If there were no legislation, there would be absolutely more deaths, chaos, etc... The fact that some people chose to violate the law does not validate any concept at all as we have free will. If you were to have basic stats to say that out of 2,000,000 people, 1,900,000 people chose not to listen to the law and there were 0 victims, that would prove your point. but the fact is that the majority of people actually abide by the law, and in many cases there are few victims (in comparison) This in fact validates the contraray to what you are stating. That the legislation DOES save lives. Imagine NYC with no red lights or making them "optional" MANY MANY more people would attempt to make it through and MANY MANY more pedestrians would be killed. (especially during rush hour). The fact that the majority of people follow the law in NYC, makes it plausible to even navigate the city. Making it a free-for-all with the attitude of "give it your best guess" would bring the city to a halt.

People take risks. and they weigh those risks based upon consequences. without consequences there would be many many more deaths on our roads. No one is saying that there is going to be 100% of those that abide by laws as there will always be those that chose to ignore them because they think they know better (this thread is a case in point).

Not all stop signs are well placed. (I can think of a number of areas which have 4-way stops that would be better off if there were 2 way stops) but that is something that needs to be taken on individually and if needed, changed. Take it to your local or state govt to have certain stop signs changed to Yield or removed completely, but until that takes place, you should OBEY the law no matter how much you dislike it, especially when there are potential victims.

The fact that there wasn't a victim in this case is likely more to do with conicidence than someone's Skill. The fact that there was a Cop that pulled you (are you the OP?) over meant that there WAS someone in the area and who knows, other potential victims in the area.

~SB

 

At best, people break the law at least once every time they drive. At worst, they break the law several times when they drive. Trust me, if a cop wanted to he/she could find a traffic law or vehicle law infraction for practically every person on the road. There are that many laws on the books. People can't be following the law because they don't know all of them. People do the best they can in any given situation. You call that following the law, I call it being guided by personal judgement.

 

I am not the OP. I cannot determine what the OP did or didn't see. I have to assume that since the OP decided to proceed through the intersection, he/she could see in all directions and it was light traffic conditions. The fact that he did not hit another car or pedestrian reinforces that belief.

The point here is that the OP did slow down substantially, or it would not have been a rolling stop. He/she did not blow through the stop sign at full speed. He/she slowed down enough to ensure that the coast was clear, likely a nearly full stop, and continued on.

Police make their careers on not being seen, the fact that an officer was present provides very little evidence that the OP did anything dangerous.

 

That rationale does not make any sense. So basically, you're saying that if a driver does a rolling stop, then that is okay and shouldn't be a moving violation, but if he does the same thing and causes an accident, then only in that situation should it be a violation? It's not like the person doing the rolling stop will always know that the coast is 100% clear. That's why they invented stop signs and taught us to look left, right, left before we proceed forward... because you never know, unless you are special and have some Spider-sense that we don't have. Everybody has to play by the same rules, because all it takes is one careless person to prove the point why that particular law exists and why it should be enforced in every scenario. It's not like the people who have rolled through stop signs and caused car accidents did it on purpose; in most situations, I'd bet that the driver who caused an accident claimed that they didn't see the person/car/whatever in front of them and how they suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

So based on your line of reasoning, if a guy is doing 150 mph but on an open freeway with no other cars around and a cop sees him and clocks him on the radar, should the cop let him slide and not ticket him because there is no victim?

 

Just to be clear. I am not saying take away stop signs, or lights, or signals, or any other traffic information device. In fact, the more information a person has the better their decision will be.

That's the point. You have been taught to stop at stop sign. The law does not make you stop, you stop because you are supposed to. Until it becomes morally and ethically okay to not stop, people will continue to stop at stop signs. That goes for all other signs, laws, etc. You do what you are taught, not what you are told.

Perhaps better driver education is a solution?


You punish the careless person, not everyone else.


I doesn't matter what people claim. That's the point. If they didn't see them, they did not do their due diligence as a driver. They should be punished accordingly. Driving is a big responsibility, people should treat it that way. They would if there were actual consequences for their actions.

That would be correct.


"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper." -- Ludwig von Mises

The reason people have a problem with this concept is that they believe that everyone but themselves are terrible drivers. They reinforce that belief through confirmation bias and self fulfilling prophecies. Overestimation of one's own ability and underestimation of another's ability. In reality, we're all an average.

 

I think all modified Hondas get profiled by the police.

