5 ms·

Consistent enforcement is not hard: photo traffic enforcement devices.

by massysett 10y ago

pdonis 10y ago
Sure, if you don't mind penalizing people who have caused no harm. I strongly disagree with that approach.
- SXX 10y ago
  So you're okay with people driving while drunk or high as well? They might not cause any harm too.
  - pdonis 10y ago
    If they don't cause harm, then they shouldn't be penalized, at least not by the law. If they cause harm, they should. You seem to think that anything that is legal must be "ok". That is certainly not the position I am taking. Lots of things are legal that I do not think are "ok", and some things that are illegal and I think should not be (such as mere possession of drugs), are still not "ok" to me. I would not advise anyone to drive while drunk or high, and if someone does it and manages to not cause harm, they were lucky and shouldn't expect to be so lucky if they try it again. And if their parents or spouses or significant others want to penalize them for doing something so stupid, that's fine with me. I just don't think the law should penalize them unless they actually cause harm.
    - learc83 10y ago
      >If they don't cause harm, then they shouldn't be penalized, at least not by the law. If they cause harm, they should. I think that drunk driving checkpoints are often taken advantage of to work around the 4th amendment, but making it legal to drive drunk unless you harm someone is insane. Drunk driving directly causes around 10k deaths per year in the US. What if I decide to walk down a crowded sidewalk swinging a sword over my head, under your system is that fine until I actually hit someone? Do you have no legal recourse to stop me? Is it OK for me to drag race down a residential street at 120mph as long as I don't hit anything? Lets say the guy next door decides that he's going to build a nuclear reactor. Do you have to wait until your hair starts falling out to stop him? Clearly there is a limit where a behavior is inherently dangerous enough that we've decided to outlaw the behavior before it causes harm. Does drunk driving not cross that threshold for you? Where is the limit for you personally?
      - pdonis 10y ago
        making it legal to drive drunk unless you harm someone is insane. Drunk driving directly causes around 10k deaths per year in the US. And every drunk driver who causes a death should be penalized, no question. But penalizing people who have caused no harm undermines people's respect for the law. It also undermines personal responsibility: people figure that if it's legal, it must be ok, instead of exercising their own judgment. Actually, the very fact you quote should make you doubt the effectiveness of penalizing drunk drivers who have not caused harm. Everyone knows you can lose your license for drunk driving, yet drunk driving still causes 10k deaths per year? What sort of draconian system would it take to actually deter all those drunk drivers if the law is the only tool we have to do it? I don't want to find that out. What if I decide to walk down a crowded sidewalk swinging a sword over my head, under your system is that fine until I actually hit someone? Do you have no legal recourse to stop me? Once again, you're conflating "legal" with "ok". Obviously walking down a crowded sidewalk swinging a sword over your head is stupid and carries a huge risk of harm. And everyone around you should be ducking and screaming at you to stop, for goodness' sake, you're going to hurt someone. But no, the law should not punish you unless you actually do hurt someone. Your underlying fallacy here is that the only way to prevent people from doing something is to make it illegal. That is both too weak and too strong. Too weak, because, as noted above, even severe legal penalties aren't sufficient to deter some people (including, apparently, 10k drunk drivers a year). Too strong, because there are lots of ways to deter people without any legal penalties whatsoever--but that requires us, as individuals, to take responsibility for regulating our own behavior and pointing out obviously stupid and dangerous things that others around us are doing and asking them to stop, and imposing non-legal penalties if they don't. Sorry, you can't come into my house with that sword, it's too dangerous. Sorry, you can't come into my store with that sword, it's too dangerous. Sorry... Pretty soon the idiot will get the idea that nobody is going to interact with him if he persists in swinging his sword around all the time. (Applying similar logic to people who are prone to try driving while drunk is left as an exercise for the reader.)
        learc83 10y ago
