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.
Do you want me to come over and read it for you? Here it is:
OP: Sorry. I'd go back to no turn on red at all.
Me: I wouldn’t…
As in, "I wouldn't...go back to no turn on read." I'm going to make up a statistic....99.68% of drivers agree with me on that.
I see you fancy yourself as some sort of deep thinker. Here area couple of clues to put in your clue bag...
1. Read, Think, Post
2. There is a difference between limited government and no government.
You're welcome.
It is MY business when MY insurance rates go up because someone is TOO DAMNED DUMB to put on a seatbelt.
I am certainly not impugning the RIGHT of citizens to make any stupid law they want to make. I am trying (clumsily) to ask the question of the philosophy behind these rules.
“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.”
That is EXACTLY the question I am trying to ask. Many here on this forum could not wait for the new seat belt laws. I even read people saying, in regards to cell phone laws, that yes, they found that cell phones did indeed distract their own driving, so they could not wait for the new laws so they would stop driving and texting. Apparently because they were incapable of self regulation, they desired to bring the full force of government upon themselves, and me, in order to save themselves from their own stupidity. Or perhaps the sheeple just saw a report on 60 min on the subject and were convinced that it was "the right thing to do".
So I am trying, to challenge people who live in these towns to think twice, no three times before demanding new laws to impose on themselves and everybody else. It's pretty much a losing proposition because small government is out, big government is in. People love voting for new bond issues to add new cops. Then they have to find something for them to do after all.
geeze, I was agreeing with you. I didn’t even have to think very deeply for that.
That’s a great argument for rejecting the collectivist paradigm that we live in. You pay your bills. I will pay my bills, and leave the armed union thugs out of it.
Good questions, all. The answer, of course, is that it’s always the biggest morons in society who believe themselves the greatest geniuses - and who have the right, therefore, to control the rest of us.
I wouldn’t be so harsh. I obey the traffic laws as scrupulously as I can, particularly stop lights and stop signs.
As another poster accurately stated, that time you roll through the sign, there is going to be a cop there. I take this approach for two reasons: first, I don’t want to be held up while a ticket is written. Second, I don’t want to pay the outrageous ticket fees and the even more outrageous insurance surcharges.
The last time I got a ticket was in 1985, for speeding. (knocks on wood) I am not an angel. I routinely do 75-80 mph on the highway, but only if everyone else is going nearly that fast. I do occasionally go through a light at 0200, on a deserted road, but only when I am going home from work. I figure if I am polite, explain truthfully that I was working late at the hospital, most cops are likely to be reasonable. (I do think the concept of going to blinking yellow lights at those hours in certain places is just common sense)
Bottom line, I am not a sheep. I simply hate parting with money I don’t need to part with. I may be willing to stand on a barricade and taunt federal officials who want to arrest me because I didn’t pay my yearly Obamacare tribute, but doing that for 25 mph traffic or because I wanted to do a rolling stop...not so much.
What you saw was a demonstration of what psychologists call “rule-driven” behavior. It contrasts with “ego-driven” behavior. There are two kinds of people: the ones who will sit at that light until it changes, completely disregarding all common sense or heightened observation; and those who will exercise individual discretion, prudently pulling through the intersection in recognition of the fact that their lives will not be ruled by a brainless machine stuck on stupid.
Nice revision.
This is why I’m glad FR doesn’t have an edit feature.
ok great. I guess we could figure out a way to argue if you like.
I did not care for the driving in France or Italy, but the Germans were very good. Of course the occasional wrecks were rather spectacular.
When I came home to USA, I was actually appalled at the serious bad driving skills in America.
These days, I drive an average of 50 miles a week.
I like living near my work, and I am greatful for low fuel idiot lights. (Otherwise I'd run out of gas somewhere in walking distance of my house.)
I have not filled up for about a month now.
Not so fast FM!
You better check closely next time before you do.
Where I live, we have a small sign posted at an intersection the says plainly “No Right Turn On Red Light”.
Kalifornia makes up rules as it goes.
Auburn Ca....Intersection of Foresthill Ave and Lincoln Way.
I know what you mean. I have driven around 50k miles a year for many years. I also am appalled at the driving skills shown by my fellow road users. I think the problem is that rules have replaced skills. Make enough rules and you can survive while driving like a moron. Same theory as a room full of armed mean is a room full of polite men.
