Cops - can they do this?

[DSYoungEsq]

To anyone who seriously thinks that enforcement of speed laws is done only to enhance the coffers of cities, counties and states, I offer the following scenario:

No enforcement, or terribly lax enforcement, of speed laws.

Imagine if anyone drove at what speed they felt they ought?

Why is it no one feels that enforcement of, say, robbery statutes is a bad thing, but they can't stand to be ticketed for a speed violation? Sheesh.

[Erratum]

DSYoungEsq: "Why is it no one feels that enforcement of, say, robbery statutes is a bad thing, but they can't stand to be ticketed for a speed violation?"

Because there's a big difference there. Robbery is actual criminal wrongdoing against a real person. Speeding is a violation of a completely arbitrary (and usually unrealistic) statute which presupposes recklessness on my part, even if I am not endangering anyone. I am perfectly capable of driving safely on highways at 75 or 80 mph. How do I know? I do this all the time, and so do the vast majority of the motorists who pass me or keep the same pace. Yet this activity, which from all personal experience is perfectly safe and not endangering anyone, is illegal. The logic of traffic laws is flawed. There is a presumption that at 66 mph I am a danger to others. I am not. Others may be. Others may be a danger to others at 38 mph, but they are not subject to criminal liability. Similarly, in this thread there is a presumption that a person who rolls through a stop sign at 1 mph after assessing the traffic situation is inherently unsafe, and a threat to everyone on the planet. That is, to me, patently ridiculous. Our society has debased the "currency" of laws by passing these restrictions which bear little correlation to safety on the road. Did you guys have a crisis of faith when most highways went from 55 to 65? The roads didn't change, and neither did the drivers. Only the artificial limits changed.

"No enforcement, or terribly lax enforcement, of speed laws. Imagine if anyone drove at what speed they felt they ought?"

How about you imagine a world in which the traffic laws are sensibly structured, or a world in which actual malice or recklessness is required to hold someone criminally liable, rather than the artificial and arbitrary standards we have now.

[Max Torque]

Now, now, I'm not saying that anyone should be able to drive any speed they please. Technically, a speeding ticket is a variant of 'reckless driving'. Certainly laws governing reckless driving should be enforced.

However, speed limits are often artificially low, sometimes intentionally so. Everyone should not be required to adhere to a number when speeds above that number are perfectly safe. If someone's driving unreasonably fast, they should certainly be ticketed. And speed limits for areas such as school zones should be very strictly enforced.

Generally, though, people drive at reasonable speeds when left to their own discretion. Do you really think people will drive like stampeding cattle, risking life and property, if we take down those "Speed Limit 35" signs?

[DSYoungEsq]

First of all, speed limits are RARELY 'arbitrary' (meaning set without reason or rationale). Almost all jurisdictions have either statutes or regulations governing the setting of a speed limit. Jurisdictions impose them depending on the overall parameters of the conditions present, including safety factors that might not be present all the time.

One of the things to keep in mind is that a limit may be apparently unnecessarily low at one time of day, and not so at another time of day. Similarly, the time of year can affect the situation. With very few exceptions (schools and Texas highways come to mind), limits don't change with the time of day or time of year. So when you see open road, four lanes, and a 35 sign, don't just think it arbitrary you can't do 50; it may have to do with the fact the morning commute makes it much more crowded.

As for the idea of speed limits that vary according to what the conditions are, Montana had to renounce this concept just recently on its public highways. Courts dislike laws that can be applied in discretionary 'arbitrary' manner without a person having a reasonable chance of knowing how the rule will be applied in a given situation. Thus, the fact that one officer might think 60 is too fast and another that it is ok makes it hard to enforce 'reasonable and proper' limits.

As I advised in the case of the poster in another thread who complained that the limit for a certain road was too low, the solution is to find out why it is posted at that limit and then work to change it if you feel it is unreasonable. I'm willing to bet you'll run into considerable opposition in most instances from the local public...

[Erratum]

"One of the things to keep in mind is that a limit may be apparently unnecessarily low at one time of day, and not so at another time of day. Similarly, the time of year can affect the situation."

So, you admit that people are being fined even though the are not endangering public safety in any way? And you still think people like me are wrong to resent that!? Your rationalizations reveal the weakness of the "any violation of any traffic law, no matter the conditions, is inherently evil" position. If people want low speed limits for driving during torrential downpours at midnight, then that should be in the law. I should not be punished for driving at a reasonable speed in the conditions I actually encounter on the roadway. Why do you support a system which, by your own admission is not advancing public safety?

"I'm willing to bet you'll run into considerable opposition in most instances from the local public..."

If I could drive at a reasonable speed on the highways without fear of being hassled and fined by the police, I'd definitely put my time (which is otherwise wasted by driving too slowly) into working on a grass-roots campaign to fix the laws.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by MaxTorque:
Now, now, I'm not saying that anyone should be able to drive any speed they please. Technically, a speeding ticket is a variant of 'reckless driving'. Certainly laws governing reckless driving should be enforced.

However, speed limits are often artificially low, sometimes intentionally so. Everyone should not be required to adhere to a number when speeds above that number are perfectly safe. If someone's driving unreasonably fast, they should certainly be ticketed. And speed limits for areas such as school zones should be very strictly enforced.

Generally, though, people drive at reasonable speeds when left to their own discretion. Do you really think people will drive like stampeding cattle, risking life and property, if we take down those "Speed Limit 35" signs?

So how do we determine at what point the speed they're driving is too high? Certainly some people drive like stampeding cattle even with the signs. So we can safely assume that at least that many will do it without them. How are we to control those people?

It seems your argument is not, "There should be no speed limits," but rather, "The speed limits we have are too low."

Others (presumably the ones responsible for making the speed limit decisions) disagree.

So - is there an objective way to determine the proper speed limit for a given stretch of road?

- Rick

[DSYoungEsq]

You will notice that the last post totally ignores the constitutional difficulties I mentioned regarding a limit that is 'reasonable and proper' for the time and conditions.

Speed limits aren't intended to cover every situation precisely. A race car driver may be much better suited for driving safely on a stretch of road at 55 than a teen who has only driven for one month, yet the limit certainly doesn't take that into account. Nor can police officers be expected to police a stretch of road attempting to take into account all sorts of extraneous factors regarding the putative safety of the speed of the drivers (or other such regulations, like stopping completely, not passing through double-yellow lines, etc.). If the rule were that an officer could ticket anyone he feels is driving unsafely, with no limits set, you'd be screaming even LOUDER when the officer tickets you because he thinks 50 is too fast.

Face it; y'all want to go as fast as YOU think is safe at any given time; fortunately for the rest of us, those whose job is to keep us safe from you make sure you don't do it quite as often as you might otherwise!

[Cartooniverse]

Erratum Said : "I am perfectly capable of driving safely on highways at 75 or 80 mph. How do I know? I do this all the time, ".

This is only because you have never been in a position to NEED to stop, or swerve to avoid an accident. You can debate laws, but you cannot change the laws of physics. For every 10 Mph, you need one car length between you and the car in front of you-MINIMUM to safely stop in time. I speed too, and do so knowing that I am not in a position to avoid an accident. When I feel as though traffic is too heavy, or other factors come into play, I shift into the right lane, and slow down.
It doesn't matter how good your car is, how fine your reflexes are. At those speeds you mention, your response times are cut way down. Therefore, your odds of NOT avoiding an accident at high speeds are greatly increased.
You drive at 80? It's not just your life you toy with. Think I'm being too sanctimonious? Try driving the ambulance I drive ( In fact, I'm on duty as I write this), and clambering somehow into what's left of cars, to try to extract the living quickly enough to keep them living. Slow down.....

