They tried yellow boxes in Manila. Huge uproar, basically summarised as "it's my space if I get there first". The city was taken to court and the motorists won! "Unreasonable hindrance to traffic flow in contravention of constitutional freedom rights" or something. No more yellow boxes.
They could of course do the same with traffic lights, but they are regarded as "for reference only" anyway.
|
Meant to add anyone got the stats on how many old ladies' handbags were nicked while all this commendable police work was takingn place?
(ducks for cover)
|
What matters more? Old ladies scared in their homes, or motorists straying onto a painted line?
Ben
|
Ben,
Police are really in a 'no win' situation.
Surely the Yellow box is one of the better ideas for traffic management. Without it many junctions would become gridlocked.
I applaud the police for taking some action - even if it is only a warning - against selfish and inconsiderate motorists who make things worse for all of us.
Why do so many threads have to be an excuse for anti-police rhetoric?
C
|
Firstly, as Cardew says the police just can\'t win can they.
Secondly, when Juliani cleaned up New York the crimes they targetted were the trivial crimes - both traffic and non-traffic.
They found that those people committing the trivial crimes were also those people committing the major crimes - and it didn\'t matter which one you used to find them.
I think the police should pursue trivial motoring offences - and everytime they pull you over, searching the car, breathalysing you and checking the documents of you and your car should be SOP.
They may be checking you for trivial offences, but they\'d catch a bunch of people for a whole lot more.
And as for Ben\'s point about the old lady being afraid - if the people are being caught then she\'ll be happy - even if they are using trivial motoring offences.
The attitude towards crime needs to change, we need to return to the point of finding it socially unacceptable to break the law, not something to laugh about down the pub.
One of the only valid arguments against cameras, IMHO, is the loss of the opportunity to check the driver and his car.
If there is a law against it, then people should be nailed for it. If they don\'t like it, they only have to stop committing the offence and the problem will go away.
More power to the Police - Hassle the #$% out of law breakers - at any level, including, if it is appropriate, me. If I don\'t like it I will either stop committing the offence or campaign against the law - I won\'t see myself as exempt from it.
|
Couldn't agree more with Cardew and Mark !
How much serious congestion and grief is caused by selfish morons who block junctions when they've obviously got nowhere to go ! The yellow grids were put there because of the problem, they're not the cause of it !
Forget congestion charging, I've often wondered how much better traffic would flow in London if motorists were just more considerate to eachother by refusing to block junctions and allowing people out of side turnings etc.
Have you noticed how, when you're in a queue of traffic and let someone out in front of you, that person often does exactly the same thing for the next trapped motorist and so on.
|
|
I wouldn't go as far as Mark, but one thing I'd dearly love to see is the French system of spot fines for bad lane discipline -it would increase the capacity of our motorway at a stroke.
|
To those giving the Police a good knocking AGAIN. What would you want us to do in an ideal world?? Sit araound doing nothing and just patroling waiting for a mugging or such like to come in??
So yeh, lets stick with that theory then, lets leave all the motoring offences, all the suss drink drivers, all the under age drivers.... does that sound like a good idea? No, what you are saying is pathetic, the law is not just about criminal activities, there is just as much traffic law being broken every day, which is just as important.... not PETTY as you may like to call it.
|
I think the police should pursue trivial motoring offences - and everytime they pull you over, searching the car, breathalysing you and checking the documents of you and your car should be SOP.
Yes Mark, in a an ideal world the above statement would be great, far more results would be acheived, but it will never happen and it will get worse. We cant just request a specimen of breath when we feel like it, we must stick by rules and can only request at certain times. As for searching, that is getting harder every day thanks to the politicaly correct world we live in. Requesting documents can be done whenever, as it is an offence not to be carrying them, give it time though, this will change soon, I bet it is on the agenda now.
|
Clarky,
Regrettably there is an element in the BR that believe the police should allow anarchy to reign on our roads.
However 2 points:
You say it is an offence not to carry your documents. There are of course legitimate reasons why you would not have them - renewal etc. I always understood that you had up to 5 days to produce them at a police station - is that a concession?
Can you give an answer to the questions in the first post of this thread.
