Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Traffic Laws

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Note that not only righty-tighty, lefty-loosey (everywhere in the world) but the slope is even the same. Even without government regulation, you'll conveniently find "q" to the left of "w" and above "a". In addition, nothing stops New York City from adopting bizarre traffic laws. I don't think that is a valid argument at alll against privatization.

Oh I'm not arguing against privatization - I'm just thinking about possible negative situations. After all - q may be to the left of w, but if you use a Dvorak, its SIX to the left.

You're assuming that ownership of roads would change every 50 feet or so

Not would - could - but you're right about the jokers.

Ultimately you're right though - if my proposed model is the best, well - it will evolve out of the free market anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I know I am preaching to the choir on this one, but I want to get this out: Traffic laws are a travesty of the justice system, punishing people for violating nobody's rights. Everyone breaks traf

Common sense, as far as I'm concerned. Slow drivers are surprises, and surprises are my main concern on the road. Add to going against the natural flow of traffic speed: worrying about cops and speed

An interesting blog post about speed-limits, with a few links to follow. It claims that low speed limits caused a higher accident rate in one instance that was studied, and it questions the ability of police departments to argue down speed-limit recommendations made by traffic engineers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense, as far as I'm concerned. Slow drivers are surprises, and surprises are my main concern on the road. Add to going against the natural flow of traffic speed: worrying about cops and speed traps, which takes away from traffic awareness and thus driving safety in general. Like everyone, cops target stereotypes, and depending on your region, going the speed limit isn't enough. Cop avoidance in general may be necessary, which is just another attention diversion on the road.

Speed limits are de facto almost uniformly on highways, independent of the posted limits. Cities, I find myself going the speed limit almost always, sometimes slower. The de facto nature strongly suggests that they are not set correctly. Of course, I could argue against speed limits altogether, even in a private road system, in favor of penalties for being at fault in any type of crash. People would naturally be more careful about all aspects of driving, speed included. Following the speed limit would also no longer be an excuse for road apathy, if there was no limit set. "I'm going the speed limit, so I can txt, txt, txt."

Edited by JASKN
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I just got pulled over today for the first time for supposedly tailgating a school bus (I was like 20 feet away and going 25 mph on the highway but whatever) and on top of that, because I didn't pull over right away, he asked me if I'd "had something to drink." At 2:30 PM? Really? I just didn't want to pull over on a tight ramp on a hill, especially because it would be a danger getting out. I was also really scared because his car wasn't marked and I thought it was one of those scam police officers so I was debating on what to do. It's the end of the month, trying to fill their quota I guess. Just didn't know it involved on top of that trying to humiliate and verbally harrass people too.

How many people my age text constantly when they're driving? Like half probably, and I've never done that in my life, I go the speed limit, I'm a defensive driver, I stop at stop signs and I get fined and harrassed for one little nitpicky thing that's so paranoid it's neurotic. All the while, idiot walking death bombs are driving around with road rage, texting at 80 mph going unpunished. It's just thievery.

Edited by Dreamspirit
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the end of the month, trying to fill their quota I guess.

You say you got pulled over, but did you actually get a ticket?

Lots of places do not have quotas. What leads you to believe this jurisdiction has a quota? Also, there are people who've been drinking at 2:30 pm. Asking someone if they have been drinking is minimally invasive in terms of investigating the possibility. Why would you be offended by that? The officer does not know you personally.

You thought it might be a scam, but you elected to pull over anyway? What changed your mind?

What does texting drivers have to do with whether or not you were following bus too closely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually a really good topic, I'm glad you brought it back to life.

I was reading some articles about the causes and remedies of traffic congestion and crowd-panic (where there's a fire, let's say, in the back of a stadium, and people panic trying to get out of one little opening at the front). Interestingly enough, there's lot of evidence/studies to support the claim that going SLOWER in these situations actually gets everyone out faster. So in traffic jams, the thing to do is not panic and drive really fast when there's an opening (which causes more accidents), but drive slowly. And in crowded stadiums, when everyone panics & runs towards the exit, more people are injured and block the exit, and the pressure that's applied to everyone causes people to get out much slower. There's even more deaths when people panic (in both the stadium-fire and traffic-congestion scenario) than there are when people slow down. [sources]

The head researcher who created these computer simulations (which have been tested and are extremely similar to the way real people respond in these scenarios) believes that MORE traffic lights on freeways/highways will cause less casualties/injuries, and also decrease congestion. This has already (sort-of) been implemented in Chicago & LA - there's a stoplight right when you get on the freeway that runs on a timer. It lets cars go through one at a time during times of high traffic (in some other countries they have motion sensors under the freeways that send directions to these stoplights when it reaches a certain weight, instead of running on a timer. That seems to be a more efficient way). This researcher has argued that more lights need to be implemented all throughout the freeway instead of just at the entrance (because if there's only a light at the entrance, nothing prevents congestion on the other side of the road). This video shows how efficient this is in practice.

