STOP SIGN CAMERAS !!!

Even if there's not a single car around and perfect visibility in all directions?

Also be watching for people realizing there is a camera and slamming on the brakes to avoid getting a ticket on the yellow lights!

When over wiintering in florida I sometimes wonder if it is safe to stop at a stop sign or when it come to that even a red light/

It should be noted that the abundance of stop signs is purely US phenomenon. They are very rare on European roads. Here's an interesting discussion on the topic:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=666551

With that in mind, it's hard to see them as anything but revenue generators, or the instrument of villages' governments pleasing their constituents who don't want fast driving on their street (in fact they would prefer no driving on their street at all, so stop sign is a compromise).

Yes. Stop means stop. It does not mean stop if you feel like it.

In my entire county there are 2 stop lights, one by Walmart and one by the courthouse. The stop sign placement seems to be random with 4way, 2way and none at all with just a few yield signs.
The joy is that if you buckle up and do not have an accident, you probably won't ever get a ticket for anything. Unless of course you have an out-of-state plate.

Got a ticket and the cop said ALL FOUR WHEELS did come to a complete stop??? DUH

For me, stop means stop when it makes sense.

Same as everything else, actually.

I realize that this is novel idea, maybe even extremist, for the people who work for the government.

Are you saying that you only follow the law when it makes sense to you?

What will your defense be when you are caught?

Maybe if they stopped sending illegal aliens to college for free there might be more money to run the state!

there will be cameras everywhere.

Absolutely. More generally, I do only what makes sense to me. My own conscience has priority.

Remarkably, you make assumption that following common sense automatically leads to crime. From the fact that my 50+ years of following my common sense did not get me "caught", maybe my common sense is not so criminal.

The folks at Nuremberg process made remarkable case of what happens when your morals are not included in your decision to follow every "law" thrown at you.

Here's a good reading for you and shrifty :

http://www.catholiccanonlaw.com/Blind%20Obedience.pdf
(this one is about religious obedience, but the essence is the same)

http://www.synapticsparks.info/law/blindob.html

No, jgermann did not "make [the] assumption that following common sense automatically leads to crime". He made the assumption that if you only obey laws at your discretion then it's reasonable to expect that you could be held to account for that behaviour someday, depending on which laws you choose to flout.

As for 50+ years without getting caught, you've probably benefited from a combination of pretty good judgement and pretty good luck.

> you could be held to account for that behavior someday, depending on which laws you choose to flout.

I choose to flout the laws that have zero effect on anything. Such as, as I said, if there's stop sign but not anyone around, I won't hesitate to disregard it. This is nothing unusual: with the existing laws, an average American commits 3 felonies per day (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870447150457443...), on average. So you, and everybody, "do violate the law when you feel like it" several times a day. Does it make sense to make some of these purely technical violations, like stop sign with noone around, terribly important, while completely ignoring the others?

The purpose of the law is not to dictate the behavior, but to determine the punishment for doing harm to others. If you are not harming anyone, there's no room for the law to be even considered. The determining factor is the harm, not the law.

This is closely related to the current trend of so called overcriminalization in America, where the state tries to regulate more and more aspects of life, and creates crime with no victim. It's serious problem and being actively discussed by Cato Institute and many others.

Marijuana people use this argument frequently.

This is really getting out of control. The incompetent governments of Maryland, and Baltimore in particular, are getting addicted to this cash cow faster than the junkies are to their drugs....

Well stated, but I do take issue with a couple of points.

The danger there is that what you are actually doing is disregarding the stop sign if there isn't anyone around that you know about. How many times do we hear of people getting clobbered at intersections and the person who did the clobbering says "I didn't see him" (the other vehicle, pedestrian, whatever). I'm not accusing you of being an inattentive driver, just an imperfect human being. And I'll admit that I'm a bit touchy about the stop sign issue in particular because I ride a motorcycle, and we're taught to ride like we are invisible because to a lot of the other people on the road we *are* invisible.

That's not what I took away from the article. The felonies in question were done unwittingly because of vague, overly-broad, or outdated laws. In some ways the article does fit with your notion of certain laws running counter to "common sense", but where your situation differs is in intent; you knowingly violate the law because you don't think it's important to obey that particular law at that particular moment.

I could interpret that statement two different ways:

1. "The purpose of 'the law' (i.e., 'laws' in general) should not be to dictate the behavior, but to determine the punishment for doing harm to others."

2. "The purpose of this particular law (the stop sign law) is not to dictate the behavior, but to determine the punishment for doing harm to others."

In either case it's wrong.

Part of the reason we have laws is so that people know how to behave in "civil society" and thereby prevent harm to others. Drunk driving laws are a perfect example of that: they're written so that we can get convicted even if we don't cause a wreck, and they are in place to discourage drunk driving, not just to set the punishment that will be assessed to those who actually cause harm to someone else.

