3 ms·
Reading through a number of the comments, my thoughts on this matter may draw some ire, but here they are anyway, FWIW. I would really like to see some consist
by turc1656 10y ago
Reading through a number of the comments, my thoughts on this matter may draw some ire, but here they are anyway, FWIW.
I would really like to see some consistency applied to how the law is enforced and written when it comes to traffic safety. What I mean by that is driving is clearly an inherently dangerous activity given the frequency of traffic incidents on a per-capita basis compared with just about anything else. Well, for every other type of inherently dangerous activity we are all forced to sign wavers basically saying that we understand and accept said risk and we are willing to take that risk. That acceptance protects mostly everything but situations involving negligence or gross negligence. I never understood why driving is treated any differently.
Also, when you look at what traffic law is at its most basic level, it makes little sense when compared to the rest of the body of law that exists for everything else. Traffic law exists primarily to increase safety on the roads and reduce the risk of accidents. Now, statistics do show that enforcing traffic laws do actually make the roads safer. I acknowledge that up front. But my issue with them is that the overwhelming majority of traffic citations are issued for violations that have caused no harm. That is, drivers are cited and forced to pay a fine simply for increasing the odds of an accident happening. The accident need not actually have occurred. Nowhere else does that shit fly. You can't go to court and sue someone for anything without there being some sort of harm/tort/injury/etc. That's basic law. If someone, for example, tried to defraud you but you were slick enough to spot it and stopped it, you can't sue them in court because you didn't actually lose money.
I'd much rather see a situation where either people accept the risks of the road and only have limited options like negligence and perhaps a few others - or, to see cops citing people only when they are deemed the cause of the accident or the rare cases when someone is driving so insanely on the road that their driving alone is enough to justify gross negligence (i.e. racing or doing 50 in a 25 in the rain).
- turc1656 10y agoA follow up thought - the article also mentions that revenues generated from citations are another possible reason for the speed limits being what they are and speed traps being a known money grab nationwide. This is definitely true, and pretty much everyone who drives knows this intuitively. The authorities always like to claim that it is always about safety. Well, I might believe that if they didn't derive a sizable chunk of revenue from this enforcement. I think society as a whole might actually believe them if and only if it became a legal requirement that any and all revenues coming directly from fines are required to be donated to charity. Then I would be far, far more likely to actually believe that I'm getting a citation because the officer truly thinks I did something unsafe and worthy of being fined for. Since courts typically also assign a court fee if you decide to (or are required to) show up in court, there would need to be some kind of protection to prevent them from jacking up the court costs as well.
- u801e 10y agoI suggested eliminating fines and court costs associated with a traffic citation and just rely on license demerit points as the penalty for a traffic violation. Once a diver accumulates enough demerit points on their license, it's suspended. If they're caught driving on a suspended license, then they're arrested and taken to jail pending a hearing. I strongly suspect that without the possibility of making money from traffic violations, most law enforcement agencies wouldn't bother doing any enforcement.
- perlgeek 10y ago> That is, drivers are cited and forced to pay a fine simply for increasing the odds of an accident happening. The accident need not actually have occurred I don't know about the US, but in Germany there are many cases where you can be fined for decreasing safety, even if no accidents happened. For example obstruction of escape ways, violations of fire safety rules, organizing large events without the required quota of paramedics present and so on. Another category is the possession of weapons without permit, which is illegal even if you haven't shot anybody.