What do you guys make of traffic laws?

[pcosmar]

If we buy that argument then should government own and operate the railroads too?

No, the government's role should not be to "facilitate trade and movements of goods and services". That's so ambiguous.

Private rails are fine.. As long as the land is purchased fairly. That was not always the case though. The railroads were notorious for strong arm tactics,, up to and including murder. They stole land they built on.

And yes,, The original intent of the Commerce Clause was free trade and free movement of goods and services.. To prevent states from putting barriers to, or restricting trade.

Tell me.. when did the government take "ownership" of the roads?

Was the Oregon Trail created by the government? or any other trade route?

In my home town there is a *Portage Street,, that was originally the portage,, the land trail where canoes were carried from Lake Superior to the St. Marys River,, around the rapids that separated them.
The government did not build that. People dd. It was the common trade route and and a trading post developed along with it.

That is how roads came to be.

*
http://www.saultstemarie.com/our-local-history-9/

 

[Christian Liberty]

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.

The thing is the city's level of congestion differs depending on situation. In NYC the speed limit is like 30 most of the time. While during the daytime you can't really go faster than that, you could do so safely at 3AM. That this is not "allowed" is not acceptable just because its "law." Harassing those who present no danger to anyone is still wrong.

I get that its kind of a different circumstance in places where kids are likely to be playing on the road, however. You don't want cars driving at highway speeds in places where kids playing on the road is socially accepted. It has to be one or the other for a given location.

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.

Same thing could be said for a lot of things. So what? That you say you don't care if they aren't hurting anyone is in and of itself an anti-liberty viewpoint.

I don't think anyone is saying to just leave reckless drivers alone, but sometimes a "Drunk" driver drives more safely than a sober driver.

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.

I don't think when people are saying "Get rid of traffic laws" they mean letting people run into someone else's car, which would be an act of aggression.

Traffic laws are about making money. The state does not care about public safety... that's just an excuse. My personal opinion as a former cop is that if you hurt someone, you will be held criminally and/or civilly liable for such damages. Other than that, I don't believe in pre-crime.

I agree.

 

[FSU63]

Roundabouts get aggravating once you have two lanes, IMO.

With that being said, as I said, I support private roads. I oppose theft. I support private property rights. That's what I'll insist on. Everything else is up to the market.

Yes, they are initially annoying. Until people unfamiliar with roundabouts learn how to use them. Took a good month or two in my city before people realized that the left lane in the new roundabout did not allow them to merge into the first exit.

For bigger cities, obviously you need more lanes, but for small and medium-sized cities, single lane roundabouts work great. Mostly because people don't know how to use double-lane ones.

 

[juleswin]

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?

How is anybody taking this post seriously? This is a dictionary description of a troll post. He takes one idea of libertarianism and takes it to the lunatic extremes while ignoring others and pretends he is asking an honest question. So no troll, drunk drivers are not the best drivers, speeders per say does always make for safer roads and there is nothing wrong with the owner of a business setting rules for use.

The objections is usually with the speed limit and rules set by the controllers which sometimes make driving even more dangerous when followed while collecting millions in fines. Research have shown that in some instances, people going above the speed limit actually make the roads safer than those following the speed limit.

I can't believe how many people took your post seriously without pointing out the absurd nature of it. I bet you must be having a big laugh telling the story to your statist friends of how libertarians are truly against rules.





The 2 clips above just shows how things can be improved with relaxed traffic laws.

 

[pcosmar]

For bigger cities, obviously you need more lanes, but for small and medium-sized cities, single lane roundabouts work great. Mostly because people don't know how to use double-lane ones.

The lawless wild west. LOL.

 

[specsaregood]

I'm also a big fan of roundabouts.

worth noting: roundabout laws very by country (maybe even state). I used to live in one where the people coming INTO the roundabout had right of way. Glad some local pointed that out to me; but it was constantly causing issues with tourists vs locals.

 

[FSU63]

worth noting: roundabout laws very by country (maybe even state). I used to live in one where the people coming INTO the roundabout had right of way. Glad some local pointed that out to me; but it was constantly causing issues with tourists vs locals.

What? That completely gets rid of like every benefit that a roundabout has. Probably causes a lot more accidents and traffic probably flows much worse. I could be wrong, though.

 

[LibForestPaul]

Americans can't handle roundabouts.

 

[FSU63]

Americans can't handle roundabouts.

Us Americans can't handle anything that we are unfamiliar with.

 

[TaftFan]

They put a roundabout in a neighboring city. It made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Previously there hadn't been a traffic light.

I do think in most cases they would be an upgrade though.

