> 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.

I rather doubt most people would hire a lawyer to try and get out of a traffic fine. I'm not even certain whether or not you're allowed to bring one into court for a ticket. You, however, argue that "a little leniency" can be shown. How, if the law is firm?

> 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.

I find both of those uses to be slightly scary. How could you be proved to be "loitering with intent to steal?" And I hate the idea of a law that can be selectively enforced to allow the police to pick up people they think may have committed other crimes.

Selectively enforcing loitering laws generally applies to making it easier for the police to stop people from essentially living on public property, which is perhaps a useful thing. Though it's sad such laws need to be in place.

> > 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.

Creating baloney laws to take my money and give it to other people is not serving citizens. It is unwarranted theft, and I find it repulsive. If taking my money is part of a fine to correct behavior that is dangerous, okay, then. If it is just to get money for the city, absolutely not.

And I agree that the concept of traffic laws in general is to ensure order and safety. My main point was that not *all* of them are, as Shandar seemed to be saying. I think much of the resentment toward traffic laws stems from a feeling that cities are using them to milk money from citizens.

> 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.

Personally, I think the idea of taxes as social controls to be horrible. If people want to smoke, let them. I agree that if smokers are going to cost the state money in terms of inreased health care, then let them pay for that expense in tobacco taxes (and likewise gasoline/car registration taxes should be used toward transportation). I hate the current mindset of "Smokers are dirty people that are addicted! Let's exploit the addiction to get them to fund our pet projects!"

> > 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!

I think you underestimate the general public. I don't think most people would really drive faster than it was safe. In many busy cities, it's just not practical to go 90, and most motorists wouldn't want to anyway. And, as I said, busy residential areas (where there would be high pedestrian traffic and children playing, etc.) would be an exception, similar to the way school zones work.

I do like your totally non-sequiter appeal to emotion (think of the children!), though.

> > 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.

Why not? If you'd like to get into a lengthy discussion about fundamental political philosophy, I'd be happy to do so. :P But basically, if *every* person in a population is oppossed to a law (as would be assumed if *nobody* obeys it), why should the government have the right to make it?

> 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.

You misunderstand. I didn't mean that the people vote on every law, but rather the power of the government is derived directly from the people. This is the most fundamental concept of American government (read the Declaration of Independence or Amendments IX and X of our Constitution) and to most democratic systems. It's an old idea, dating back at least as far as John Locke and probably further.

The idea (often called the social contract theory) is that government exists only at the behest of the people, since it is the people who institute governments in the first place. This is essentially why you elect representatives: it is your way of exercising control over the government which exists only to serve you. This principle is applicable to monarchies as well as democracies (Locke's seminal work on the subject was written in response to the English Glorious Revolution).

To explain what this has to do with our current conversation: this basically all means that the government shouldn't be in the business of foisting laws upon the citizenry. Rather, the population is supposed to direct the government.

> > 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!

Do you think there would ever reach a point at which people would *stop* driving faster? Myself, I wouldn't ever want to drive much faster than 80 mph, and I know people who feel the same. Given the nature of traffic, anyone driving significantly faster than most of the traffic would be forced to be weaving in-and-out of traffic, which would obviously be an unsafe (and hence ticketable) practice.

Quite frankly, I think it would be safer to designate a lane or two on major freeways for people who wanted to drive 85 and let them at it. It bothers me when these people are forced to weave around me (or I have to change lanes to get out of their way) -- certainly that is quite unsafe.

> 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".

What do you mean by "playing the system?"

> 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.

It's about 9 feet, going from 25 to 29 mph. Doesn't really seem that big of a deal to me. The cop at my time told my dad he was just giving him a ticket to fill his quota for the day. It's ridiculous. Of course, I live in a city notorious for generating revenue via traffic tickets, so perhaps I'm biased.

Stephen