Cartooniverse



------------------
If you want to kiss the sky, you'd better learn how to kneel.

[Erratum]

DSYoungEsq: "You will notice that the last post totally ignores the constitutional difficulties I mentioned regarding a limit that is 'reasonable and proper' for the time and conditions."

And you will notice that your post tries to brush the "moral bankruptcy" of your position under the rug. The traffic laws as we have them are not the only way that things can be done.

"A race car driver may be much better suited for driving safely on a stretch of road at 55 than a teen who has only driven for one month, yet the limit certainly doesn't take that into account."

Weren't you one of the ones saying that driving records were irrelevant?

"Nor can police officers be expected to police a stretch of road attempting to take into account all sorts of extraneous factors regarding the putative safety of the speed of the drivers (or other such regulations, like stopping completely, not passing through double-yellow lines, etc.)."

If police officers can't figure out what it takes to drive safely, they shouldn't be allowed on the roads themselves. The police would have a much easier time arresting people for other crimes if the laws didn't actually require you to do something wrong. We shouldn't make laws because they are easy to enforce, we should make laws because we believe that violating them is fundamentally wrong.

It still boggles my mind that you feel morally justified in saying that anybody who violates any traffic law in any way is evil or immoral or what have you, when you yourself admit that these infractions are not endangering public safety!

Cartooniverse: "When I feel as though traffic is too heavy, or other factors come into play, I shift into the right lane, and slow down."

And I don't?

"At those speeds you mention, your response times are cut way down."

I can't see why response times would change at all. Well, I suppose there are relativistic effects when travelling at higher speeds, but those are negligible. It may take me a longer distance to stop, but that isn't the same thing, is it?

"Think I'm being too sanctimonious?"

Yes. Your post in no way explains why 80 mph is inherently unsafe an an uncrowded highway, which is definitely what you are asserting.

[Irishman]

Originally posted by Erratum:

"At those speeds you mention, your response times are cut way down."

I can't see why response times would change at all. Well, I suppose there are relativistic effects when travelling at higher speeds, but those are negligible. It may take me a longer distance to stop, but that isn't the same thing, is it?

Not to get engaged in a thread destined for GD, but...

Cartooniverse mentioned reaction time. What is usually meant by this is that it takes you time to react - determine there is a problem, what it is, and do something. The faster you are traveling, the farther you will go before your reaction. That is separate from going farther from the same point of the reaction. If you begin to stop at the same place, you will go farther if you started at a faster speed. But the distance you travel between identifying the problem and reacting (hitting brakes) will also be farther the faster you are going.

That's why the rule of thumb is the 2 second rule. There needs to be two seconds between when the car in front of you passes a stationary object and you pass that object. Notice that a speed rule has an inherent distance changing effect. That is similar to the car length for every 10 mph.

And of course that rule applies to dry pavement.

Okay, you may resume the beatings.

[Cartooniverse]

Erratum had some issues. To wit:

<<I can't see why response times would change at all. Well, I suppose there are relativistic effects when travelling at higher speeds, but those are negligible. It may take me a longer distance to stop, but that isn't the same thing, is it?>>

No, read the post following yours.

"Think I'm being too sanctimonious?"

<<Yes. Your post in no way explains why 80 mph is inherently unsafe an an uncrowded highway, which is definitely what you are asserting>>

I guess I need to list all of the things that can happen when ALONE on the roads in a car???? Really? Okay, let me do the biggies.

1. Falling asleep at the wheel. At 55, you may or may not awaken in time when you hit the vibration strips. At 85? You are going that much faster, and lose that second or two that would keep you from slamming into a concrete dividing wall.

2. A blow-out. Again, everything here is tied to reaction time, and the loss of a few seconds due to increased speed.

3. Black Ice.

4. Sun Glare.

5. Sudden stop light, or stop sign.

6. Off-Ramps misjudged.

Jeez, I need to keep going? You feel so strongly that it's your absolute right to speed that much? It's not a vaccuum that you drive in, it's shared space- for all to use- with relative safety. ONE person speeding that fast could mean a 6 car pile-up. opposed to a side-swipe. Nothing I say will really matter to you, you've made it clear that you feel my concerns about road safety are sanctimonious indeed.
Just remember to help out the nice men at the cemetary when it's a rainy day, and they need a bit of help covering the casket of a total stranger who died when your car, going 30 miles over the posted limit, clipped theirs- and you HAD NO TIME to respond.
And, have a nice day.

<-----------suitably furious now,

Cartooniverse



------------------
If you want to kiss the sky, you'd better learn how to kneel.

[Cartooniverse]

<Sigh> Apologies for the italics. Angry at the moment or not, I do need to go and do a little tutorial from the UBB people, so that I can accurately quote another posting. I think this one above makes sense, and I apologize if it's not too clear. Scroll up a few, and it will make sense.
No excuse for SDMB Ignorance on my part, I do need to learn the right tricks to quote accurately.

Cartooniverse

------------------
If you want to kiss the sky, you'd better learn how to kneel.

[PatronAnejo]

Hey VogueVixen

The law is not optional or open for debate.

Sigh...the state of education in this country. Who the HELL taught you that? You know what's asinine? Some people's belief that because a position has been written into law, it is somehow superior or preferable to other positions. What about the Jim Crow laws? What about the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Fugitive Slave Laws? What about the Eighteenth Amendment? What about sodomy laws?

The citizenry of this country is harassed by countless strange and abominable laws, with thousands more hitting the books every year. It doesn't take a genius to see that law-breaking is wrong only by an arbitrary, legislated standard that does not necessarily have any relationship whatsoever to moral- or logical standards. This is especially true of traffic control laws. No traffic law should be tolerated or enforced unless such action demonstrably- and directly protects the public welfare. MaxTorque is right: do not shirk your responsibility to curb the police departments' out-of-control appetites.

Bricker, anyone can accumulate tickets for any number of offenses--the problem is, they aren't necessarily offenses against public safety or common sense. They are offenses against arbitrary rules that are enforced regardless of context. What possible reason can there be to stop at a red light at 3:00 in the morning when there is clearly no-one else in sight? Where is the logic in limiting highway speeds to 70 MPH when a properly maintained modern vehicle can safely negotiate our interstates at speeds twenty or more MPH in excess of such limits (I think here in Georgia, the threshold for reckless driving due to excess speed is fifteen MPH in excess of posted limit)? Cartooniverse, you needn't apologize for your UBB skills--you should apologize for the pharisaical projection of your own driving skills onto your perception of others' abilities. At the speeds Erratum and I operate, safety issues stemming from other drivers' failure to remain constantly aware of what is taking place around them come into play well before the speed-related limits of a competent driver are reached. It is cell-phone-obsessed, adjusting-their-makeup-in-the-rearview-mirror soccer-moms who should be ticketed, not persons who have enough brain cells to ascertain the limits of one's vehicle and minimize travel time accordingly. The raison d'être of the automobile is rapid transportation. If you're not in a hurry, if you are unable to muster the requisite level of concentration and attention span, I suggest you get out and walk.

No-one should be in the business of endangering others. In my experience, it is the scofflaws who are the most attentive, competent, and (gasp) courteous drivers; the most hazardous drivers are those who feel their responsibilities begin and end with following the law.

So much for the obvious. The most interesting area of discussion here is one taking place between Erratum and DSYoungEsq: There are indeed "constitutional difficulties" associated with allowing everyone to operate near his or her own limits of safety. That is no excuse for the continued subjection of the competent motoring public to the current lowest-common-denominator scheme of traffic control, perpetrated by what DSYoungEsq apparently concedes is an incompetent enforcement corps

:Nor can police officers be expected to police a stretch of road attempting to take into account all sorts of extraneous factors regarding the putative safety of the speed of the drivers (or other such regulations, like stopping completely, not passing through double-yellow lines, etc.).

