Traffic Laws

[Duke87 1,070]

Okay, so after mentioning speeding in the piracy thread, I had to make this. Traffic laws. You know, the rules of the road. That's what we're discussing here. I'll start, item by item:

Speed Limits: are a joke. Honestly, no one obeys them unless there' a cop car in the vicinity with a radar gun out. If the sign says 40, people are going to do 50 and it's perfectly safe to do so in most cases since the limits are intentionally set low to have this mentality in mind. If you made the limit 50, people would do 60.

And then you have the issue of politics getting involved. In New Canaan, Connecticut, for instance, the speed limit is 25 or 30 everywhere, even though for many of those roads it would be 40 or 45 in another town. Why? Well, they're intentionally set extra low as a means of deterring people from driving through the town and attempting to reduce noise, and because the cops there love to hand out speeding tickets since it's an ultra-affluent suburban town where there's no crime and so the cops have nothing better to do.

Which, ultimately, is a problem, here. Speed traps. Speeding tickets mean money for city coffers. I'm fine with posting recommended speeds but I'd rather not have limits that you can get a ticket for violating set. I'll drive as fast as I feel safe driving. But that speed trap thing is one key reason no such thing would ever happen. Denying cops the ability to hand out speeding tickets won't fly, unfortunately.

The Seat Belt law: is stupid. Yes, you should wear your seat belt, but why does it have to be the law? If I want to put my life at risk by not wearing my seatbelt, that's my decision and my decision only. What business does the government have legislating that I mustn't do something which only endangers myself?

Personally, I am very anti-seatbelt law both due to the libertarian in me and due to my staunch belief in intellectual Darwinism. If you're stupid enough to not wear your seatbelt, you shouldn't be told to, you should be allowed not to and if you get killed because of it that's not a tragedy, it's just natural selection running its course by removing stupid from the gene pool, which I am of course all in favor of.

The cell phone law: is a different story, since here you're putting others at risk, not just yourself. Do keep both hands on the wheel, please.

No Turn on Red: I hate those signs. I can understand not permitting a right on red in cases where it really isn't safe but, at least in my opinion, the restriction is applied too liberally. There are a lot of places you're not allowed to go right on red where you really should be able to.

Or, the most fun part: you're not allowed to go right on red anywhere in New York City. Nowhere. Blanket rule. That's just stupid.

Now then, feel free to comment on those issues, or add your own.

Might also be interesting to have some input from across the pond. I'd imagine driving is rather different in Europe than it is in the US.

[SourMilk 0]

If you don't wear seatbelt, you will put others in danger too. Passanger from backseat flying to front benches can kill the driver and person next to him. Seen it, it's very gore.

[patriots_1228 51]

fine: speed, don't wear seatbelts, and ignore other traffic laws. But by the time you are 50, you will probably be in jail or dead.

[Godzillaman 21]

My teacher told me about a roll-over somewhere, and said it was true. I really don't know if he made it up though...

So 4 passengers were in a car, two in the front and two in the back. The front passengers weren't buckled up, and the back passengers were. So they get into a roll over, and then the force of rolling causes the two front passengers flying inside, and their impacts from flying everywhere caused the back passengers to die. If the front passengers were buckled in, all of them would have been alive.

Again, I don't know if it's true, but you see the point of it.

But if you want to risk your life and others in the same car, it's your choice.

Let's just say every action has a reaction.

[Goldfish4209 9]

speed limits are rational in town. It'd be a little absurd to be going 100 downtown, even if there's nobody else on the road. There's just not enough room and too many intersections to ensure nobody gets killed by some idiots who are street racing. Out in the sticks, however, having no speed limit makes sense, as there usually isn't really much people on highways in the middle of nowhere. But, american highways aren't built to as high standards as german autobahns, and doing 200mph could be a very bumpy ride.

Well, the seat belt law saves lives, and prevents idiots from unnecessarily endangering other people's lives, as well as their own.

