Charles & Peggy Robinson SEZ -
> I just can't resist this one. I've met LBC owner's who couldn't pour
> XXXX out of a boot. Also, just the ownership of a sporty car does not
> an accomplished driver make.
>
> When I hear people who willfully violate a law or a set of them and
> then claim they've been victimized, I wonder which group they fall in.
There seem to be two mutually-incompatible views on this list
about what constitutes a good driver. The first is that to be
a good driver, you must exercise discretion based on experience
and judgement. Traffic laws are frequently instructive in this
process, but due to the influence of corrupt or incompetent
politicians, they are sometimes in conflict with this process,
and a good driver may on occasion be called upon to violate
the letter of the law for the sake of traffic safety. I'd term
this the "Informed Judgement Philosophy of Driving."
The second view is that traffic laws are laws and that all
laws are equally legitimate and must always be obeyed to
the letter if society is to survive. I'd term this the
"Nuremberg Defense Philosophy of Driving (aka, I vass just
followink orders!)".
I'm sure readers can tell from my definitions which camp I
fall into. :-)
> Consider the complaint that the authorities have shortened the
> duration of the yellow light where there's a camera installed. If this
> be true, the obvious and best response is: don't go through the light on
> yellow! Huh? Wuzzat? Are you kidding? Hoo boy.........
But with all due respect (and I really mean that) this
argument is so reactionary it's just silly. Are you
really meaning to say that if you're approaching an
intersection at the marked speed of 35 MPH and the light
turns yellow when you're 50 feet away, you're going to
stand on your brakes rather than go through *before*
the light turns red? After all, the reason the yellow
light is there is to allow an interval of driver discretion.
If the driver feels it is safer to proceed than to stop at
all costs, he may proceed. If he feels he cannot clear the
intersection before the light turns red, he can stop and,
THIS IS IMPORTANT: he makes that decision under the assumption
that the light is timed in such a way that he can execrise
the discretion implicit in the presence of the yellow light
in the first place. If the municipality presents a yellow
light to the driver, but times it dangerously short so that
any attempt to practice discretion results in the running
of the red light, it is practicing a deception on the
driver, plain and simple. And if that short yellow light
is used in conjunction with a ticket-writing camera, the
short yellow light deception exists soley to extort money
from the driver. This is FRAUD by just about anybody's
definition. How can it be anything else?
Now, the discretion philosophy relies on people acting
in a rational manner, under the knowledge that they are
responsible for the consequences of their actions. That
may be a stretch in today's Nader-inspired lawsuit-happy
culture where a person's first reaction to his discovery
that he's done something truly stupid is to look for somebody
else to sue. But the answer to this connundrum isn't to
remove discretion from people's lives, it's to enforce
responsibility. Set the timing of the yellow light to
something reasonable, and pay a cop to sit at the intersection
and ticket people who do something stupid. The robotization
of law enforcement is not bringing us more safety, it's
doing exectly the opposite because it ignores the important
role of personal discretion and responsibility in the
functioning of a free society.
OK, I'm done with this topic unless somebody provokes
me personally. :-)
--
David Breneman | "Advice is somethin' the
Distributed Systems S/W Analyst | other feller can't use,
Airborne Express, Inc. | so he gives it to you."
david.breneman@airborne.com | - Cal Stewart
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|