Um, isn't that their job? More importantly, as an attorney, don't you think Erratum is onto something when he writes:

The traffic laws as we have them are not the only way that things can be done.

What if current traffic control law were abolished in favor of the First Amendment model? Utilitarian freedom checked by the "clear and present danger" principle in cases of reckless endangerment and "prior restraint" in cases of drunken driving free of operational recklessness...what could be more American than that?

------------------
The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.

Albert Einstein

[Kamino Neko]

Originally posted by PatronAnejo:
In my experience, it is the scofflaws who are the most attentive, competent, and (gasp) courteous drivers;

Not a pedestrian, are you? The world looks a whole lot different when you're not in a 1 ton metal cocoon.

I have come this | | close to being clipped by drivers who ignored stopsigns/right of way a number of time - sometimes because it was late, and there's few pedestrians about, but sometimes simply because we don't appear on their mental radar, unless there's a cop around.

I'm offended, and frightened that your right to speed/ignore stopsigns/whatever is more important to you than my right not to have my life put in danger every time I step out of my house.



------------------
Eschew Obfuscation

[WhiteNight]

Here's hoping you can nest QUOTE tags, otherwise this message isn't going to post properly.

Originally posted by PatronAnejo:

Hey VogueVixen

Sigh...the state of education in this country.

She is right in that the law is not optional, nor is the right to disregard it open for debate.

The way to argue this (and win a useful victory) isn't to fight the ticket, but to change the laws, before going that speed.

I think traffic laws are a generally good thing, but can be applied badly.

Some guidelines are needed so that people can't drive in any insane manner, but it wouldn't work for the police to ticket people for unsafe driving. Unsafe driving is very dependant on the road conditions, on the driver, etc. Without hard and fast rules, we'd really be SOL in a greedy jurisdiction, because it'd be easy for the cop to say we were unsafe, yet not offer any proof of this. At least now you know what the offence is, and how to avoid it.

Bricker, anyone can accumulate tickets for any number of offenses--the problem is, they aren't necessarily offenses against public safety or common sense. They are offenses against arbitrary rules that are enforced regardless of context. What possible reason can there be to stop at a red light at 3:00 in the morning when there is clearly no-one else in sight? Where is the logic in limiting highway speeds to 70 MPH when a properly maintained modern vehicle can safely negotiate our interstates at speeds twenty or more MPH in excess of such limits (I think here in Georgia, the threshold for reckless driving due to excess speed is fifteen MPH in excess of posted limit)?

In this case, locals should get away with more than tourists, because they know the conditions. A local will know that there's a blind hill just on one side of that four-way stop, and that running it is risky, a tourist will not. Similarly, running red lights when there aren't enough other cars to warrant stopping is a judgement call. If other drivers expect you to be stopped, they won't slow down when they have the green, but if you're thinking you can make it before they get here, you'll go early and perhaps cause them to have an accident, even if you don't yourself.

For laws like that to work, we have to all follow them. For everyone to follow them, we have to punish those who don't.

Propose a better system whereby traffic lights vary operation at night, becoming blinking red when the traffic falls below a certain limit, etc. There'll still be laws, which you have to follow, but they'll more closely reflect the situation.

Um, isn't that their job?

Isn't what their job, to know all the cars that pass, and who is driving, to judge if that person, who is handling 90mph on the straightaway can properly handle the corner coming up?

If you want a scheme with differing licenses, where people who take tons of driving courses and prove themselves at high speed have special plates that let them drive more quickly, them go for it. But fighting the law by breaking it, then whining when you get caught isn't going to do anything except piss everyone else off.

More importantly, as an attorney, don't you think Erratum is onto something when he writes:

No, the fact that he's an attorney means nothing regarding my respect for him or his opinions. A lawyer is skilled (one hopes) at interpretting the law, not in the whole field of identifying and writing reasonable laws. He himself may be, but his profession means nothing in this regard.

[Bricker]

Bricker, anyone can accumulate tickets for any number of offenses--the problem is, they aren't necessarily offenses against public safety or common sense. They are offenses against arbitrary rules that are enforced regardless of context. What possible reason can there be to stop at a red light at 3:00 in the morning when there is clearly no-one else in sight?

The problem arises if you roll through a stop sign and someone is there, even though you thought the road was clear. I've been involved in three accidents in my life - weren't my fault and I had the right of way. In each case, the other driver claimed various things like I "came out of nowhere" or she "didn't see mr until the last second." Presumably, they were following your dictate of ignoring the law in favor of their perception of what was safe. Equally obviously, they were wrong.

The law acts to build a fence between safe and unsafe behavior. But if a traffic violation only exists when a manuever is "unsafe" how to we measure that? By charging one driver in an accident and ignoring all others? Or by the police simply judging what moves are unsafe? I assume the latter solution won't work for you, because if you got a ticket based only on a cop's judgement you'd be screaming louder than you are now about how wrong he is.

- Rick

[Cartooniverse]

<<PatronAnejo Writes:
Cartooniverse, you needn't apologize for your UBB skills--you should apologize for the pharisaical projection of your own driving skills onto your perception of others' abilities. At the speeds Erratum and I operate, safety issues stemming from other drivers' failure to remain constantly aware of what is taking place around them come into play well before the speed-related limits of a competent driver are reached. It is cell-phone-obsessed, adjusting-their-makeup-in-the-rearview-mirror soccer-moms who should be ticketed, not persons who have enough brain cells to ascertain the limits of one's vehicle and minimize travel time accordingly. The raison d'être of the automobile is rapid transportation. If you're not in a hurry, if you are unable to muster the requisite level of concentration and attention span, I suggest you get out and walk.>>
My WHAT???? Your arrogance is impressive. There's no debating you, you've made it clear that my concerns are somehow now twisted into my wanting everyone to drive like me. Nothing is farther from the truth. So, I'll repeat my sentiment from my first posting in this Thread. You are so sure that you are entitled to operate at speed exceeding 80 mph? Then spend some time trying to crawl into what's left of a car, after your 80mph vehicle has slammed into it, to see if anyone is left alive. You think that's being arrogant? Sorry pal, but I've BEEN there,and DONE it, and will do it probably for the rest of my life. Because after arrogant people like YOU finish up wrecking other people's lives, EMS personnel like ME get to clean up YOUR mess. Every time some cocksure snotface Mario Andretti Wanna-Be decides that he knows how to "Operate His Machine", but only has to worry over the other "make-up soccer moms", people die. Plain and simple. Not only did your response to me smack of total mysogenistic loathing, but it also shows that you feel you are such a superior "Operator". With wording like that, we call must assume you "Operate" the Ultimate Driving Machine. N'est pas?
I don't mind being slammed, but I am frankly horrified that you somehow have twisted your constitutional rights to include vehicular manslaughter ( And, in the more enlightened states in the Union, finally a law stating that Vehicular Murder is a possibility). You wanna drive too fast and hit things? Cool- go find the nearest bridge abutment, and enjoy yourself. Just don't do it in my town, pal.

Oh, and I know this will shock you, but I don't hold a cellular phone with one hand while driving, and I don't wear make-up. You gonna tell us that you NEVER speak on a cellular while driving????

Cartooniverse


------------------
If you want to kiss the sky, you'd better learn how to kneel.

[Irishman]

Originally posted by Cartooniverse:
<<PatronAnejo Writes:
It is cell-phone-obsessed, adjusting-their-makeup-in-the-rearview-mirror soccer-moms who should be ticketed,.....
Not only did your response to me smack of total mysogenistic loathing, ....
[/b]

Cartoonuniverse, I think you're reading in to what he said. I didn't take that comment to mean only soccer moms (or other women) were the only culprits, merely a very easily recognized stereotype. Or maybe I'm just giving benefit of the doubt.

