Subject:
|
Speeding: Prima facie negligence? (was Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Sep 1999 18:58:05 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@NOVERAavoidspam.COM
|
Viewed:
|
1396 times
|
| |
|
|
<37D64CA8.96CF1964@voyager.net> <FHsKo5.Dq8@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Moz (Chris Moseley) wrote:
> Lar opined:
> > Now, in that context, to drive faster than the limit is NOT negligent.
>
> It's not negligance in the sense of "here's a risk that I will disregard",
> but it is negligant in the sense of "the community has a rule, but I will
> ignore it because it suits me to do so". Doesn't matter how misplaced the
> rule is in the single instance, what is important is that other people
> have the expectation that you will behave lawfully, and may reasonably
> act in a way that will make your judgement of risk false.
I think I want to drill into this one a bit more. Let's be clear... are
you saying
that to break any law whatsoever is to act in a negligent manner? That
is, if your jurisdiction passed a law requiring that you spit on and
kick the shins of any left handers you happen to encounter, that not to
do so would be negligent?
I can't imagine that's what you mean. And if it is, it's prima facie
false, no need for further exploration. Skip dismantling the straw dog,
but retain the law, we'll use it later.
Or is it that you mean that to disobey a law which is codifying a
convention that people rely on is negligent? I think I agree. That is,
for example, to deliberately drive down a one way stret in the wrong
direction is indeed negligent.
>
> > But speeding aside, there are other conventions that we all, as drivers,
> > must use, or else chaos will ensue.
>
> This is, to me, the key statement. Speeding is acceptable insofar as it
> is the expected behaviour in the time and place you are. Doing 60mph
> in a residential area at 3am is negligant, regardless of the situation,
> IMO, because it's so unexpected. But doing 70 in a 60 zone on the
> highway may well be the accepted practice, and in that case you're right,
> doing 70 is not negligant in any real way.
Well, there we go then. You're agreeing with me. Speeding when to do so
is proper and safe (because the highway is capable of sustaining the
speed and the traffic is doing that speed) is NOT negligent. In fact,
obeying the posted speed limit, in that case, IS negligent.
> > In fact, in some of these cases, if you drive the limit you will be
> > CAUSING accidents because everyone else around you is going the right
> > (faster) speed. The proof of why this is so I will defer unless it's a
> > big deal, but trust me, it's straightforward transportation engineering,
>
> Oh, I know about the rules for interaction between car and concrete. And
> that they do take into account the meat on top. But I'd rather drive so
> that there was as much margin for error as I can reasonably get. I drove
> a truck for a job at one stage, and saw some real idiots. They scare me.
> And I get to interact with some doozies every day on my bike. I'm
> surprised more bank robbers don't use bikes because they're completely
> invisible to so many motorists. "he ran out of the bank and just vanished!".
>
> > Now, it is up to each and every driver to decide for themselves how to
> > drive in a safe and prudent manner.
>
> It is well established by the transportation engineers that in fact most
> motorist do not make conscious decisions about that sort of thing. They
> drive to the posted limit plus whatever margin they think they can get
> away with.
But as a student of transportation engineering, I know that to be in
fact, false. Drivers are much smarter in the aggregate than you give
them credit. At least they are in the US. Granted, this is as much an
argument from authority as your assertion at the lead of the above
paragraph, but go back to your textbooks and read about design speeds
and 85th percentile speeds. A good transportation engineer puts visual
cues in place that cause 85% of motorists to go the correct speed for
the roadway. Cues such as lane width, lane stripe lengths, proximity of
the shoulder reflectors and a whole bunch more.
> > If you are reckless or negligent you are violating rights of others.
> > And you had better be prepared to suffer the consequences. Being ready
> > to suffer the consequences of being negligent is NOT the same thing as
> > saying it's OK to be negligent.
>
> See above for why I disbelieve that you are avoiding negligance by speeding.
See above for why I disbelieve that to travel the design speed is
negligent, assuming conditions warrant it, regardless of what the posted
law says.
This is a major philosophical difference I have with many people. I
posit that morals are internal. The fact that something is legal does
not make it morally correct (the spit and kick law I gave above), and
conversely, the fact that something is illegal does not make it morally
incorrect.
It is illegal in some states to eat pickles before noon on sundays. Does
that make it immoral?
Relying on laws to decide what is right or wrong, rather than having a
well developed sense of rights, and a well developed sense of what is
right or wrong, is a sign of incomplete humanity and weakness.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Speeding: Prima facie negligence?
|
| Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote (...) You've switched immediately from laws which are codified conventions to laws which attempt to enforce possibly immoral behaviour. What happens to a society where only half the members behave as you (...) (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
