> 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.

Probably right, but the point about firm laws applies also to larger crimes with larger penalties.

> You, however, argue that "a little leniency" can be shown. How, if the law is firm?
The *law* should be firm, the *execution* of the law human-based. In the case of speeding etc that execution is in the hands of the cop who pulls you over (actually before he pulls you over).

> 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.

You can be picked up and held for such minor offenses only for a very short time (overnight or something). The purpose of those sorts of laws is to keep the louts off the streets at night - I think drunkenness is (or at least was) another such offense.

> 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.

The need for such laws is independant of the rest of the discussion, but yes, it is somewhat deplorable (if a thing can indeed be somewhat deplorable).

> 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.

That's my point. The law isn't to take money away; the fine is just a means of hitting the person who made the mistake in the place it hurts most. So the amount of the fine should be calculated based on the severity of the crime - ie going 29mph in a 25mph area when there's nobody around shouldn't attract the same fine as going 80mph in a 70mph area with other cars nearby.

> 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.

Whether they are or not, though, don't try rebelling against them. It's not wise. :-)

> > 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!"

Precisely what I'm saying. Smoking taxes should not fund "pet projects" - only anti-smoking campaigns and, as you so rightly remind me, hospitals that care for those with smoking-related diseases.

> 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.

OK, yes, I probably did underestimate people. But I've come to the habit of treating all people as the worst possible extreme when discussing these things - because a person *might* be of that extreme. But if, say, 90% of people drive at 60 and the rest 70-80, chances are 60 is safe. Thanks for reminding me of this point.

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

Actually, this wasn't meant to be emotive. It came from two sources:
1) The disparity of numbers - people using a school vs drivers passing it - which could be either way (there could be lots of parents of students, and practically no other drivers);
2) A longstanding debate from my own area, Gallaghers Road. It's a collector road joining High St Rd and Waverley Rd, both secondary arterial roads; it's currently 50kmh (we talk kilometers not miles here), and people wanted it upped to 60kmh. There's a school right on it. So I was basically talking from a true incident here.

> 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?

If *nobody* obeys it (which probably won't be true), that may be an excuse for not making it in the first place; but to repeal a law you'd have to have a really good reason.

> 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.

I'm Australian, not American, and some of what I'm saying is from England, but the principles probably apply. The population has almost no say in the lawmaking; how different, really, are the candidates you are offered? And how much power does your representative have? In England most power is actually wielded by the Civil Service - the Department of This, the Department of That. The British political system has been described as "the engine of a lawnmower, and the brakes of a Rolls Royce" - the politicians and the Civil Service, respectively.

> 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).

Very little control though.

> 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.

Yes, but the logistics would be something incredible.

> 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.

Again, I underestimated the commonsense of the community. There's something kinda dumb about some people - but not about all people. Sorry if I offended you. :-|

> 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.

Nice idea, but I foresee some problems; someone not used to driving on such a freeway would no doubt look to the cars beside as a guide to speed (perhaps subconsciously) - so you'd have to have a visual separator between Fast and Slow lanes (or is it Fast/Slower - or Fast/Faster? hehehe), and then you'd need to look at the freeway exits. But it's a nice idea - propose it to the gummin' (or guv'men).

> > 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?"

I don't know. Ask my dad (talldad@kepl.com.au) - he knows.

> 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.

At higher speeds it will make more difference. Note of course that reaction time will change the distances some too; as will weather etc conditions. 25mph doesn't seem much to worry about though - but I speak from total inexperience here.

>
> Stephen

Chris"foot no doubt firmly in mouth"A