Cell-phone obsessed people bother me, but then I've been guilty of searching for the right CD to listen to while traveling down the interstate, and that's at least as distracting.

[Irishman]

Originally posted by Cartooniverse:
<<PatronAnejo Writes:
It is cell-phone-obsessed, adjusting-their-makeup-in-the-rearview-mirror soccer-moms who should be ticketed,.....
Not only did your response to me smack of total mysogenistic loathing, ....
[/b]

Cartoonuniverse, I think you're reading in to what he said. I didn't take that comment to mean only soccer moms (or other women) were the only culprits, merely a very easily recognized stereotype. Or maybe I'm just giving benefit of the doubt.

Cell-phone obsessed people bother me, but then I've been guilty of searching for the right CD to listen to while traveling down the interstate, and that's at least as distracting.

[Irishman]

Originally posted by Cartooniverse:
<<PatronAnejo Writes:
It is cell-phone-obsessed, adjusting-their-makeup-in-the-rearview-mirror soccer-moms who should be ticketed,.....
Not only did your response to me smack of total mysogenistic loathing, ....
[/b]

Cartoonuniverse, I think you're reading in to what he said. I didn't take that comment to mean only soccer moms (or other women) were the only culprits, merely a very easily recognized stereotype. Or maybe I'm just giving benefit of the doubt.

Cell-phone obsessed people bother me, but then I've been guilty of searching for the right CD to listen to while traveling down the interstate, and that's at least as distracting.

Tengu:

Not a pedestrian, are you? The world looks a whole lot different when you're not in a 1 ton metal cocoon.

I am a cyclist...

I'm offended, and frightened that your right to speed/ignore stopsigns/whatever is more important to you than my right not to have my life put in danger every time I step out of my house.

...and I stand by my earlier statement: the most hazardous drivers are those who feel their responsibilities begin and end with following the law.

Cartooniverse:

My WHAT????

Courtesy of Merriam-Webster:
Pharisaical:

• Pronunciation: -'sA-&-k&l
• Function: adjective
• Date: 1531
• : marked by hypocritical censorious self-righteousness

Projection:

• Pronunciation: pr&-'jek-sh&n
• Function: noun
• Date: 1557
• : the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety [emphasis mine]

There's no debating you

It would be easier if you were right.

Not only did your response to me smack of total mysogenistic [sic] loathing...

I assume you mean misogynistic, and <a href="#footer2">I am nothing of the sort</a>. Applying makeup in traffic is the most egregious example of inattentive driving I can think of, short of DWF.

...but it also shows that you feel you are such a superior "Operator". With wording like that, we call must assume you "Operate" the Ultimate Driving Machine. N'est pas [sic]?

Anyone with the ability to concentrate on the task at hand (i.e., negotiating traffic) operates at a level superior to the vast majority of the motoring public. I see no basis for your assumption regarding my choice of motor vehicle (I drive the same, impeccably-maintainted, 1998 Saab 900S that my parents gave me new upon graduation), but I do see reason to assume you received terrible grades in French, n'est-ce pas?

Oh, and I know this will shock you, but I don't hold a cellular phone with one hand while driving, and I don't wear make-up. You gonna tell us that you NEVER speak on a cellular while driving????

I never accused you of doing either, but this flaccid argument is rendered comical by what you've owned up to previously:

Try driving the ambulance I drive (In fact, I'm on duty as I write this)....

WhiteNight:

No, the fact that he's an attorney means nothing regarding my respect for him or his opinions.

I think it's apparent that I was referring to DSYoungEsq, not Erratum. The phrasing may be ambiguous, but the title (Esq.^{<a href="#footer1">1</a>}) is not.

She is right in that the law is not optional, nor is the right to disregard it open for debate.

Wrong. The law is both optional and open for debate. Notwithstanding your misrepresentation of VogueVixen's actual words, i.e., that the law was not open for debate (which is obviously false--what, then, is the purpose of a representational legislature?), your interpretation of her meaning, i.e., we are not afforded the right to disregard the law, is also false. Just as our hand is not forced in the commission of crime, neither are we compelled to follow the law--such compulsion would define an intolerable state of affairs commonly referred to as a totalitarian society. Freedom from such totalitarianism is what has allowed civil disobedience to achieve its respected place in our lawmaking tradition. The Supreme Court cannot overturn unjust legislation until someone is first charged, tried, and convicted under such unjust laws. And for those of you whose civics education is gleaned from made-for-TV-movies, jury nullification of murder charges against victims of domestic violence has spawned legislation in all fifty states designed to protect victims of domestic abuse^{<a href="#footer2">2</a>}.

If you want a scheme with differing licenses, where people who take tons of driving courses and prove themselves at high speed have special plates that let them drive more quickly, them go for it

I would endorse such a scheme wholeheartedly. It complements nicely the First Amendment model I propose, as it would provide enforcement with tailored guidelines regarding the invocation of the "clear and present danger" principle. No-one who has ever parroted the phrase "Driving is a priviledge, not a right" should have any objection to the establishment of a road-going meritocracy of this sort.

In this case, locals should get away with more than tourists, because they know the conditions. A local will know that there's a blind hill just on one side of that four-way stop, and that running it is risky, a tourist will not. Similarly, running red lights when there aren't enough other cars to warrant stopping is a judgement call.

Absolutely, unapologetically, unequivocally, yes.

Bricker, I agree it would be difficult to implement a traffic control scheme that is consistent with merit and liberty, but does that mean it shouldn't be done? It's not just difficult to maintain the "preferred position" of the First Amendment, it is difficult and preferable to the alternative--we understand that it's the only system that allows everyone to realize their talents. If we do not tolerate any abridgement of our rights for the sake of enforcement authorities' convenience in other aspects of our society, why should we tolerate it in our right to travel freely?

____________
<a name="footer1">¹<font size="1">According to the Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics, "It is not clear how the title "Esquire" came to be used so commonly (and seemingly so exclusively) by lawyers in the United States. There is no authority that reserves the title 'Esquire' for the exclusive use of lawyers. Because neither the law nor any established ethical rule governs the use of the title, it would be presumptuous for any non-legislative body to purport to regulate its use. Nonetheless, based on common usage it is fair to state that if the title appears after a person's name, that person may be presumed to be a lawyer."</font></a>
<a name="footer2">²<font size="1">Our male-dominated lawmaking bodies would never have gotten around to enacting such legislation in the absence of civil disobedience and jury nullification. It often takes decades before the cause taken up by the civilly di

[PatronAnejo]

CORRECTION: The Saab is a 1988; I graduated in 1987, making me thirty years old.

[Bricker]

Bricker, I agree it would be difficult to implement a traffic control scheme that is consistent with merit and liberty, but does that mean it shouldn't be done? It's not just difficult to maintain the "preferred position" of the First Amendment, it is difficult and preferable to the alternative--we understand that it's the only system that allows everyone to realize their talents. If we do not tolerate any abridgement of our rights for the sake of enforcement authorities' convenience in other aspects of our society, why should we tolerate it in our right to travel freely?

Well, as far as I am concerned, it would be a waste of resources, in light of the very minimal intrusion upon personal liberty created by extant traffic laws.

It is clear, however, that you disagree. And that's fine; as was pointed out elsewhere, this is one of the benefits of the representative democracy in which we live.

Given your strong feelings about this issue, and making the assumption that these feelings have not just spring, fully formed, from this debate in the manner of Athena from Zeus' head, I wonder if I might inquire... what have you done, thus far, as a citizen, in an effort to change the traffic laws to comport with your ideal vision?

