On Saturday, 2 August 2014 11:15:08 UTC-3, wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 08:33:47 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 00:43:10 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:49:20 -0400, Earl
wrote:
I rest my case, although I just wish the law was a little more effective.
How is the "law" ineffective?
Traffic laws have not really made the drivers any better.
===
You could argue that the laws don't make drivers better in the sense
that their skills improve, but the laws certainly help keep them in
check. I think you'd have a lot more reckless behavior on the roads
if not for traffic enforcement.
It is easy to argue that most accidents are caused by distracted
driving, poor skills and intoxication. Most enforcement seems to be
aimed at speeders, simply because that is far easier to detect and
prosecute. In most places, state cops are just "speeder maids".
A cop sitting in the bushes with a radar gun is not really
contributing to safety that much.
Most of the "laws" themselves are about equipment and emissions, not
drivers.
In a lot of places "traffic enforcement" is actually used as a means
to conduct unconstitutional searches, involving more than a little
profiling.
It seems to be fairly productive, generating lots of non-traffic
related arrests but a lot of innocent people are harassed in the
process.
If someone is going to run into me I'd rather they did it at the posted speed limit or lower, not 20 km above it.
Up here you get hit with a 'stunting' charge if you're caught speeding at 50km above posted speed limits. (approx 30 mph)
Usually the 1st fine is in the $2400.00 range
http://autos.ca.msn.com/specials/roa...4319270&page=7