Posted on 08/30/2010 4:36:54 PM PDT by DariusBane
Just because it’s “the law” doesn’t mean it’s right — or even sensible — when it comes to traffic law, anyhow.
While we may have no choice but to obey — or risk a ticket — that doesn’t make bad traffic laws any more worthy of our respect than the Prohibition ban on alcohol.
Here are a few current laws that ought to be on the other end of a piece of payin’ paper for a change:
1) No Right On Red This is a form of idiot-proofing designed to protect over-cautious, under-skilled drivers with poor vision and a weak sense of spatial relationships — the kind who need both lanes to be totally clear for at least a football field’s length before they feel confident enough to make the turn. Since they can’t safely judge the speed and distance of oncoming traffic, we get to wait at the light like morons, too — even if there isn’t another car in sight.
Everyone else gets to stack up behind the piece of arteriosclerotic traffic plaque clogging up the road, awaiting the fleeting green light that’s also timed to coincide with pedestrian right-of-way on the opposing cross street – thus assuring only a handful of cars get through before it goes red again.
Instead of dumbing-down the roads to accommodate dumbed-down, least-common-denominator drivers, why not encourage (even demand) better driving? Those lacking the skills to perform basic maneuvers such as safely pulling into an intersection without the aid of a green light ought to be taking the bus.
2) Midnight Red It’s 2 o’clock in the morning and you come to a red light that stays red for an eternity. You sit and sit and sit — engine idling, gas and time wasting — even though there isn’t another car around for miles. Sometimes, the light even cycles without giving you the green. (A common problem for motorcycle riders.) Of course, if you become exasperated and run the light — even after stopping completely to make sure it’s safe and the way is absolutely clear — it’s almost guaranteed there will be a cop lurking nearby, burning the midnight oil just for you.
In Europe, where sensible traffic laws are more the rule than here, many signaled intersections switch over to flashing yellow — “proceed with caution” — after a certain hour, when traffic has died down to a trickle. It is assumed that drivers are competent enough to make a judgment call on their own — and it seems to work perfectly well. It’s a custom we should definitely import.
3) No Left At Light Cousin to the no-right-on-red rule, this is the one where you find yourself at an intersection wanting to make a left turn across an opposing lane of traffic onto a sidestreet. But instead of a “yield to oncoming traffic” green light – sensible policy – you’re stuck with a red light made just for you – on the assumption you’ve got inch-thick cataracts and the ability to judge the speed and distance of oncoming traffic of Mr. Magoo. You’re supposed to wait patiently for the green arrow — even when there’s no oncoming traffic at all and you could literally get out and push the car safely across the intersection. Like no right on red, it’s a well-intended law designed to protect the worst drivers out there from their own marginal skills and poor judgment — at the expense of everyone else.
4) Under-posted Speed Limits Speed limits are not supposed to be random numbers picked at whim by a government bureaucrat — or revenue-minded police chief. They’re supposed to be done according to traffic surveys that indicate an appropriate speed that balances safety with the goal of smoothly flowing traffic traveling at a reasonable pace for a given stretch of road. (The formal traffic safety engineering term for this is the “85th percentile speed.”) Yet most posted speed limits are set well below the 85th percentile speed — typically at least 5-10 mph below it.
This turns almost every driver on the road into a “speeder” — in the legalistic/technical sense of driving faster than the number on the sign. It usually has nothing to do with safe driving, however. Things are set up this way to give police an easy reason to pull over just about anyone at just about any time — and to generate lots of tax revenue by proxy.
We’ve all encountered what amount to obvious speed traps — the classic example being a broad, two-laned divided road posted at a ridiculous 30 or 35-mph instead of the 45-50 mph everyone’s driving. Since most of us routinely drive faster than posted maximums, we’re all either reckless fools — or the speed limits have been set absurdly low for the road. Common sense says it’s the latter; any law that is flouted by almost everyone is probably a bad law — like Prohibition.
