there is data to investigate, etc.).

I suspect in reality, given the existing constraints on the Police it would be expensive and achieve little. Far more effective to e.g. get a Police cyclist and backup recording and acting on close passes.

Ian

[Cyril Haearn]

My suggested action would be particularly efficient use of police time, in a shift they could deal with dozens of offenders*, no equipment needed, just one cop to observe and one to stop the drivers and give them a stern talking to, they would also mention other offences (speeding, phone, parking..)

A talking-to seconds after the offence is far more effective than getting a letter weeks later

Can't think of anything cheaper. I read how the cops were out filming tailgaters and speeders on the motorway, apparently they caught two, spent a lot of time on therapy conversations, calibrating the equipment takes a lot if time, and the whole costs €€
After two had been caught the shift was over apparently

* substitute 'criminals' or 'illiterates' if you like

I suspect that two officers at a stop line would catch virtually nobody. They would have to be wearing hi-vis
..
.
. .

Saw some cops in uniform right by my 'favourite' stop sign, they were stopping cyclists (PoFs?) riding in the wrong direction, I urged one of them to observe what happened at the stop sign. No interest. I believe the cops are tasked specifically

I will try standing near a stop sign in my hi-vis vest to see if it works, I expect not
The stupidity of the average driver is hard to underestimste
BTW one cop would stand at the junction,, not two, in my scheme

[TrevA]

A cyclist at a Stop sign should stop and put a foot down before proceeding. A car driver should stop and put their handbrake on before proceeding. There was a case in Cycling Weekly many years ago, where a road race circuit went through a stop sign and the local policeman insisted that all riders stop and put a foot down before proceeding as he could not condone a moving traffic offence, even though this was a marshalled junction. This turned the race into a farce.

Theres a Stop sign junction near me, where the view to the left is obscured but the view to the right is clear. If turning left, it's not really necessary to stop as you can see any traffic clearly, so whilst we slow at this junction, we only stop if there are cars coming from the right.

[The utility cyclist]

Some stop signs are placed incorrectly (IMO) and many give way signs should be a stop because of limited vision coming up to the junction, in fact too many junctions restrict the view of those entering onto the main drag so badly that even coming to a complete stop doesn't help much.

I chose yes because people do get into bad habits, however if you do not interfere or place someone at fear of harm or inconvenience then I would object to being spoken to.
I thought it was called the Idaho stop for a rolling 'stop' not a 'Californian'