C
|
You say it is an offence not to carry your documents. There are of course legitimate reasons why you would not have them - renewal etc. I always understood that you had up to 5 days to produce them at a police station - is that a concession?
Sorry, I think I may have lost track of this a bit, we are talking UK aren't we? I thought it was ok to not carry your documents as long as you can present them at a police station of your choice within 7 days. Failing that, for the times you haven't got documents such as renewal etc you present yourself at the police station with whatever documents you have and an explanation why you haven't got the others and they give you another 7 days extension until your documents have arrived through the post and you have presented them.
I'm saying this becase a friend of mine had an accident ten days after passing her test, she'd sent off her provisional licence but the full one hadn't come and she had to keep prsenting herself for about 3 weeks until the new licence arrived.
|
cardew
Unless the law has changed within the past 24 hrs (who knows)
then as far as I am aware it is not an offence if you do not carry your Driving licence, Insurance and M.O.T whilst driving.
The law allows you to produce these documents to the police within 7 days (used to be 5 in my day)following a request.
As to the Box junction offence, still working on it. Would appear maybe failing to conform to a traffic sign or unecessary obstruction.
Between Marks excellent post and Clarky is the nub of the matter.
We do have the preponderence to bend the law instead of obeying it and have put many constraints on the police in the application of the law, creating a laise faire? attitude by the modern bobby. But in their defence half the heavy stuff they encounter on a day to day basis was very irregularly encountered in my day. Plus there has been a dissemination of Road Traffic Divisions that not only gave attention to motoring but also solved many serious crimes. (The Ripper caught by a car crew not CID)
DVD
|
Tut Tut DVD
The offence of failing to produce to a constable actually occurs when you are stopped and asked to produce the required documents. So you could techniocally argue that it is an offence not to carry them at all times; The law allows 7 days to produce thereafter. (Just to be totally pedantic)
Agree with Mark on random breath testsn but totally disagree on Search powers. PACE is adequate for a Copper doing his job by the book. Power corrupts.
|
As stated above, it is an offence not to produce docs to an officer at the roadside, hence my wording an offence not to carry them. But the Police kindly say that due the interests of saftey and security we will overlook this and allow you to produce your docs within 7 days at a Police station of your choice, failure to do this will result in one being knocked off for not having such docs and not producing the docs at the roadside/nick. If you failed to produce your licence/MOT/ins you would get knocked off for 6 offences.
I dont really wont to get involved in all this, I am and never have been a jobsworth, I just dont like it when I hear people slating the Police for doing there job. On the other hand, if one saw a bobby sat at the side of the rd ignoring some pratt sat on a box junction, the poor bobby would still be in the wrong through that big public eye.
As for saying PACE is sufficient and the stop and search powers... well each to there own, I tend to be very pro-active, but unfortunatly I am sometimes prevented in doing so. Its a numbers game where I work, you cant stop more of one type than another.... figures dont look good.
The offence of box junctions is clearly marked on the yellow/pink cards, verbal warning only, like I say, you could go for more but would the courts have it..... doubtfull.
|
Firstly PU.
S165 (3) RTA 88 says offence if you do not produce when asked by Police subject to Sub Para 4...
..shall not be convicted if within seven days docs produced.
As you cannot convict then no offence is committed?
Now Cardew, the question you ask at the start:
Traffic Signs and General Directions Regulations 2002.
Reg 29 conveys in relation to Box junctions markings (Signs 1043, 1044) the prohibition stipulated in Part II Scheule 10 of the Regs i.e. only enter in exit clear etc.
Reg 10 states that Traffic Signs 1043, 1044 comes under the requirements of Section 36 Road Traffic Act, 1988 in that it is an offence for drivers to fail to comply with a Traffic Sign, which under Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 attracts a fine of up to £1000 and 3 points Also that Notice of Intended Prosecution procedure applies.
DVD
|
Yeh like any Bobby carrys all that info with him/her?
Why does the info that all Bobbies should carry then state verbal warning next to box junction?
And what would happen in the real world?
|
Clarky
The bits and pieces you carry around are only aide memoires and not the law which is contained in Acts of Parliament and Regulations. Read these from the pointers in the aides and get to know the way round them and in time you will be surprised at what you learn.....
