What do you guys make of traffic laws?

[FSU63]

Yeah, exactly. Paying for 1/300,000th of something doesn't provide rule-setting privileges. Collective roads have rules set by the collective's representatives.

When those roads are your only real means of transportation, don't you think it is wrong for the majority to enforce their unjust rules on you?

 

[Neil Desmond]

Let's suppose that there's a road where the speed limit is 30 mph, and I turn onto that road from the one that comes out of the neighborhood where I live in order to access the roadways in general. Suppose we say "let's get rid of speed limits" and you decide that from now on you're going to drive 75 mph down this road that used to have a 30 mph speed limit.

Suppose that one day I turn on to that road just when you're about to come barrelling down that road at 75 mph, and you slam right into me and kill me. Was it your fault that you slammed into me and killed me? Nope, because there is no speed limit. I should know better than to try to turn onto a road where there's no speed limit. I should've just stayed home if I wanted to live. So yeah sure, why not just make it a suggestion and not a traffic law? You tell me.

 

[FSU63]

Let's suppose that there's a road where the speed limit is 30 mph, and I turn onto that road from the one that comes out of the neighborhood where I live in order to access the roadways in general. Suppose we say "let's get rid of speed limits" and you decide that from now on you're going to drive 75 mph down this road that used to have a 30 mph speed limit.

Suppose that one day I turn on to that road just when you're about to come barrelling down that road at 75 mph, and you slam right into me and kill me. Was it your fault that you slammed into me and killed me? Nope, because there is no speed limit. I should know better than to try to turn onto a road where there's no speed limit. I should've just stayed home if I wanted to live. So yeah sure, why not just make it a suggestion and not a traffic law? You tell me.

It would be your fault for not making sure you had enough room and speed to pull out in front of him.

Are you implying that the exact same situation can't happen if there is speed limits? Are you implying that people actually follow traffic laws 100% of the time?

Listen, I don't care if you're driving 150 MPH down a road. Until you hit someone or something, you have done nothing wrong. What harm am I doing by going 100 on the highway? I go 100+ on the highway daily in traffic and have never been in any accidents. I've never been close to being in an accident.

 

[matt0611]

I'm fine with there being rules. I think many of them are arbitrary and stupid and that's basically because there's no competition in road transportation.

 

[Pericles]

Reckless drivers today are not sentenced under "property rights" statutes....

Those who kill or maim aren't either....

Sounds like maybe you need to give your theory more thought....

Might be a use of the jury system. If the conduct was so unsafe that a prosecutor thought that 12 impartial citizens would agree, then the potential of prosecution for unsafe driving would have the desired deterrence effect on the rational person. I'm not sure much if anything deters the irrational.

 

[TomKat]

Let's suppose that there's a road where the speed limit is 30 mph, and I turn onto that road from the one that comes out of the neighborhood where I live in order to access the roadways in general. Suppose we say "let's get rid of speed limits" and you decide that from now on you're going to drive 75 mph down this road that used to have a 30 mph speed limit.

Suppose that one day I turn on to that road just when you're about to come barrelling down that road at 75 mph, and you slam right into me and kill me. Was it your fault that you slammed into me and killed me? Nope, because there is no speed limit. I should know better than to try to turn onto a road where there's no speed limit. I should've just stayed home if I wanted to live. So yeah sure, why not just make it a suggestion and not a traffic law? You tell me.

I would assume that with no speed limits or traffic laws that the rest of the laws would still be there, so the person that hit you would be liable the same way that anyone who mishandles a dangerous device in their possesion, such as a gun that you mishandle and kill someone. The person would be charged with reckless endangerment (or improper use of a dangerous devise) and murder/manslaughter depending on the severety of the situation. I believe this is the way they would handle the same situation now if the guy ignored the speed limit except they would tack on a ticket and fine for speeding as well.

 

[alucard13mm]

No problem, if they didnt keep raising fines and doing unwarranted searches.

 

[phill4paul]

Doesn't matter. Within 30 years all vehicles will be automated driving conveyance receptacles sanctioned for use on their road systems. It's the bright new future. Think of the freedom we will then enjoy.

 

[pcosmar]

What do you guys make of traffic laws?

Revenue Generation.
Control.
Justification for Police existence.

All of which are unnecessary and should be done away with.

 

[Ender]

All law should be about victims. You hurt someone? You pay the penalty. Otherwise, leave people the hell alone.

Wasn't it Montana that did away with highway speed limits and the rate of accidents went down?

 

[TheNung]

The question shouldn't be "which traffic laws are good or bad?" It should be "why does the government own the roads?"