 

Everyone who breaks the law should get the same punishment, though obviously the careless person who broke the law and also caused an accident as a result would get a bigger punishment. People who abide by the law won't get punished.

Wrong -- they did not do their due diligence if they did not make a complete stop, not if they rolled through a stop without making sure that they did so under the assumption that the coast was clear. Everybody who rolls through stop signs does so assuming that the coast is clear... nobody does it expecting kids, pedestrians, cars, cops, etc. to be there. That's why it has to be enforced, because people do it under that assumption that it's safe to do so, but every so often, the coast isn't clear but they do it anyway. So you have to bust everyone who does it for the purpose of negative reinforcement and deterrence.

That guy is a danger to himself. Let's say he loses control for some random reason... then the guy is probably going to cause considerable damage to himself, his vehicle and whatever it strikes. It COULD happen, if he hits a pot hole, or if a tire blows out, or whatever. In a perfect world, he could drive for 150 mph until his gas runs out without causing a problem in the aforementioned scenario (no other cars around), but there are variables that make the world imperfect. If they only enforced stuff when something does happen involving a victim (like an accident), then there is no deterrent to make people not do it and keep it where it belongs -- in a more controlled environment like a track. Or maybe drivers with less experience (like a teenager) might want to give a top speed run a try. An older, more experienced driver might have the ability to recover if their vehicle were to lose traction and spin out for some reason, but a younger driver could panic and dig his/her own grave... or maybe the older driver is similarly inexperienced in emergency situations, especially at that velocity, and the same outcome will happen. Where do you draw the line and determine who is capable or doing what? You can't. You make the laws apply to everyone and enforce them.

You can bust out with as many quotes as you want, but it's not going to prove that rolling through a stop sign is always going to be a victimless crime, or even that victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes and shouldn't be enforced.

People believing that everyone but themselves is a terrible driver is a part of defensive driving. It's what keeps drivers in full alert, always on their toes and ready to minimize the likelihood of an accident. You can't assume the guy next to you is fully aware of his surroundings, or trust that every driver out there is as good or better of a driver than you are. If a guy is making risky lane changes through tight openings but isn't hitting anyone (which, by your definition, would be okay as long as he doesn't cause an accident therefore resulting in no victims), I'm not going to assume that the guy in it is Michael Schumacher. I'm going to back away and try to stay away from him because driver error can kick in at any time. I'd rather play it safe and assume that every driver out there isn't as safe of a driver as they should be while still holding myself to the same standards rather than assume that every driver out there knows exactly what they are doing then be let down when they crash into me because I trusted the guy's abilities the same way he did when he was breaking the law.

 

Why should someone be punished if they have done no harm to another? Because it's the law?

That's silly and circular.


Do you know what a rolling stop is? We're talking about slowing down to .1 to 5 mph max. Plenty of time to assess an intersection if it is open with no obstructions. Not rolling though it at 35 mph.

That is a choice that person would make. You cannot, and should not try and prevent people from putting themselves in danger. That's their prerogative and right. Their right stops where someone else's starts.

Again, laws are not the deterrent for decisions people make. If someone doesn't go 150 MPH now they won't start just because it is not illegal. Those who will, likely already have. Either way, that is not a sustainable speed for any length of time unless you are out in the western desert states and can see for miles.


Again, do you know what rolling through a stop sign versus blowing/running a stop sign? You know, the whole California stop thing?

YouTube - California Stop

The law does not make you drive defensively. That is a decision you would make even if there was no law to suggest it to you. It is smart, and admirable for you to do so. You would continue to drive the way you do now even if the "law" didn't "control" you, right? You wouldn't suddenly become this outlaw and drive around recklessly? Neither would anyone else.

The reality of it is that given the number of people on the roads, statistically speaking we do pretty good at driving. That does not mean you should change your defensive driving tactics.

Look, I am a realist. I know what I am saying will never happen. That doesn't make it any less valid. It doesn't give me any less reason to continue to what I am doing, even though I have to bend over and "take it like a man" when I break the "law" driving in a perfectly reasonable manner and receive a citation. I'll let the local and state governments continue to rake in billions of dollars from people doing perfectly right and acceptable things, because I live in a country where people are more and more willing to accept a false sense of security over freedom.

I'll leave you with one more quote for old time's sake

Thanks for the fun discussion. It made my day go by rather quickly.

