6 ms·

What situation would warrant breaking traffic laws without using light and sirens? It seems almost a tautology that doing so is a danger to everyone else on the

What situation would warrant breaking traffic laws without using light and sirens? It seems almost a tautology that doing so is a danger to everyone else on the road...

vacri 13y ago
It's not remotely a tautology, because you're assuming that any breaking of a traffic rule is dangerous when that just isn't true. Ever seen a 'no u-turns' section in the dead of night with no cars in sight? There's plenty of times and places where traffic rules can be safely broken, and there are times when police have to respond in a timely but not urgent manner. For example, frequently with theft, they'll take a while to get to the location where it was reported - this is because the one place the criminal is not at is the site of the theft. So they drive around the location for a bit, sirens off so as not to alert the criminal, and see if they find anything suspicious. Then they can come in to do the report after the scout around. If you honestly cannot think of a situation where police need to respond without using sirens or breaking traffic rules, then I would suggest you're not close enough to understanding what the job entails to be passing comment on their procedures.
- quinnchr 13y ago
  Yes I have seen people make u-turns in the dead of night when "no one" was around, and they proceeded to hit me while I was riding my bike. No one has 100% perfect situational awareness which is why traffic laws exist in the first place. Are you arguing that breaking traffic laws does not increase the likelihood of an accident, because every statistic on the matter disagrees with you there. And I don't see why an officer has to break traffic laws when patrolling for a burglar. Seems like breaking traffic laws would alert the criminal as much as running sirens.
  - vacri 13y ago
    "every statistic"? The Earth is 12,700 km in diameter. I'm not sure how that statistic disagrees with me. What statistics did you mean? Quote some relevant statistics, because just making an empty appeal to some vague authority - that you assure me is on your side - is a terrible way to argue. Seems like breaking traffic laws would alert the criminal as much as running sirens. Can you hear someone doing a u-turn like you can with sirens? Can you tell that its the police doing so? The whole point of sirens is to attract attention. They are specifically designed to pull your attention.
    - quinnchr 13y ago
      The earth being 12,700km in diameter isn't a statistic, it's an observable, measurable, and testable fact. As for relevant statistics, since you mentioned u-turns: http://books.google.com/books?id=hct23LM0Y68C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=number+of+accidents+from+u+turns&source=bl&ots=m3JPTKFeT8&sig=BycwGDJgJBERQOSm_-AMvQhdlu0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AX_zUejCHYLW8gTYhICADQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=number%20of%20accidents%20from%20u%20turns&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=hct23LM0Y68C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA... There you have it u-turns cause accidents, which I would think is fairly obvious... Also, that's some amazingly judicious quoting you did there. You'll note I said "every statistic on the matter." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a native english speaker, so for future reference this is how antecedents work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_(grammar) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_(grammar) Also, believe or not, criminals (like most humans) are blessed with more senses than just hearing, it is quite possible to notice illegal traffic maneuvers with your eyes.
      - vacri 13y ago