No turn on red is sometimes necesary on busy roads. One would argue that busy roads would prevent right turns on red anyways, but this is probably done to keep traffic flowing more smoothly.

[krbe 193]

(All speeds posted in kph, to get to mph divide by 1.6)

The seat belt thing is very true. If there are more than one person in the car, those without seat belts become missiles in a car crash.

Now, speed limits are a different story. Ideally, there would be no fixed speed limit;

[Rymac91 15]

Originally posted by: SourMilk If you don't wear seatbelt, you will put others in danger too. Passanger from backseat flying to front benches can kill the driver and person next to him. Seen it, it's very gore.quote>

That's where the flaw in the law is, it only applies to front seat passengers(at least in Ohio).

I find the law that states you can't make a left turn in a one way road area on red...even if you're in the curb lane, but you can make a right turn on red...it seems flawed imo since if you can make the right turn, why not the left?

I also find the thing on stopping for school buses to be annoying, because on a 4 lane road or divided highway people will stop across from the bus, even though it's illegal (in ohio) for a school bus to drop a kid off to cross more than 2(or 3) lanes of traffic or a divided highway.

[sedimenjerry 1]

speed limits: these are necesary. believe it or not some people (including me) do actcually follow the speed limit. i may go over 2 or 3 mph at times but i dont go 55 in a 40 like others. reccomended speeds are stupid. then no one at all will follow them. they'll go however fast they please. then we'll have people posting time trials on the roads. plus more gas will be used.

seat belts: sometimes (it may be possible, havent heard any stories of this but it could be possible) during a crash, there may be more than 1 impact. if you dont wear your seatbelt you may be unable to stop other crashes that could have been avioded or lessened had you stayed in your seat. say your car crashed into a center concrete divider at 70. just a samll side swipe. then the car loses control and swerves right into traffic or into another obstacle. person A wearing seatbelt could be able to regain control of the car while person B may have no control whatsoever because they are incapable to do so (death, serious injury or ejection from the car).

also friends and family shouldnt have to grieve because their loved ones weren't wearing their setabelts because they didnt have to. plus, someone may sue their state or other government because there was no law forcing them to wear seatbelts and therefore are responsible for the serious injury or death that may have resulted. people will sue for anything these days

yeah i agree on the cell phone. bluetooth is great. espcially like in my dad's acura TL. he controls the phone will two buttons and talks and listens through the speakers.

i personally don't see how people can use cell phones and drive at the same time. esp. texting

turn on red: well. some places you shoud be allowed to but only in open areas with little traffic. cars turning right may impede the flow of traffic that is quickly approaching. also turns on red can make an intersection even more dangerous and confusing for all.

i know that here the law is that you must come to a complete stop before turning right on a red light. unless there is no turn on red.

and to rymac91: generally the left lanes are passing lanes and carry faster traffic. i'm assuming this was done for saftey purposes

[your_adress_here 11]

Montreal also has a no turn right on the red anywhere law.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Seat belt laws and others are there to prevent this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0z94AxRbZU

We have some very strong ads here, and along with education do work

[hamsterTK 93]

In Texas right on red is perfectly legal if not otherwise posted.

Speed limits where I live tend to be reasonable. Also I don't know if we have a law on cell phones here yet.

Actually driving here is easy compared to other places when I think about it.

[Hamish 1,370]

Over 'ere in New Zealand we are just starting to pass laws about cell phones in car. Anything but handsfree will be illegal to use inside the car. Which is a good thing I reckon. Because it is dangerous to use your cell phone inside the car. And it does make it allot harder to drive.

Speed Limits, we are using the Metric system, So our top speed limit is 100km/h. Residential is usually 50km/h except for near schools, it goes down to 40. But in bigger towns it can range from there to 80km/h. These are good, but you do find yourself going over the limit by at least 10. But the school zones do slow traffic down because it does make people more aware of how fast they are going.