If more traffic lights would cause less accidents and reduce the congestion on freeways (like these studies support), I am all for it.

Edited by Michele Degges
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a better solution is to get people to be accountable for their driving. If people generally are aloof when driving, added stoplights are just going to create one more aloof acceleration change. I'd rather have aloof people driving around the same speed than having them absentmindedly go from 65mph to 0mph, especially in high-traffic scenarios.

Instead, privatize roads and create a real, constantly-updated, reality-reflecting driver skill rating system, and segregate the bad drivers from the good drivers on the road. Or just put women on a separate highway system! :D (Just kidding!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well some places have cameras near those freeway-entrance stop lights that take a picture of your license plate if you don't stop when it turns red. Then you'll get a ticket in the mail a few weeks later if they catch you. I think that makes you accountable (and if cameras/stop lights were placed all throughout freeways, then you would have to be super careful). I know it's more regulations, but it seems to makes sense.

I really don't know how traffic would work in a free society. Imo, the freeways that don't have those stoplights now are "free" (minus the speed limit that's usually pretty comfortable) and there is always a ton of congestion and accidents. That's why these studies were done, to try to find ways of dealing with these problems. I'm not sure what a realistic way would be of making drivers 'accountable' on privatized roads. (I guess that would be up to the owners).

...Please do not put me on a freeway with only women :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably in a free society intercontinental mass transit would rival the highways system (especially its current crappy state) because it wouldn't have been regulated out of existence, and we would wind up with less bad drivers -- people who hate to drive are bad drivers, and those people would take mass transit instead. But we could just go on speculating like this forever. In general with the highways we currently have, I just want more lanes, nicely paved, so that I have an easier time of staying away from aloof drivers. I can't wait until cars totally integrate hands-free internet so that people aren't trying to navigate their devices as they speed down the road at 85mph.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say you got pulled over, but did you actually get a ticket?

Lots of places do not have quotas. What leads you to believe this jurisdiction has a quota? Also, there are people who've been drinking at 2:30 pm. Asking someone if they have been drinking is minimally invasive in terms of investigating the possibility. Why would you be offended by that? The officer does not know you personally.

You thought it might be a scam, but you elected to pull over anyway? What changed your mind?

What does texting drivers have to do with whether or not you were following bus too closely?

What makes you think I don't already know that the vicinity that gave me the ticket has a monthly quota? I know because people who work in it told people I know.

It seems like it would be almost impossible for an underage person to have been drinking during the daylight hours. The under 21 people who do drink and drive almost always do it at night, like after a party. He knew very well that I wasn't, that's why he didn't give me a breath test. I didn't say it was invasive and wasn't in his right to do so, but he could obviously see that I was just a scared ditzy blonde. I think he was just trying to hammer it in that he didn't like that I didn't get over right away.

I changed my mind because I thought the chances of it being a real officer were greater, but I WAS suspicious because the car was almost totally unmarked except for the flashing light. I also didn't know that was considered tailgating so I didn't understand what I could possibly be pulled over for. It's been on the news lately, there were a lot of scam police officers pulling women over and sexually assaulting them and they still haven't been caught.

I was just making the point that texting while driving is much more dangerous than tailgating someone a little bit, and there's people like that walking around un-ticketed, just waiting to get in a deadly accident. If the school bus had slammed on their brakes in the middle of the road, I would not have even been close to tapping them, and I am a very safe driver compared to other people, so I think it's reflective of how pointless traffic tickets are in regards to encouraging safety. Many of the people who put themselves and other people in dangerous situations are stupid enough to do that stuff no matter what the risk is of getting fined. There are people doing much more dangerous things than what I did, like texting that police officers let off, so I don't see how it's fair to fine me for something like that. Many people in law enforcement really aren't that concerned with how safe people are on the road, they're concerned with generating revenue, traffic tickets are like major job security to them. It's basically just a tax on random people because nearly everyone tailgates and speeds sometimes. It only matters if the officer needs to write tickets for revenue and you're in the right place at the right time. My dad got stopped in Delaware one time for going 5 over the speed limit on the highway. He was stopped obviously because when you're traveling out of state, the person has to pay it right away.

Edited by Dreamspirit
Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think I don't already know that the vicinity that gave me the ticket has a monthly quota?

I simply asked a question because I didn't know the answer. So you are saying that there are cops in that jurisdiction that told you they have a quota? Interesting. That could be great for you in court. You didn't answer though, did you get a ticket?

It seems like it would be almost impossible for an underage person to have been drinking during the daylight hours.

So you must live in a dry area where parents don't keep alcohol in their homes. I didn't know that. Either that or the younger people there are not very resourceful. I live in an area that is not dry and it is possible for an under 21 folks to have been drinking and they sometimes have been. Rather than assuming someone is "ditzy", it's probably smart for the officer to ask them before proceeding further in a DUI investigation.

