In article <
[email protected]>,
Peter Cole <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Most people don't follow laws they consider unreasonable, I
> >>>> think that's a good thing.
> >>> That's a rather slippery slope.
> >> Maybe, but I don't think red light running leads to armed robbery.
> >
> > Probably not, but you didn't restrict your statement to stopping at
> > red lights. Lots of people think it's unreasonable that they can't
> > help themselves to the contents of your house or use your credit
> > card or empty out your bank account. They don't follow those laws
> > and in general I don;t think that's a good thing.
>
> But that's a small minority, if it were anything else civilization
> would be hopeless.
Given that the US has a higher percentage of its population in jail than
any other country, and yet persists in having some of if not the highest
crime rates, an argument could be made that our particular manifestation
of civilization is flawed.
> When you have a law that the majority don't follow, I think there may
> be something wrong with the law.
Perhaps. Or something wrong with society's attitude towards its own
laws.
> >> An interesting question: What do you think would happen if a day
> >> was declared to be no-penalty for moving & ROW violations? Do you
> >> think everyone would drive differently? Many people? Would you
> >> change the way you drive? I wouldn't and I'd guess most people
> >> wouldn't. That tells me people obey the laws for the most part
> >> because they agree with them.
> >
> > I'd probably stay home that day. I see way to many numbskull
> > maneuvers on a daily basis, including crossing four lanes in late
> > rush hour traffic at the last possible moment to get to an exit
> > while talking on a cell phone with three children in the car (I saw
> > this about 10 minutes ago). I se such things at least daily. The
> > average level of driving safety has plummeted in the past few years
> > locally. It's actually scary to be on the road pretty often.
>
> Highway fatalities/mile driven have been going down for decades.
> Skeptics point out that thus is from safer, better and even larger
> cars, while driving speeds and dangerous behavior have gone up, but
> not enough to offset, so you're perhaps actually a bit safer with
> today's cars even with today's drivers.
And those safety measures have been fought every step of the way by the
Big Three automakers.
> It may be that drivers have responded to better cars by pushing the
> envelope.
There is evidence that this is the case vis-a-vis modern cars handling
better than older cars. I can't remember where I read the study, might
have been Car and Driver several years ago. People are likelier to
drive closer to the limits of cornering traction because there is
virtually no body roll to cue them that they are pushing the envelope.
> Anyway, you ducked the question.
If you say so. I thought it was clearly if indirectly answered. I'll
spell it out for you, since you insist. I think that if you suspended
traffic laws for a day, the highways would be filled with carnage.
That's why I'd stay home that day. I wouldn't drive, I wouldn't ride
my bike, I'd stay the hell off the roads. The standard skill set of the
average American driver is so pathetically low that they can barely
control their cars when they do feel inhibited by laws. Incompetence
behind the wheel is the norm. Being distracted while driving by the
cell phone, text messaging, eating, reading, etc. is considered
acceptable. Driving under the influence is endemic. Driver's education
is a cursory introduction to driving at best. Driver's licenses are
given out to people who are far too young and the standards for
obtaining one are laughably low. Incompetent driving costs thousands of
lives, millions of injuries and billions of dollars every year.
