5 ms·

But isn't swerving is victimless too? And running a red light or speeding or driving against traffic on the freeway? If we only punish people for behavior that

But isn't swerving is victimless too? And running a red light or speeding or driving against traffic on the freeway? If we only punish people for behavior that results in injury or damage then you're relying on each and every driver to correctly assess the risks of their behavior. People are notoriously bad at doing that, so any punishment will be ineffective as a deterrent.

mangamadaiyan 11y ago
Yes indeed! For some kind of evidence towards this, try walking on the streets of a city where running red lights, speeding, and driving on the wrong side of the road are reasonably common. (I'm not joking - where I live, this /is/ common.) It's a victimless crime, all right - but only until the next victim.
- slavik81 11y ago
  I'd argue it's not. People breaking traffic rules erode my ability to travel. If they were to regularly speed through red lights, I'd have to stop at green lights to watch for them. I have a right to travel through on a green light, but they'd take that from me. We need to obey the rules of the road so other drivers can reason about our behaviour. We could have no rules, but it would be much less efficient. This is the prisoner's dilemma and the law enforces cooperation.
  - titanomachy 11y ago
    True, you don't have to be killed or maimed to be a "victim".
    - mangamadaiyan 11y ago
      Thank you, slavik and titanomachy - this was pretty much the point I was /trying/ to make, it didn't come out right.
gnaritas 11y ago
You're confusing crimes with civil violations of rules, so let me be more clear; when I say crimes I mean things for which you can be incarcerated. A ticket and a fine for a civil violation is outside the scope of my meaning. A DUI can get you put in jail, even if you're fine to drive, even if you haven't ingested a substance in days. DUI's don't just apply to alcohol you know.
ashark 11y ago
Plus, reducing the safety of using a shared resource (the roads) absolutely does cause harm, even if no injury occurs in a given case.

mangamadaiyan 11y ago

Yes indeed! For some kind of evidence towards this, try walking on the streets of a city where running red lights, speeding, and driving on the wrong side of the road are reasonably common. (I'm not joking - where I live, this /is/ common.) It's a victimless crime, all right - but only until the next victim.

slavik81 11y ago
I'd argue it's not. People breaking traffic rules erode my ability to travel. If they were to regularly speed through red lights, I'd have to stop at green lights to watch for them. I have a right to travel through on a green light, but they'd take that from me. We need to obey the rules of the road so other drivers can reason about our behaviour. We could have no rules, but it would be much less efficient. This is the prisoner's dilemma and the law enforces cooperation.
- titanomachy 11y ago
  True, you don't have to be killed or maimed to be a "victim".
  - mangamadaiyan 11y ago
    Thank you, slavik and titanomachy - this was pretty much the point I was /trying/ to make, it didn't come out right.

gnaritas 11y ago

You're confusing crimes with civil violations of rules, so let me be more clear; when I say crimes I mean things for which you can be incarcerated. A ticket and a fine for a civil violation is outside the scope of my meaning. A DUI can get you put in jail, even if you're fine to drive, even if you haven't ingested a substance in days. DUI's don't just apply to alcohol you know.

ashark 11y ago

Plus, reducing the safety of using a shared resource (the roads) absolutely does cause harm, even if no injury occurs in a given case.