Are Laws Forcing Ignorance?

[Dlevy05]

I recently read a previous thread on the conviction of a woman for killing two (or was it three?) riders, while under the influence of alcohol.

The intelligent responses on this forum stirred a great unease in me. One that I think is the culprit of our decaying culture and lack of national ethics and morals.

I don't remember which member it was, but someone posted (and most agreed) that it was the act of driving under the influence that was the real crime, and not the killing of the cyclists. I completely agree. Too often, and almost always when a life is lost, people manage to remedy the symptom, instead of the problem. Unfortunately, even the mere task of establishing the difference (between a symptom, and the actual problem) is beyond the reach of many of our fellow Americans, or for whatever reason they aren't able to understand the importance of doing so.

In more liberal communities (like the SF Bay Area, where I live), I see the resistance to such action (distinguishing the difference), as a byproduct of the fact that people are too scared of offending anyone else, that they can no longer establish a difference between right and wrong. Without establishing a difference between right and wrong, and standing for 'something', regardless of one's position, people are 'okaying' actions that are often times consequently harmful to others.

I firmly believe that whenever possible, the government must instill laws that do not restrict the average citizen, but rather grant them responsibility. The more laws that are passed restricting people, the less consideration and thought people will give to the matter at hand - and a lack of consideration for any matter results in ignorance. For instance, is it a coincidence that most accidents happen at intersections? I believe not. I think that because of the fact that people are restricted to adhering to whatever a light directs them to do, they no longer observe caution while driving around other vehicles/pedestrians/hazards, and instead (this is the 'ignorance' part) put their faith blindly in a light - Thus absolving themselves of their responsibility over their own lives, and others.

*As a minor caveat, my parents were recently rear ended @ about 35 mph while stopped at a red light in broad daylight, waiting for it to turn green. They survived with mild whiplash, only because of the vehicle they were in. Obviously they were not in the wrong, but I can't help but think that even in this situation, they put their faith in the light, assuming other drivers would adhere to what the law ordered.

Also, I was recently riding my bike in a CROSSWALK, when it was green, and I had the right of way, when a car making a left turn (coming from the direction I was traveling, and into the crosswalk I occupied) almost hit me. I sensed that the driver was not capable of watching the other traffic as well as the intersection, so I was fortunately ready to react, but if I had put my faith in what the law told me to do, I would not be writing this message now.

All these thoughts reminded me of an article I recently read, and one that resonates with what I'm saying. Feel free to either respond to this, or read the article, and respond, taking it into consideration as well. The links to youtube videos in the article are the 'proof in the pudding', and are worth clicking on. Let me know your thoughts. I believe the issues I rambled on about extend far beyond traffic laws, too.

http://mises.org/daily/4745

[Louis]

One that I think is the culprit of our decaying culture and lack of national ethics and morals.

If you want to discuss this sort of thing I suggest you go to an appropriate forum whose purpose is to rehash these topics ad infinitum.

Last I checked "decaying culture and lack of national ethics and morals" don't have a lot to do with cycling, despite your attempt to connect the two.

Louis

[Dlevy05]

This forum is used to discuss matter. Whether this matter is cycling related or not is a moot point, as there are plenty of non-cycling related threads on this forum. A recent six-page, 76 response discussion on the GM Volt, should be enough to show you this.

If your quote of my writing is all you were able to take in summation, then I suggest you dig further.

People are welcome to respond at will and no one is asking anyone else to re-hash the past. If I have brought up a sensitive issue, or one that no one here takes an interest in, then people need not respond. Please let the forum members read my post in peace, and let this thread, like all others, run its course.

[A1CKot]

This forum is used to discuss matter. Whether this matter is cycling related or not is a moot point, as there are plenty of non-cycling related threads on this forum. A recent six-page, 76 response discussion on the GM Volt, should be enough to show you this.

This is why I like this forum so much. It may not have the most members or posts but the quality and variety of topics brings me right back here.

As for the original post, I'm not sure where I fall. Most people are situationally aware drivers but the ones that aren't cause the accidents. I would say it distracted drivers and complacency. I don't think it has much to do with the laws that are trying to cut down on the distractions while driving.

