Should police officers in the U.S.A. be required to signal at all times?

The signal is a very important feature often underappreciated, under-rated and overlooked. In some cases it is obvious that one is turning right or left, when you are in the appropriate lane for it and stopped at an intersection. However, oftentimes one is switching lanes, and this can be dangerous in a multiple lane highway when those from the right and those from the left can choose to switch lanes simultaneously. The signal gives you a heads up that one is switching lanes and alerts other drivers as to your intentions.

I think many accidents would be avoided if people started using their signal a little more frequently.

Everyone.

I often see police cars making moves that would be illegal for any other driver. If they’re responding to a call, I’m fine with that, but otherwise, they should follow the traffic laws just like the rest of us.

I’m with @augustlan, if they are on a call, I don’t mind. When they are not on a call and driving like assholes, then they should at least signal. I think they should actually obey the law when they aren’t on a call since they are supposed to uphold it, and you aren’t really upholding it when you are breaking it constantly, but that would be an unwinnable battle. I wouldn’t want those who uphold the law to lead by example at all.

They should, but if they don’t, who’s going to ticket them?

They should especially if they are moving quickly for an emergency.

Should they talk on the phone while driving? Should they plant drugs on people?

If they’re going to an emergency, they should have their lights and sirens going.

If not, then they should follow the same rules as everyone else.

They should follow traffic laws. If not, and they aren’t on call, I contact the police chief.
I live across from the cop shop…I see things like officers not stopping at stop signs all the time ;)

@SpatzieLover I grew up in South East San Diego, the police their don’t seem to be in no rush when they are “weaving” through traffic, and plus if it were an emergency as @augustlan and @amujinx suggest, the only real way for us citizens to know is for them to have their sirens on, even if it’s just the light mode you know? That should tell who ever they are behind to pull over.

Now I live down a town by a self governing city in San Diego called National City (known as Nasty City). Ironically the cops here are nice and well mannered especially with traffic. Power trips man, some cops simply have this sense that they are out to intimidate. Don’t these fools (not all cops!) know that even the poor mans taxes pay for their wages? I wish I could debate the whole division. Am I allowed to call the department and speak with the chief in a complaining manner? What happens after a call from a citizen like that? Does the officer accused get a warning?

In theory, I could not agree with you more. But, there are exceptions to every situation.

I have had police calls on a burlary in-progress. This means I want to arrive at the scene as quickly and safely as possible, in order to protect the citizens, plus to catch the thief. Police cars are constantly observed by GPS. Meaning, someone is calculating our time to arrive at the scene and safely. GPS has changed a lot of ways police officers drive. In the back of their brain is time is not of their side with GPS. Yes, sometimes they may forget to give a lane change or exit signal. I have and it was not intentional, it was the elements in answering the call he is on.

We all have specific traffic orders which state we are to obey all the traffic laws. Its not that we have the “big head”, its just that inside a police car is like a rolling office. So many things have to be attended to all at once and sometimes a turn signal is just forgotten.

@john65pennington I can understand and respect that. However, why not just put the sirens on in that instance?

If there are no lights or sirens going, police should have to follow all traffic laws. I could not get away with breaking the law just because I had a lot on my mind, so neither should an officer get away with it.

I also think that if you can catch a police officer breaking the law on camera, you should be able to use that recording as a defense in court against a similar charge. Catch an officer speeding? You’re off the hook for your next speeding ticket. Catch him running a stop sign or failing to yield the right of way? That’s a moving violation you don’t have to worry about.

Would this be bedlam? Sure, at first. That’s the point. If everyone acted the way police officers do, traffic would look a lot differently. A policy like the above would perhaps finally bring some amount of accountability for police officers with regard to traffic laws. They certainly aren’t held to any standard now (at least not in practice).

@SavoirFaire As a matter of fact I will go video tape recording. I’ll capture my speedometer at 65 (I’m in California) and then I’ll take video of an officer going past me. I’ll have this video in my back pocket as going with the flow of traffic defense next time I’m pulled over for going 75 along side everyone else with the commute from Irvine to San Diego. Thanks for enlightening my mind :D

@auhsojsa My understanding is that “I was going with the flow of traffic” is not a defense anywhere, despite the fact that it is often taught in defensive driving courses (like the one the state required me to take in order to get my license in the first place). It’s a nice little scam: have a state-certified driving instructor teach you to go with the flow of traffic, have a police officer pull you over for going the same speed as everyone else, then have a judge tell you that what the state’s representative told you to do is against the law (and that you’ve just accidentally admitted guilt in front of a judge).

And that’s another reason I support changing the law so that catching a police officer breaking a traffic law get you off the hook for your next violation: it helps the balance of power return a little bit towards something more reasonable. In my state, a police officer saying you were speeding is sufficient evidence to prove that you were speeding. No radar gun, no pacing—just the officer’s word. This is an insane state of affairs. Perhaps officers would remember they weren’t above the law if it was allowed to bite them back.