Similarly, the stop sign law gives us an expectation of how other drivers will behave when they encounter a stop sign, i.e., "Stop.", not "Stop if you feel so inclined." (I have been to parts of the world where the latter interpretation is applied to *all* traffic signs and signals, and I'm sure glad I don't have to drive there!)

I do agree with you on this. The "Nanny State" is getting out of hand, probably even more so up here in Canada.

Absolutely - that's why full one half of the condition I mentioned in the reply that "ignited" this discussion was "...and perfect visibility in all directions".

Sure, that's an issue; but do you think that stop signs at every intersection seriously deter this possibility? The result of this research shows that it's exactly the opposite:

https://troymi.gov/TrafficEngineering/multiway.htm

"Stop signs do not significantly change safety of intersection. Stop signs are installed with the hope they will make the intersection and neighborhood safer. Cited by five references."

(plus 31 similar findings)

That's exactly the root of my point: for an act to become a crime, there has to be intent to do harm to someone, not just violate the law. If you look up the interpretations of mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea), you will notice that wherever it mentions malice, it interprets is as "being aware of the consequences" - and not one "being aware that it violates the written law".

Applying this to the example of drunk driving, I hope you don't drive when drunk not only, and not even primarily because you are afraid of the punishment, but first of all because you don't want to ruin your and someone's life and property. The law is only reactive. I do understand that this is becoming close to utopia, but the balance is probably somewhere in between, with the both extremes (blind obedience and blind disregard) being equally naive.

"everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes,"

...Speaking specifically of the "invisible motorcycle" problem, this is prominent example of so called "Illusion of attention", one of the fallacies analyzed in detail in the book "Invisible Gorilla" by Simons and Chabris - there are many references by googling "invisible gorilla" motorcycle. The problem is not that somebody does not stop, but that car driver does not see the motorcycle at all, because he is not expecting to see it. I'm not sure if stopping at the stop sign would have any impact on this proven phenomenon, not to mention that this is only one of the numerous scenarios.

@vrapp - when you say "I choose", you make yourself an authority figure - indeed, setting yourself as being above the law.

Now, I realize that none of us are going to able to do anything to dissuade you. However, we may be able to make the point to others that such thinking illustrates how society can fall apart. When laws mean only what someone wants them to mean, disorder will increase and anarchy will ultimately prevail.

I liked the "quote" that Box Car had at the bottom of his post (so I included it in the quote above). It is very true, I believe.

"Freedom is not the right to do what we want, but what we ought." - A. Lincoln

I leave you to consider something from your first link that started this when I choose to discussion"

We need double-yellow line cams too. Breaking the law is not a privilege, nor is it a right. How often do you see someone slowing to make a right turn, and a car goes onto the other side of the road so as not to have to slow down?

Amazing. The new little box speed cameras in Montgomery County must not be raising enough money.

Amazing. The new little box speed cameras in Montgomery County must not be raising enough money.

Yep- only in Atlanta. Small rectangular sign affixed just below a roundabout warning sign (at only one entrance) I'd bet my condo that this sign ain't official.

Geo/ATL

I admire your Don't-Tread-On-Me spirit, but keep in mind that what works where you live doesn't work everywhere. Cops in my town love to lurk and nail rolling stoppers who think it should be okay because no one else was around. They often find other issues to ticket and feed on attitude from the driver like a shark sensing blood in the water.

And they have a point because the drivers who are in a rush to decide nothing else is going on aren't always right about that. Sometimes the extra second or two makes the full situation more visible.

Stop sign violations are too easy to spot from a distance with binos ... not like going 65 in a 55 ... I full stop ALWAYS.

CC

Seems they are being installed everywhere in Montgomery County, MD. I guess stop sign cameras are the next idea to raise revenues

Anything to make a buck

Anything to make a buck

I have absolutely NO, NONE whatsoever sympathy for anyone getting fined for running red lights, not coming to a full stop as required by law be it a red light or a stop sign.

I find it amazing how many people seem to think that they can flout the laws because it inconveniences them!

Next they will install Green Light Cameras to catch drivers who do not move out fast enough. They can cite you for being Obstructionist or just plain Lazy.

You know, I would support that 100% for left-turn lights. One of the things that drives me crazy is when the left-turn arrow appears and the dolt at the front of the line just sits there (probably reading their phone). They don't give a damn because they know that THEY'LL get through before the left-turn phase ends, but it means that the unfortunate driver several cars back WON'T and will have to wait through another full cycle. That in turn makes him more likely to force his way through after the left-turn arrow goes away, and that makes the other drivers (whose turn it is to go) grumpy.

I take every law seriously when it involves some form of a "right of way". If I'm approaching a stop sign, I stop, ensure that the intersection is clear, and then I go. I have no problem taking the extra moment or two to fully stop to be 100% certain the intersection is clear. 99.99% isn't good enough for me.