        Look at the number of drunk driving deaths (and accidents) from 30 years ago or so and you'll notice that the rate has been dropping since enforcement became more regular. Of course some of that is likely from social pressure, but most studies have shown that enforcement does reduce the number of drunk driving deaths. But let's not argue in vague generalities about using social pressure instead of laws. A company builds a nuclear plant on Lake Michigan. There is a 10% chance per year that the plant will fail. The failure will catastrophically damage Lake Michigan and the surrounding area. The company decides that it's worth it. Under your system, a boycott is the only way to stop them? A lab decides to manufacture biological weapons to sell to dictators. There is no chance of a boycott doing any good because the owner doesn't sell to anyone in the US. There is a 5% chance per year that safety procedures will fail, releasing a virus that will kill an estimated 50 million people in the US. Under your system, what do we do about it? These hypothetical situations are extreme, but I'm trying to find out what your limits are. Because I really don't think you've thought this through.
    - SXX 10y ago
      Thanks for explaining your position. I mainly asked because in my opinion there is very little difference between driving high / drunk or violating speed limits. While former increase chances for incident later increase lethality and in the end only risk for human injuries / life are matter. While I don't think that anything legal must be "ok" and law is perfect I still don't agree with you and there is serious reasons for that. First of all one can simply be "lucky" with careless driving or just straight defective brakes. Second I seen how law enforcement changed driver behaviour in my country of origin. Even with extreme amount of corruption it's still forced almost everyone to use seat belts, pass vehicle inspection regularly and avoid breaking the law if there is chance that will end up with loss of their driving license or huge bribe. I totally sure that without proper enforcement that would be never achieved otherwise. Third is that I seen the difference between driving behaviour in the UK and Asia and while UK system cause a lot of false positives lethality numbers make a big deal. Even if enforcement is not the only measure to calm traffic it's important one. I really can't see how one can justify that 3x-10x more people going die. Last reason is that I simply not believe that society on it's own can change driver behaviour as effective (if at all) as enforcement. Fines and tickets work because they are market mechanism like fuel and horsepower taxes, paid parking and London's congestion charge, etc. Also there are plenty of other laws that limit overtaking on sidewalk, illegal parking and many more that only work because there are enforced. Remove them and streets of any country will slowly turn into hell. UPD: Grammar fixes.
      - pdonis 10y ago
        > I mainly asked because in my opinion there is very little difference between driving high / drunk or violating speed limits. I see a big difference. Driving drunk/high impairs your judgment; it means you are less capable of knowing what a safe speed is (as well as being less able to judge many other factors). So it obviously increases risk. Violating the speed limit, assuming you are sober, might not increase risk at all, because the driver has more information about the conditions in the particular situation than whoever set the posted speed limit, and therefore is better able to judge what a safe speed is. His judgment might be (and often is, if typical behavior on highways in the US is any indication) that the posted speed limit is too low--that speeds higher than that limit are still safe. I don't see any basis for saying that he must always be wrong and the posted speed limit must always be right. > I seen how law enforcement changed driver behaviour in my country of origin I didn't say that law enforcement doesn't change behavior. Of course it does. The question is, at what cost? And is the cost less than the benefit? Could the same (or greater) benefit be achieved at a lower cost by some other method. Your own description suggests very large costs that you do not appear to be taking into account: you speak of "extreme amount of corruption" and "huge bribe". What cost does your society as a whole bear as a result of these things, compared to a society in which people are held strictly responsible when they cause harm and know they can't bribe their way out of being punished?
    - fredophile 10y ago
      How much danger should I be allowed to put you in without repurcusions? Should I be allowed to point a loaded firearm at you? As long as I don't pull the trigger I'm not causing any harm. I'm pretty sure most people would appreciate the police getting involved in this type of situation.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  This comment is utter nonsense. First off, how is that any different from enforcement from a cop? Secondly, why do we have to wait until someone actually causes an accident? Breaking the speed limit, driving drunk, running red lights isn't bad enough?
  - pdonis 10y ago
    I think I've addressed these questions already in other posts in this subthread.

