Failure to move for sirens

[Tingle]

"Failure to move for emergency vehicles" was previously a fineable offence but now it is not. What was the reason behind this? Does it fall under any of the other offence categories that remain in place?

I've noticed an increasing tendency for cars not to move for sirens or to at least not properly move for sirens, in that although they might shift to the right of the road, they will maintain their speed. Hence, why I am curious.

[◄Chuck►]

The reason is that moving for siren (as in chases) is a matter of server rules. Cops are simply not there to enforce those. That's an admin's job.

[Tingle]

(2019-08-08 05:22)Chuck Wrote:  The reason is that moving for siren (as in chases) is a matter of server rules. Cops are simply not there to enforce those. That's an admin's job.

I thought this would be the answer.

But I don't think that is consistent with the 'causing an accident' fine remaining to exist. Surely that should be removed under this logic too?

Rule 1.2 clearly states "This includes negligent and reckless driving, provoking accidents, for example blocking the track, doing stunts or doughnuts on the road and so on."

Negligent and reckless driving is what results in accidents and that is a fineable offence yet it is a server rule too.

This is why I don't understand why failure to move for sirens was removed and causing an accident remains.

[Sadie]

(2019-08-08 08:10)Tingle Wrote:  

(2019-08-08 05:22)Chuck Wrote:  The reason is that moving for siren (as in chases) is a matter of server rules. Cops are simply not there to enforce those. That's an admin's job.

I thought this would be the answer.

But I don't think that is consistent with the 'causing an accident' fine remaining to exist. Surely that should be removed under this logic too?

Rule 1.2 clearly states "This includes negligent and reckless driving, provoking accidents, for example blocking the track, doing stunts or doughnuts on the road and so on."

Negligent and reckless driving is what results in accidents and that is a fineable offence yet it is a server rule too.

This is why I don't understand why failure to move for sirens was removed and causing an accident remains.

There is a difference between ramming and causing an accident.
Ramming is deliberately, accidents are accidental incidents.

[Tingle]

(2019-08-08 08:15)Sadie Wrote:  

(2019-08-08 08:10)Tingle Wrote:  

(2019-08-08 05:22)Chuck Wrote:  The reason is that moving for siren (as in chases) is a matter of server rules. Cops are simply not there to enforce those. That's an admin's job.

I thought this would be the answer.

But I don't think that is consistent with the 'causing an accident' fine remaining to exist. Surely that should be removed under this logic too?

Rule 1.2 clearly states "This includes negligent and reckless driving, provoking accidents, for example blocking the track, doing stunts or doughnuts on the road and so on."

Negligent and reckless driving is what results in accidents and that is a fineable offence yet it is a server rule too.

This is why I don't understand why failure to move for sirens was removed and causing an accident remains.

There is a difference between ramming and causing an accident.
Ramming is deliberately, accidents are accidental incidents.

I don't think you're understanding the point here. "This includes negligent and reckless driving" infers that although a crash may not be deliberate, if you cause one by accident due to negligent and reckless driving, you are in breach of the rules.

E.g. driving too fast before a junction and not being able to stop in time, meaning you hit another car. This would be negligent and reckless driving, cops would fine for it (because they have caused an accident) and I can imagine admins might have a word about it too if reported to them.

[◄Chuck►]

There are differences however. Ignoring a siren is always a serious rule violation and thus cannot be an element of the actual game-play. Similar to insulting. Insulting can never be part of the game-play.

However, the things are a little different when it comes to accidents / collisions. There are plenty of scenarios where someone can act within the rules and yet collides with someone. I agree, the transition is somewhat fluent but that's just the nature of things. Also, causing an accident does not necessarily mean to be physically involved. It is quite possible that someone causes an accident, e.g. by ignoring the right of way, and causes two other cars to collide.

[Tingle]

(2019-08-08 08:51)Chuck Wrote:  There are differences however. Ignoring a siren is always a serious rule violation and thus cannot be an element of the actual game-play. Similar to insulting. Insulting can never be part of the game-play.

However, the things are a little different when it comes to accidents / collisions. There are plenty of scenarios where someone can act within the rules and yet collides with someone. I agree, the transition is somewhat fluent but that's just the nature of things. Also, causing an accident does not necessarily mean to be physically involved. It is quite possible that someone causes an accident, e.g. by ignoring the right of way, and causes two other cars to collide.

I haven't seen too many cases of fining for causing an accident when the car itself wasn't directly in contact with another car, but I get the point.

However, what I also do not understand is why cops can fine users for driving the wrong side when in the rules it clearly states '1.3. Drive on the correct side of the road'.

I just think the removal of this (failure to move for emergency vehicles) as a fine and the reason given above is inconsistent with some of the fines that do still exist.

[[TC]►BP◄]

Quote:However, what I also do not understand is why cops can fine users for driving the wrong side when in the rules it clearly states '1.3. Drive on the correct side of the road'.

You should also read the writing underneath the heading.

