Traffic Laws according to me

[VTmotoMike08 0]

If I was king of the world, here are the traffic laws that I think should be implemented. Feel free to hate me, flame me, or accuse me of increasing traffic fatalities, this is more of a rant against my daily commute than anything else. Lets also hear some of your proposed laws.

1) Speed limits would be universally raised by 10 mph. Vehicles have more safety systems than ever before and its time that we acknowledge that most of our speed limits are significantly lower than they need to be. As safety systems increases, speeds can also increase and we can have the same acceptable margin of error.

2) Judges would be required to dismiss all non-wreckless traffic violations (including less than 20 over in most states) for drivers that have not had an at-fault accident in the last five years. If you can push the limits a little and still not cause an accident, you should not have to pay for minor offenses (like slight speeding, rolling stops, etc) that only serve to pad the state’s budget while increasing your insurance rates.

3) If you cause an accident that totals someone else’s car, you (or your insurance company), must pay the replacement cost for a similar vehicle, not the depreciated market value of the current one. I don’t think I should lose a dime or have to put up with a lesser car due to someone else’s mistake.

4) Bicycles would not have the same rights to road use as cars. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said “Same road, same rules, same rights” with a picture of a bike and I laughed. Until they can go the same speed so that they don’t hold up traffic, they do not deserve the same rights. And they don’t have the same rules either because they are not required to have turn signals, headlights, etc.

And no, I did not recently get a speeding ticket to prompt this, its just the way I think it should be.
Lets hear some of your ideas for better traffic laws.

Edited for spelling

[shropshire 0]

(4) not untill they pay Road Tax either.

(5) People who only use side lights (every but particularly in bad weather) will be knee-capped.

(6) People with 'Baby on-board' stickers will be castrated...... O.K too harsh? laughed at very loudly.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Kennedy 0]

The single most effective traffic safety device is a law enforcement patrol vehicle in the rear view mirror.

Everything else depends on voluntary compliance. Why do you want to raise speed limits? If peole are already speeding, do you think raising speed limits would stop speeding?

What would you do with DWI laws? Would you make that so that if you haven't been in an accident, you can drive impaired, as well?

ps - without addressing each and every point, fatalities would have a huge jump after you implemented your ideas. But hey, sometimes kings don't want as many subjects...

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Nightingale 0]

I wouldn't have a problem implementing your ideas... I'd add a few more, though.

1. mandatory road test and vision test for everyone, every year.
2. mandatory advanced driving classes prior to getting a license in the first place.
3. involvement in an accident where you are 50% or more at fault results in a suspended license for one year, and mandatory advanced driver training.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

Quote

Why do you want to raise speed limits? If peole are already speeding, do you think raising speed limits would stop speeding?

Because I want to be able to drive faster without getting a ticket and I think that increased safety systems justify the added risk.

Quote

What would you do with DWI laws? Would you make that so that if you haven't been in an accident, you can drive impaired, as well?

Note that I said non-wreckless violations only. I think DWI/ DUI falls under wreckless in most states. Anyway, it is much higher risk than minor violations, so I would answer NO.

[niu 0]

Quote

The single most effective traffic safety device is a law enforcement patrol vehicle in the rear view mirror.

Read somewhere that Alec Issigonis once said that it was a 12" spike in the center of the steering wheel.
Sounds about right to me.

[billvon 2,434]

>1) Speed limits would be universally raised by 10 mph.

That's sort of an arbitrary number. Some places they could be raised by more than that; some places they should be lowered. I'd be all for raising/lowering them provided that fuel taxes rose to provide some incentive to not waste so much gas (although you still could if you wanted to.)

>Vehicles have more safety systems than ever before . . .

It's not air bags and stability systems that ultimately set safe highway speeds, it's reaction time, tire traction and braking power - and those things haven't changed much in 40 years.

>2) Judges would be required to dismiss all non-wreckless traffic
>violations (including less than 20 over in most states) for drivers that
>have not had an at-fault accident in the last five years.

If that were true, why would anyone ever obey ANY traffic regulation? Why stop for red lights? Why let pedestrians cross at crosswalks? (provided you don't hit them of course!) Why not drive drunk? (Provided you don't get in an accident) After all, there would be no penalty for breaking such regulations.

If you think a given traffic regulation is meaningless, then do away with it. Not enforcing the ones we have seems like a bad compromise, and a waste of cop's time.

>3) If you cause an accident that totals someone else’s car, you (or your
>insurance company), must pay the replacement cost for a similar
>vehicle, not the depreciated market value of the current one.

Hmm. So a car pulls out of a driveway while you're doing 40 down the road. You're at fault since you hit him. He's driving a piece of shit 1983 CVCC (top of the line when he bought it of course.) You now owe him a new hybrid civic? Interesting idea. Not sure how it would affect accident rates.