Consistent enforcement is not hard: photo traffic enforcement devices.

pdonis 10y ago

Sure, if you don't mind penalizing people who have caused no harm. I strongly disagree with that approach.

SXX 10y ago
So you're okay with people driving while drunk or high as well? They might not cause any harm too.
- pdonis 10y ago
  If they don't cause harm, then they shouldn't be penalized, at least not by the law. If they cause harm, they should. You seem to think that anything that is legal must be "ok". That is certainly not the position I am taking. Lots of things are legal that I do not think are "ok", and some things that are illegal and I think should not be (such as mere possession of drugs), are still not "ok" to me. I would not advise anyone to drive while drunk or high, and if someone does it and manages to not cause harm, they were lucky and shouldn't expect to be so lucky if they try it again. And if their parents or spouses or significant others want to penalize them for doing something so stupid, that's fine with me. I just don't think the law should penalize them unless they actually cause harm.
  - learc83 10y ago
    >If they don't cause harm, then they shouldn't be penalized, at least not by the law. If they cause harm, they should. I think that drunk driving checkpoints are often taken advantage of to work around the 4th amendment, but making it legal to drive drunk unless you harm someone is insane. Drunk driving directly causes around 10k deaths per year in the US. What if I decide to walk down a crowded sidewalk swinging a sword over my head, under your system is that fine until I actually hit someone? Do you have no legal recourse to stop me? Is it OK for me to drag race down a residential street at 120mph as long as I don't hit anything? Lets say the guy next door decides that he's going to build a nuclear reactor. Do you have to wait until your hair starts falling out to stop him? Clearly there is a limit where a behavior is inherently dangerous enough that we've decided to outlaw the behavior before it causes harm. Does drunk driving not cross that threshold for you? Where is the limit for you personally?
    - pdonis 10y ago
      making it legal to drive drunk unless you harm someone is insane. Drunk driving directly causes around 10k deaths per year in the US. And every drunk driver who causes a death should be penalized, no question. But penalizing people who have caused no harm undermines people's respect for the law. It also undermines personal responsibility: people figure that if it's legal, it must be ok, instead of exercising their own judgment. Actually, the very fact you quote should make you doubt the effectiveness of penalizing drunk drivers who have not caused harm. Everyone knows you can lose your license for drunk driving, yet drunk driving still causes 10k deaths per year? What sort of draconian system would it take to actually deter all those drunk drivers if the law is the only tool we have to do it? I don't want to find that out. What if I decide to walk down a crowded sidewalk swinging a sword over my head, under your system is that fine until I actually hit someone? Do you have no legal recourse to stop me? Once again, you're conflating "legal" with "ok". Obviously walking down a crowded sidewalk swinging a sword over your head is stupid and carries a huge risk of harm. And everyone around you should be ducking and screaming at you to stop, for goodness' sake, you're going to hurt someone. But no, the law should not punish you unless you actually do hurt someone. Your underlying fallacy here is that the only way to prevent people from doing something is to make it illegal. That is both too weak and too strong. Too weak, because, as noted above, even severe legal penalties aren't sufficient to deter some people (including, apparently, 10k drunk drivers a year). Too strong, because there are lots of ways to deter people without any legal penalties whatsoever--but that requires us, as individuals, to take responsibility for regulating our own behavior and pointing out obviously stupid and dangerous things that others around us are doing and asking them to stop, and imposing non-legal penalties if they don't. Sorry, you can't come into my house with that sword, it's too dangerous. Sorry, you can't come into my store with that sword, it's too dangerous. Sorry... Pretty soon the idiot will get the idea that nobody is going to interact with him if he persists in swinging his sword around all the time. (Applying similar logic to people who are prone to try driving while drunk is left as an exercise for the reader.)
      - learc83 10y ago
