Do you obey the law because it is the law....or

[Gob]

A speed at which I feel totally safe, and in control, would be a speed at which my mother in law would crap her knickers.

Who determines what speed is safe for the individual?

Interesting fact, the speed limit on motorways in the UK was set in 1965, think how much car safety, especially steering and braking performance, has changed over that time.

[Andrew D]

Who determines what speed is safe for the individual?

The same people who determine innumerable other questions of fact.

[Gob]

Not "fact" Andrew, surely subjective guess, in the case or "driving at an unsafe speed"?

Unless you claim that we are all as capable as Mika Hakkinen?

[Andrew D]

Whether someone was or was not driving at an unsafe speed will be determined by the same people who determine whether someone was or was not negligent, whether someone did or did not intend to kill someone else, whether someone knew or should have known that the dog was dangerous, etc., etc., etc. Those are all questions of fact. And juries (or other trier(s) of fact) decide all of them.

Yes, there is some subjectivity involved. (Although the conclusion that someone who drove at 140 mph through a school zone was driving unsafely does not seem especially subjective to me.) There is some subjectivity involved in any factual determination that cannot be objectively verified.

So how would we objectively verify that someone was driving unsafely? Ah! Let's video record all driving, everywhere at all times! Bye-bye, subjectivity! Hello, Big Brother!

[tyro]

Andrew D asked:

So how would we objectively verify that someone was driving unsafely? Ah! Let's video record all driving, everywhere at all times! Bye-bye, subjectivity! Hello, Big Brother!

Well now, there is an interesting take.


Given that the law is the law, is it only as enforceable as there are policemen on hand to respond? Or can we use cameras and other tools to provide evidence?

[Gob]

Taking it to the extremes of; "140 mph through a school zone", is an easy spot.,

But what about when PC Plod decides I was driving in an unsafe manner, just as an excuse to pull me over? Surely that's even more "Big Brother".

[Scooter]

So yes, selt belt laws are a means of protecting people from their own stupidity. So is a lot of safety regulation.

No, the majority of safety regulations save us from the stupidty of others--very few laws are enacted to protect us from ourselves.

Just to use food and drug safety regulations as an example, aren't we in essence telling people that they are not comopetent to decide for themselves what is good for them and what isn't? (And to a large extent, that's true, I'm sure millions of people would still be buying the snake oil that used to pass for patented medicines, if someone hadn't decided that wasn't a good thing.)

I recognize the slippery slope of couching the argument in terms of lives saved or economics, that could also apply to a lot of . But in this case the benefits are so huge, and in return we have given up an inconsequential freedom

Well, you may be willing to accept the economic justification, i am not, ever. I'm sure many would agree with you, but IMHO freedom must include the freedom to be stupid, if we are only free to do what others believe is in our own (and their economic) interest, we are not free at all.

It's not solely economic justification. And we have all accepted, in one way or another, that our individual freedoms must sometimes be curtailed for the greater good. If I have to weigh the obligation to wear a seatbelt, (which, let's be real, does not even rise to the level of an inconvenience) against the knowledge that several thousands of children won't be made orphans because their mom and dad took a header through the windshied....let's just say I don't hear the hoofbeats of tyranny storming the gates.

[Jarlaxle]

Following that to its logical conclusion, motorcycles should be banned.

[Scooter]

No, I'm not talking about taking away anyone's freedom to do what they want to do. Driving with a seatbelt on is still driving. What else could someone be possibly doing while driving that they can't wear a seat belt? Playing basketball?

[Andrew D]

Given that the law is the law, is it only as enforceable as there are policemen on hand to respond? Or can we use cameras and other tools to provide evidence?

At least in the US, cameras are routinely used to prove violations of traffic laws, especially the running of red lights.

[Andrew D]

No, I'm not talking about taking away anyone's freedom to do what they want to do. Driving with a seatbelt on is still driving. What else could someone be possibly doing while driving that they can't wear a seat belt? Playing basketball?

Cunnilingus?

[Scooter]

If you're able to pull that off while driving, Andrew, then you have my blessing to go seat belt-less.

[Andrew D]

Positioning, Scooter. It's all about positioning ....

[Sean]

Taking it to the extremes of; "140 mph through a school zone", is an easy spot.,

But what about when PC Plod decides I was driving in an unsafe manner, just as an excuse to pull me over? Surely that's even more "Big Brother".

Last year I was merging onto the motorway in heavy traffic. A police car kindly left a gap for me to merge which I gratefully accepted with a raised hand in thanks.

The cunt proceeded to pull me over to lecture me on unsafe driving practices.

Cunt.

[Big RR]

Just to use food and drug safety regulations as an example, aren't we in essence telling people that they are not comopetent to decide for themselves what is good for them and what isn't? (And to a large extent, that's true, I'm sure millions of people would still be buying the snake oil that used to pass for patented medicines, if someone hadn't decided that wasn't a good thing.)