>4) Bicycles would not have the same rights to road use as cars. I saw a
>bumper sticker the other day that said “Same road, same rules, same
>rights” with a picture of a bike and I laughed. Until they can go the
>same speed so that they don’t hold up traffic, they do not deserve the
>same rights.

Sorry, we pay road taxes too; we get to use them too. Once you start mailing me a rebate for the road taxes I don't use I'll consider using bike paths/sidewalks only.

>Lets hear some of your ideas for better traffic laws.

Adaptive traffic lights that can sense gaps in traffic - they cycle then, not just when their timer expires.

Traffic circles in light traffic areas instead of the usual intersections.

Sliding scale pay-for-use HOV lanes. Either you have 2 people in the car or you pay $X (shown on signs nearby) to use the lane. X increases as traffic increases.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

The single most effective traffic safety device is a law enforcement patrol vehicle in the rear view mirror.

Read somewhere that Alec Issigonis once said that it was a 12" spike in the center of the steering wheel.
Sounds about right to me.

In case anyone is wondering who Alec Issigonis is, he designed the original Mini (from which Mini Coopers evolved) back in the 1950s.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

If you can push the limits a little and still not cause an accident, you should not have to pay for minor offenses

You will make a GREAT Swooper some day.
So after you cause an Accident, Then you have to follow the rules??

Quote

Bicycles would not have the same rights to road use as cars. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said “Same road, same rules, same rights” with a picture of a bike and I laughed

Now on this completely agree. Keep Bicycles on the sidewalk where they belong!! Nothing I hate worse than some Fairy ass, Spandex wearing Yuppie on his $2000 bicycle taking up half the lane because he thinks he is saving the world riding his bike while by backing up traffic for 3 miles behind him.

[shropshire 0]

Remove seat belts from all drivers positions and install a dirty great big spike in the centre of the steering wheel.



Whoops guilt of my own earlier rant and didn't see that this had been posted... sorry.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[ryoder 1,400]

Quote

3. involvement in an accident where you are 50% or more at fault results in a suspended license for one year, and mandatory advanced driver training.

Speaking from my experience a couple years ago, NO! As long as the "fault" in accidents is determined by clueless cops who can't even see the evidence in front of their face, it is nonsensical to make any determinations based on what the cop says.

A kid tried to pass me on the right to get out of the gas station before I did. He side-swiped the right-hand side of my car with the left side of his truck. The stupid f***ing cop gave ME a ticket for reckless driving. Only after I hired a lawyer did I get to see the report filed by the cop that claimed I tee-boned the truck. Anyone (but the cop) looking at the vehicles could see that couldn't have been what happened.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

Quote

1) Speed limits would be universally raised by 10 mph.
That's sort of an arbitrary number.

Agreed that some more thought might need to be put into that. I cant think of any area that I have ever driven where the limit should be decreased tho.

Quote

>Vehicles have more safety systems than ever before .
It's not air bags and stability systems that ultimately set safe highway speeds, it's reaction time, tire traction and braking power - and those things haven't changed much in 40 years.

But if you do get in an accident, those things will do a lot to help you walk away from it.

Quote

>2) Judges would be required to dismiss all non-wreckless traffic
>violations (including less than 20 over in most states) for drivers that
>have not had an at-fault accident in the last five years.
If that were true, why would anyone ever obey ANY traffic regulation?

Because then you could lose you immunity to minor violations for 5 years and have an insurance claim. Its not removing liability for accidents, just making sure good drivers don't get a punishment that is way more than the crime for minor offenses.

Quote

>3) If you cause an accident that totals someone else’s car, you (or your
>insurance company), must pay the replacement cost for a similar
>vehicle, not the depreciated market value of the current one.
Hmm. So a car pulls out of a driveway while you're doing 40 down the road. You're at fault since you hit him. He's driving a piece of shit 1983 CVCC (top of the line when he bought it of course.) You now owe him a new hybrid civic? Interesting idea. Not sure how it would affect accident rates.

No. He is at fault for failing to yield. And anyway, I am proposing that you would owe him an equivalent POS 1983 car. Say it would cost him $1000 to buy a new junker but the insurance co only gives him $500. You would have to pony up another $500. This is more applicable to when someone totals your 1-5 year old car that loses a lot of its value fast.

Quote

Sorry, we pay road taxes too; we get to use them too. Once you start mailing me a rebate for the road taxes I don't use I'll consider using bike paths/sidewalks only.

So you have a right to go 5 mph in a 45 zone and hold a huge line of traffic behind you?

[Zipp0 1]

Make visor mirrors illegal.

Anyone going slow in the fast lane may be shot.

Tractor trailer lane only on all highways.

Snow/ice that comes off of tractor trailers and hits a car or causes an accident is a felony.