Keep that blue line solid.
DVD
|
I can appreciate what you are saying, but have time for that on the street?
Keep The blue line solid.... broke years ago!!
I do read with what you say with interest.
Going off thread VERY slightly, yellow zig zags outside a school... offence is? I have always used obstruction.... £30 non endorsable. A colleague tried endorsable (3 points) thinking about zebra crossings zig zags..... got knocked back!
|
Traffic Signs and General Directions Regs 2002.
Look up the sign number, read its implication and whether S 36 applies.
Sorry for brevity but I feel Mark is looming......
DVD
|
|
I will stick with obstruction!!
|
|
If there is a law against it, then people should be nailed for it. If they don\'t like it, they only have to stop committing the offence and the problem will go away.
There's the rub...
Casual observation suggests getting nicked is just a bit of bad luck, so people don't bother.
And when they get nicked (for motoring offences) most cases are dealt with at magistrates courts. And in some areas over 50% of fines to magistrates are never paid
So here's me, a clean licence and wanting to keep it that way, and theres a sizeable chunk of the population not giving a monkey's and knowing they can get away with it
hey ho
|
|
Seems a good subject for camera enforcement, indeed the junction of Euston Rd with Eversholt St and Woburn Place has/had such a camera.
|
Simon,
Advocating cameras is a red rag to some in the BR, but I couldn't agree with you more.
There are many factors that contribute to traffic congestion in London. However some of these factors are directly attributable to selfish inconsiderate motorists. Stopping in yellow boxes, illegal parking and bus lane use come to mind. Bearing in mind that much of London is covered by cameras, all of these offences could be readily detected by remote operators and tickets issued. The message would soon hit home.
I know all the arguments about Big Brother etc but the actions of these motorists simply make things worse for all of us.
C
|
|
I would add that it would release the police to look after the old ladies that we are all concerned about!
|
|
You can add to that the junction outside Finsbury Park Station on the Seven Sisters Road.
Buses going east in the evening are often held up by one or more vehicles in the yellow box.
And more often than not one of the vehicles blocking the box is.........
...........a bus !
Brian
Still learning (I hope)
|
I think buses and taxis consider they are exempt!
There are enough congestions problems without the self-inflicted mayhem caused by these selfish (&**(). Cameras, fines and 3 points would solve it and make me feel better to boot.
|
Yellow hatched box = box junction?
I thought one was allowed to enter and stop on a box junction if one's exit is clear but only prevented from moving by oncoming trafic? Or something like that - can someone explain?
|
In English terms....
YOU MUST ONLY ENTER A BOX JNCT IF your exit is clear, however, if you are turning right, and the rd to the right is clear, you may sit in this yellow box whilst you wait for a clear gap in the traffic.
People dont realise about the above turning right scenario, so many people think you are wrong to sit in it waiting to turn right, you are in fact quite within your rights.
|
|
Seems to me that if the revenue raised by cameras was diverted into educating drivers on how not to be the cause of congestion - eg hatched boxes, moving over after overtaking on dual c. or m/ways then we would be under less pressure to speed, or drive like a klutz in the first place. How about compulsory M/way or multi-lane carriageway driving as part of the test, plus test routes which specifically demand bits of driving skill which are known to be perennial puzzles to many drivers, hatched boxes being the perfect example. It's a well defined problem with a well defined answer. We've just about cracked educating drivers with drink driving and seat belts, albeit after decades of effort, but if you don't try, we'll always have discussions like this. Sure the hard core drinkers and non-belt wearers remain but the job has been done for the vast majority, let's move on to congestion busting through each individual's own actions.
|
There is a hatched-junction outside my office. Sometimes I have to wait through THREE light changes before I can turn either left or right.
If our local plod was to issue fines, then I'd be happy.
|
NWS
"We've just about cracked educating drivers with drink driving and seat belts, albeit after decades of effort,"
Absolutely correct. However I suggest that it is the penalty of an automatic ban + large fine for getting caught drunk driving that has been the major factor in the 'education' process.
It wouldn't take too many automatic tickets issued for anti-social driving to educate on congestion busting.