Roads with under-posted speed limits are designed to be “revenue enhancers” for the local constabulary. But this sort of thing only creates antagonisms between the otherwise law-abiding public and the police — whose motto should be “To Serve and Protect,” not “To Harrass and Collect.” Genuinely dangerous drivers should be aggressively targeted; but using the law to extract the “motorists’ tax” from unwary drivers over trumped-up BS “speeding” charges is an altogether different matter.
5) Primary Enforcement Seat Belt Laws This is the name given to laws that give police the authority to pull a motorist over simply for not wearing a seat belt. The question, though, isn’t whether it’s prudent to buckle-up — of course it is. Rather, it’s whether failing to wear a seat belt ought to qualify as a “moving violation” — and give police pretext to pull over an otherwise law-abiding motorist.
Not wearing a seat belt may increase your risk of injury or death if there is an accident. But is that anyone’s business but yours? Not wearing a seat belt has about as much effect on others as failing to eat right or exercise. It increases your personal risk, perhaps — but it’s really no one’s business but your own. What’s next — random blood pressure and cholesterol checkpoints? Are they going to begin issuing cops calipers to measure our body fat ratio?
Turning on the flashing lights and pointing Glocks our way for this “violation” is completely over the top — and ought to stop.
6) Sobriety Checkpoints In the name of law and order, we’ve come to accept the idea of being randomly stopped, questioned and made to produce ID — rigmarole that would be familiar to a citizen of Berlin in 1940 or Moscow in 1970. “Your papers, please!” is not what America is supposed to be all about. The goal of getting drunks of the road is beside the point. Probable cause is — or ought to be — the point.
It’s wrong to subject people who have done absolutely nothing to suggest they’ve been drinking and driving to random stops and interrogations. It violates one of the most basic tenets of the Western European legal theory going back to Magna Carta. Until you, specifically, have given the authorities a specific reason to suspect that you have violated (or may be about to violate) a law, the authorities should have no authority to interfere with you in any way. That we have lost sight of this basic, once-cherished principle and are so willing to give it up in the name of “safety” or “getting drunks off the road” shows we’re very far down a Dark Road, indeed.
By all means, stop and check out any driver who appears to be weaving, driving erratically or otherwise giving good reason to suspect he may be liquored up. But leave the rest of us alone and free to go about our business until we’ve given good reason to warrant a closer look.
“Should be restricted”
That’s great, but once you give the State the power to restrict something that makes since, then you have given the State to restrict something that doesn’t make since as well. Is that worth it?
Perhaps the intersections could be re-shaped instead of “restrictions”.
I wouldn't, but I agree with you about overzealous right turners. I have talked with several people recently that didn't even realize that they HAD to come to a complete stop before going right on red.
Oh crap, what a noob Darius...
Since+sense... Sheesh!
So does that mean that you want to unleash the full cohersive power of the state on these mindless simpletons? Guns, courts, tasers, boots, handcuffs? Wouldn’t be simpler to keep your eyes open and avoid them?
Yes. If I am approaching a green light, I don't think I should have to worry about some schmuck who thinks his time is more important than mine.
(It's not like I didn't initially thing RTOR was a good idea. I just have seen that it doesn't work well. I certainly agree that the sorts of things that people mostly get tickets for are dumb, but that's mostly because it's easy for lazy police to give out speeding ticket on the Throggs Neck Bridge. I'd like to see them go after the guys whose wheels cross double yellow lines without yielding to on-coming traffic, but that's just me.)
ML/NJ
And it has been for at least the three decades...
I would rather you leave the State out of the problem. Why tolerate expensive foolishness of the streets crawling with useless cops for just a little bit of warm fuzzy feeling?
How is your attitude compatible with small government theory?
Everybody wants to pick apart the minutia of the laws without addressing the fundamental question of freedom and small government.
In Fl it is permissable to make a right on red after a complete stop and if there is no “right on red sign”. Sometimes those are in place due to low visibility or hills. I don’t like the folks who skip the right turn lane and bust through the corner gas station to avoid the light altogether.
That said, what pisses me off the most is sitting at a red light with no traffic for 5 minutes when there is no car in sight. With technology the way it is, these should be blinking intercections after midnight.