Quote:1.3. Drive on the correct side of the road.
Driving on the wrong side is tolerated for short periods of time and as long nobody else gets disturbed or endangered. This includes the wrong usage of one-way roads. Crashes due to this will be treated as ramming.
Strictly forbidden on Autobahn-sections. (see Server Specific Rules)

Not all cases of wrong siding are against the server rules, yet it may still be against the laws in the fine list.

[Tingle]

Thank you for clarifying.

So from what I can take from this is;

1) The reason 'failure to move for sirens' was removed is because it is always enforced as a server rule.

2) Driving on the wrong side is not always a breach of a server rule and so it remains a finable offence.

3) The reason for 'causing an accident' remaining as a fine is because it is not always a breach of a server rule.

However, I find point 3) questionable given the rule seems to be quite all-encompassing; it covers the provoking of accidents, crashes caused by negligent and reckless driving as well as deliberate ramming.

(2019-08-08 08:51)Chuck Wrote:  Also, causing an accident does not necessarily mean to be physically involved. It is quite possible that someone causes an accident, e.g. by ignoring the right of way, and causes two other cars to collide.

Even this example here would surely fall under the provocation of an accident or at least reckless driving? The rule does not seem to explicitly mention physical involvement (perhaps this is where I am misunderstanding what has been said so far).

So despite this all-encompassing definition of the rule, it is still possible to cause an accident without being in breach of it?

[[TC]►BP◄]

The rules and fine-list definitely overlap in some areas. Due to the very nature of the server, I'd say it's quite difficult to succinctly separate what is expected of people within the context of road laws, and within the context of server rules (RE: crashes and whatnot).

If a player is driving like a lunatic and crashing into numerous cars within a short period of time, that means they're ruining the gameplay and are unmistakably breaching the server rules. If an admin does not intervene for whatever reason (e.g. hasn't witnessed anything), feel free to issue a fine for causing an accident.

The occasional genuine accident happens where the 'offender' isn't doing something inherently ridiculous, and admins won't really care too much about that (unless that person doesn't acknowledge their error by apologising). A fine for causing an accident would be fine.

I don't really think being involved in crashes is that comparable to ignoring sirens. Ignoring sirens is never OK and it's more of a job for admins, or a !report if the situation calls for it.

In short, IMO stuff which ruins gameplay = for admins, game-wise violations = for cops.

Hope this makes sense.

[[RDSR] Roba]

I don't quite catch why this had to be even questioned.

I agree that failure to moving for emergency vehicles could've been left a finable offense, but I understand the admin point of view here.

Regarding the causing an accident, this server is still somewhat RP spirited. Normal accidents like not seeing another car when driving through a roundabout, or just taking a corner/intersection with too much speed to be able to dodge some cars that do unpredictable choices, would fall under the finable offenses to provide work for the cops, while not being so seriously reckless and negligent driving that would seriously affect others gameplay.

If all cases of reckless and negligent were to be taken into account by admins, normal chases would then easily breach this rule and hence would not be allowed.

[AOR Nova]

Although I agree with OP on certain topics and that I feel the "Failure to move for Emergency vehicles" fine should remain,

I don't see how it is applicable when the cop is on the move. If the cop is in the chase and he comes across a car that is blocking him, I doubt any cop would abandon his chase just to deal with the rule breaker. Furthermore, if a cop in patrol witnesses the person blocking from behind, to chase the car he would basically cause two chases to be inadvertently sandwiched together. Which in itself is dangerous for the chase that the very suspect was blocking.

If the cop witnessed the incident in spectator cam, he's obliged not to chase him as he did not see the incident first-hand, and if he was informed in the cop chat it would take time to get around to chasing him and the effectiveness of the fine would be nothing than just a PITA.

Hence I think, although the fine is useful in some situations where cops are in the right place at the right time, and can enforce the rule through fearmongering, it should be left to the admins to deal with it as a generalised server rule. The question then should not be "why was this fine removed", but rather, "will the admins take a more rapid and strict view on chase blockers".

Their efficiency in server and out-of-server forum responses are critical in making this rule more well respected.

[Tingle]

(2019-08-09 18:45)Roba Wrote:  I don't quite catch why this had to be even questioned.

I agree that failure to moving for emergency vehicles could've been left a finable offense, but I understand the admin point of view here.

Regarding the causing an accident, this server is still somewhat RP spirited. Normal accidents like not seeing another car when driving through a roundabout, or just taking a corner/intersection with too much speed to be able to dodge some cars that do unpredictable choices, would fall under the finable offenses to provide work for the cops, while not being so seriously reckless and negligent driving that would seriously affect others gameplay.

If all cases of reckless and negligent were to be taken into account by admins, normal chases would then easily breach this rule and hence would not be allowed.

Not sure what your point is, can you summarise?

(2019-08-10 08:39)AOR Nova Wrote:  Their efficiency in server and out-of-server forum responses are critical in making this rule more well respected.

I agree!