On another note, cruse control makes it entirely too easy to fall asleep while driving.

[bluesea]

This forum is used to discuss matter.



Would that be Jerry Matter, the Beaver?

[texbike]

This forum is used to discuss matter. Whether this matter is cycling related or not is a moot point, as there are plenty of non-cycling related threads on this forum. A recent six-page, 76 response discussion on the GM Volt, should be enough to show you this.

If your quote of my writing is all you were able to take in summation, then I suggest you dig further.

People are welcome to respond at will and no one is asking anyone else to re-hash the past. If I have brought up a sensitive issue, or one that no one here takes an interest in, then people need not respond. Please let the forum members read my post in peace, and let this thread, like all others, run its course.

Dlevy,

Your points are definitely worth exploration and discussion, but I think what Louis is saying is that we've been down this path too many times on this forum in the past.

Similar discussions have done nothing more than piss off a bunch of people on the forum and eventually end up in locked threads anyway...

So, why beat on a hornets' nest in this venue? There are other forums that would be more appropriate.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to talk about what color cable housing would best match your handlebar tape here? :)

Texbike

[gasman]

I read the whole article. i'm not sure what it has to do with biking but I don't Somalia is doing too well without traffic lights or a government.

[Seott-e]

To answer your origial qeustion.. Yes, that is what they do so well !!!

[oliver1850]

.

[Derailer]

Wasn't it Mather?


Does it mather?

[Jangles13]

Also, I was recently riding my bike in a CROSSWALK, when it was green, and I had the right of way, when a car making a left turn (coming from the direction I was traveling, and into the crosswalk I occupied) almost hit me.

...


I believe the issues I rambled on about extend far beyond traffic laws, too.



Just to divert the thread a bit, perhaps it varies by state and city, but where I'm from it's actually unlawful (though not enforced) to ride your bicycle in crosswalks or on pedestrian sidewalks. They are, indeed, for foot traffic. You are either to follow traffic laws as a vehicle (including signs and lights), or dismount to utilize pedestrian ways.

[oliver1850]

.

[oliver1850]

.

[Ray]

Some of you guys with just 100 or less posts weren't around when we used to get overtly political all the time. Although I was a frequent protagonist, I have to agree that its a much nicer place (less interesting, but nicer) since those threads were banned. Although most did our best to keep it civil, it got pretty nasty pretty regularly and the mods shut it down. Stuff like the Volt discussion was about as close as I've seen to politics in a long time. But if it had spun off into global warming, it would have been shut down faster than Cancellara rode away from everyone at Flanders and Roubaix last year.

A discussion of how laws affect incentives and behavior just wouldn't go well.

-Ray

[Lifelover]

Yes laws are forcing ignorance and driving would be much safer without and lights, signs or rules to follow.

[RPS]

*As a minor caveat, my parents were recently rear ended @ about 35 mph while stopped at a red light in broad daylight, waiting for it to turn green. They survived with mild whiplash, only because of the vehicle they were in. Obviously they were not in the wrong, but I can't help but think that even in this situation, they put their faith in the light, assuming other drivers would adhere to what the law ordered.
IMO laws don’t make people ignorant but ignorant people make laws that can’t be enforced justly, or else have so many unintended consequences that they can do more harm than good.

As drivers, and especially as cyclist, I agree we must always remain vigilant of our surroundings, but we should also accept that there is only so much we can do to protect ourselves from complete morons. I drove approximately 1 million miles accident free until this May when a distracted man drove through a red light and caused a serious crash. My wife spent a week in the hospital, months of rehab, and will probably never recover fully. I have to admit you first get really angry and want retribution, but then realize your limited energy should be spent more constructively.

When introducing traffic laws about drinking, cell phones, texting, passing cyclists, or whatever, the first thing that should be asked is if it is enforceable. Often they are not enforceable which can give us a false sense of security, which to your point may lure us into taking risks we shouldn’t. On that I think you are correct, but I wouldn’t be too hard on accident victims like your parents. What could they have done, drive through an intersection to get out of the way? That could have made things worse.