Red light cameras suck also. Bunch of nazis if you ask me.
We had this discussion in College - 1968 (CSU) “In class”
Do you stop for a 4 way stop when you can clearly see in ALL directions? Only two in a class of 60 - 80 students said that judgment was prudent and that stopping just because it was the law was not ALWAYS necessary.
The rest justified their reaction by one of the following (lame) reasons.
1. It was the law. Nothing further needed be said.
2. You might not see someone. We already said you could see in ALL directions clearly but their logic was that you might not have seen something that would be corrected by coming to a full stop.
3. There might be a cop parked nearby and you would get a ticket.
The thing is that the majority were sheep and felt that nobody should use logic and good judgment and should always follow the dictates of the law by the LETTER OF THE LAW.
Typical College Students? Yes. But unfortunately the general public is just as stupid and just little robotron students.
The love of money (power) is the root of all evil. Some men strive for good.
I inched my car forward, he did not make the move up, I inched up some more, still he did not move.
My light turned green, I moved on, got stopped by Police. He asked me is I knew what I did? NO, I really didn't.
He then told me my truck was nearly out in the oncoming traffic, (I knew it was out, but I also knew I would not be hit).
I told him the reason, I wanted to give them man behind me room to turn right. Officer said he appreciated my thoughtfulness, but I was not being careful of myself.
I did not get a ticket. ALSO
I WAS NOT WEARING A SEAT BELT. lol. No ticket on that either, and he had to have seen it was not hooked up. It was a good day.
: )
Yes people are pretty damn stupid.
They have two speeds, grazing and stampede.
Traffic control is a legitimate roll of government. All companies would need to find a way to make a profit. Cities can be stopped from using traffic laws for profit.
A city here in the LA area lost a class action law suit because of Under-posted Speed Limits. Yes in California.
Right turn on red is legal everywhere but NYC except where posted. All the places I have seen posted as no right turn have been on blind intersection where a drive can’t see the needed distance.
It is not.
'nuff said?
You were so eager to spout that, you didn't even read what I wrote.
“The love of money (power) is the root of all evil. Some men strive for good.”
Unfortunately these “good men” build infrastructures of power to do good. These men are not immortal and, they eventually die. The power structure they build is used by others for foolishness, or good, or evil, or even GREAT EVIL.
That’s the root theory of small government theory. That my friend is why you don’t build a government that has the power to right all wrongs.
“Traffic control is a legitimate roll of government.”
Maybe. I am sure you intend to empower your government to do good. Who knows in a hundred years how that power and infrastructure will be used.
Caution is advised.
I saw the “I wouldn’t” You do realize how many people disagree with you right?
I've been nailed by that one before.
LOL...I am not sure how to respond!
If you are referring to my griping about how they want to run their town (I would be the freedom loving conservative in this context) I have to pay taxes to fix and maintain their roads the way the funds are divided up, so it irritates me that they use my money but deny me the right to reasonable use of the road. No other town in the state has traffic speeds like that on similar roadways, with a police force that enforces them so punitively. But I stop at doing more than griping about it, because I am not a resident of the town. If it was that much of a deal, I would buy property there and change it from within.
So, in case that was the context, no...I am not interested in harnessing the full power of the state so I can drive at 35 mph instead of 20-25 mph for a distance of three or four miles.
As for my neighbors wanting to coerce me, well, it is within their right as a town to set their speed limit at 5 mph and ticket me for doing 6 mph. I can always choose to drive elsewhere.
But the analogy to the concerns our founding fathers and the states had with the colonies disintegrating under the insufficient Articles of Confederation into a bunch of factions that were warring with each other over tariffs, borders, resources and such, I feel the same way about things like this. If every community set up speed traps and abnormal speed limits, my 16 mile commute that already takes me an hour every day could well turn into two hours...a loss of freedom!
Some might not think 25 mph is abnormal on straight, level, wide and well maintained roadway through a sparsely populated town, I can only suggest they try it sometime...it IS maddening. It is almost impossible to go that slow...:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.