5 ms·

> Impeding traffic flow is extremely dangerous, more so than most people seem to realize Sure, if we accept the current reality that many drivers drive faster

by nkurz 10y ago

> Impeding traffic flow is extremely dangerous, more so than most people seem to realize Sure, if we accept the current reality that many drivers drive faster than the law allows, it likely improves overall public safety to allow them to do so unimpeded. My preference would be that we either enforce the existing laws, or change the laws to match the norm. But although there are many situations where the chance of immediate harm would be reduced by avoiding confrontation, I think it's rare that citizens are legally required to accommodate law breakers. For example, while it may reduce the risk of bodily injury to peacefully turn your keys over to a carjacker, it's unlikely that we would criminalize refusal. I presume this is because society tolerates (accepts, condones) speeding in a way that it does not tolerate carjacking. At the least, I think it implies that laws are divided into (at least) two classes, laws that individuals must allow others to break, and those that they are allowed (or encouraged) to attempt enforcement. Can you give other examples of illegal activities where third parties are required to take positive action to allow? And where there isn't widely considered to be a "right" to break that law? I'm sure they exist, but I'm not coming up with them.

mulmen 10y ago
Impeding the flow of traffic is dangerous regardless of the presence of speeders, it is also against the rules. If you aren't following the "stay right" rule then you are as wrong as a speeder. You can't pick and choose what rules you want to obey. > At the least, I think it implies that laws are divided into (at least) two classes, laws that individuals must allow others to break, and those that they are allowed (or encouraged) to attempt enforcement. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean but I'm not aware of any situation where private citizens are encouraged to enforce the law. That's a recipe for disaster and is where road rage is born. Should I drive around and tailgate everyone in the left lane to teach them to drive on the right? What's the difference? e: The "drive right" rule is not about allowing speeders, it is about not impeding the flow of traffic. It's similar to "yield to the right", the rules of the road are designed to allow all of us to use a shared resource efficiently.
- nkurz 10y ago
  It's likely that we agree on real-world practice: one should allow vehicles to safely pass regardless of the legality of their speed, and harassing someone who is driving in the wrong lane is to be avoided. I drive as politely as I can, both for my own safety and that of others. That said, I am philosophically troubled by a law that legally requires me to take a positive action that benefits those who choose to ignore the law. I'm not sure what the parallel would be to your "yield to the right" example --- perhaps requiring that the driver with the legal right of way check first that no one has chosen to ignore the yield sign? I would be interested in better parallel examples where positive action is mandated to improve public safety in the event that another party is breaking the law. My guess is that degree of comfort with similar laws show a strong urban/rural split, based on the degree to which "leave the policing to the police" is feasible. (note that I'm not questioning the general principal of "slow traffic keep right", only the corner case where all traffic is already moving at the legal speed limit)
  - mulmen 10y ago
    I can not provide parallel examples but I disagree with your premise that you are obligated to stay right to enable others to break the law. Even if you are the only car on the road you still must drive in the right lane unless passing. The law says to stay right regardless of speed so there is no corner case based on traffic moving at the legal speed limit. Your obligation to stay right exists at all speeds. The purpose of the law is to improve safety by enabling smooth traffic flow and creating a predictable environment on the road. This is the parallel with "yield to the right". Communication between drivers is difficult so we have a set of rules to guide us in situations where the next action may otherwise be unclear. If two people meet in a hallway they can look at each other and say "excuse me" or "go ahead". This is not possible on the road. In the same way I can walk up behind someone on the sidewalk and say "excuse me" and walk around them. In a car this is not possible so we agree in advance (or rather, we are told by the authorities) what to do to avoid the situation and how to reconcile it. In some jurisdictions the purpose of the left lane is explicitly passing, you have no right to drive there unless you are passing someone else. In this case your obligation to stay right has nothing to do with the existence of a speeder or even your rate of speed. I am not defending speeding because it does increase risk and reduce safety on the road but it becomes much more dangerous when other drivers are also not following the rules. Breaking the speed limit while someone else violates the lane occupancy laws creates a compounding risk for everyone on the road. This is why we have rules against both. I would turn your request for parallel examples around and ask you for examples of a situation where it is ok to break the law to prevent someone else from doing the same. How do you justify such an action and is there a calculation as to how far to go? Is it ok to jaywalk to stop a robbery? Is it ok to murder someone to prevent jaywalking? When is vigilantism justified?

by nkurz 10y ago

mulmen 10y ago

Impeding the flow of traffic is dangerous regardless of the presence of speeders, it is also against the rules. If you aren't following the "stay right" rule then you are as wrong as a speeder. You can't pick and choose what rules you want to obey. > At the least, I think it implies that laws are divided into (at least) two classes, laws that individuals must allow others to break, and those that they are allowed (or encouraged) to attempt enforcement. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean but I'm not aware of any situation where private citizens are encouraged to enforce the law. That's a recipe for disaster and is where road rage is born. Should I drive around and tailgate everyone in the left lane to teach them to drive on the right? What's the difference? e: The "drive right" rule is not about allowing speeders, it is about not impeding the flow of traffic. It's similar to "yield to the right", the rules of the road are designed to allow all of us to use a shared resource efficiently.

nkurz 10y ago
It's likely that we agree on real-world practice: one should allow vehicles to safely pass regardless of the legality of their speed, and harassing someone who is driving in the wrong lane is to be avoided. I drive as politely as I can, both for my own safety and that of others. That said, I am philosophically troubled by a law that legally requires me to take a positive action that benefits those who choose to ignore the law. I'm not sure what the parallel would be to your "yield to the right" example --- perhaps requiring that the driver with the legal right of way check first that no one has chosen to ignore the yield sign? I would be interested in better parallel examples where positive action is mandated to improve public safety in the event that another party is breaking the law. My guess is that degree of comfort with similar laws show a strong urban/rural split, based on the degree to which "leave the policing to the police" is feasible. (note that I'm not questioning the general principal of "slow traffic keep right", only the corner case where all traffic is already moving at the legal speed limit)
- mulmen 10y ago
  I can not provide parallel examples but I disagree with your premise that you are obligated to stay right to enable others to break the law. Even if you are the only car on the road you still must drive in the right lane unless passing. The law says to stay right regardless of speed so there is no corner case based on traffic moving at the legal speed limit. Your obligation to stay right exists at all speeds. The purpose of the law is to improve safety by enabling smooth traffic flow and creating a predictable environment on the road. This is the parallel with "yield to the right". Communication between drivers is difficult so we have a set of rules to guide us in situations where the next action may otherwise be unclear. If two people meet in a hallway they can look at each other and say "excuse me" or "go ahead". This is not possible on the road. In the same way I can walk up behind someone on the sidewalk and say "excuse me" and walk around them. In a car this is not possible so we agree in advance (or rather, we are told by the authorities) what to do to avoid the situation and how to reconcile it. In some jurisdictions the purpose of the left lane is explicitly passing, you have no right to drive there unless you are passing someone else. In this case your obligation to stay right has nothing to do with the existence of a speeder or even your rate of speed. I am not defending speeding because it does increase risk and reduce safety on the road but it becomes much more dangerous when other drivers are also not following the rules. Breaking the speed limit while someone else violates the lane occupancy laws creates a compounding risk for everyone on the road. This is why we have rules against both. I would turn your request for parallel examples around and ask you for examples of a situation where it is ok to break the law to prevent someone else from doing the same. How do you justify such an action and is there a calculation as to how far to go? Is it ok to jaywalk to stop a robbery? Is it ok to murder someone to prevent jaywalking? When is vigilantism justified?