[rugbysecondrow]

. Although I was a frequent protagonist,

-Ray

I thought I was the protagonist...you must be confused. :beer:

[soulspinner]

There is no such thing as national morals or ethics-the very statement takes away individual responsibility and villanizes a whole country.

[dekindy]

You don't make much sense, especially this:

*As a minor caveat, my parents were recently rear ended @ about 35 mph while stopped at a red light in broad daylight, waiting for it to turn green. They survived with mild whiplash, only because of the vehicle they were in. Obviously they were not in the wrong, but I can't help but think that even in this situation, they put their faith in the light, assuming other drivers would adhere to what the law ordered.

[oldpotatoe]

Wasn't it Mather?

geeezzzz

[benb]

Well common morals and ethics were usually the domain of religion.. "Everyone has to act this way or ye shall be smited!"

The thing is religions are too old to cover stuff like "Thou shall not operate motor vehicles and operate heavy machinery drunk."

I personally do not have a problem with society saying driving drunk is bad even if you didn't kill/injure anyone. I don't feel all behaviors have to be protected by freedoms even if you don't hurt anyone every single time you partake in that behavior.

[RPS]

There is no such thing as national morals or ethics-the very statement takes away individual responsibility and villanizes a whole country.
If viewed as the average of a country’s population I think there are indeed differences between nations. I’d love to reply more specifically but that would get us into Ray’s domain. ;)

[oldpotatoe]

This is why I like this forum so much. It may not have the most members or posts but the quality and variety of topics brings me right back here.

As for the original post, I'm not sure where I fall. Most people are situationally aware drivers but the ones that aren't cause the accidents. I would say it distracted drivers and complacency. I don't think it has much to do with the laws that are trying to cut down on the distractions while driving.

On another note, cruse control makes it entirely too easy to fall asleep while driving.


She didn't fall asleep. This wasn't a boltoutoftheblue, accident. The drunk driver wasn't being inattentive or distracted. Nobody held her down and forced he to drink, then drive. The drunk driver is NOT the victim. The other things mentioned, cell phone use, for example is LEGAL, driving drunk is not.

She killed 2 people due to her criminal negligence and she should spend time in jail even if it only takes HER off the street and out of a car.

[soulspinner]

If viewed as the average of a country’s population I think there are indeed differences between nations. I’d love to reply more specifically but that would get us into Ray’s domain. ;)

I still dont see how you can make such a statement. Maybe "permissive society" but averages?

[bronk]

The Brits have minimized traffic lights and stop signs by using roundabouts. Seems to work. However, going through a crowded roundabout on a bike isn't fun.

[palincss]

There may be better means to safely guide traffic through intersections than traffic lights. Roundabouts seem to be working very well in Maryland, and for bicycles as well as cars (at least, through the roundabouts you hit on the Schoolie Mill ride, and through the one on Budd's Creek Road in Chaptico, in my personal experience). But that's not anything like the "traffic laws are bad, let chaos reign and drivers will be scared into being careful" philosophy that was originally expounded. They tried "let chaos reign" back when cars first came on the scene; it didn't work. If it had done, we wouldn't have had traffic lights in the first place.

[AndrewS]

Most laws boil down to protection of property rights and access to them. That goes for traffic laws, drug laws and even seemingly "moral" issues like separation of church and state and (if you're cynical enough) even abortion. Laws were created so when the big bully hurts the little guy and the little guy goes to the king (the biggest guy), the king can say to the bully, "You knew better". Having surplus property and having protection of it is the basis of civilization.

Laws serve as a guide to keeping your stuff, and a fall back for redress should someone else deprieve you of stuff. Traffic laws serve both these rolls.

Laws fail when they distribute stuff poorly (crummy lawsuits) or create situations that favor activities that devalue stuff.


Anarchy may well be the highest form of civilization, but we use it as a bad word because we all know that there isn't enough morality among even a tiny group of people to sustain respect of property rights for more than a short time.


Laws don't make people stupid. People are stupid. The problem with democracy and jury trial by peer is that they give stupid people access to the creation of law.

Morality and especially ethics are tools to make you a more efficient user of civilization. Ethical citizens are less likely to interact with the legal system, which makes them more efficient and profitable people, encouraging other people to want to live near them and do business with them. This is called culture.