To a certain extent, yes, but they are also educational and based on the fact that most of us do not have the resources to adequately assess the effectiveness of claims or the dangers of certain contamination/drugs/etc. However, I have said many times that this power should be used sparingly, and that the drug and food approval should be used more as an educational label than as a way to exclude other therapies/comestibles. Absent a public health concern, like over prescription of antibiotics, or a serious danger, like a deadly poison being dispensed as a drug, I think people should be able to use/take what they want. I could choose to use approved drugs recommended by my physician, or I could choose to use snake oil--my call, no one else's. Same with food, I can choose to use the foods designated as "safe", or I can buy something else (like unpasteurized milk) and take my chances.

It's not solely economic justification. And we have all accepted, in one way or another, that our individual freedoms must sometimes be curtailed for the greater good. If I have to weigh the obligation to wear a seatbelt, (which, let's be real, does not even rise to the level of an inconvenience) against the knowledge that several thousands of children won't be made orphans because their mom and dad took a header through the windshied....let's just say I don't hear the hoofbeats of tyranny storming the gates.

Inconvenince? Face it, this is not a cost benefit analysis, it's a discussion of whether some governing entity, how ever well intentioned, has the right to protect me from my own stupidty. I think few will argue that it is smarter not to wear a sealt belt, but it's also smarter to do a lot of things. And forcing me to wear a seat belt does not in any way prevent thousands of children from being made orphans--at the very most it makes my children less likely to be made orphans should I be involved in a serious crash. It has no effect on anyone else's children whatsoever.

And hoofbeats or not, freedom will likely die not by "them" storming the gates, but because of the cheers of the thousands who think they "know better" and choose to regulate the private behavior of those who, they believe, do not. Agains, if you only have the freedom to do what others determine is in your best interest, you have no freedom at all.

[Scooter]

It's not just protecting the driver from his/her own stupidity; his/her stupidity in this case has repercussions for others. And because automobile accidents are so common, those repercussions are widespread, and that makes it justifiable to weigh the individual freedom that is being curtailed against that greater benefit, which is substantial. The "freedom" that is being curtailed in this case is so amorphous as to be insignificant. Do we have the "freedom" not to have airbags to stop us from impaling ourselves on the steering column? Is the only difference that we must (usually) exercise an arm to pull the seat belt across and snap it in place?

[dales]

Second, and more important, California's Basic Speed Law....So if under the particular circumstances, the only safe thing to do is to exceed the posted speed limit, California law not only permits but requires a driver to exceed the posted speed limit.

There is no place in the CVC that states that it's lawful to exceed the posted limit.

In fact, the code book states that one must never exceed the posted limit which includes passing other traffic.

Look it up in the vehicle code.

I admit I loused up on the prima facie def.

Now let me state that I overtake cars as quickly as possible, I believe this aids in traffic moving effeciently.

[Sue U]

Inconvenince? Face it, this is not a cost benefit analysis, it's a discussion of whether some governing entity, how ever well intentioned, has the right to protect me from my own stupidty. I think few will argue that it is smarter not to wear a sealt belt, but it's also smarter to do a lot of things. And forcing me to wear a seat belt does not in any way prevent thousands of children from being made orphans--at the very most it makes my children less likely to be made orphans should I be involved in a serious crash. It has no effect on anyone else's children whatsoever.

I disagree, Big RR. As one who deals with the aftermath of motor vehicle accidents every day, I see the tremendous costs that are passed on to everyone else in society through higher insurance premiums and charges to the state under Medicaid, Medicare, unreimbursed hospital "charity care" and long-term disability. As common as motor vehicle fatalities are (and they are extraordinarily frequent), you are even more likely to survive a crash, costing somewhere between tens of thousands and several millions of dollars in medical, surgical and rehabilitative care alone. And if you are dead or otherwise unable to work, you are no longer able to provide for your children, who may very well end up on public assistance of various forms.

Moreover, driving a motor vehicle is simply not a "freedom." It is a licensed privilege. As such, it is subject to whatever restrictions the legislature may decide are desirable in furtherance of public policy.

All in all, I concur with Scooter.

[Andrew D]

Second, and more important, California's Basic Speed Law....So if under the particular circumstances, the only safe thing to do is to exceed the posted speed limit, California law not only permits but requires a driver to exceed the posted speed limit.

There is no place in the CVC that states that it's lawful to exceed the posted limit.

Except for the section that says that it sometimes is lawful to exceed the posted speed limit:

The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits ... is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of such limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the circumstances then existing.

(California Vehicle Code Section 22351(b) (emphases added).)

But other than the statute which says that it can be lawful to exceed the posted speed limit, you're right: The only statute which says that it can be lawful to exceed the posted speed limit is the one which says that it can be lawful to exceed the posted speed limit. No statute says so except for the one that does.

[Sue U]

No, the majority of safety regulations save us from the stupidty of others--very few laws are enacted to protect us from ourselves.

Um, ever heard of OSHA? The New York Labor Law? How about state and federal wage and hours laws? There are numerous workplace rules that are designed to protect you from doing stupid things to yourself (both physical and economic) .

ETA:

But other than the statute which says that it can be lawful to exceed the posted speed limit, you're right: The only statute which says that it can be lawful to exceed the posted speed limit is the one which says that it can be lawful to exceed the posted speed limit. No statute says so except for the one that does.