Seat Belts, illegal to not use one. Fair enough, its a good protection measure.

haha, No Right Turns on Red, Doing this could be called suicide. Considering that we drive on the left. But left on red is illegal too. I don't think it would be a good idea to bring this in, because so many (well I see allot of people doing it) do go through the red lights . Especially at this one intersection, there are still a few cars going through well after it ha turned red on the other sides.

And the driving age is 15.

[Easy Bakes 253]

This thread cursed me.

I got a ticket  yesterday.

51 in a 40.

Ah well that what lawyers are for ! !

[maddogmark25 58]

The speed limits were lowered back in the I believe early 80's to reduce consumption of gas. You drive 20 over if you want, but you burn a lot more gas by doing so.

And BTW Ive gotten a ticket for doing 32 in a 25 before, so there.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: hamish Over 'ere in New Zealand we are just starting to pass laws about cell phones in car. Anything but handsfree will be illegal to use inside the car. Which is a good thing I reckon. Because it is dangerous to use your cell phone inside the car. And it does make it allot harder to drive.quote>

Lucky, handsfree are illegal here

[saltandsauce 0]

these laws are in place for the protection of poedestrians the no right ( or left in my case) is so nutters can't turn right when pedestrians are crossing we usually have to wait half an hour to cross we aren't being ran over because you wanted to turn right

[BurroDiablo 222]

I almost crahsed today... into a speeding Truck with the driver on his Mobile Phone...

The only thing I hate about driving is having to pay insurance BY LAW... I mean, there is so much small print and so many lengths that Insurance companies will go to to ensure they don't need to a pay up or atleast a full amount. I've always felt insulted that I need to pay insurance for a car... its as if the government purposefully thinks everybody is a clumsy oaf born with an IQ of 5... those who are worried about crashing into a truck at 70mph and want to claim for a new car should do, but for people like me who pays £55 ($110) a month for a car that DIDN'T EVEN COST THAT MUCH TO GET IN THE FIRST PLACE is just plain wrong. It should not be compulsary, honestly Mr. Policeman, go chase some murderers.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: El Burro I almost crahsed today... into a speeding Truck with the driver on his Mobile Phone...

The only thing I hate about driving is having to pay insurance BY LAW... I mean, there is so much small print and so many lengths that Insurance companies will go to to ensure they don't need to a pay up or atleast a full amount. I've always felt insulted that I need to pay insurance for a car... its as if the government purposefully thinks everybody is a clumsy oaf born with an IQ of 5... those who are worried about crashing into a truck at 70mph and want to claim for a new car should do, but for people like me who pays £55 ($110) a month for a car that DIDN'T EVEN COST THAT MUCH TO GET IN THE FIRST PLACE is just plain wrong. It should not be compulsary, honestly Mr. Policeman, go chase some murderers.quote>

There's nothing wrong with compulsory insurance, what's important is the kind of insurance that's required. Over here you have to have a liability insurance, so damage you cause to others gets covered. That, I support. For other kinds of insurance I see your point.

[toxicpiano 125]

Someone suggested on newsnight here a while back that all traffic lights and street furniture be removed as following ' the system' means drivers are less alert because if there were no traffic lights, more attention would have to be paid to people around and yourself, etc rather than going into 'automatic mode'

[Duke87 1,070]

I think some of you are missing the point on the seatbelt thing.

Yes, seatbelts save lives. Yes, you absolutely should wear your seatbelt. No, you should not be required by law to wear your seatbelt.

There's a difference.

As for speed limits, obviously there is a problem with allowing anything but having no limit doesn't need to mean allowing anything. I'm not suggesting we legalize street racing. Keep that banned.

And if we absolutely must keep the limits, stop purposefully undersetting them or lowering them for political reasons. Set the speed limit as the maximum safe speed and nothing else.