        True, you did say "on the matter", and I did overreach, but my point is still strong: You provided none, and just made the assumption that they 'all', 'them' being an implied multitude, agree with you. As for your prime (and only) example of u-turn accidents, right there in the text it says that u-turn accidents are so rare, they had to add in left-turns in order for it to be analysable. In addition to that, you've provided a statistic on 'making u-turns', not 'breaking traffic laws', which was your original complaint. The segment you've bookmarked doesn't talk about how legal the turns taken were. it is quite possible to notice illegal traffic maneuvers with your eyes. Your argument counters itself. On the one hand you say you can't see illegal manoeuvres, so they're always downright dangerous if not deadly, and on the other hand you say that any such manoeuvre is visible and obvious.
        quinnchr 13y ago
        You're right I provided none, this stuff is covered in pretty much every drivers manual in every state in the United States, you are right I shouldn't have assumed you were a licensed driver. But that makes it pretty easy to disprove me, all you have to do is provide one statistic to the contrary. And no, just because something is rare doesn't mean it doesn't count, it still increases the risk of an accident. So If you'd like to provide a counterexample, you might have an actual argument. That's not the argument I made, that's a complete strawman. My point was that other drivers on the road are not necessarily going to notice someone breaking traffic laws. A criminal breaking the law and paying attention to any nearby police will.
- thwarted 13y ago
  These are terrible examples. The point of the sirens is to let other people know to be aware when the police find it necessary to break the rules. "timely but not urgent" doesn't make any sense if, because the police decide to drive on the wrong side of the road to avoid traffic so they can get there in a timely fashion, they get into a head-on collision because the other drivers were not expecting it. The sirens are on because the rules are being broken by police, the sirens are not orthogonal to breaking traffic laws. It's in the best interest of the police and for scoping out the area around where a theft has occurred to not draw attention to themselves, by both NOT turning on sirens on AND by not skirting traffic laws. If they are are intent on not alerting the criminal, then driving normally would help with that. And if they are driving normally, then there is no need for sirens then either.
  - vacri 13y ago
    Are you aware that there are often long stretches of road which, if you follow the traffic rules completely, take you quite a ways out of your way before you can double back? Similarly, using sirens late at night in urban areas for non-emergency events is not pleasant for residents.
    - quinnchr 13y ago
      Are you suggesting convenience is more important than the safety of everyone else on the road? Please don't forget the fact that you have the privilege of being encased in a few tons of steel with multiple safety systems. When doing your moral calculus and weighing how many lives are worth risking to save time, please remember there are other people on the road who don't have that privilege. Cyclists have to be constantly aware of cars breaking traffic laws if they want to stay alive, and they are not as visible as you would like to imagine. If there is a non-zero chance of causing an accident and harming someone by breaking traffic laws, and the only benefit is saving time or not annoying residents, how do you justify that?
      - vacri 13y ago
        If there is a non-zero chance of causing an accident and harming someone by breaking traffic laws, and the only benefit is saving time or not annoying residents, how do you justify that? I justify that because I am not an absolutist. If you're really going for the 'what price a life' argument, unless you're giving your entire income and free time (excluding enough to keep yourself alive) to a relevant charity (say, clearing minefields), you also don't believe in 'any-percentage-over-zero-is-too-high'.