I am usually comfortable around OTR drivers and service trucks, and usually P/U’s with trailers. I am most wary of sports cars with young drivers, minivans with momma and the kids. Weekends are really the worse as the office workers find their car keys.
Shouldn’t be distracted with GPS. Take it out.
Shouldn’t be distracted with an annoying passenger like a whinny person saying “we are lost”, “you are driving to fast” (always cracks me as I watch cars go flying by), “Why don’t you just pass this idiot and why are you in the slow lane. Don’t you know how to drive? (Cracks me up again, from the same person who complained about driving to fast.)
“Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera”
Shouldn’t be distracted with kids in the car. Leave them home.
All wipers should be federal mandated to have laser on them so they wipe as needed and you don’t have to figure out what speed to put them on or where the “turn on switch thing is”.
No cute toys or ornaments any where near the front window, on the dashboard or hanging from a mirror. (Sorry bobble head Chihuahua)
No cute toys or ornaments any where near the back window, on the deck or stickers. (Again, sorry bobble head Chihuahua)
No stickers on the side windows (impairs your view)
No dry cleaning hanging from anywhere in the car. Makes noise and impairs your view.
No ashtray, no smoking, no eating and drinking anything in the car (you should have both hands on the wheel at all times, in the 10 and 2 O’clock positions.
No putting on lipstick or make up ever and no shaving.
No more vanity mirrors, you shouldn’t be looking at anything but the road.
No pets ever. Never know what they are going to do.
Exceptions:
Police -
3 to 5 radio channels transmitting information all the time, computer sending info all the time, GPS sending info all the time, they can talk on radio and switch to secure channels, Cell phone use is frequent.They do have drinks in car; have to look at license plates as they travel down the road, look for people in distress, look for crime, look for infractions, etc.
Truck Drivers -
CB is allowed, GPS is allowed, and Radio is allowed, pets in the front seat or back of cab, lunch, dinner and snacks. Cooler for their drinks and yes drinks, Cell phone, a bunch more dials of information to ensure the truck and trailer are running correctly.
Airline Pilots -
Just look at all that crap in the cockpit! How do they do it?
Well I for one hated both the seat belt and cell phone laws. If you have a wreck talking on the phone and the LEO figures out you're too simple minded to talk and drive, he should give you a ticket for distracted driving.
...they could not wait for the new laws so they would stop driving and texting.
I wouldn't even think about driving and texting, it's so stupid and impossible to do, they shouldn't have even had the need to pass a law against it. It's worse than DUI and they should be able to hit you with the same exact penalties as drunk driving, including loss of license.
Apparently because they were incapable of self regulation.
"Self regulation"? I'm worried about the other guy texting. What am I supposed to do, force the DWT moron off the road and wait until the cops arrive?
That is the reason the Founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. What was impossible to achieve was the ability to make law as to the intent of all the words. Over the course of two centuries, evil men have perversely interpreted those words to mean what would give them power and control.
Power and control equates to wealth, i.e. "the love of money".
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.
The Founders did not build such a government. Evil men have created it using interpretive powers out of whole cloth. The most egregious example being Row v. Wade.
Just my $.02 worth...
LOL.
I work in medicine, and wouldn’t drive without a seatbelt unless there were mitigating circumstances...as a new student, I worked with a pretty young girl with her face carved up with huge, puffy red gashes that had been stitched together with dozens of thick, black sutures. She told me she had only been doing 20 mph, and thought her stiff arms would keep her face off the wheel at that speed.
I wouldn’t get on a motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet, because I have done brain death studies on young guys who didn’t make it home on their Harley.
But, I abhor the state mandating these things. I do feel that if you don’t wear your seatbelt or a helmet and are injured in an accident (where it is documented) that your private car/medical insurance has to pay for, then I wouldn’t have a problem if they raised your rates by 50% or more. You can choose to wear the helmet, pay the penalty or find an insurer who will take your money and provide you with service.
But I don’t see how the state should be involved here.
As for cell phone yakkers on the road, I don’t think it should be outlawed. I just think they should have them shoved up their anal orifice. Cell phone yakkers really piss me off, but I don’t see how a law is going to help.
And don’t even get me started with road-texters.
Nah, just give the idiot plenty of room, and relax.
Yup
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.