- Rick

[PatronAnejo]

DSYoungEsq:

If you REALLY need to hear it, I can give you some cogent reasoning for why it shouldn't be up to individuals to decide when it is ok to violate the law....

I'd like to hear this.

Bricker:

Well, as far as I am concerned, it would be a waste of resources, in light of the very minimal intrusion upon personal liberty created by extant traffic laws.

It is clear, however, that you disagree. And that's fine; as was pointed out elsewhere, this is one of the benefits of the representative democracy in which we live.

Therein lies the essence of this thread, no? In one corner: those who feel that "intrusion upon personal liberty" is the best way to ensure public safety. In the other corner: those who understand that "minimal intrusion upon personal liberty" is a fiction on a par with "halftime entertainment" and "the Oprah Winfrey diet".

Erratum is right,

The traffic laws as we have them are not the only way that things can be done.

As long as traffic laws exist as written, people will have their liberties unnecessarily curbed (as have we all); they will complain (as has Rachelle); and some will fight back (as have Voltaire and MaxTorque).

I wonder if I might inquire... what have you done, thus far, as a citizen, in an effort to change the traffic laws to comport with your ideal vision?

Hmmmm...maybe you've got me there. Given the success that anti-speed propagandists have had in spreading misinformation and building inertia in <UL TYPE=SQUARE>[*]traffic planning commissions (even those count enlighted engineers among their number) and[*]city councils and their constituents,[/list]and given the the low level of sophistication among even the teeming millions (witness the remarks of VogueVixen, Zulu, and mattk) regarding the relationship between even mundane matters of law (such as traffic control) and larger issues of liberty, I suppose I do about as much as an employed person can, i.e.,:

• demonstrating to passengers that safety and speed are not mutually exclusive,
• debunking the misinformation that leads people to fear speed (with the help of Car and Driver's Csaba Csere and Patrick Bedard),
• violating as many traffic codes as is safely practicable,
• contesting and beating the rap whenever busted,
• pointing the teeming millions to sources like:
  National Motorists Association
  Reasonable Drivers Unanimous
  National Coalition for the Abolition of Speed Limits

I concede that as an individual, such actions are not enough to effect real change. I contend, however, that radical grass-roots activity is more likely to receive media attention (and thereby garner public sentiment) than operating through channels (as suggested by you and DSYoungEsq).

[Kamino Neko]

PatronAnejo - the people who follow the law to the letter are very safe - they watch the road, they keep an eye on the curb to make sure there's no pedestrians about to run out in front of them. They drive at a speed that they can actually respond before getting into an accident.

If you're not watching the road, you're not following the law.

The people you're defending - the ones who think they can 'drive safely' without following such 'arbitrary' laws as speed limits, and stop signals - they are dangerous. They are not unlike the idiots who jaw on their cell-phones, or put on their makeup while driving. They run into pedestrians, because they didn't see them in time. They rear end the drivers in front of them because they didn't give themselves enough stopping room. Believing that you can avoid accidents - even when following the traffic laws to the letter - is irresponsible, and immature. It is every driver's responsibility to do whatever they can to reduce the odds - which means following the traffic laws.




------------------
Eschew Obfuscation

[PatronAnejo]

Tengu:

PatronAnejo - the people who follow the law to the letter are very safe - they watch the road, they keep an eye on the curb to make sure there's no pedestrians about to run out in front of them. They drive at a speed that they can actually respond before getting into an accident.

You're dead wrong. The following may be counterintuitive to you, but that makes it no less true: enthusiasts are spirited drivers; as such, they are far more attentive and have a better understanding of driving ettiquette.

Sorry if you're having a hard time comprehending just how delusory your prejudices are. Would some pictures help? <img SRC="http://www.sense.bc.ca/img/isku_85th_1.gif" HEIGHT="290" WIDTH="446" ALIGN="RIGHT"> This graph^{<a href="#footer1">1</a>} demonstrates the reduced crash risk for drivers travelling 10-15 km/h over the average speed. Contrary to popular belief, there are more crashes at slower speeds than at faster speeds. Raw speed and crash risk are not directly related: there is a near-parabolic relationship which shows few fast drivers involved in crashes, and many more slow drivers involved in crashes.</img> According to the Interstate Highway Safety Administration, the nationwide fatality rate dropped from 2.5 per 100 million vehicle miles in 1986 (when the speed limit was a blanket 55 mph) to 2.4 in 1987 when 65 mph was implemented.

I'm going to bed. Frag ya' later!

_________________
<a name="footer1">¹<font size="1">D. Solomon, "Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver and Vehicle," Record of the Bureau of Public Roads, July 1964.
J. A. Cirillo, "Interstate System Accident Research Study II, Interim Report II," Public Roads, vol. 35, no. 3, August 1968.
David L. Harkey, et. al., "Assessment of Current Speed Zoning Criteria," Transportation Research Record, no. 1281, 1990.</font></a>

[Bricker]

Patron,

That is one pretty graph.

The lesson I feel we can take from it is that we all need to drive about 10 kph faster than the average speed, thus placing us in that safe zone.

Of course, if everyone is trying to do this... the average speed will increase. So to drive faster than the average, I will have to go still faster - as will everyone else trying to get into that "safe zone."

It reminds me of the apocryphal story about the candidate's promise: "We shall continue along this course of action until all of our citizens have above-average incomes!"

I would further point out that the activities you've described to date hardly constitute a "radical" grass-roots campaign; indeed, even "campaign" might be pushing it.

It is not difficult for one person to have an effect. When I was a teenager, my parent's house was about half a block off a main road in Falls Church City. At the head of the street was a large office building. The denizens of this office building used to park their cars down my street every weekday morning. For years, everyone griped about this.

When I turned sixteen and got my license, it started to bother me. I wasn't yet so sharp on parallel parking, and it was a nightmare trying to maneuver into a small space right in front of my house!

Rather than join my fellow neighbors in their long-standing and ineffectual griping, I paid a visit to City Hall - and I discovered that the city code had a provision for creating "residential permit parking" zones, even though none existed in the city at the time. It took a city council decision to create such a zone.

I wrote to the city council members. Nothing. I actually visited the mayor. Nothing. Blah blah, double talk double talk, the building pays taxes, the streets are public.

So I started a petition. I got everyone who lived on the two blocks directly affected by the parking to sign it. I got everyone at school to get their parents to sign it. And I gave a copy to the local paper before I dropped it off at City Hall. The city council scheduled a hearing. I testified at that hearing.

And we got the permit parking law passed. Because although the building did pay taxes, so did the residents on those streets. And more importantly: the building people were not city residents, and didn't have a vote to elect the council members. To this day, when I visit my mom, I see the "Permit Parking Only" signs, and remember that in large measure, I made that happen.

I tell this long and boring anecdote to suggest that it's not beyond the bounds of imagination that one person can start the ball rolling 'within the system' as it were, and actually make a difference.

Of course, talking on a message board is good, too.

- Rick

[Nickrz]

PatronAnejo certainly put up a post with the best curb appeal I've seen in a long time.
It's almost a shame to send this thread over to Great Debates..

[PatronAnejo]

Bricker:

I tell this long and boring anecdote to suggest that it's not beyond the bounds of imagination that one person can start the ball rolling 'within the system' as it were, and actually make a difference.

I have never discounted the importrance of ultimately effecting change at the legislative level. However, there's an enormous difference between amending a parking scheme and convincing 274,202,830 people that a deep-seated prejudice is delusory. When attempting to effect sea change against an inertia of this magnitude, one must capture mindshare before setting to the task of winning votes.

