Subject:
|
Re: Speeding: Prima facie negligence?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Sep 1999 22:38:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1622 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote
> 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?
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 describe? Can
it still function? What about a society where only half the members
drive on the left hand side of the road?
My answer to the law requiring me to behave reprehensibly is that unless
it is morally repugnant then yes, I must obey it. While attempting to
get it changed, of course. For example, the numerous stupid laws in
the US that regulate private sexual behaviour. Mind you, the USA does
seem exceptionally fond of silly laws, we regularly see lists of the
funniest ones.
> 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.
I'd tend to disagree that obeying the law can in general be negligant.
I don't know about the USA, but I'm used to trucks being speed limited,
for example. So any rational road designer will take that into account,
and in fact would be negligant not to.
One possible confusion between us here is that you seem to be talking
about multilane single direction highways, while I'm tending to focus
on smaller streets. Combine that with the plethora of intrusive laws
that you are faced with and I can see why you regard it as normal to
break laws all the time. I mean, not comitting sodomy in Georgia means
staying celibate as far as I can tell.
Ok, in the New Zealand context there are a heap of laws governing what
you can't do in public, but they are all "common sense" ones, or else
they are "police excuse" ones, as far as I know. In other words they
cover stuff like "don't unrinate in public", and "don't behave in a
disorderly manner".
OK, so speeding. On the highway it seems to be a peculiar circumstance
where civil obedience is hard to justify. The road is frequently designed
for a speed in excess of the limit, the hazards are constrained and
there is an expectation that everyone will speed. Fine, you've eliminated
most objections to speeding.
> > 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.
Actually I'm operating off some discussions I had with a friend who
was studying this, but that was about 10 years ago. And I don't have
easy access to a university library right now.
> 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.
While I agree with you, I also believe that it is your duty as a citizen
to change those laws, not to ignore them.
And speaking which, I've hurried through this because I have to go make
protesting noises at our government over the East Timor debacle. Looks
like the ozzies are finally going to stop offering military support to
the Indonesians! I have no words to describe the depth of my feelings
about this. I pay taxes to people who are militarily and financially
supporting a regime that *right now* is attempting genocide. You
want to talk about immoral laws, let's think about East Timor.
Moz
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
