3 ms·

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, bu

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?"
- nickelpro 4y ago
  > I don't know what you're agreeing with, because I didn't say or intend to imply that. > 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. The latter sentence is predicated on the existence of a society that ignore rules, I'm allowing that such societies exist but the context is not applicable to the average Western drivers. > 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." There are three populations at work: * People who will not run the red light because they respect the rule of law * People who would run the red light, but don't because they fear the consequences of breaking the law * People who will run the red light regardless of consequences I won't speak for WaitWaitWha, but what I am arguing is I would not feel safe relying on just the first group. If the first group is 90% of people (which is still "most people"), the second group is 9% of people, and the third is 1%, I don't like those odds. We don't know what the breakdown actually is, but I feel better knowing both the first and second group won't run the red light in a society with consequences and in that vaguery I feel safe. > Well, the primary thought has to be "Can I make it through without dying?" No, the kinds of people running the red light and perform other reckless actions rarely contextualize that widely. That's why we need legal consequences in the first place. They don't consider in the moment the risk to their own and others lives, because they think their skill or a sense of invincibility prevents such bad outcomes from happening. Legal consequences pose a barrier that they can mentally recognize as independent from their own invincibility complex.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > The latter sentence is predicated on the existence of a society that ignore rules, I'm allowing that such societies exist but the context is not applicable to the average Western drivers. It was a counterfactual hypothetical. >There are three populations at work: * People who will not run the red light because they respect the rule of law * People who would run the red light, but don't because they fear the consequences of breaking the law * People who will run the red light regardless of consequences This is missing the 4th and most important population: * People who will not run the red light because it's likely to kill themselves and/or others. That's the population I rely on. > They don't consider in the moment the risk to their own and others lives, because they think their skill or a sense of invincibility prevents such bad outcomes from happening. Do you have any empirical basis for this claim? Does it come from personal experience? We can't read minds, except our own. I think it's bizarre to say that risk is not a factor, since nearly all red light runnings occur right after the yellow, when the relative risk of a crash is lowest, rather than in mid-cycle, when the risk of a crash is highest. Unless the streets are deserted. Hardly anyone ever thinks they're invincible enough to thread the needle of present perpendicular traffic. Even when the streets are deserted, red light runners don't just plow through mid-cycle. They treat the red light like a stop sign.

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?"

nickelpro 4y ago
> I don't know what you're agreeing with, because I didn't say or intend to imply that. > 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. The latter sentence is predicated on the existence of a society that ignore rules, I'm allowing that such societies exist but the context is not applicable to the average Western drivers. > 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." There are three populations at work: * People who will not run the red light because they respect the rule of law * People who would run the red light, but don't because they fear the consequences of breaking the law * People who will run the red light regardless of consequences I won't speak for WaitWaitWha, but what I am arguing is I would not feel safe relying on just the first group. If the first group is 90% of people (which is still "most people"), the second group is 9% of people, and the third is 1%, I don't like those odds. We don't know what the breakdown actually is, but I feel better knowing both the first and second group won't run the red light in a society with consequences and in that vaguery I feel safe. > Well, the primary thought has to be "Can I make it through without dying?" No, the kinds of people running the red light and perform other reckless actions rarely contextualize that widely. That's why we need legal consequences in the first place. They don't consider in the moment the risk to their own and others lives, because they think their skill or a sense of invincibility prevents such bad outcomes from happening. Legal consequences pose a barrier that they can mentally recognize as independent from their own invincibility complex.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > The latter sentence is predicated on the existence of a society that ignore rules, I'm allowing that such societies exist but the context is not applicable to the average Western drivers. It was a counterfactual hypothetical. >There are three populations at work: * People who will not run the red light because they respect the rule of law * People who would run the red light, but don't because they fear the consequences of breaking the law * People who will run the red light regardless of consequences This is missing the 4th and most important population: * People who will not run the red light because it's likely to kill themselves and/or others. That's the population I rely on. > They don't consider in the moment the risk to their own and others lives, because they think their skill or a sense of invincibility prevents such bad outcomes from happening. Do you have any empirical basis for this claim? Does it come from personal experience? We can't read minds, except our own. I think it's bizarre to say that risk is not a factor, since nearly all red light runnings occur right after the yellow, when the relative risk of a crash is lowest, rather than in mid-cycle, when the risk of a crash is highest. Unless the streets are deserted. Hardly anyone ever thinks they're invincible enough to thread the needle of present perpendicular traffic. Even when the streets are deserted, red light runners don't just plow through mid-cycle. They treat the red light like a stop sign.