Marcus
|
|
Fair comment and punishment is quicker than education, what I was trying to say was that drink drive and seat belt are campaigns which have been successful in highlighting not only the punishment you will get but also making the crimes particularly socially unacceptable. I'm not, by the way, trying to equate the consequences of a drink drive smash with those of a bent bumper on a hatched junction
|
Where will this stop then? Are motoring laws somehow different to all the other laws broken by millions of people on a daily basis - including by many contributors to this forum.
Most of the trivial matters mentioned here aren't life threatening, they are just irritating. And then only to those who allow themselves to be irritated. And before you start, I'm not talking about the serious ones - you know which ones they are.
The Police should not be wasting their time dealing with trivialities. There are more important things in life.
|
The Police should not be wasting their time dealing with trivialities. There are more important things in life.
jeds, perhaps I'm being a bit thick here, after all its late and I've had a lousy walk back from the office to the apartment in minus -10C and falling snow but....
are you really suggesting that the police should not be dealing with people who block box junctions?
If so then imagine the situation that your house is on fire and the FB take an extra few minutes to get there because they can't get through traffic gridlocked by morons blocking box junctions.
or have I missed the point?
|
Jeds is right, hatched boxes aren't weapons of mass destruction, human rights in Zimbabwe, but applying the same logic the other way round would suggest we shouldn't tackle everyday stuff until we've fixed the world's problems.
Bad/inept/ignorant driving also costs a lot of lives every year and there aren't many people who can or would see the the loss of a loved one in a rush hour smash as a trivial matter in the context of international diplomacy.
|
FiF
If I say that blocking yellow boxes isn't the most serious of crimes, and the probability of holding up a fire engine is so remote that it isn't worth taking into consideration, you could probably put together an argument that makes me look like a reckless anarchist that doesn't give a toss about other road users.
In fact, I don't block yellow boxes myself but I have been known to drive at 72mph. Both could be reckless at times. Both could be selfish at times. On the whole, most of the time, both are trivial.
Yellow boxes are really off my point anyway. What concerns me is where the discussion moves from yellow boxes to systematic routing out of all trivial motoring offences. Where does this stop and who decides? Already you and I don't exactly agree!
Don't get me wrong, I don't deny anybody the right to complain. I'm all for bulldozing caravans off the side of the motorway and I fully support machine gunners on bridges looking out for BMW's cruising in the 3rd lane. I just thought the notion of yellow box Police was going too far.
|
jeds,
Considering there is already one troll on this thread reluctant to continue but I can't let comment that go.
It is somewhat arrogant to decide that some laws are too trivial to be obeyed and then complain when someone enforces it as if THEY are in the wrong and not you.
If a law or rule is bad then it should be changed under the proper constitutional process. Not just ignored. Otherwise its just anarchy.
Sorry this is not a full reply, bit pushed for time.
|
FinF
"Considering there is already one troll on this thread reluctant to continue but I can't let comment that go."
Can you explain what the term 'troll' means. I have seen it used quite a bit. Who are we talking about on this thread?
Ray
|
Firstly; FiF, please don't repond..
Secondly, to everyone, argue and disagree as much as you wish. But let us not have anybody getting too far onto their soapbox nor any personal comments.
In general a "Troll" is someone who writes controversial ntoes simply for the sake of causing an argument. They typically don't last long here.
Healthy disagreement is fine, but if the thread becomes overly troublesome it will simply disappear.
Thank you.
|
"If a law or rule is bad then it should be changed under the proper constitutional process. Not just ignored. Otherwise its just anarchy."
Call me a cynic if you like, but at the moment there seems to be zero chance of changing any law under constitutional process.
That's why I've signed up to the Anarchists Party.
|
So the logic of your argument is that all minor non life threatening motoring offences should be ignored?
Does that include all parking, double parking, parking in bus lanes and leaving the car there all day?
How about turning right at straight ahead only traffic lights and blocking all traffic behind you?
Most law is there to enforce a code of behaviour that most of us accept is reasonable.
|
|
Whose argument are you refering to?
|
NWS
"Whose argument are you refering to?"
If that was directed at Marcus - the answer is Jed. Although you seem to be changing tack - I think!
