07-08-2015, 09:21 AM
(07-08-2015, 08:32 AM)MidTowner Wrote: For those "the law's the law" types here, consider that there is a finite amount of resources to do anything, including enforce laws.
My issue is that lax enforcement of existing traffic laws engenders disrespect for those laws and for other traffic laws in general. Further, selective enforcement as practiced by most police forces engenders disrespect for the police. ("Why are you picking on me when everyone else does it too?") If a law can't be enforced consistently with some vigor then we should re-examine why it's on the books in the first place.
One example of this is the requirement for vehicles (cars and bikes) to come to a full stop at STOP signs. Why do police enforce this based on whether you came to a complete stop or rolled through the intersection slowly, looking in all directions? ISTM the latter is just as safe providing the operator slows down to a crawl and looks in all directions. Presumably the law was put on the books to make people slow down enough to see other traffic and be able to stop in time. Full stop was easier to enforce (and prove in court) than some loosy-goosy verbiage about slowing down and looking.
Another example are speeding laws. The 100km/hr limit on controlled access highways has been in effect for decades while road and automobile technology has improved dramatically. These days the typical speed on these highways is 120, not the legal 100. If the police were to enforce the 100 there would be rioting. (Remember what happened when Mike Harris introduced photo radar and the trigger was set "too low" at 110 or 115.) Yet lawmakers are loath to increase the legal limit to 120 because they're afraid that the typical speed will rise to 130 or 140. Because of this we've painted ourselves into a corner; the present situation is hypocritical yet we can't fix it by raising the speed limit to what people are doing now without inviting them to go even faster.
These are the sorts of situations that result from lax or selective enforcement creates. If we can't enforce a law sufficiently that violators face a good chance of being caught then we need to rethink that law. What is that law intended to accomplish? How could we accomplish the same result in other ways?
One suggestion to the current issue has been to let cyclists cross intersections without coming to a full stop. Fine. Then make your case and lobby to change/amend the law to allow this. Same with riding bikes on sidewalks.
Quote:Those resources have to be allocated somehow, so look into what actually causes serious collisions, and decide whether you think enforcement time and money should be spent on cracking down on cyclists failing to stop at stop signs.
Then change the law to allow this. Perhaps even change most STOP signs to YIELD signs in slow speed residential areas so they apply to all vehicles. And further, the people who "blow through" those intersections at full speed should be charged with careless or dangerous driving. We certainly don't need to pay cops to hide behind bushes waiting for someone to fail to come to a "full" stop even when they slowed down to a crawl and looked in all directions.