5 ms·

I'm really perplexed as how can they enforce this. Unless a policeman is staring at you intently through you car window in the exact moment that you open your d

I'm really perplexed as how can they enforce this. Unless a policeman is staring at you intently through you car window in the exact moment that you open your door, how can they know what hand are you using to do it?

LatteLazy 5y ago
Brit here. We have a LOT of laws and very little enforcement. Passing a law is seen as a cheap and easy way to "do something" without actually doing anything (especially anything that might need resourcing). We had very strict covid mask rules. 50% ignore them. The government claims they've done all that can be done.
- iso1631 5y ago
  We don't have any covid mask rules in England. Last time I was in Scotland I saw wide scale adherence to the rules. Haven't been to Wales or NI for a while.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Erg. It's actually much messier than that. The rules for england were rescinded (last night or was it earlier this week). But the laws are still in force, just the Home Sec has said they don't apply. Only they still apply in some places eg on TfL where the mayor decides not the home secretary, And he is keeping that law. But he is also not enforcing it, just asking people only they are legally required to do it. So we have a few laws here. None of them enforced. And loads of covid, though that is much less of a problem now everyone has been offered a vaccine. Im not really bothered, Im just saying we love laws and we don't enforce them at all here in blighty. :)
    - basisword 5y ago
      If TFL is anything like a few months ago there isn't a 'law' requiring mask usage, it's just a condition of carriage[1]. Also, they're enforcing it with enforcement officers. There may not be many and they may do a poor job of actually challenging people but I've seen it at stations a few times.
    - mnw21cam 5y ago
      The home secretary has a lot of control over laws, using a thing in the British law system called a "statutory instrument". That is, a law passed by parliament that says that a named person (usually the home secretary) has the power to switch on and off a very specific law as they see fit. There's a surprising number of laws that are controlled that way. It's in some ways a neat invention, in that it allows laws to be fine-tuned without having to go through a whole parliamentary hearing. For instance, if a law against people being obnoxious in some particular way becomes irrelevant because people have stopped being obnoxious in that particular way, then the home secretary can just switch it off. But it has to be set up by parliament in this way in advance.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - iso1631 5y ago
      > The rules for england were rescinded (last night or was it earlier this week). But the laws are still in force, Which law requires face coverings? I can't see anything in The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020, and the Public Transport requirement has been rescinded.
      - LatteLazy 5y ago
        Public transport requirements have ended in general. But TfL set their own requirements which are legally enforceable. They are staying as they're decided by the mayor. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60038741 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60038741 I think you want this law: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) (England) Regulations 2021 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/1340/regulation/3/made https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/1340/regulation/3/m... I don't think it's been repealed. But the Home Sec and PM have said it won't be enforced (as of last night?). But it wasn't being enforced anyway. So as I say, a massive fucking mess.
        iso1631 5y ago
        That one expired Expiry: 15.—(1) These Regulations expire at the end of 20th December 2021. You're right about local rules applying to specific businesses (Sainsburys, TFL etc), I was thinking more England wide. To be honest looking at the cases in Scotland (where mask compliance from Sep-Dec was high) with England (where it wasn't genrally required and few wore them outside of public transport) I can't tell if the rules made any difference at a population level .
  - basisword 5y ago
    Scottish adherence to mask rules was astonishingly good from what I saw during a visit. NI on the other hand was much worse than London the few times I was there.
bertil 5y ago
The offense is for hurting a cyclist, who presumably will have characteristic wounds and the driver’s details. That sounds enforceable. In practice, most cyclists will tell you that cars never stay put after running them over, and that video evidence, even of clearly intentional harm, doesn‘t lead anywhere: the Crown prosecutor ignores those unless the press covers it in detail. Having a fine that police officers will deem excessive is a sureway to have them ignore more complaints.
chriswarbo 5y ago
> Unless a policeman is staring at you intently through you car window in the exact moment that you open your door, how can they know what hand are you using to do it? That's silly hyperbole. More likely, the main "enforcement" would be losing points when taking a driving test. That encourages driving instructors to teach it; and that causes drivers to learn it. In the case of a collision (e.g. knocking down a passing cyclist), if the driver was seen (by CCTV/dashcam/witnesses) to not use this procedure, then that could be taken into account regarding liability, insurance claims, etc.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
curtisblaine 5y ago
I asked the question in good faith; I wasn't implying anything and I was sincerely perplexed. Plus, it sparked a lot of good responses of which I'm thankful for. I've been multiply downvoted, though; now I'm curious of how that comment could have been interpreted as "wrong" or "provocative". Not whining or anything: just sincerely (again) curious.

