What do you guys make of traffic laws?

[FSU63]

I think that they should be simply...suggestions.

What crime is committed by driving fast? You're not hurting anyone, you're not damaging anyone's property you're not committing theft, nor are you committing fraud or breaching a contract. Speeding (and drunk driving and traffic laws in general) are not legitimate crimes.

This "pre-crime" shit needs to stop. Until a speeding/drunk driver actually does hurt someone/hit something, what have they really done wrong? Many fast drivers are great drivers. Many drunk drivers are great drivers. Many sobers drivers are terrible drivers. If people were really concerned with safety, they'd want Asians, old people, teens, and women off the road.

But...but...but...they didn't do anything! Why should they not be allowed to drive?

Well, why shouldn't drunk people and fast drivers not be allowed to drive freely? Until they actually commit a crime, what harm is done?

I can't be sure, but if I recall correctly, there is a correlation between lower speed limits and more accidents. Think we need speed limits? Look at the Autobahn.

What do you guys think? Am I the only one that believes traffic laws are essentially pre-crimes?

 

[JK/SEA]

Well, if you think its about SAFETY then those that do are helping the State get bigger....follow the money.

 

[FSU63]

Well, if you think its about SAFETY then those that do are helping the State get bigger....follow the money.

Well, yeah, I know it's about money (or else they wouldn't make speed limits low of purpose), but most pro-traffic law advocates cite safety as the main reason to keep them.

I believe that, even if someone is driving erratically and dangerously, no crime has been committed until they damage property or hurt someone.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Well, yeah, I know it's about money (or else they wouldn't make speed limits low of purpose), but most pro-traffic law advocates cite safety as the main reason to keep them.

I believe that, even if someone is driving erratically and dangerously, no crime has been committed until they damage property or hurt someone.

I agree with you, however where can we point to in law to show our wise overlords this truth?

 

[FSU63]

I agree with you, however where can we point to in law to show our wise overlords this truth?

I'm not sure. Common Law has upheld speeding laws, as far as I'm aware.

Make some kind of amendment to redefine what constitutes a crime? Tackle two birds with one stone (drugs).

 

[LibForestPaul]

Their property, their rules.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

Assuming a public roads system, I wouldn't have a problem with a speed limit, assuming it makes the roads safer, but the opposite has actually been demonstrated. Speed limits are just a nice fundraiser for super troopers.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

 

[FSU63]

Yup. It's like that in many places in China as well.

 

[tod evans]

I think that they should be simply...suggestions.

What crime is committed by driving fast? You're not hurting anyone, you're not damaging anyone's property you're not committing theft, nor are you committing fraud or breaching a contract. Speeding (and drunk driving and traffic laws in general) are not legitimate crimes.

By this same token old folks in their Rambler could drive 2 or 3 abreast at 30mph down the freeway...I could freely use the inside lane to make cornering my '56 easier when the trailer's loaded.....For a left hand curve on the 2-lane.

What is currently in place is problematic and really needs to be fixed but I don't know that eliminating the "rules of the road" or subverting proper driving etiquette is the correct approach..

 

[FSU63]

By this same token old folks in their Rambler could drive 2 or 3 abreast at 30mph down the freeway...I could freely use the inside lane to make cornering my '56 easier when the trailer's loaded.....For a left hand curve on the 2-lane.

What is currently in place is problematic and really needs to be fixed but I don't know that eliminating the "rules of the road" or subverting proper driving etiquette is the correct approach..

Yes, you could do that stuff. But when accidents were caused due to your actions, you'd be liable. It would come out of your pocket.

That's why people would be smart to follow the traffic recommendations.

 

[tod evans]

Yes, you could do that stuff. But when accidents were caused due to your actions, you'd be liable. It would come out of your pocket.

That's why people would be smart to follow the traffic recommendations.

So when you crested the hill and ran up the old folks tailpipe killing them and maiming yourself how would you as an unemployed student be held liable?

I'm dead-set against DWI laws, I'm also against traffic enforcement for profit so I'm curious as to exactly how you propose to set up this free for all on the highways and byways?

"Liable" is subjective to the point that even in todays overly litigious society an irresponsible individual can kill or maim you and your family and pretty much walk away unscathed in a few years. Hell we all read of cops who do exactly that...

 

[EBounding]

I think that they should be simply...suggestions.

What crime is committed by driving fast? You're not hurting anyone, you're not damaging anyone's property you're not committing theft, nor are you committing fraud or breaching a contract. Speeding (and drunk driving and traffic laws in general) are not legitimate crimes.[/COLOR]

I generally agree, but you can't threaten people. If someone's waving a gun at your face they deserve to be punished, even if they don't pull the trigger. Likewise, you shouldn't drive 60MPH in a close residential area with kids around. Even if there are no cops, it's reasonable for a regular person to stop someone speeding like that. Now, if someone is just driving 100+ on the freeway they aren't really harming anyone. But if they're cutting people off and tailgating, then they're starting to be a threat.

So ideally the main rule of the road is that you shouldn't threaten others by driving recklessly.

 

[FSU63]

So when you crested the hill and ran up the old folks tailpipe killing them and maiming yourself how would you as an unemployed student be held liable?

Exactly how they are right now. Eliminating traffic laws would not eliminate property rights.

 

[tod evans]

Exactly how they are right now. Eliminating traffic laws would not eliminate property rights.

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....

 

[FSU63]

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....

When I say property rights, it's a broad spectrum. I consider personhood "property".

 

[libertarianMoney]

No one actually follows the traffic laws anyway.

Experiment: Set your car on cruise control at the speed limit. Does anyone actually not pass you?
(Fun fact: That's actually bull because if people out of your line of sight are going the speed limit then you'd never end up seeing them because you're going the same speed meaning they're always out of your line of sight. I still stand behind the statement that virtually no one follows all the laws though.)

I don't think it's fair to call them precrimes. If it's fair to call them precrimes then it's just as fair to call them completely arbitrary crimes.
Farthest I'd go is "profitable enterprise for police."

 

[specsaregood]

No one actually follows the traffic laws anyway.

Meh, I do. Maybe not 100% of the time; but in general I do. But hell, I'm inclined to take a slower meandering route rather than turn right across a couple lanes of busy traffic for the shortest route.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[mrsat_98]

Their property, their rules.

The roads are ruled the same as a military reservation in which you are an enemy on them. Keep yo head down fool.