I would further point out that the activities you've described to date hardly constitute a "radical" grass-roots campaign; indeed, even "campaign" might be pushing it.

I would never employ the term campaign to describe my current activities and I never have. There is a long, serial progression which intervenes between glorified whining and an organized campaign; I wouldn't pretend otherwise. I do, however, operate outside of the law in the advancement of an agenda. Hence, radical.

The lesson I feel we can take from it is that we all need to drive about 10 kph faster than the average speed, thus placing us in that safe zone.

Of course, if everyone is trying to do this... the average speed will increase. So to drive faster than the average, I will have to go still faster - as will everyone else trying to get into that "safe zone."

Actually, the lesson here is to segregate slow-moving traffic from faster traffic. The magnitude of deviation from mean traffic speed accurately predicts your risk of becoming involved in a collision. <img src="http://www.bts.gov/NTL/DOCS/speed/images/fig4..gif" HEIGHT="369" WIDTH="450" ALIGN="LEFT">This second graph¹ should allow you to draw this conclusion more easily. It is apparent from this graph that a person driving X miles per hour below mean traffic speed is more likely to become involved in an incident than a person driving a corresponding X miles per hour above mean traffic speed.

The broader conclusion is that there exist means of increasing traffic safety that are vastly superior to decreasing speed. The most important means are increasing situational awareness and establishing closer observation of traffic etiquette. That, as Erratum suggests, is the key to the German's success with their Autobahnen.

__________________
¹<font size="1">Graph is from the United States Department of Transportation's National Transportation Library.</img></font>

[Crusoe]

...given the the low level of sophistication among even the teeming millions (witness the remarks of VogueVixen, Zulu, and mattk) regarding the relationship between even mundane matters of law (such as traffic control) and larger issues of liberty...

PatronAnejo, please leave the snide asides out and concentrate on the topic.

FWIW, I have never stated that the current system is the best solution to issues of road-safety. Personally I'd like to see a system of variable speed limits depending on specific road and traffic conditions; but I can't think of any truly practical ways to implement it. I'll gladly listen to any you can suggest; in the meantime, leave out the little digs at people.



------------------
I never touched him, ref, honest!

[Kamino Neko]

Originally posted by PatronAnejo:
You're dead wrong. The following may be counterintuitive to you,

It's not counterintuitive - if it were meerly counterintuitive I could accept it. It's wrong - by my personal experience.

Do you understand yet?

but that makes it no less true: enthusiasts are spirited drivers; as such, they are far more attentive and have a better understanding of driving ettiquette.

I'm glad that truck that nearly took my head off with it's mirror when I was crossing the road was being driven by a courteous, attentive driver.

Sorry if you're having a hard time comprehending just how delusory your prejudices are.

Wow. It's about time you got around to attacting me. I was beginning to think there was something wrong with my arguement.



------------------
Eschew Obfuscation

[Erratum]

In one of the articles that PatronAnejo linked, it was demonstrated that the fatality rates on US Interstates and German Autobahns are about the same. It's my understanding that speeds on the autobahns are significantly faster than US speeds, and that there is no "speed limit". If this is correct (if it isn't, please explain why it's not), then how do speed limit advocates explain it?

[PatronAnejo]

That is , of course, the Germans', not the German's.

[PatronAnejo]

mattk:

PatronAnejo, please leave the snide asides out and concentrate on the topic....leave out the little digs at people.

This post made me laugh for a couple of reasons:

• Me, not concentrate on the topic? Do you read these posts or do you just scan them for your handle?
• Sorry to hold you accountable for your post. You might append a disclaimer next time: "I don't really mean this; I posess a deeper understanding that I am unable to articulate and my comments here belie."

It is a matter of fact that a lot of folks fail to see the connection

between...mundane matters of law (such as traffic control) and larger issues of liberty

I use the failure of even those among the teeming millions to be outraged at this state of affairs--and in your case, your failure to grasp the importance of public sentiment in legal reform--to demonstrate the scope of the task of education. That is neither little nor snide--your characterization is off the mark.

Tengu:

It's not counterintuitive - if it were meerly [sic] counterintuitive I could accept it. It's wrong - by my personal experience....I'm glad that truck that nearly took my head off with it's [sic] mirror when I was crossing the road was being driven by a courteous, attentive driver.

Well that changes everything. While we're basing the law on one of your personal experiences, let's incorporate a couple of mine, too. A black man broke into my car. We should do something about those people. I broke my arm playing soccer. It's a dangerous activity, we should outlaw it. A friend of a friend of a friend received a transfusion from a homosexual donor and contracted AIDS. Let's ban all homosexuals from donating blood.

This is what is known as reactionary thinking; it's a failure to realize that everything should be taken on a case-by-case basis. "Do you understand yet" how insidious this kind of thinking is?

There's a difference between a crazed trucker patrolling your town, deploying a mirror as an implement of decapitation, and someone who feels that competent drivers should not be restricted due to the incompetence of others.

[Kamino Neko]

Nice strawman, Anejo.

Too bad none of your examples come within hailing range of mine.

Let's apply your logic to each of them, shall we?

A black man broke into my car.

It wasn't a white man, so we shouldn't accuse white men of theft.

I broke my arm playing soccer.

But I did it when I was simply running the ball down the field. The guy who was spiked in the shins earlier came out alright, therefore let's make spiking legal.

A friend of a friend of a friend received a transfusion from a homosexual donor and contracted AIDS. Let's ban all homosexuals from donating blood.

But let's let any heterosexual donate without any testing whatsoever.

See how easy it is?

Now, let's apply mine:

A black man broke into my car.

Anyone might be a thief, therefore we shouldn't exclude anyone (regardless of race) until it's proven they couldn't have done it.

I broke my arm playing soccer.

Thus all precautions should be taken to increase safety - make tackling illegal, instruct the players to watch for each other, etc.

A friend of a friend of a friend received a transfusion from a homosexual donor and contracted AIDS. Let's ban all homosexuals from donating blood.

Since AIDS is a threat, all donated blood must be tested - regardless of who it came from.

See how easy it is?

I don't like making my decisions based on the worst possible scenario, but, I'm too sane to make them based on the best.

Many of your tactics in this discussion - attacking the person (Vogue, Zulu, Matt, myself, for instance), and strawman arguements such as the above - are deplorable and far from supporting your position paint you as an insane zealot.



------------------
Eschew Obfuscation

[Crusoe]

PatronAnejo, I read your posts and I recognise the arguments you're making - I say "concentrate on the topic" because your attitude towards people you disagree with adds nothing to the perfectly valid points you're expressing.

And as for my previous post; I'm sorry if I wasn't eloquent enough for you, but I still think my point holds water.

If you break a law, no matter how much you disagree with it, you should not be surprised at receving a punishment allowed for by that law. That doesn't make it "right" (whatever you choose to define that as), or separate it from concerns around issues of liberty.

As an aside, I spent six years studying for a Masters in politics - that doesn't make me an expert in the matter, but I certainly hold a better understanding of "the importance of public sentiment in legal reform" than you credit me with. Hold me accountable for my posts - but please don't patronise me.




------------------
I never touched him, ref, honest!

[StarvinMarvin]

I believe the simplest answer is this:

The officer in question wasnt up to par for the month on his ticket quota. You were an easy pick. Cops dont have to "follow through" on a ticket, they make the quota for trying. So even if you get out of this one, he gets credit towards his monthly goal.

Fight it using the argument(s) that you were unable to see the sign or limit line clearly and in fact believed it was still ahead of you, due to grime or bad weather et al.