        Look at the number of drunk driving deaths (and accidents) from 30 years ago or so and you'll notice that the rate has been dropping since enforcement became more regular. Of course some of that is likely from social pressure, but most studies have shown that enforcement does reduce the number of drunk driving deaths. But let's not argue in vague generalities about using social pressure instead of laws. A company builds a nuclear plant on Lake Michigan. There is a 10% chance per year that the plant will fail. The failure will catastrophically damage Lake Michigan and the surrounding area. The company decides that it's worth it. Under your system, a boycott is the only way to stop them? A lab decides to manufacture biological weapons to sell to dictators. There is no chance of a boycott doing any good because the owner doesn't sell to anyone in the US. There is a 5% chance per year that safety procedures will fail, releasing a virus that will kill an estimated 50 million people in the US. Under your system, what do we do about it? These hypothetical situations are extreme, but I'm trying to find out what your limits are. Because I really don't think you've thought this through.
  - SXX 10y ago
    Thanks for explaining your position. I mainly asked because in my opinion there is very little difference between driving high / drunk or violating speed limits. While former increase chances for incident later increase lethality and in the end only risk for human injuries / life are matter. While I don't think that anything legal must be "ok" and law is perfect I still don't agree with you and there is serious reasons for that. First of all one can simply be "lucky" with careless driving or just straight defective brakes. Second I seen how law enforcement changed driver behaviour in my country of origin. Even with extreme amount of corruption it's still forced almost everyone to use seat belts, pass vehicle inspection regularly and avoid breaking the law if there is chance that will end up with loss of their driving license or huge bribe. I totally sure that without proper enforcement that would be never achieved otherwise. Third is that I seen the difference between driving behaviour in the UK and Asia and while UK system cause a lot of false positives lethality numbers make a big deal. Even if enforcement is not the only measure to calm traffic it's important one. I really can't see how one can justify that 3x-10x more people going die. Last reason is that I simply not believe that society on it's own can change driver behaviour as effective (if at all) as enforcement. Fines and tickets work because they are market mechanism like fuel and horsepower taxes, paid parking and London's congestion charge, etc. Also there are plenty of other laws that limit overtaking on sidewalk, illegal parking and many more that only work because there are enforced. Remove them and streets of any country will slowly turn into hell. UPD: Grammar fixes.
    - pdonis 10y ago
      > I mainly asked because in my opinion there is very little difference between driving high / drunk or violating speed limits. I see a big difference. Driving drunk/high impairs your judgment; it means you are less capable of knowing what a safe speed is (as well as being less able to judge many other factors). So it obviously increases risk. Violating the speed limit, assuming you are sober, might not increase risk at all, because the driver has more information about the conditions in the particular situation than whoever set the posted speed limit, and therefore is better able to judge what a safe speed is. His judgment might be (and often is, if typical behavior on highways in the US is any indication) that the posted speed limit is too low--that speeds higher than that limit are still safe. I don't see any basis for saying that he must always be wrong and the posted speed limit must always be right. > I seen how law enforcement changed driver behaviour in my country of origin I didn't say that law enforcement doesn't change behavior. Of course it does. The question is, at what cost? And is the cost less than the benefit? Could the same (or greater) benefit be achieved at a lower cost by some other method. Your own description suggests very large costs that you do not appear to be taking into account: you speak of "extreme amount of corruption" and "huge bribe". What cost does your society as a whole bear as a result of these things, compared to a society in which people are held strictly responsible when they cause harm and know they can't bribe their way out of being punished?
  - fredophile 10y ago
    How much danger should I be allowed to put you in without repurcusions? Should I be allowed to point a loaded firearm at you? As long as I don't pull the trigger I'm not causing any harm. I'm pretty sure most people would appreciate the police getting involved in this type of situation.
TulliusCicero 10y ago
This comment is utter nonsense. First off, how is that any different from enforcement from a cop? Secondly, why do we have to wait until someone actually causes an accident? Breaking the speed limit, driving drunk, running red lights isn't bad enough?
- pdonis 10y ago
  I think I've addressed these questions already in other posts in this subthread.