 

I am loving this wonderful exchange and agree with both of you guys about many of the points of views expressed.... I do have a strong opinion about unsafe driving practices that become a habit like tailgating, running stop signs, cutting corners in controlled intersections into outer lanes, crossing double lines to pass and not stopping at a red light before turning right... Many years and miles on many different motorcycles and many close calls have made me well aware of the need for methods of social control to be employed as a means of saving lives.... I even petitioned to have a stripe painted down the center of of the 10 miles of twisty of road around the gated community I lived at.. Numerous accidents that had been reported in the community newspaper over the years verified the need and it was done shortly before I moved from the place... They have installed cameras at all of the controlled intersections on the loop that surrounds the town that is closest to where I presently live and people actually stop for red lights now. As Orwellian as it is lives and property are being saved so it is a good thing.

 

Speaking of red light camera's. I am not detracting from what you are getting at, but....

Are you aware that making a yellow light longer is more effective at reducing accidents at intersections than camera. Cameras have even been shown to increase the rate of rear end collisions.

See reference material Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras–Executive Summary - FHWA-HRT-05-049

They actually say that it decreases right angle crashes while increasing rear end collisions and they justify their use by stating

But it is definitely about safety.

Making yellow lights longer works better and does not increase rear end collisions, but it does not make the state any money.

 

I guess you just won't understand then. You keep condoning rolling stops and driving 150 mph on an open freeway then. You might as well promote drunk driving, as long as they don't crash into anyone, just to keep it victimless.

Also, I hope you'll be similarly approving if your 16 year-old daughter sleeps with a 30 year-old man. You know, because while it's not legal, there aren't any victims as long as she consents, right?

Yes, I do know what a rolling stop is. It's this illegal maneuver that people do that sometimes results in accidents, even at 5 mph or less.

It's done by laws existing that make it illegal to do so and also by the enforcement of such laws. You don't have a right to perform those kinds of dangerous acts on public roads.

I'm guessing that if a guy were threatening to jump off of a building, you just walk past and not bother to alert the police, assuming that he's not going to land on anyone.

That's not necessarily true. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are law-abiding citizens but drive very capable cars who would love to approach their car's terminal velocity and would gladly do so if it were suddenly legal to do that.

It does, indirectly. You are correct in the sense that it is not done because not driving defensively isn't against the law. However, I wouldn't have to drive defensively if every other driver were following the law. If people didn't talk on their cell phones, speed, make lane changes without signaling, follow too closely, drive drunk, make unsafe maneuvers, drive without headlights on, make illegal turns, roll through stop signs, run red lights, etc. then defensive driving wouldn't really exist. It exists under the assumption that another driver on the road might do something potentially dangerous with their vehicle... which, in every situation I can think of at the moment, is something that is against the law.

This, I agree with wholeheartedly.

Don't get me wrong... I would LOVE to drive 150 mph on an open freeway without having to worry about getting pulled over. The same thing applies to rolling through stop signs. Popping wheelies on motorcycles. Launching from a red light. But those kinds of acts have lead to harm in rare instances, enough to the point where it has become against the law to do so. However, by me abiding by the rules of the road and following the law, that does not constitute bending over and taking it up the ass. It's not like the laws that prohibit these things are making my life miserable or taking air out of my lungs or preventing me from pursuing my dreams. If I really wanted to do those things, I could just go to a track, where the entry fee is a fraction of what a ticket would cost if I were to be cited for such behavior. If rolling through stop signs and going well above the speed limit is giving up freedom, then I don't mind. It's better than an asshole doing so in what HE himself interpreted as "driving in a perfectly reasonable manner" and crashing into someone else and turning them into a quadraplegic.

Likewise. Despite our conflicting views, I do appreciate the debate along with your presentation of your opinion, versus the approach of some other people who have had different views in past topics. Cheers.

 

I have enjoyed following this interaction between you two gentlemen, something very rare these days and on FitFreak.

 

This is only an assumption which has been made. There is no evidence that states it was done in a safe manner or a dangerous one, just that an accident did not occur.
Again, We don't know if they made sure that the coast was clear as we don't have any info other than the original post. Also, Most police also only attempt to hide on speed traps. It was likely an instance where a cop was just in the area and saw the rolling stop happen. Unless a corner is a particularly bad one (where rolling stops and accidents occur often), it is very unlikely that the corner was "staked out". In this case we can also assume that the OP wasn't overly aware of the surroundings or they would have seen the Police and stopped, waited the full 2 seconds, then proceeded cautiously. In this scenario, the OP did not proceed safely through the corner as they weren't aware of their entire surroundings.