Cattle chute lane added to all highways for DUI drivers to drive legally.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

Quote

You will make a GREAT Swooper some day.
So after you cause an Accident, Then you have to follow the rules??

No. I propose a free pass only on NONWRECKLESS minor violations. Doing a 270 thru the pattern would certainly be considered a wreckless act. I dont think there is any nonwreckless minor violations in swooping like there is in driving.

[pirana 0]

Quote

2. mandatory advanced driving classes prior to getting a license in the first place.

I know the devil is in the details (logistics, financing, and what-not), but imagine the freeways if everyone took a serious driver training course - not the typical legal minimum of telling you where the controls are and letting you drive about for a few hours.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,434]

>I cant think of any area that I have ever driven where the limit should
>be decreased tho.

There's a road near me that used to have nothing on it; speed limit was 60mph. Now it's a residential community with an elementary school on one side. Needed a slower speed limit. That happens often in places that get developed.

>But if you do get in an accident, those things will do a lot to help you
>walk away from it.

Right. But most traffic laws (IMO) should prevent you from causing accidents to OTHER people by running into them, spinning out and blocking the road, crossing into oncoming traffic etc. It doesn't really matter what safety equiment is in _your_ car - it matters whether or not you hit anyone else. (And it's not really supportable to say that everyone else should have airbags and smart stability systems so you can drive faster.)

>Because then you could lose you immunity to minor violations for 5
>years and have an insurance claim.

Oh, so you're saying you get one "freebie" every 5 years? Hmm, that might be interesting. It would certainly increase the odds that people will push the limits (hey, I didn't use up my freebie yet! I don't have to stop for that light) but it would also be a bit more enforceable.

>No. He is at fault for failing to yield.

In many municipalities, you hit him (in their language - you were not in control of your car and could not stop before striking a hazard) and thus are at fault.

>And anyway, I am proposing that you would owe him an equivalent
>POS 1983 car. Say it would cost him $1000 to buy a new junker but the
>insurance co only gives him $500.

Ah! So you are arguing that there should be no insurance deductible! Well, we don't need any new laws for that. Just get an insurance policy with no deductible. They're more expensive, but you should have the right to choose any sort of policy you want.

>So you have a right to go 5 mph in a 45 zone and hold a huge line of
>traffic behind you?

Nope. Here in CA you are required to pull over if you are holding up more than 5 cars. Applies to both bikes and cars. From my experience, bikes do this far more often than the overloaded pickups that creep down the street at 20mph swaying from side to side.

In any case, I almost never hold up traffic when I bike. There are only a few stretches of street where I have to "take the lane" because there are no bike lanes, no alternatives and not enough room by the sidewalk/parked cars to ride alongside traffic. 99.9% of the time cars have no trouble passing me.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Anyone going slow in the fast lane may be shot.

Yeah, and the same for people who don't use their turn signals when they're supposed to.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Anyone going slow in the fast lane may be shot.

Yeah, and the same for people who don't use their turn signals when they're supposed to.

Oh man, that drives me NUTS!

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 2,434]

>and the same for people who don't use their turn signals when they're supposed to.

Or those people who drive for dozens of miles with one turn signal going.

[Thanatos340 1]

Or STOP while making a right turn off a busy road into a parking lot.

Also I believe that firing a 45 into the cab of a Semi that is tailgating you is not only justifiable, but should be mandatory.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>and the same for people who don't use their turn signals when they're supposed to.

Or those people who drive for dozens of miles with one turn signal going.

Well, that's annoying too, but somewhat more forgivable. I can usually just assume that these people are spaced out and unaware that their turn signal is still on.

But those who simply don't use them - I'm not really sure what to assume except that they must be lazy, ignorant, self-absorbed, rude pricks.

( Ok, I feel better now. )

[billvon 2,434]

>Also I believe that firing a 45 into the cab of a Semi that is tailgating you
>is not only justifiable, but should be mandatory.

'Cept they probably think that firing a .45 into the rear end of a slowpoke that's costing them big bucks is justifiable too . . .

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

they must be lazy, ignorant, self-absorbed, rude pricks

Not all of them are Skydivers.

[billvon 2,434]

>But those who simply don't use them . . .

I used to barely use them when driving in NY, specifically Manhattan. In Manhattan, a turn signal means "that guy wants to move over, so floor it before he tries to get in front of you." The trick I adopted was to look for an opening, turn the wheel hard, hit the directional with my hand as I was turning the wheel (to be legal) and get into the lane before the other guy could react.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

'Cept they probably think that firing a .45 into the rear end of a slowpoke that's costing them big bucks is justifiable too

If I am doing 80mph and not in the fast lane and some Truck driver still thinks he can Ride my ass.. I think lethal force is clearly self defense.