> > 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.


That's why they exist. But I think Stephen's point is that cities usually don't bother to enforce them until they need the money. Here in Pittsburgh, certain forms of jaywalking are exceedingly common. The city decided a couple summers ago, when it was getting into financial trouble, to start handing out $90 citations to everyone caught jaywalking. Jaywalking, while common here, is not a problem, because drivers are in cars with full knowledge of the fact that people at a corner may decide to just cross. Often, the driver will yield the right of way. There are an exceedingly large number of "yield to pedestrians in crosswalk" signs in the city. The laws exist to provide order and safety, yes, but they aren't enforced until the money becomes an issue.

And yes, I realize jaywalking is not really a traffic violation. But that was an example of a city not enforcing something until money was an issue. The same holds true for parking meter violations in the borough I used to live in (not until recent years when the budget got tighter did they start sending around a meter maid.) And I'm sure there are other examples.


> 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!


No, I think what he means is that traffic is often self-regulating. I drive on roads all the time where the posted speed limit is, say, 40 miles an hour, and everybody, *everybody*, is doing at least 50. And it's not a problem. There is no enormous amount of accidents. Same holds true on the interstates, where the posted limit is 65. Traffic tends to flow (when there's no congestion) at about 70 to 75, with no major problems. I think this is what Stephen was referring to.



> > 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.


Um....that *is* the consent of the governed. "Consent of the governed" does not refer to direct democracy. It refers to citizens consenting to allow someone else to rule in their place. AKA, electing representatives.



> 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.


Uh, no the law does not need to be firm. Having laws that are completely inflexible is a HORRID idea, because circumstances change. What if someone is being chased in a car by someone trying to murder them? Would you pull that person over and write them a speeding ticket?

The same holds true for assault laws. By your logic, every person who beats the tar out of another deserves jail. This completely ignores those who do so in self-defense.

And it doesn't matter how long your stopping distance is if NOBODY IS AROUND, which is what Stephen's point was. Traffic laws exist, supposedly, for safety and order. When you roll (or run) a stop sign at 4 in the morning in the middle of nowhere, you are upsetting neither, and do not deserve a ticket. Likewise, slightly rolling a stop sign in the middle of suburbia at 4 in the afternoon is not upsetting safety or order, either, because it is rather expected. Nobody is expected to come to a full stop at the white line. Well, the only people who are are student drivers, and that's because you HAVE to obey the LETTER of the law to get your license. And one of the first things one does after getting his/her license is to go roll a stop sign or travel 5 MPH over the limit.


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

The Other Matthew