[sedimenjerry 1]

not having it required by law is asking for a lawsuit.

besides anything that saves lives will probably be required by law.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: sedimenjerry not having it required by law is asking for a lawsuit. quote>

How? If I'm an idiot, don't wear my seatbelt, and get hurt in a crash, who am I going to sue? Myself? Because that would be where 100% of the fault lies.

besides anything that saves lives will probably be required by law.quote>

Depends. If I'm putting others at risk, there's a problem and the law must intervene. If I'm not putting anyone at risk but myself (which is the case with seatbelt use), why should that be anybody's problem but mine?

Requiring people by law to wear seatbelts is exactly the kind of nanny-statism that I can't stand.

[sedimenjerry 1]

- in this day and age (in the us anyways) people will sue for anything. thats why coffee cups have CAUTION HOT LIQUID WILL BURN on it and other common sense warnings because people will sue. a few years ago some people have sued mcdoanlds for making them fat(see supersize me). if the scenario metioned above were to happen an idiot would sue the government for not requiring seat belt use.

i know it sounds crazy but there really are people who will sue for anything.

if you watched http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0z94AxRbZU (just copy paste into google) there is a scene where the person not wearing their seatbelt became a "human missile" and smashed into the other people in the car. i realize this was staged but that does happen in real life. plus some people really only wear their seatbelts because its the law.

i do see where youre coming from though. after all their lives are the ones that are usually only at risk. but wearing a seatbelt isnt torturous and doesnt cost money so it may as well be a law.

[Zelgadis 638]

I used to be of the same mind as you, Duke, concerning seatbelt laws.

But my mother put forth to me a powerful possible scenario that is 100% possible.

Let's say you screw up and cause an accident that's your fault. The person is not wearing a seatbelt and dies. Now you're in a whole lot of trouble. First, because somebody died for reasons that are at least partly your fault. (Partly, because you caused the crash, though the other person wasn't wearing a seatbelt.) Secondly, that would leave you open to all kinds of nasty litigation and insurance problems. Now you may well be able to win a lawsuit if you got one, but not after god-knows-how much money in legal fees.

So it's not just the non-seatbelt wearing person who suffers here.

And yes, those not wearing seatbelts in their cars become human missiles. Not a good situation indeed.

ISF

[mroghy 3]

Here in Italy the law fixes 50Km/h within urban areas and 90 outside them. Note "urban area": municipalities fix them arbitrarely, so a country with even to homes can be an urban area, and 50 or less is applyed even in a straight crossing free four lane road (I personally saw a limit of 30 in a road such that, because of works ended years before). Speed limits are always used to make cash. Filters are applyed on local inhabitants to not fee them too often. Because of the fee system, makes more revenues to ticket lots of car going at 51, than really dangerous ones. We also have lots of automatic red light violation detectors, which make a picture of you when go thru a crossing with the red light on. In order to make the maximum of tickets, the yellow light time is reduced to one or two seconds, so it is quite impossible to avoid the ticket, at less you are also violating the speed limit! This situation has increased the number of incidents because people tend to brake suddenly at the line and in some cases increased traffic congestion because someone has fear even to cross with the green light!
Seat belts: here in Italy we have a National Health Insurance, payed with the taxes of all of us. Why should I have to pay taxes to cure someone that deliberately sets its own health at risk to not wear seat belts?

[belfastuniguy 18]

Someone suggested on newsnight here a while back that all traffic lights and street furniture be removed as following ' the system' means drivers are less alert because if there were no traffic lights, more attention would have to be paid to people around and yourself, etc rather than going into 'automatic mode' quote>

I saw that report and I actually agree to an extent. I think traffic lights will always be needed at complicated and incredibly busy intersections, but on less important roads I agree we could start a trial and see how it goes. I have come across traffic lights that had been turned off for repair and to be honest I myself was more alert as were other drivers and traffic flow was normal to better. So I do see the benefits.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: mroghy Speed limits are always used to make cash. Filters are applyed on local inhabitants to not fee them too often. Because of the fee system, makes more revenues to ticket lots of car going at 51, than really dangerous ones. We also have lots of automatic red light violation detectors, which make a picture of you when go thru a crossing with the red light on. In order to make the maximum of tickets, the yellow light time is reduced to one or two seconds, so it is quite impossible to avoid the ticket, at less you are also violating the speed limit! This situation has increased the number of incidents because people tend to brake suddenly at the line and in some cases increased traffic congestion because someone has fear even to cross with the green light! quote>

