> > I'd rather cops spend their time chasing murderers, rapists and robbers than making sure they nab every single person who rolls a stop sign or does 75 on the interstate.
>
> This attitude bugs me a bit. Here's the reason: If the law is there, there is obviously a reason to enforce it. If speeding weren't dangerous, there wouldn't be a law against it.

Whoa, slow down there. What? How do you come to this conclusion? There are scores of laws that are bad. You seem to assume that our legislators are somehow infallible when it comes to making laws; this isn't true. Nor is it true only when it applies to traffic laws. As an example, the speed limit on highways was effectively capped at 55 miles per hour in the 1970s by the federal government (that it didn't really have the right to do this is another issue). The reason was to conserve gasoline, not safety. You'll notice that most states now have speed limits on freeways at around 65 mph today. If we trust your argument, then it must have been unsafe to drive 65 back in 1979, but is now safe today.

That there is a law never proves that the law is a good one.

> Perhaps there are other things more dangerous, but when does "dangerous" become "not dangerous enough". Where do we draw the line with regards to which laws to enforce. Speeding? Drinking? Drunk driving? Weapons? Concealed weapons? Drug use? Drug sale?

Clearly police departments do not have infinite resources, which means they must set priorities in enforcement. Loitering tends to be illegal, but it is very selectively enforced simply because it's not usually a real problem when people break the law. I cannot universally say how to decide when to enforce which laws; it's going to be different given the resources and environment of a given area.

I agree with TOM's sentiments, so allow me to rephrase them in a way that may be less contentious: since many traffic infractions are not dangerous ("rolling" through a stop sign), it is bad when we assign police officers to specifically enforce them. Traffic laws need to be enforced with some notion of context. If a guy slows down instead of coming to a complete stop at a deserted 4-way-stop in early morning, was this really unsafe? Clearly people who just rocket through stops should be ticketed, but making sure you've completely stopped before the limit line everytime is not necessarily the most judicious use of police resources.

Part of the problem is that cities have a tendency to use traffic laws as revenue generation. This is a total perversion of the basic concept of law, which is to serve citizens. Traffic laws are generally supposed to be descriptive, which means they should reflect the average safe driving speed in an area. Cities are supposed to keep track of how fast drivers go, on average, in a given area. I believe in California, cities are supposed to take regular measurements of roads and change speed limits to reflect what two-thirds of the drivers are doing.

Except in special circumstances (highly residential areas that have a lot of through-traffic), it makes sense to allow the population to figure out the general safe speed, rather than to allow some bureacraut to decide it. When cities deliberately set up "speed traps" by setting a speed limit ten miles-per-hour under safe driving speeds and assign cops to patrol the area, that is a perversion of traffic laws. It is also not unheard of for police officers to have unofficial quotas to fill in a day, i.e. a cop is supposed to ticket 25 people that day because the city wants the revenue.

> Sure, maybe there should be some type of hierarchy of laws where some take precedence over others. But just because a murder is more important that speeding doesn't mean the entire police force should devote itself wholly to that murder case until it is solved. Imagine the traffic deaths that would occur in cities where they have a high murder rate. No one would ever enforce the traffic laws.

I don't think many would argue that no traffic laws should be enforced. But we need to be careful that our laws are wise and just, and are enforced with the same wisdom and justice.

> Personally, I think the bigger problem is a general disregard for the law.

Ask yourself where this stems from. If people have a general disrespect for the law, perhaps it is a bad law. It is a bad idea to try and change public opinion via legislation. It fosters a disrespect for good laws. Since the government is supposed to govern with the consent of the governed, why is it imposing unpopular laws?

> For instance, when speed limits were capped at 65 mph, most people drove 70-75 mph and felt justified in doing so because they "can handle the car at that speed". Now that many have been raised to 70-75 mph, most people drive 75-85 mph and still feel justified because they "can handle the car at that speed". This is not to say that most people can't drive safely at 80 mph, but if the speed limits were raised to 85 mph I would be willing to wager that a significantly large number of people would still hover 5-10 mph over the posted limit, feeling justified for the same reason.

So if people can drive safely at 80 mph, why don't we raise the speed limit up there? Certain countries operate without speed limits on the highways, and this makes sense to me. Traffic conditions on highways tend to be self-regulating. There are many times when I am unable to drive 65 mph simply because of congestion. But when I'm on a relatively deserted stretch of road, why shouldn't I be allowed to drive faster?

> The same principle applies for almost all traffic laws: turn signals, stop signs, yield signs, yellow lights, following too closely, "no right on red" signs, train crossings, etc. Everyone feels they can handle it themselves. They don't need to be regulated. Well, if this is so true, who is having all these wrecks every day? Who is injuring--and even killing--all these people in car accidents on a daily basis?

There are a lot of factors that lead to car accidents. I'd guess that the Dept. of Transportation has a ton of statistics available on the causes of them. I'd also guess that a significant number of them come from people breaking the law. At the same time, accidents can also be caused by people just doing stupid things without thinking about them, by mechanical failure and by adverse environmental conditions.

Human stupidity is probably the biggest factor, I'd guess. I don't think most people who cause accidents are prosecuted for them, because breaking the law wasn't deliberate -- that's why they're called accidents. If you run into the back of somebody, you probably weren't paying attention. It's not like you had a disrespect for the law that says not to tailgate, but you had a momentary lapse. This is unavoidable. We can't make humans drive perfectly, no matter how many laws we pass.

> My point is this: although you may not feel very much like rejoicing when you are pulled over for speeding, keep in mind it is you who were breaking the law and that those laws are there to help make sure that when you hop in your car to go somewhere you'll reach your destination safely. We should be grateful to traffic cops for the work they do. Sure, it's unpleasant to pay the fine, but it's nice to know that when the light turns green at the intersection you'll be reasonably sure that it's safe to cross.

I agree with what you say in principle here. I don't blame cops for doing their jobs and giving tickets -- I blame poor government for creating bad laws in the first place. Furthermore, as I've said before, I don't believe that all traffic laws are created exclusively for our safety, and that's what really bugs me. I would be much happier if you could only be cited for doing something that was reasonably unsafe, not for going four miles per hour over the speed limit (something my dad once got a ticket for).

Stephen