 

[matt0611]

The question shouldn't be "which traffic laws are good or bad?" It should be "why does the government own the roads?"

Exactly.

 

[pcosmar]

The question shouldn't be "which traffic laws are good or bad?" It should be "why does the government own the roads?"

Actually,, no.
The question is,, " why do police exist at all?"
As far as the roads,, they existed before government. The role of government is facilitating free movement of goods and services, (trade) and the freedom of travel.. Maintaining roads should be local responsibility.

Roads started as foot paths,, and later horse paths or Cart paths,, and later the car.. NO one owned the roads,, they were used by all.

 

[FSU63]

The question shouldn't be "which traffic laws are good or bad?" It should be "why does the government own the roads?"

I'm not sure how privatized roads would work. What would stop someone from buying 4 roads surrounding a neighborhood and trapping them inside? Didn't Carnegie once close down a huge railroad that a lot of people depended on because of a personal dispute? I think it was some railroad that went through NY, but I can't remember.

I just have yet to see a convincing argument for privatized roads that cover ALL possibilities. Like how competition would arise (you can't build over someone else's road). Also, every single road would probably have different rules, so every time you made a turn, you'd have to pull over and find out about the rules. Also, I'll say it again, but where would the competition come from? Without eminent domain, there would often only be a single possible road to travel to a certain place.

I think that we should keep roads public, but get rid of traffic laws and start replacing inefficient and costly traffic lights with roundabouts. Would save A LOT of money in the long-run. Also, while I HATE government spending in general, I think it would be a good idea to fortify existing highways to ensure that they don't need work done every year or two.

 

[RickyJ]

I see no problem with a high speed on an open highway with little to no traffic, but in the city and congested areas, especially neighborhoods with kids playing there should be a speed limit. I do have a problem with drunk drivers though. I don't care if they aren't hurting anyone, driving drunk increases their chances of hurting someone dramatically, and for that reason alone they should be off the road. I don't want to wait until someone gets killed from a drunk driver before they are taken to jail. That someone could be my wife, kids, mother, brother or sister.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Over-regulation created a 10 day traffic jam in China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_National_Highway_110_traffic_jam

My best advice, remove all cameras at red lights that issue tickets and turn all stop signs to yield signs.

 

[RickyJ]

Let's suppose that there's a road where the speed limit is 30 mph, and I turn onto that road from the one that comes out of the neighborhood where I live in order to access the roadways in general. Suppose we say "let's get rid of speed limits" and you decide that from now on you're going to drive 75 mph down this road that used to have a 30 mph speed limit.

Suppose that one day I turn on to that road just when you're about to come barrelling down that road at 75 mph, and you slam right into me and kill me. Was it your fault that you slammed into me and killed me? Nope, because there is no speed limit. I should know better than to try to turn onto a road where there's no speed limit. I should've just stayed home if I wanted to live. So yeah sure, why not just make it a suggestion and not a traffic law? You tell me.

That advice will actually work in most cases for just about anything. Nothing we do in life is without a risk. Although I do agree with you that we should have reasonable speed limits in residential areas and cities.

 

[RickyJ]

Over-regulation created a 10 day traffic jam in China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_National_Highway_110_traffic_jam

My best advice, remove all cameras at red lights that issue tickets and turn all stop signs to yield signs.

How did they all survive on the road for 10 days with no food or water? That is crazy!

 

[pcosmar]

I see no problem with a high speed on an open highway with little to no traffic, but in the city and congested areas, especially neighborhoods with kids playing there should be a speed limit. I do have a problem with drunk drivers though. I don't care if they aren't hurting anyone, driving drunk increases their chances of hurting someone dramatically, and for that reason alone they should be off the road. I don't want to wait until someone gets killed from a drunk driver before they are taken to jail. That someone could be my wife, kids, mother, brother or sister.

You are concerned with a minor issue.. So minor as to be nearly irrelevant.
Drunk drivers are responsible for only a small fraction of traffic accidents and fatalities. Despite provably false statistics.

Every fatality is tragic,, but the vast majority are caused by sober drivers.

 

[Keith and stuff]

How did they all survive on the road for 10 days with no food or water? That is crazy!

Wikipedia claims a whole economy was created. Water was at 10 times normal prices. Noodle were 3 times.

Creation of mini-economy
Locals near the highway sold various goods like water, instant noodles, and cigarettes at inflated prices to the stranded drivers.[3][10] A bottle of water normally cost 1 yuan, but on the highway it was sold for 10 yuan. Drivers also complained that the price of instant noodles had more than tripled.[12] Some vendors created mobile stores on bicycles.[12]