Second (should you not choose the first)that from the distance at which the officer saw your vehicle he could not have possibly seen whether you came to a complete stop unless he was directly behind you. Draw a diagram and situation representation, and include some math and grpahics. The intimidation of a prepared and educated opponent is more then any "ticket" can handle.

I have done this 4 times, never had a ticket.



------------------
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift

[PatronAnejo]

mattk:

I have scrupulously avoided applying pejorative to the posters here regardless of the nature of their posts. Examination of my comments will reveal that remarks and attitudes are the object of my vituperative; I have engaged in no argumentation ad hominem. Underinformed viewpoints, slipshod research, and fallacious logic will be exposed and disparaged, if it is my inclination to do so. If that to you is patronizing, so be it. If you are too thin-skinned to stand correction, I suggest you put greater consideration into your opinion before you express it.

That said, your post is a far cry from being the most egregious example of ill-conceived, underinformed supposition that I read. If it is the association of yours with the others' that you feel constitutes unwarranted admonishment, I understand that the matter cannot be as trivial to you as it is to me, and I concede the point.

Tengu:

Your logic (I apply the term loosely) is fundamentally flawed.

• Straw Man defense: The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.^{<a href="#footer">1</a>} [emphasis mine]
  
  This description is clearly not applicable to my post, as your own rebuttal blatantly affirms the characterization I assigned to you:

  Anyone might be a thief, therefore we shouldn't exclude anyone (regardless of race) until it's proven they couldn't have done it.

  You have predictably missed the point; race is a canard. If it were a white man that had broken into your car, you would hold all white men guilty of the crime until they proved themselves innocent. That you are an equal-opportunity reactionary has no effect on the logic.
  
• Ad Hominem argument: an ad hominem argument to your position would need to be framed as follows^{<a href="#footer2">2</a>}: "Tengu is known to be stupid [or immoral, or insane]. On that basis, I declare his position on this particular matter to be invalid."
  
  Clearly, I have never employed such a tactic. Rather, I contrast your stand to supported fact, highlighting the misinformed nature of your position.

Many of your tactics in this discussion - attacking the person (Vogue, Zulu, Matt, myself, for instance), and strawman arguements such as the above - are deplorable and far from supporting your position paint you as an insane zealot.

What is deplorable is that in your desperation to protect your prejudices, you would post such garbage about someone who has effectively eroded the basis of your prejudices using nothing but fact and logic. That is, ironically, a highly effective demonstration of zealotry.[/list]
___________________
^{<a name="footer2">1</a>}<font size="1">Cedarblom, Jerry and Paulsen, David W.. Critical Reasoning: Understanding and Criticizing Arguments and Theories. Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1997.</font>
²<font size="1">Ibid.</font>

[Kamino Neko]

Originally posted by PatronAnejo:
Tengu:

Your logic (I apply the term loosely) is fundamentally flawed.Straw Man defense: The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.^{<a href="#footer">1</a>}[emphasis mine]

This description is clearly not applicable to my post, as your own rebuttal blatantly affirms the characterization I assigned to you:

Actually, it's the very definition of a strawman arguement.

You throw in the race card - and in your arguement it wasn't just 'They're a suspect until eliminated' it was 'They're bad whether they did anything or not' - then when called on it you withdraw and claim it was a canard.

Let me put my arguement into terms even you can't distort:

There are idiots with licences.

These idiots, if it weren't for traffic laws, couldn't be reigned in until they did actual damage.

Keeping a handful of 'enthusiats' from driving at the speed they want, with no real inconvenice to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots will do if left to their own devices.

Simple as that.

What is deplorable is that in your desperation to protect your prejudices, you would post such garbage about someone who has effectively eroded the basis of your prejudices using nothing but fact and logic. That is, ironically, a highly effective demonstration of zealotry.

I am, due to mountains of proof to the contrary, unable to believe in the fundimental goodness and intelligence of humanity. I want to protect myself and others from the idiots. Thank you for informing me that this makes me a prejudiced zealot, rather than someone who's justifiably scared of the consequences of optimism.

------------------
Eschew Obfuscation

[Kamino Neko]

Ugh, that post didn't come out right.

Let me try that again:

Your example is the very definition of a strawman arguement.

You played the race card - which bore no resemblance to my arguement. And in your arguement it wasn't just 'Anyone is a suspect until eliminated' it was 'Blacks are bad whether they did anything or not'. Thus you were comparing my arguement to racism, allowing you to knock it down easily.

And - if the strawman weren't bad enough - when called on it, you're not even man enough to support it.

My arguement in simple terms:

There are idiots with licences.

These idiots, if it weren't for traffic laws, couldn't be reigned in until they did actual damage.

Keeping a handful of 'enthusiasts' from driving at the speed they want, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do if left to their own devices.

As an aside: I apologise for the unwarranted 'terms even you can't distort' remark in the above post. Being compared to a bigot pisses me off. That doesn't make the insult proper, however.

And let me now respond to another point from your post:

If it were a white man that had broken into your car, you would hold all white men guilty of the crime until they proved themselves innocent.

Not true. Also not a very close fit - though almost understandable, due to my less than ideal phrasing.

Anyone who was in the area at the time of the crime who fit the description of the thief - not just in race and sex, but height, weight, hair colour - I would view as equally likely to be the criminal. Note that this is very different (if subtly so) from 'Guilty until proven innocent.'

This isn't prejudice. This isn't zealotry. This is simply not looking at the world through rose coloured glasses.



------------------
Eschew Obfuscation

[Liberal]

Why not simply eliminate all laws and legislation, and arbitrate and enforce the Noncoercion Principle instead?

[Erratum]

Tengu:

There are idiots with licences.

These idiots, if it weren't for traffic laws, couldn't be reigned in until they did actual damage.

Keeping a handful of 'enthusiasts' from driving at the speed they want, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do if left to their ow devices.

This is a brilliant theory of law. In fact, we ought to be able to apply it to lots of other situations as well! Let's see...

There are idiots who know how to speak.
These idiots, if it we don't repeal the first amendment, couldn't be reigned in until they did actual damage, such as slandering someone or insighting a riot.
Keeping a handful of 'enthusiasts' from speaking their mind, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do if left to their own devices.

Or...

There are some burglars who wear dark clothing.
These burglars, if it weren't for laws which make dark clothing illegal, couldn't be seen until they actually break into your house (they blend into the night, you see...).
Keeping a handful of 'enthusiasts' from wearing the clothing they want, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the burglars would do if left to their own devices.

Or...

There are idiots who know how to walk.
These idiots, if it weren't for laws against pedestrians, couldn't be reigned in until they actually caused an accident.
Keeping a handful of 'enthusiasts' from walking where they want, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do to themselves and others if left to their own devices.

PatronAnejo's race analogy: It is inappropriate to make being black illegal just because one particular black person did something harmful. It is inappropriate to make driving at a particular speed illegal just because one particular person (your hypothetical "idiot") who was driving at that speed did something harmful.

And, by the way, here is the rationale behind And, you are basically setting up another straw man, anyway, in your latest posts. Aren't these idiots engaging in actual unsafe behavior? Why don't you try to tailor the laws to fight the actual problem rather than subject an entire class of people (capable drivers) to your brand of logic? We would get quite a few criminals behind bars if we made being black illegal, but we'd get many more completely innocent people. Similarly, speeding laws may stop a few of your "idiots", but they stop a lot more safe and responsible drivers who are perfectly capable of driving at reasonable speeds in appropriate conditions.

[Kamino Neko]

Originally posted by Erratum:
There are idiots who know how to walk.
These idiots, if it weren't for laws against pedestrians, couldn't be reigned in until they actually caused an accident.

Keeping a handful of 'enthusiasts' from walking where they want, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do to themselves and others if left to their own devices.