Marcus
|
Perhaps those of you that disagree with the Police dealing with what you would call trivial offences should come out with the emergency services for a day?
Then you would see what mess these "trivial" offences can sometimes cause, I would like to hear your opinion after you have seen a Police Officer working on a young kiddie who is technically dead due to someone parking on zig zags outside a school (trivial to you). I've been there and done it.... not nice, take my word, thats why comments like yours get my back up, I have memories that will stick in mind for life.
Dont think the Police go around hunting for trivial offences.... we dont have time, but if we are in-between shouts and see them we must act on them.
What would you do if you saw a PC sat in his Mondeo at the roadside, and on the other side of the rd was some idiot blocking a box jnct, you then witnessed the PC ignore the offence.... bet you would be on your high horse then?
Like many have said..... Police can not win whatever we do.
|
|
Marcus, I didn't think I was, just trying to aknowledge that there are indeed greater crimes in the grand scheme of things than abusing a hatched box juntion as Jed says, but the consequences of "minor" crimes can be awfully serious at the personal level and are very much worthy of policing, aside from the annoyance factor of causing jams etc..
|
There have to be rules and whatever they are somebody somewhere will argue that they're too tough, unnecessary, unfair or plain stupid.
Yes, some 'offences' look trivial but I wonder how many lives would be lost every day in London were these rules abolished and anarchy allowed to reign.
Nobody likes being done and yes we all get stressed when driving but nobody forces people to exceed the speed limit, drive through red lights, block junctions do they !
No, it's usually a calculated and conscious choice made by the individual at the time for selfsih reasons. So if you're gonna do the 'crime' you have to be prepared to accept the 'time' and not blame the police for doing their job.
So far as I can see most of the rules which govern us on the roads have been drawn up as a result of driver behaviour that has been deemed unacceptable for one reason or another. This might be unplalatable for some but it's true.
|
Bit like the drug scene i.e. tobacco, ganga, speed, and onto harder stuff.
Start with failing to sign your driving Licence, then illegal parking, quickly followed by blocking a box junction, speeding and before you know where you are your into dangerous driving and fog light offences.
Zero tolerance and we all will be happy.
DVD
|
Bit like the drug scene i.e. tobacco, ganga, speed, and onto harder stuff. Start with failing to sign your driving Licence, then illegal parking, quickly followed by blocking a box junction, speeding and before you know where you are your into dangerous driving and fog light offences. Zero tolerance and we all will be happy. DVD
nice one DVD!
particularly like the order of severity of the offences, now just got to get some paper towels to try and get the coffee out of the keyboard.
|
Co-incidently, this appeared in our local paper the other day..
Those who failed to apply for their credit card driver's licences are now having to spend hours in long queues in an attempt to beat the February 28 deadline.
Although they have had five years in which to apply for the new licence, many people couldn't be bothered and now accuse the authorities of unconstitutional behaviour.
Briefcase [The name of the column - I] suspects that these are the very people who are quick to complain about how the government fails to tackle lawlessness.
|
Sorry to bring this up again but I've been away for a couple of days.
I am not saying that all trivial offences should be ignored, I am simply calling for balance. The Police don't have the resources to cope at present and that position is only likely to change for the worse. A Chief Constable reported on Friday that his budget is effectively 20% down. What do you imagine the response will be when he calls for a 20% increase in Council Tax to fight the serious threat of standing in yellow boxes.
I said in an earlier post that it would be easy to twist what I say and make me look like an anarchist. I assure you this isn't the case. The point has been made that the Police don't go hunting for it but they deal with it when they see it. Is this not in complete agreement with what I am saying.
|
Jeds,
"I am not saying that all trivial offences should be ignored, I am simply calling for balance."
It depends how you define "balance". This thread started by Cardew saying he had never before seen police taking action for motorists breaking this particular law. From what I gather nobody else in the BR has either.
Although an admittedly minor infringement, it can create mayhem in London. The reason lots of these selfish B******* block junctions is that the police rarely if ever take action. That doesn't seem very balanced to me.
If the police cracked down - preferably by use of cameras - the message would get across and things would get a lot better for all of us.
It is called deterrence
Marcus
|
|
|
|
|
|