LatteLazy 5y ago

Brit here. We have a LOT of laws and very little enforcement. Passing a law is seen as a cheap and easy way to "do something" without actually doing anything (especially anything that might need resourcing). We had very strict covid mask rules. 50% ignore them. The government claims they've done all that can be done.

iso1631 5y ago
We don't have any covid mask rules in England. Last time I was in Scotland I saw wide scale adherence to the rules. Haven't been to Wales or NI for a while.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Erg. It's actually much messier than that. The rules for england were rescinded (last night or was it earlier this week). But the laws are still in force, just the Home Sec has said they don't apply. Only they still apply in some places eg on TfL where the mayor decides not the home secretary, And he is keeping that law. But he is also not enforcing it, just asking people only they are legally required to do it. So we have a few laws here. None of them enforced. And loads of covid, though that is much less of a problem now everyone has been offered a vaccine. Im not really bothered, Im just saying we love laws and we don't enforce them at all here in blighty. :)
  - basisword 5y ago
    If TFL is anything like a few months ago there isn't a 'law' requiring mask usage, it's just a condition of carriage[1]. Also, they're enforcing it with enforcement officers. There may not be many and they may do a poor job of actually challenging people but I've seen it at stations a few times.
  - mnw21cam 5y ago
    The home secretary has a lot of control over laws, using a thing in the British law system called a "statutory instrument". That is, a law passed by parliament that says that a named person (usually the home secretary) has the power to switch on and off a very specific law as they see fit. There's a surprising number of laws that are controlled that way. It's in some ways a neat invention, in that it allows laws to be fine-tuned without having to go through a whole parliamentary hearing. For instance, if a law against people being obnoxious in some particular way becomes irrelevant because people have stopped being obnoxious in that particular way, then the home secretary can just switch it off. But it has to be set up by parliament in this way in advance.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - iso1631 5y ago
    > The rules for england were rescinded (last night or was it earlier this week). But the laws are still in force, Which law requires face coverings? I can't see anything in The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020, and the Public Transport requirement has been rescinded.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      Public transport requirements have ended in general. But TfL set their own requirements which are legally enforceable. They are staying as they're decided by the mayor. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60038741 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60038741 I think you want this law: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) (England) Regulations 2021 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/1340/regulation/3/made https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/1340/regulation/3/m... I don't think it's been repealed. But the Home Sec and PM have said it won't be enforced (as of last night?). But it wasn't being enforced anyway. So as I say, a massive fucking mess.
      - iso1631 5y ago
        That one expired Expiry: 15.—(1) These Regulations expire at the end of 20th December 2021. You're right about local rules applying to specific businesses (Sainsburys, TFL etc), I was thinking more England wide. To be honest looking at the cases in Scotland (where mask compliance from Sep-Dec was high) with England (where it wasn't genrally required and few wore them outside of public transport) I can't tell if the rules made any difference at a population level .
- basisword 5y ago
  Scottish adherence to mask rules was astonishingly good from what I saw during a visit. NI on the other hand was much worse than London the few times I was there.

bertil 5y ago

The offense is for hurting a cyclist, who presumably will have characteristic wounds and the driver’s details. That sounds enforceable. In practice, most cyclists will tell you that cars never stay put after running them over, and that video evidence, even of clearly intentional harm, doesn‘t lead anywhere: the Crown prosecutor ignores those unless the press covers it in detail. Having a fine that police officers will deem excessive is a sureway to have them ignore more complaints.

chriswarbo 5y ago

> Unless a policeman is staring at you intently through you car window in the exact moment that you open your door, how can they know what hand are you using to do it? That's silly hyperbole. More likely, the main "enforcement" would be losing points when taking a driving test. That encourages driving instructors to teach it; and that causes drivers to learn it. In the case of a collision (e.g. knocking down a passing cyclist), if the driver was seen (by CCTV/dashcam/witnesses) to not use this procedure, then that could be taken into account regarding liability, insurance claims, etc.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

curtisblaine 5y ago

I asked the question in good faith; I wasn't implying anything and I was sincerely perplexed. Plus, it sparked a lot of good responses of which I'm thankful for. I've been multiply downvoted, though; now I'm curious of how that comment could have been interpreted as "wrong" or "provocative". Not whining or anything: just sincerely (again) curious.