What situation would warrant breaking traffic laws without using light and sirens? It seems almost a tautology that doing so is a danger to everyone else on the road...

vacri 13y ago

It's not remotely a tautology, because you're assuming that any breaking of a traffic rule is dangerous when that just isn't true. Ever seen a 'no u-turns' section in the dead of night with no cars in sight? There's plenty of times and places where traffic rules can be safely broken, and there are times when police have to respond in a timely but not urgent manner. For example, frequently with theft, they'll take a while to get to the location where it was reported - this is because the one place the criminal is not at is the site of the theft. So they drive around the location for a bit, sirens off so as not to alert the criminal, and see if they find anything suspicious. Then they can come in to do the report after the scout around. If you honestly cannot think of a situation where police need to respond without using sirens or breaking traffic rules, then I would suggest you're not close enough to understanding what the job entails to be passing comment on their procedures.

quinnchr 13y ago
Yes I have seen people make u-turns in the dead of night when "no one" was around, and they proceeded to hit me while I was riding my bike. No one has 100% perfect situational awareness which is why traffic laws exist in the first place. Are you arguing that breaking traffic laws does not increase the likelihood of an accident, because every statistic on the matter disagrees with you there. And I don't see why an officer has to break traffic laws when patrolling for a burglar. Seems like breaking traffic laws would alert the criminal as much as running sirens.
- vacri 13y ago
  "every statistic"? The Earth is 12,700 km in diameter. I'm not sure how that statistic disagrees with me. What statistics did you mean? Quote some relevant statistics, because just making an empty appeal to some vague authority - that you assure me is on your side - is a terrible way to argue. Seems like breaking traffic laws would alert the criminal as much as running sirens. Can you hear someone doing a u-turn like you can with sirens? Can you tell that its the police doing so? The whole point of sirens is to attract attention. They are specifically designed to pull your attention.
  - quinnchr 13y ago
    The earth being 12,700km in diameter isn't a statistic, it's an observable, measurable, and testable fact. As for relevant statistics, since you mentioned u-turns: http://books.google.com/books?id=hct23LM0Y68C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=number+of+accidents+from+u+turns&source=bl&ots=m3JPTKFeT8&sig=BycwGDJgJBERQOSm_-AMvQhdlu0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AX_zUejCHYLW8gTYhICADQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=number%20of%20accidents%20from%20u%20turns&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=hct23LM0Y68C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA... There you have it u-turns cause accidents, which I would think is fairly obvious... Also, that's some amazingly judicious quoting you did there. You'll note I said "every statistic on the matter." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a native english speaker, so for future reference this is how antecedents work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_(grammar) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_(grammar) Also, believe or not, criminals (like most humans) are blessed with more senses than just hearing, it is quite possible to notice illegal traffic maneuvers with your eyes.
    - vacri 13y ago
      True, you did say "on the matter", and I did overreach, but my point is still strong: You provided none, and just made the assumption that they 'all', 'them' being an implied multitude, agree with you. As for your prime (and only) example of u-turn accidents, right there in the text it says that u-turn accidents are so rare, they had to add in left-turns in order for it to be analysable. In addition to that, you've provided a statistic on 'making u-turns', not 'breaking traffic laws', which was your original complaint. The segment you've bookmarked doesn't talk about how legal the turns taken were. it is quite possible to notice illegal traffic maneuvers with your eyes. Your argument counters itself. On the one hand you say you can't see illegal manoeuvres, so they're always downright dangerous if not deadly, and on the other hand you say that any such manoeuvre is visible and obvious.
      - quinnchr 13y ago
        You're right I provided none, this stuff is covered in pretty much every drivers manual in every state in the United States, you are right I shouldn't have assumed you were a licensed driver. But that makes it pretty easy to disprove me, all you have to do is provide one statistic to the contrary. And no, just because something is rare doesn't mean it doesn't count, it still increases the risk of an accident. So If you'd like to provide a counterexample, you might have an actual argument. That's not the argument I made, that's a complete strawman. My point was that other drivers on the road are not necessarily going to notice someone breaking traffic laws. A criminal breaking the law and paying attention to any nearby police will.
thwarted 13y ago
These are terrible examples. The point of the sirens is to let other people know to be aware when the police find it necessary to break the rules. "timely but not urgent" doesn't make any sense if, because the police decide to drive on the wrong side of the road to avoid traffic so they can get there in a timely fashion, they get into a head-on collision because the other drivers were not expecting it. The sirens are on because the rules are being broken by police, the sirens are not orthogonal to breaking traffic laws. It's in the best interest of the police and for scoping out the area around where a theft has occurred to not draw attention to themselves, by both NOT turning on sirens on AND by not skirting traffic laws. If they are are intent on not alerting the criminal, then driving normally would help with that. And if they are driving normally, then there is no need for sirens then either.
- vacri 13y ago
  Are you aware that there are often long stretches of road which, if you follow the traffic rules completely, take you quite a ways out of your way before you can double back? Similarly, using sirens late at night in urban areas for non-emergency events is not pleasant for residents.
  - quinnchr 13y ago
    Are you suggesting convenience is more important than the safety of everyone else on the road? Please don't forget the fact that you have the privilege of being encased in a few tons of steel with multiple safety systems. When doing your moral calculus and weighing how many lives are worth risking to save time, please remember there are other people on the road who don't have that privilege. Cyclists have to be constantly aware of cars breaking traffic laws if they want to stay alive, and they are not as visible as you would like to imagine. If there is a non-zero chance of causing an accident and harming someone by breaking traffic laws, and the only benefit is saving time or not annoying residents, how do you justify that?
    - vacri 13y ago
      If there is a non-zero chance of causing an accident and harming someone by breaking traffic laws, and the only benefit is saving time or not annoying residents, how do you justify that? I justify that because I am not an absolutist. If you're really going for the 'what price a life' argument, unless you're giving your entire income and free time (excluding enough to keep yourself alive) to a relevant charity (say, clearing minefields), you also don't believe in 'any-percentage-over-zero-is-too-high'.