> Whoa, slow down there. What? How do you come to this conclusion? There are scores of laws that are bad.

A lot of traffic laws seem to be exceedingly precise and unfeeling, but this is mainly to avoid long drawn-out court proceedings. Suppose the law explicitly allowed people to crawl past stop signs - lawyers would have lots of fun arguing about whether the person had been crawling slowly enough. With the law set firmly, arguments can deal with real fact; but for ordinary day-to-day actions, a little leniency can be shown.

> > 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?

This is precisely the point in many discussions, I think. The line cannot be drawn in legislation; in fact, it can probably never be drawn anywhere. Individual cases must be decided at the time, and crawling past a stop sign may be valid today but not tomorrow (for example).

> 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.

Loitering tends to be one of those minor infractions that people are only ever arrested for if the police think someone is about to do something ("loitering with intent to steal" - on the Goon Show the politicians were booked for "loitering with intent to govern, milud."). Also, once someone's been arrested for this sort of thing, he can be questionned and more noticable convictions can result.

> 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.

Yes, this is a serious problem; though "to serve citizens" is an odd way to put it. Traffic laws as revenue generation could be serving citizens - by permitting less tax increases. I'd say that traffic laws are to ensure order and safety.

Personally, I think all fines and deterrant taxes should be sent to precise targets. A tax on cigarettes should fund anti-smoking organizations. Fines for traffic infringements should go to new traffic lights (improved safety), campaigns like "Wipe Off 5" (encouraging reduced-speed travel), perhaps road construction, that sort of thing.

> 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.

Don't know about that... That implies a vote, which basically means "majority rules". Suppose there's 1000 drivers who want to drive fast, and 100 parents with 100 children who want the drivers to go slower. The children don't get votes, so it's 10 to 1 in favour of increasing the limit. No thanks!

> 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?

If nobody obeys a law, that doesn't mean it should be removed. Also, the government does not govern with the consent of the governed - except in a few cases where a referendum is called (as we had recently in Australia with the republic debate). The people vote for their leaders (not that that's so good an indication anyway!), and the leaders do whatever they like for the next few years. At the end of that, if the people don't like what was done, they vote against the person who did it; but it's too late to change the legislation.

> So if people can drive safely at 80 mph, why don't we raise the speed limit up there?

Because people would go 85-90!

> 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?

In Australia we used to have this sort of thing; "soft" speed limits where, if you could prove that you were safe, you could exceed the limit without penalty. (Of course, if you have an accident and it turns out you were over the limit, you're in big trouble.) The idea was abolished because too many people were "playing the system".

> 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.

Yesterday there was an level crossing accident here (Nunawading, Melbourne, Australia). From what I can gather, the boom gates were down, the train was coming, and a car tried to dash across. The train struck the car, and thus proved who is in command on the railway tracks. This could not have happened if everybody had obeyed the rules (don't cross the tracks when the gates are down).

> 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.
But driver training is supposed to teach you the dangers of stupidity and mental lapses. Anybody who backends another car is at fault, yea though it be totally accidental. The one who did it should pay for the damage, etc, but shouldn't necessarily have a fine as well.

> 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).
And as I've said before, the law has to be firm. Four miles per hour may not seem a big thing, but do the calculations, find out stopping distance, and see what difference it makes. It's actually quite a bit.

Ah, well, I see I've been ranting some... Better stop now!

ChrisA