 

[mtr1979]

You guys lost me on this one. Drunk drivers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I don't care if it is a "pre-crime."
Here are some statistics on the percentages of alcohol related motor vehicle fatalities:
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

Another thing I didn't like this argument the first time I saw it when it was on Lewrockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/01/eric-peters/the-tyranny-of-pre-crime/

 

[Sam I am]

No one actually follows the traffic laws anyway.

How many people do you know habitually run red lights, run stop signs, drive in the left lane, and turn left into oncoming traffic,

 

[otherone]

Us Americans can't handle anything that we are unfamiliar with.

lol.
Like pronouns and prepositions.

 

[FSU63]

You guys lost me on this one. Drunk drivers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I don't care if it is a "pre-crime."
Here are some statistics on the percentages of alcohol related motor vehicle fatalities:
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

31%

Meaning 69% of motor vehicle fatalities are committed by sober drivers. Got it. Why should that convince me to change my stance on drunk drivers? If anything, it only strengthens my belief.

 

[pcosmar]

You guys lost me on this one. Drunk drivers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I don't care if it is a "pre-crime."
Here are some statistics on the percentages of alcohol related motor vehicle fatalities:
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

]

In 2011, 9,878 people were killed in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes. These alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 31 percent of the total motor vehicle traffic fatalities in the United States.

Alcohol related.. which means that someone in the back seat had a drink,, or a sober driver hit some drunk on the sidewalk.

Bullshit statistics.
http://www.duiblog.com/2004/10/23/a-closer-look-at-dui-fatality-statistics/
http://www.duiblog.com/2008/06/23/madd-statistics-again-debunked/

No where near 31%, (40% is often claimed)
Actually,, it is around 12%,, or less.

which gives you over 80% caused by sober drivers.

 

[pcosmar]

31%

Meaning 69% of motor vehicle fatalities are committed by sober drivers. Got it. Why should that convince me to change my stance on drunk drivers? If anything, it only strengthens my belief.

Not even close to 31%..
And then there are the False arrests. This one got caught,,, many do not.

 

[Lindsey]

It may look less organized, but for the most part traffic kept flowing, everyone was able to get where they needed to go and there were no accidents. I don't see that as necessarily better or worse than the very expensive structure what we have in place.

 

[mtr1979]

It seems like people in this discussion are trying to justify drinking and driving? I'm guessing those who are doing this have multiple DUI's and are trying to blame everyone but themselves for their actions.
I'm gonna bust out some fallacies here:
Appeal to emotion/for the children: Let's say your young child was walking on the sidewalk and was killed by a drunk driver? How would you feel about drunk driving after this situation?
My whole thing is this: if you drink and drive could you live with yourself if you killed someone? I couldn't, therefore I take a hardline stance on drinking and driving.
As far as the false arrests of drunk drivers. The video of the Utah State Trooper is the exception not the norm. This officer should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. She betrayed her duties. The department should get their f@$king $ss sued off because they knew this was happening.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

You guys lost me on this one. Drunk drivers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I don't care if it is a "pre-crime."
Here are some statistics on the percentages of alcohol related motor vehicle fatalities:
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

Another thing I didn't like this argument the first time I saw it when it was on Lewrockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/01/eric-peters/the-tyranny-of-pre-crime/

Millions of people drink and drive yearly. Many of those millions drink and drive weekly or even daily. We are speaking of tens of milllions of instances of drunk driving yearly. There are 10,000 fatalities. Within those ten thousand fatalities are wrecks caused by the sober person, unavoidable wrecks, acts of God, and more. I've known many who can't drive for shit whether they are drunk or sober -- In a wreck every year. If they had wrecked into someone who just so happened to have been drinking, the person drinking would be ruled at fault. Doesn't matter whether (and often times they can't prove if) alcohol played a factor. There is an entire industry that sprung up around DUI laws. Billion dollar, no doubt.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

It seems like people in this discussion are trying to justify drinking and driving? I'm guessing those who are doing this have multiple DUI's and are trying to blame everyone but themselves for their actions.
I'm gonna bust out some fallacies here:

Appeal to emotion/for the children: Let's say your young child was walking on the sidewalk and was killed by a drunk driver? How would you feel about drunk driving after this situation?

Did the alcohol cause the crash? Is it provable that alcohol caused the crash? If the kid ran into the road, would being sober have made any difference? How do you begin to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt? Or does assurance of crime, or that there was a crime, before guilt not matter in this case?

In any event, if the alcohol is proved beyond more than simply presence, and is proved to be a factor in why the child was hit, he should be charged with a crime. I would look at it much the way I look at it when anyone runs over a child. How would you feel about a sober driver killing a kid?

My whole thing is this: if you drink and drive could you live with yourself if you killed someone? I couldn't, therefore I take a hardline stance on drinking and driving.

Some people know they aren't going to kill someone save some extreme unlikelihood or act of God.