3 POints and £100 fine for turning left!!

matttye

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's the question of whether/why the Police are wasting time on enforcement when there is little or no danger involved, when there are actual crimes and dangerous activities elsewhere that are going un-Policed.

I don't get your logic.

Should we allow borderline drink drivers to drive and let them off because only some of them will cause an accident?

Maybe people can drive the wrong way down the dual carriageway at midnight when the roads are quiet?

Maybe it's okay to go the wrong way around a roundabout if you only need the first turn off and there's no traffic on it?

No, the rules usually exist for a reason and it's because there is a potential to cause an accident / danger to other motorists or pedestrians. There has to be blanket rules and guidelines, otherwise you'd have people getting let off for the same manoeuvres that others are being done for just because the policeman is having a good day.

Going over a pedestrian crossing when it's on green is asking for trouble even if you deem it to be safe. Expect the unexpected. Just use the road as its intended to minimise risk.

Cornucopia

matttye wrote: »

I don't get your logic.

You probably need to read the sequence of posts.

There are two points:

1. Some things that are illegal are illegal with good reasons. Some are a bit more arbitrary.

2. When setting Policing priorities, the Police presumably use rational reasoning. It's difficult to understand why they would choose to police something that isn't obviously a policing priority by way of danger to life or property, especially at a time when we are told resources are stretched very thinly.

I wouldn't want the Police to be setting priorities based on ease of enforcement, rate of convictions, local NIMBY pressure groups, etc. etc.

Should we allow borderline drink drivers to drive and let them off because only some of them will cause an accident?

It's been well established that drinking is an important risk factor.

Maybe people can drive the wrong way down the dual carriageway at midnight when the roads are quiet?

I don't see how you could guarantee that this would be 100% safe 100% of the time, unless the Police closed the road for you.

Maybe it's okay to go the wrong way around a roundabout if you only need the first turn off and there's no traffic on it?

Maybe, but also it's not a great effort to use the roundabout as intended. FWIW, I have done this in a gridlock situation. The World did not end.

No, the rules usually exist for a reason

"Usually".

...and it's because there is a potential to cause an accident / danger to other motorists or pedestrians. There has to be blanket rules and guidelines, otherwise you'd have people getting let off for the same manoeuvres that others are being done for just because the policeman is having a good day.

That's exactly what does happen.

Going over a pedestrian crossing when it's on green is asking for trouble even if you deem it to be safe. Expect the unexpected.

Did you read my risk analysis?

Just use the road as its intended to minimise risk.

If the risk is zero, how can it be minimised any further? This whole train of posts started with the observation that people (and the Police) are not great in analysing risk.

d123

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's the question of whether/why the Police are wasting time on enforcement when there is little or no danger involved, when there are actual crimes and dangerous activities elsewhere that are going un-Policed.

Ah, the "why are you stopping me? Why aren't you out looking for all the real criminals like murderers and rapists?" defence.

That one always works when you get stopped.

matttye

Cornucopia wrote: »

You probably need to read the sequence of posts.

There are two points:

1. Some things that are illegal are illegal with good reasons. Some are a bit more arbitrary.

2. When setting Policing priorities, the Police presumably use rational reasoning. It's difficult to understand why they would choose to police something that isn't obviously a policing priority by way of danger to life or property, especially at a time when we are told resources are stretched very thinly.

I wouldn't want the Police to be setting priorities based on ease of enforcement, rate of convictions, local NIMBY pressure groups, etc. etc.

It's been well established that drinking is an important risk factor.

I don't see how you could guarantee that this would be 100% safe 100% of the time, unless the Police closed the road for you.

Maybe, but also it's not a great effort to use the roundabout as intended. FWIW, I have done this in a gridlock situation. The World did not end.

"Usually".

That's exactly what does happen.

Did you read my risk analysis?

If the risk is zero, how can it be minimised any further? This whole train of posts started with the observation that people (and the Police) are not great in analysing risk.

1. Yes agreed. Speed limits are often arbitrary, including the NSL.

2. Targets, probably.

I would never assume the risk to be zero. You don't have a 360 degree field of vision. By the time you've made certain observations a problem could develop rapidly outside of your field of vision. Eg you look left and its safe, then look right and its safe, but a cyclist has now flown around the corner and is heading towards the junction from the left. Extreme example obviously.

Contravening a turning restriction could be a seriously risk manoeuvre and its right to punish people doing it.

matttye

Also, police have different jobs to do. They're not all part of one squad all looking out for the same types of offending. So just because someone is pulling you over for a minor offence doesn't mean they're ignoring major ones.

I am sure that in times of crisis police officers from other teams or even other forces could be drafted in to assist.

Cornucopia

matttye wrote: »

Also, police have different jobs to do. They're not all part of one squad all looking out for the same types of offending. So just because someone is pulling you over for a minor offence doesn't mean they're ignoring major ones.

No. I'm sure there are other minor offences that would have a greater social value from enforcement than this.

I am sure that in times of crisis police officers from other teams or even other forces could be drafted in to assist.

"Crisis"? You mean cars stopping in the Advance Cycle "reservoir"? Drivers eating at the wheel?

Tilt

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's the question of whether/why the Police are wasting time on enforcement when there is little or no danger involved, when there are actual crimes and dangerous activities elsewhere that are going un-Policed.

Maybe the answer then is to install a CCTV camera to monitor the junction like they do at some box junctions. Either that or remove the signs/traffic lights and let the motorists fend for themselves?

Cornucopia

matttye wrote: »

I would never assume the risk to be zero.

Not assume - analyse.

You don't have a 360 degree field of vision. By the time you've made certain observations a problem could develop rapidly outside of your field of vision. Eg you look left and its safe, then look right and its safe, but a cyclist has now flown around the corner and is heading towards the junction from the left. Extreme example obviously.

Extreme, and not relevant to the scenario in this thread, where visibility is excellent.

Contravening a turning restriction could be a seriously risk manoeuvre and its right to punish people doing it.

This doesn't really make sense in the context of your other comments. It's obvious that in many cases, banned turns are purely about traffic management rather than safety, as such. In such a case, it's entirely possible that a banned manoeuvre is safe, or could be safe, given reasonable precautions.

Cornucopia

Tilt wrote: »

Maybe the answer then is to install a CCTV camera to monitor the junction like they do at some box junctions.

I wondered how long it would be before someone suggested some form of automated policing. Which is a typically authoritarian response (and therefore not where I'm coming from at all).

Either that or remove the signs/traffic lights and let the motorists fend for themselves?

If it's possible and practical, yes.

But the inability to do so doesn't automatically require that the banned turn is the subject of a Policing operation.

Cornucopia

d123 wrote: »

Ah, the "why are you stopping me? Why aren't you out looking for all the real criminals like murderers and rapists?" defence.

That one always works when you get stopped.

Not really. I haven't been stopped. I am not making a pointless plea for mercy with the Police.

I am saying that as a taxpayer and concerned citizen, I would like to ensure that Policing priorities are always rational and sensible.