That is insane. Quello è pazzo, no?

here in Italy we have a National Health Insurance, payed with the taxes of all of us. Why should I have to pay taxes to cure someone that deliberately sets its own health at risk to not wear seat belts?quote>

You shouldn't. But then again, I disagree with the idea of national health insurance, too.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Originally posted by: El Burro I almost crahsed today... into a speeding Truck with the driver on his Mobile Phone...

The only thing I hate about driving is having to pay insurance BY LAW... I mean, there is so much small print and so many lengths that Insurance companies will go to to ensure they don't need to a pay up or atleast a full amount. I've always felt insulted that I need to pay insurance for a car... its as if the government purposefully thinks everybody is a clumsy oaf born with an IQ of 5... those who are worried about crashing into a truck at 70mph and want to claim for a new car should do, but for people like me who pays £55 ($110) a month for a car that DIDN'T EVEN COST THAT MUCH TO GET IN THE FIRST PLACE is just plain wrong. It should not be compulsary, honestly Mr. Policeman, go chase some murderers.quote>

There's nothing wrong with compulsory insurance, what's important is the kind of insurance that's required. Over here you have to have a liability insurance, so damage you cause to others gets covered. That, I support. For other kinds of insurance I see your point.quote>

Precisely. I understand liability but I don't see what the point enforcing it as a law is anymore when most insurers insure against uninsured Drivers away... with increased cost of course. What cheeses me off the most is that, even if I had no Insurance but I did have a massive wad of cash underneath my matress that could pay for the damage to even both vehicles, I would still need to pay a £400+ fine for not having insurance in the first place.

I think insurance companies have the governments hand down their pants... I can bet that if the Government abolished compulsary insurance laws, most companies would go down over night. Fun fun fun.

[Mr. Monorail Man 3]

Ok listen to this. In my county, Campbell County, TN. The county is mainly blue-collar workers and the favorite sport is Hunting and football. So here is how the law goes: You cant drive a ATV, golf cart or a moped on public roads that includes dirt roads and your driveway without a hunting permit. If caught, anyone with you above 15 years old get 2-days in jail and a $500 fine and the vehicle impounded. Also in the late 1970's the U.S government changed the national speed limit on freeways to 55 m.p.h. (now the motorists drive 75-95 m.p.h. if no police speed checks are in sight) triggering the song "I can't drive 55" in the 1980's. And the phone law, is in effect in Russia but you can talk to your cell phone if you have a bluetooth or any other hands-free device for your phone.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

And yes, those not wearing seatbelts in their cars become human missiles. Not a good situation indeed.quote>

Well, that's not a good situation. But, I would think that the seat behind you would prtoect you at least somewhat.

Also, They don't really need a seat belt law. They only need to require manufacturers to put them in their vehicles. If people don't take advantage of them, they're pretty stupid anyway. Also, the police have other, more serious issues to worry about. While I'm not really a libertarian, I do agree with this point.

Speed Limits: In suburban and rural areas, if they are set about 10 lower than design speed, they are a good thing. In rural freeways, however, they're not really needed, except on ramps. It worked pretty well for the Germans.

Cell Phones: Handless is fine, but handheld ones are a risk to others, so it is good for it to be illegal in a moving vehicle.

Turn on Red: Right turn on red is great for less congested intersections. However, in urban areas it can turn into a risk.

There's nothing wrong with compulsory insurance, what's important is the kind of insurance that's required. Over here you have to have a liability insurance, so damage you cause to others gets covered. That, I support. For other kinds of insurance I see your point.quote>

Agreed.