Rolling around a corner at 2mph is likely not something dangerous and if there was no one close to the area, is just as safe as rounding any corner on any road. The problem is, there was a stop sign there and it was put there for a reason for which the OP chose not to obey. In this instance, no one was hurt but the potential was there. This is much like not wearing a seatbelt. Many say that only the person no wearing the seatbelt is in danger and they should be allowed to do as they please. when that person (not wearing a seatbelt) becomes a projectile, it puts others potentially in danger. This law has also had the side-effect of saving a number of lives of people who would normally not wear one if there was no law in place.

It doesn't hurt anyone to obey this law (the stop sign)and it is not oppressing anyone but likely saving lives and also helping with the flow of traffic elsewhere. Not obeying the law has the potential to do the opposite. Hurt someone (other than the driver) and also hurting the flow of traffic.

Again, if you don't like a stop sign somewhere and think it should be a yield, do your part to have the city change it.

~SB

 

Short answer YES. Long answer NO. Cops will take a longer look at modded cars. But in the end it comes down to a couple things. Does the cop have nothing better to do that day? Or are you driving erratically or is there something wrong that they can hit you with, broken taillight, etc? If neither is going on, they may look, then go find something else to do. Some mods are illegal plain and simple, if the cops wanted to be a tool and pull you over for a citation, you can't really bitch because you just broke the law. Sort of like the window tint and front license plate missing. Illegal, but people still do it. As long as you don't cry whine after you get nailed, then you are fine. If you can't afford the harassment, you can't afford to mod. I got nailed for window tint for example (yeah i know its not really a mod but you get the point)...said yes...got it fixed (removed)...went on my merry way. No need to bitch about details about how many percent and waste peoples time etc etc. I know mine were too dark, I got nailed, end of story. See you next time officer, (its tinted again)....

 

all great points guys, to those that say don't roll the stop sign, I didn't, I stopped to let a Nissan Titan(yep, a black one that's how vividly I recall the incident) turn right(its a 3 way stop). So I really did stop, but its kinda my word against the cop that works for a bankrupt county trying to generate money, so to be honest a regular dood doesn't stand much of a chance even if he's legit...My other car is a Land Rover, and cops don't even think twice about it, when I use to own an Audi(also Modded) I never got followed around like this. I'm going to fight the ticket of course, but interestingly enough the same cop was sitting on the same corner pulling over people the very next day(its right outside my house). I guess I just feel like its my commuter and I only mod it for a little personality, but if its going to bring negative attention it seems to be too costly of a price to pay.

 

If I lived where you do and saw a cop as I was approaching a stop sign I wouldn't just stop, I would open my door and put a foot on the pavement as I heard over 40 years ago was what a motorcyclist was required to do there.

 

well at this point I stop, turn my engine off, start it again, back my car up...and give the cop a donut.

 

That is great, I needed a good laugh..... Thanks.

 

Some of the posts on this thread are very interesting...I find the rolling stop subjected to many things. angle of view, time of day...had the cop been behind me he would have in no way said I didnt stop, because my reds would be on and in turn he would have had to stop himself...I can diagram the entire event. he was about 10-15 yards down a hill with a giant Nissan truck that had just turned right heading towards him, and I too turned the exact same direction to follow suit with my turn signal on. I saw him the whole time thought nothing of anything till he followed me and hit his lights...honestly completely shocked me...I ran through everything in my head quickly and was at a loss. The thing that got me was the next day when he had pulled someone else over, probably for the same reason... The Law is not absolute guys.

In NYC they let counterfeit purses and watches get sold all day long(Ive seen cops drive by and do nothing). Restaurants break code, minors get liquor at bars without getting carded. cops turn a blind eye to a lot of stuff...in my old neighborhood you'd have to practically shot someone before a cop says a word, because the area is so dangerous they don't want to stop cars unless its a really good reason.

When you give the badge and the gun to a guy and say your a cop, you would hope that you could tell the cop to use good judgment. But really you can't...honestly I own up to my mistakes...if I really did blow that stop sign I would own it and not even post this. but having stopped for a car then turning, I just can't see how he could have said I rolled the sign, but again Im not the one with the gun...