Interesting attempt at refutation there. A complete inability to move is no real inconvenience, huh?

An absurd counter-example does not make for a good arguement.

PatronAnejo's race analogy: It is inappropriate to make being black illegal just because one particular black person did something harmful. It is inappropriate to make driving at a particular speed illegal just because one particular person (your hypothetical "idiot") who was driving at that speed did something harmful.

They are already doing something harmful - driving at excessive speeds. Even if our hypothetical driver is capable of driving safely at the speeds he wants to drive, the others on the road - who are forced to speed up to accomodate them, or else are prompted to speed up to fill the gap left by our 'enthusiast' - may not be.

Also, I'm not speaking only of speeding - running a stop sign - the act that prompted this thread - is a blatantly stupid thing to do.

And, by the way, here is the rationale behind And, you are basically setting up another straw man, anyway, in your latest posts. Aren't these idiots engaging in actual unsafe behavior?

Yes - driving faster than they should - faster than many can do safely; running stop signs/lights.

Why don't you try to tailor the laws to fight the actual problem rather than subject an entire class of people (capable drivers) to your brand of logic?

Because - as I've said - the only way to deal with the problem drivers without making the laws apply to capable drivers is to apply them after they've done damage.

We would get quite a few criminals behind bars if we made being black illegal, but we'd get many more completely innocent people.

Good gods, man, Anejo disavowed that analogy when called on it, why do you continue it?

See my answer to him.

Similarly, speeding laws may stop a few of your "idiots", but they stop a lot more safe and responsible drivers who are perfectly capable of driving at reasonable speeds in appropriate conditions.

Even if I grant your statement that there are 'more safe and responsable drivers' than idiots - their freedom has not been removed - simply reduced in a non-onerous way.

In your theory of law, the idiots would have to have done damage - quite possibly killed - before they could be dealt with.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Frankly, I don't think there should be private vehicles, at all. I'm bending backwards simply allowing that it might be a good thing to allow people to drive at all.



------------------
Eschew Obfuscation

[Kamino Neko]

Please note that should read 'private motor vehicles'.

People nowadays are too bloody lazy.



------------------
Eschew Obfuscation

Tengu:

You throw in the race card - and in your arguement [sic] it wasn't just 'They're a suspect until eliminated' it was 'They're bad whether they did anything or not' - then when called on it you withdraw and claim it was a canard.

You couldn't be more wrong; I withdraw absolutely nothing. Your claim that my argument is a straw man is absolutely unfounded, as my characterization of your attitude differs in no way from your own description of your philosophy. Blanket treatment of everyone as a suspect places an unreasonable, unwarranted onus probandi on the innocent majority.

Your willful misapprehension of the analogy is that it is a charge of racism; in fact, race is not a player in the logic of the argument. The inclusion of race serves as a real-world illustration of the insidious effects of your way of thinking (more on this below). Your ostensible open-mindedness in being willing to place the onus of self-vindication on everyone, not just a subset of the whole, serves to further cement your status as a reactionary. Hence, race is a canard: the nature of your reaction to the race issue backfires on you. The phrase constitues no retraction, withdrawal, back-pedaling, or disavowal; this is unequivocal.

Your example is the very definition of a strawman arguement.

You played the race card - which bore no resemblance to my arguement [sic]. And in your arguement [sic] it wasn't just 'Anyone is a suspect until eliminated' it was 'Blacks are bad whether they did anything or not'. Thus you were comparing my arguement [sic] to racism, allowing you to knock it down easily.

And - if the strawman weren't bad enough - when called on it, you're not even man enough to support it.

Again, the issue of race is auxiliary to the main argument and demonstrates a consequence of your way of thinking. Erratum's recent post demonstrates still others.

Let us definitively contrast the aspects of my argument with those that define the straw man.

• I characterize you as a reactionary, not a racist. Racism is a real-world consequence of reactionary attitudes, but it is not a necessary consequence; you do not have to be a racist for my characterization of you as a reactionary to hold.
• Second, your rebuttal

  Anyone might be a thief, therefore we shouldn't exclude anyone (regardless of race) until it's proven they couldn't have done it.

  affirms your reactionary worldview. Your willingness to distibute onus probandi on an ever-widening target group has the effect of further affirming your willingness to abridge the Constitution (not, as is your intent, of making the underlying philosophy easier to swallow). Hence, my characterization of you does not differ from the argument you make.
  
  It is possible that you have disavowed the quoted position--to wit,

  Not true. Also not a very close fit - though almost understandable, due to my less than ideal phrasing.

  so allow me to provide you with a fresh one.

  Keeping a handful of 'enthusiasts' from driving at the speed they want, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do if left to their own devices.
  
  Simple as that.

  In addition to being another horrifying example of your reactionary attitude (see Erratum's effective dissection)--again demonstrating a violation of the requirement that the argument I offer differ from your position--this statement is rife with inaccuracies and unsupportable implications:
  Handful of enthusiasts implies that our numbers are insignificant. The combined paid circulation of Motor Trend, Road and Track, Car and Driver, and Automobile magazines is 3,824,352^{<a href="#numbers">1</a>};
  no real inconvenience to them implies that you are an effective judge of the offense others take at the abridgement of their rights--the posts of Erratum, Libertarian, MaxTorque, and PatronAnejo are vehement indications to the contrary;
  small price to pay implies that you have the right to determine what price in freedom others should pay; it also implies that you posess a complete awareness of the full cost of the erosion of liberty--both implications are unequivocally false;
  damage the idiots would do implies that the only way to control incompetent drivers is to abridge the rights of everyone--this has already been demonstrated to be false;
  Simple as that indicates that you take pride in the obfuscatory statement debunked above.
  
• Finally, I don't attack your argument on the basis of your postulatory racism--no effort is made at knocking down your delusory straw man.

Before making remarks such as yours, I suggest you be "man enough" to spend a little time learning basic terms (I won't require you to be much of a man--the explanations provided in my previous post require no more than a sixth-grade reading level). If you are going to employ the language of logic, it is only reasonable to expect you to use it properly.

Good gods, man, Anejo disavowed that analogy when called on it, why do you continue it?

Again--unequivocally--I disavow nothing. Erratum's characterization is unimpeachable. You are indeed a reactionary; the truth of that is not dependent upon your acknowledgement of such.

I am, due to mountains of proof to the contrary, unable to believe in the fundimental [sic] goodness and intelligence of humanity. I want to protect myself and others from the idiots. Thank you for informing me that this makes me a prejudiced zealot, rather than someone who's justifiably scared of the consequences of optimism.

No-one is asking you to be an optimist; any argument that insists that you abandon skepticism is immediately suspect. Your arguments indicate a failure to recognize that every individual has the right to be assessed on his own merits. A government whose purported role is to protect freedom is hypocritcal and self-defeating if it arrogates for itself the task of abridging one's right to conduct activities which do not violate the rights of others even if the intent of such a task is to curtail actions which violate others' rights. It is inconsistent with the Constitution to demand such protection, and it is inconsistent with the Constitution for you to wish to impose such protection on the public. Thanks, but no thanks.

It is the activities of your idiots that should be restricted, not those of competent drivers.

...the only way to deal with the problem drivers without making the laws apply to capable drivers is to apply them after they've done damage.

It's no surprise that you are unable to conceive a scheme which restricts incompetent drivers' violation of other drivers' rights without abridging the rights of competent drivers (whose circumspect application of speed or contravention of traffic control signals violate no-one's rights). That doesn't mean such a scheme cannot be conceived. Moreover, it is the duty of a freedom-loving government to do so.

[quote]As an aside: I apologise for the unwarranted 'terms even you can't distort' remark in the above post. Being compared to a bigot pisses