3 ms·

>How is it too punitive? Because huge numbers of people need to drive to be productive members of society and anyone without their head in the sand knows that

>How is it too punitive? Because huge numbers of people need to drive to be productive members of society and anyone without their head in the sand knows that "normal traffic flow" is routinely in violation of the letter of the law, often to the point of being criminal (usually at the officer's discretion). That brings us to selective enforcement. And we all know who gets the shaft when everyone is breaking the law and we have to choose who it gets enforced against.

DoreenMichele 6y ago
Because huge numbers of people need to drive to be productive members of society In the Netherlands? I find that claim suspect. Though I would get behind cracking down on dangerous drivers endangering pedestrians and cyclists even in the US where it's much harder to live without a car. Maybe it would get easier to live without a car if we began skewing policies in that direction.
xtiansimon 6y ago
> “ "normal traffic flow" ...when everyone is breaking the law...” ?? I understood the OP as referring to vehicles sharing the roadway with bicyclists and apparently in a school zone. I have no sympathy for anyone’s excuse—worker or working moms who drive on roads shared with pedestrians and bicyclists. I live in the US, and our car-centric culture is toxic to anyone not in a car.
jgwil2 6y ago
OP didn't say any traffic violation should result in revocation of license, just reckless driving. At least where I live, that's a specific violation that is well beyond any violation that might come from following normal traffic flow.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Reckless driving as defined by statute typically includes a "more than X over the limit" clause where X is small enough to include "normal traffic speed for a clear day with light traffic on the interstate highway system and many state highways" This is exactly my point. The laws are far too broad to have stiff penalties and draconian enforcement. Of course nobody should be driving 40+ through some downtown center signed at 25 where pedestrians are present. But people routinely make common sense exemptions to the letter of the law. They treat that stop that could have been a yield were it not for the option to turn left as a yield. They ignore a 40-20-40 speed limit drop when that drop is there for a particular problem condition that is not applicable at the time. Etc. Etc. Cyclists and pedestrians make common sense exemptions all the time too, albeit a different set of exemptions specific to their mode of transportation. The overwhelming majority of traffic participants behave reasonably, but reasonable is not consistent with the letter of the law. Of course we don't want "reckless drivers" on the roads but "reckless" is by its very definition an ambiguous term and nobody's yet to nail it down in statutory form in a way that doesn't leave gaping loopholes or make reasonably people subjet to being screwed at the discretion of law enforcement. And we see that every time law enforcement tries to go hard on a particular type of crime it just devolves into doing the most enforcement against the most vulnerable.
  - clairity 6y ago
    yes, i'd advocate changing speed limits (a prescriptive) to suggested speeds, and instead focus enforcement largely on distracted driving (a descriptive), which is the singular predominant cause of collisions (along with impaired driving and then reckless driving). in addition, institute traffic calming measures like narrowing lanes, grade separations, cut outs/cut ins, and more trees in suburban/urban areas, so that it's more instinctive to drive slower, for everyone's benefit in those areas.

DoreenMichele 6y ago

Because huge numbers of people need to drive to be productive members of society In the Netherlands? I find that claim suspect. Though I would get behind cracking down on dangerous drivers endangering pedestrians and cyclists even in the US where it's much harder to live without a car. Maybe it would get easier to live without a car if we began skewing policies in that direction.

xtiansimon 6y ago

> “ "normal traffic flow" ...when everyone is breaking the law...” ?? I understood the OP as referring to vehicles sharing the roadway with bicyclists and apparently in a school zone. I have no sympathy for anyone’s excuse—worker or working moms who drive on roads shared with pedestrians and bicyclists. I live in the US, and our car-centric culture is toxic to anyone not in a car.

jgwil2 6y ago

OP didn't say any traffic violation should result in revocation of license, just reckless driving. At least where I live, that's a specific violation that is well beyond any violation that might come from following normal traffic flow.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Reckless driving as defined by statute typically includes a "more than X over the limit" clause where X is small enough to include "normal traffic speed for a clear day with light traffic on the interstate highway system and many state highways" This is exactly my point. The laws are far too broad to have stiff penalties and draconian enforcement. Of course nobody should be driving 40+ through some downtown center signed at 25 where pedestrians are present. But people routinely make common sense exemptions to the letter of the law. They treat that stop that could have been a yield were it not for the option to turn left as a yield. They ignore a 40-20-40 speed limit drop when that drop is there for a particular problem condition that is not applicable at the time. Etc. Etc. Cyclists and pedestrians make common sense exemptions all the time too, albeit a different set of exemptions specific to their mode of transportation. The overwhelming majority of traffic participants behave reasonably, but reasonable is not consistent with the letter of the law. Of course we don't want "reckless drivers" on the roads but "reckless" is by its very definition an ambiguous term and nobody's yet to nail it down in statutory form in a way that doesn't leave gaping loopholes or make reasonably people subjet to being screwed at the discretion of law enforcement. And we see that every time law enforcement tries to go hard on a particular type of crime it just devolves into doing the most enforcement against the most vulnerable.
- clairity 6y ago
  yes, i'd advocate changing speed limits (a prescriptive) to suggested speeds, and instead focus enforcement largely on distracted driving (a descriptive), which is the singular predominant cause of collisions (along with impaired driving and then reckless driving). in addition, institute traffic calming measures like narrowing lanes, grade separations, cut outs/cut ins, and more trees in suburban/urban areas, so that it's more instinctive to drive slower, for everyone's benefit in those areas.