Would you tell an OBGYN to use their training to cure cancer instead? No, because they’re different jobs in the same field requiring different training. Usually, the cop giving you your speeding ticket is not taking time out from solving murders to do so.
Guess what? The motor vehicle fatality rate is more than twice the homicide rate:
2008 US motor vehicle accident fatalities per 100,000 = 12.3
Wiki: List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year
2008 US homicide rate per 100,000 = 5.4
FBI Uniform Crime Reports
So the next time some nitwit says we should devote all our resources to the most
serious crimes, tell him yeah, let’s not even begin to investigate any murders until
we’ve got a lot better handle on the MV situation.
How about Bank robbery? Safe cracking? Burglary? Hell, no one even gets killed in
them, usually. It would be more worth our money just to go ahead and make them legal!
So was Ted Bundy.
I had in mind focusing on fatal accidents rather than accidents in general.
80,000 citations at $77 each is a lot better than nothing as far as defraying law enforcement expenses.
But there were 37,261 MV fatalities in the US in 2008, so a 10% reduction would not seem in the offing
even if the entire driving population was ticketed.
Many departments don’t have a Traffic Enforcement division. In those areas, I don’t know what the cop who pulls you over would be doing if he wasn’t pulling you over, but I know what he wouldn’t be doing. He wouldn’t be solving murders and busting drug rings. That’s full time work and they have cops who specialize in those things. The cop pulling you over is a patrol officer who answers calls of all types and pulls people over when not working other calls.
Where I live, I think civilians are used. They’re sat in their speed camera vans over crests, around bends and behind trees. Snap, snap, post, post, cash, cash, no Plod involved.
Sure - the employee might not be redeployable, but the costs could be (i.e. fire the traffic cops and employ some more detectives). I don’t think it’s a good idea at all, but it’s not entirely untrue to argue that resources could be rearranged.
Don’t move to Germany then; the Autobahn has a quite a few sections where their is no speed limit, and you do see speed differences that large on it - look at any “supercar name here” autobahn videos on youtube. Yet, the death rate is lower than on the US interstate system. Or here in the US, Montana had a “reason and prudent” speed limit for 4 years; when that law was found unconstitutionally vague by their state Supreme Court, they technically had no speed limits for 5 months until their legislature convened. During both periods, traffic accidents and fatalities generally went down, and then went up slightly when they instated a 75 mph limit.
Honestly, I think it would be safer if they got rid of most of the speed limits on limited access highways, and sent out the cops to pull over people for lingering in the left lane.
I understand that, but logical fallacies are like math. There’s a right answer and a wrong answer. Sure, it may be difficult to tell at times, but there’s still only one answer, and when it’s pointed out, everyone should be able to agree.
You shoot yourself in the foot when you say “as well as one or more implicit premises”. That’s my whole point. If the implicit premise is “the moon is made of cheese,” then it’s an entirely different fallacy than if it’s “if there are worse violations, cops should not enforce lesser laws.” The OP doesn’t tell us what the implicit premises are, and that’s the problem here.
If you want a factual answer about fallacies, then you can’t leave anything implied.
Germany has repeatedly established speed limits on various sections of the Autobahn due to the amount of traffic and increased numbers of accidents along specific sections. They also don’t fill their cars with cupholders. German drivers are expected to actually drive their cars, not turn them into rolling dining areas. I believe “not paying attention” is the leading cause of vehicle accidents.
People who recieve tickets for speeding are actually violating the law. The police are catching lawbreakers. I wouldn’t want to recieve a speeding ticket but the police didn’t make me exceed the speed limit. If they were chasing me, it would probably because I was flee the scene of some other lawbreaking activity and getting a ticket would be the least of my worries.
You are being charge with 1 count of bank robbery, 2 count 1st degree murder, 1 count of fleeing the scene, 3 counts of exceeding the speed limit, and 234 counts of failure to properly use your turn signals.
Unless you are talking about arguments that are set out formally in some standardized notational format (and, on this board, we never are), this simply is not true. When dealing with informal arguments made in ordinary language, the hard part is in agreeing how they should be formalized. That is an art rather than a science. There is usually more than one plausible answer to formalize something, and only after doing that can you truly get “mathematically” precise about what, if any fallacies there might be.
Quite so. As I said, informal arguments (of any substance) almost always involve implicit premises. Sometimes, yes, there will be fallacies, depending on what those implicit premises are. It is probably much more common, however, for an argument to produce a false conclusion not because of any fallacy, but because one or more of the premises (most likely one of the implicit ones) is simply false.
The Moon is made of cheese.
Cheese is edible.
Therefore, the Moon is edible.
There is no fallacy there. It is a valid argument, but unsound because it has a false premise.
Indeed, which is why attempts to criticize informal arguments, such as those common in everyday prose and conversation, in terms of what fallacies they might have committed, is usually a waste of time, and comes down to opinions, often based on different people’s guesses as to what the implicit premises might be.
Some of the people around here seem to have an exaggerated faith in the usefulness of a knowledge of logical fallacies. People keep posting GQ threads along the lines of “What is the fallacy in this argument (whose conclusion I do not like)?” Generally the only right answer is “It is impossible to tell for certain if there is a fallacy in this informal argument, or, if there is one, which it might be. However, most probably there is not one. It does not follow from that, however, that you must accept the conclusion that you do not like. Very possibly there is an implicit premise that is false.” Unfortunately, however, the threads usually consist mainly in people providing speculative (and often widely varying) opinions about what fallacy might have been implicitly committed.
Germany (and most European countries) also actually have driver tests that make the driver learn and earn the ability to drive. Wheras the joke tests we have in the USA are little more than a formality to what many consider a god-given right.
I have taken DL tests in two states (VA and NC), and there was no joking about them.
In fact, I failed the first one I ever took because I could not parallel park.
Maryland requires 6-0 60 hours of supervised driving for 1st-time applicants.
The problem in the US is not learning requirments, it is inconsistent enforcement
and too-lenient laws and penalties. All countries should adopt the Scandinavian system,
where something like an .05 blood alcohol level is over the limit, and you can lose
your license permanently after 2-3 convictions.
True. But the budget isn’t something the individual traffic cop can do anything about, and they’re the ones being told to go off and solve some murders.
There has been a lot of good points in this thread. Now, I am an American and I have permanent EU residency. One thing I’ve always tried to stress is if you have a law which is not fully enforced it opens up the door to selective enforcement, if the official isn’t having a good day, your son asked their daughter out and they don’t like your son or whatever.
If a law isn’t consistently enforced it should be gotten rid of.
I’m not saying cops should not have some latitude to give warnings, but if yo’re saying they are wrong in ticketing something in an instance when technically a violation has occurred then maybe you should be lobbying that that rule gets repealed.
Get a ticket for rolling through a stop sign??? Get that stop sign removed!!!
It is my contention that all logical fallacies have at their core an invalid implied premise. For example, let’s try an argumentum ad hominem
John: If yesterday was Thursday, today must be Friday. We eat fish every Friday. Therefore, we are going to eat fish today.
Mark: Well of course a liberal would say that. We aren’t eating fish today.
Implied argument: John’s being liberal is a reason to doubt one of John’s premises.
If I am wrong about this, I would like to be disabused of my ignorance.