3 ms·

The person who runs a red light doesn't intend to murder, they intend to be reckless under the belief they are skilled enough to avoid hurting others. That the

The person who runs a red light doesn't intend to murder, they intend to be reckless under the belief they are skilled enough to avoid hurting others. That the rules were meant for others, less capable than they. The consequences for rule breakers exist in part to deter those lacking the wisdom to understand why the rules were created in the first place, not because society believes that class of rule breakers wants to hurt others.

lapcat 4y ago
But the consequences don't actually deter them, as evidenced by the countless cars that run red lights. Those who believe they are skilled enough to avoid hurting others also believe they won't get caught by the police running a red light. The question is, which is the worse consequence, getting a ticket for running a red light, or killing another person in a crash? I would say the latter, in the minds and hearts of most people.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  I think it comes back to failure of enforcement and size of punishment. I think lot less people would run red lights if they were reliably punished for it and the punishment were non-trivial. This is why I support Finnish model of income based fines. You end up paying some fraction of your monthly income. So it will hurt rich and poor more equally. The fines are often very trivial for certain fraction of population.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    If you have a whole society that mostly doesn't have inherent respect for social norms or laws, then it would be incredibly difficult to enforce those norms or laws effectively. You'd need a police state. Massive levels of surveilance. And how could you even trust the police themselves, if people generally don't respect social norms or laws? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    - nickelpro 4y ago
      But we're not talking about an entire society of normalized rule breaking. I agree, there are places where a traffic light is little more than ornamentation, but in much of the West the average driver respects most rules of the road (speed limits being the least commonly respected). So we're talking about a how to affect the size of a minority subpopulation in an otherwise rule following society. Here the consequences give rule-breakers pause. "Is running this red light really worth the fine?" "I already have 5 points on my license and I'll lose my job if it gets suspended" That's the value of consequences. You'll never stop all rule breakers or enforce consequences with perfect fairness, but some will be deterred which makes the system worthwhile.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > So we're talking about a how to affect the size of a minority subpopulation in an otherwise rule following society. I don't think that's what we were talking about. WaitWaitWha: "Why is it that I am comfortable crossing the intersection when I have a green light? Because I have confidence that those who would break the social contract of following agreed upon laws will be punished, so they are deterred from breaking them." Me: "I would say it's because most people have no desire to murder other people, even if they could get away with it legally." WaitWaitWha seems to be arguing that we don't have "an otherwise rule following society", and only the punishment is preventing widespread rule breaking. Whereas I was arguing that we do have an otherwise rule following society regardless of the punishment. I would also argue that punishment doesn't actually do much to deter the people who don't respect the rules in the first place. Indeed, I would say that speed limits are the least respected because speed limits are rather arbitrary. Speed limits change over time (they were set to 55 in the 1970s to save gas, not to save lives), and they vary widely by locality. Not to mention that speed limits don't vary by day/night or by weather, which makes no sense. Whereas red and green lights have had the exact same meaning the whole time, and the consequences of violation are rather obvious, because a red light means cars may drive through the intersection perpendicular to you, one of the most dangerous situations you can imagine. > I agree, there are places where a traffic light is little more than ornamentation I don't know what you're agreeing with, because I didn't say or intend to imply that. > "Is running this red light really worth the fine?" Well, the primary thought has to be "Can I make it through without dying?"

lapcat 4y ago

But the consequences don't actually deter them, as evidenced by the countless cars that run red lights. Those who believe they are skilled enough to avoid hurting others also believe they won't get caught by the police running a red light. The question is, which is the worse consequence, getting a ticket for running a red light, or killing another person in a crash? I would say the latter, in the minds and hearts of most people.

Ekaros 4y ago
I think it comes back to failure of enforcement and size of punishment. I think lot less people would run red lights if they were reliably punished for it and the punishment were non-trivial. This is why I support Finnish model of income based fines. You end up paying some fraction of your monthly income. So it will hurt rich and poor more equally. The fines are often very trivial for certain fraction of population.
- lapcat 4y ago
  If you have a whole society that mostly doesn't have inherent respect for social norms or laws, then it would be incredibly difficult to enforce those norms or laws effectively. You'd need a police state. Massive levels of surveilance. And how could you even trust the police themselves, if people generally don't respect social norms or laws? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
  - nickelpro 4y ago
    But we're not talking about an entire society of normalized rule breaking. I agree, there are places where a traffic light is little more than ornamentation, but in much of the West the average driver respects most rules of the road (speed limits being the least commonly respected). So we're talking about a how to affect the size of a minority subpopulation in an otherwise rule following society. Here the consequences give rule-breakers pause. "Is running this red light really worth the fine?" "I already have 5 points on my license and I'll lose my job if it gets suspended" That's the value of consequences. You'll never stop all rule breakers or enforce consequences with perfect fairness, but some will be deterred which makes the system worthwhile.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > So we're talking about a how to affect the size of a minority subpopulation in an otherwise rule following society. I don't think that's what we were talking about. WaitWaitWha: "Why is it that I am comfortable crossing the intersection when I have a green light? Because I have confidence that those who would break the social contract of following agreed upon laws will be punished, so they are deterred from breaking them." Me: "I would say it's because most people have no desire to murder other people, even if they could get away with it legally." WaitWaitWha seems to be arguing that we don't have "an otherwise rule following society", and only the punishment is preventing widespread rule breaking. Whereas I was arguing that we do have an otherwise rule following society regardless of the punishment. I would also argue that punishment doesn't actually do much to deter the people who don't respect the rules in the first place. Indeed, I would say that speed limits are the least respected because speed limits are rather arbitrary. Speed limits change over time (they were set to 55 in the 1970s to save gas, not to save lives), and they vary widely by locality. Not to mention that speed limits don't vary by day/night or by weather, which makes no sense. Whereas red and green lights have had the exact same meaning the whole time, and the consequences of violation are rather obvious, because a red light means cars may drive through the intersection perpendicular to you, one of the most dangerous situations you can imagine. > I agree, there are places where a traffic light is little more than ornamentation I don't know what you're agreeing with, because I didn't say or intend to imply that. > "Is running this red light really worth the fine?" Well, the primary thought has to be "Can I make it through without dying?"