I was just making the point that texting while driving is much more dangerous than tailgating someone a little bit, and there's people like that walking around un-ticketed, just waiting to get in a deadly accident.

Officers typically enforce laws that they think are violated in front of them rather than waiting the next "worse" violation. DUI drivers and other traffic violators often ask why an officer isn't arresting drug dealers, murderers or rapists. Many people that get stopped think the officer could be using their time to be arresting someone else that is doing something that is "more dangerous" than what they themselves are doing.

Many people in law enforcement really aren't that concerned with how safe people are on the road, they're concerned with generating revenue, traffic tickets are like major job security to them.

I recognize that as your opinion, but I would ask for a more substantive argument that is the case. With 26 years in law enforcement, the vast majority of guys I worked with thought, whether misguided or otherwise, that the enforcement of traffic law is one way of trying to make things safer. Certainly some laws are more tax revenue generating than safety enhancing, but enforcing "tailgating" is not one of those laws. Rear ender accidents are among the most common types of accidents. And I've heard that some places, Delaware being one, are much stricter in their enforcement efforts. So, was you dad exceeding the speed limit by 5 mph?

Yes, law enforcement does require some amount of "being in the right place at the right time" since they can't generally enforce violations they do not witness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply asked a question because I didn't know the answer. So you are saying that there are cops in that jurisdiction that told you they have a quota? Interesting. That could be great for you in court. You didn't answer though, did you get a ticket?

So you must live in a dry area where parents don't keep alcohol in their homes. I didn't know that. Either that or the younger people there are not very resourceful. I live in an area that is not dry and it is possible for an under 21 folks to have been drinking and they sometimes have been. Rather than assuming someone is "ditzy", it's probably smart for the officer to ask them before proceeding further in a DUI investigation.

Officers typically enforce laws that they think are violated in front of them rather than waiting the next "worse" violation. DUI drivers and other traffic violators often ask why an officer isn't arresting drug dealers, murderers or rapists. Many people that get stopped think the officer could be using their time to be arresting someone else that is doing something that is "more dangerous" than what they themselves are doing.

I recognize that as your opinion, but I would ask for a more substantive argument that is the case. With 26 years in law enforcement, the vast majority of guys I worked with thought, whether misguided or otherwise, that the enforcement of traffic law is one way of trying to make things safer. Certainly some laws are more tax revenue generating than safety enhancing, but enforcing "tailgating" is not one of those laws. Rear ender accidents are among the most common types of accidents. And I've heard that some places, Delaware being one, are much stricter in their enforcement efforts. So, was you dad exceeding the speed limit by 5 mph?

Yes, law enforcement does require some amount of "being in the right place at the right time" since they can't generally enforce violations they do not witness.

No, you were not listening. The cop did not tell me he had a monthly quota lol. I told other people I know who happen to know about cops around here and they told me that they do have a monthly quota to fill. I asked them if the city was short on money right now because I saw many, many cop cars setting up traps those last days in November and the vicinity of the police car that stopped me doesn't usually make rounds in the area that I was in.

Yeah, that's the way bureacracy's are, there are so many stupid little rules in order to accomodate incompetence or convenience. Traffic laws don't make up for the fact that better drivers in better vehicles can afford to follow more closely or speed a little because they have better brakes and better control. So everyone has to follow the same laws that don't really rationally apply to them for the convenience of the bureacracy.

Everyone on this website is always defensive of something they're involved in. The one moderator was irrationaly defensive of psychiatric medication of children because he/she in fact believes he/she needs SSRI's to "eat and sleep." And not suprisingly, you are taking time out of your day to rationalize the enforcement of traffic laws, and most of the way they do it is obviously a bureacratic conspiracy and you know it. And when I talk about that, I am not talking about drunk driving, rape, or drug addiction. That is an entirely different thing than situations such as an experienced driver going fast on the highway in a good car.

So, you think a $200 ticket and $20 more in insurance each month is appropriate for a random very poor young person who went at most 5 over the speed limit? Do you think that's a rational punishment in terms of forcing a man to pay for what he did to society? Think about the chances of what he was doing causing an accident.

Edited by Dreamspirit
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you were not listening. The cop did not tell me he had a monthly quota lol. I told other people I know who happen to know about cops around here and they told me that they do have a monthly quota to fill.

So some people told you they have a quota and you believe them... got it.

Did you get a ticket from these quota-crazed cops that don't care about safety? This is the third time I've asked now.

And not suprisingly, you are taking time out of your day to rationalize the enforcement of traffic laws, and most of the way they do it is obviously a bureacratic conspiracy and you know it.

Initially, in the thread where you complained about being targeted for racism, I defended your position until someone suggested that you were the common denominator in many of your problems. I see that now.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...