I am the first to admit that people probably don’t like my driving. Cruising a little slow through the neighborhood while trying to read the directions you wrote down? The guy behind you honking is me. Pulling up to a four-way stop, and a blue beetle rolls through without coming to a full stop? I admit it’s me - I didn’t want to wait for you all to figure out who is going to let the others through. Being passed on the interstate at 10mph to 15mph above the speed limit? Me again.
I’ve been pulled over fourteen times in my nine years of driving - and my severely limited view of government isn’t exactly police-friendly either. But let me assure you it isn’t out of bitterness or anarchism that I tell you that the police are not interested in keeping you safe. They have a monopoly on law enforcement and they want to keep it. Thought it sounds redundant - they exist merely to perpetuate their own existence.
In Dallas, Texas they are removing red-light cameras because they work too well.
Faced with data showing that drivers pay attention to cameras at intersections — resulting in fewer ticketable violations and ever-shrinking revenue from fines — municipalities across the country are reconsidering red light cameras, which often work too well.
In other words: for once, something the police are doing is actually making a measurable difference in safe driving. Read: the police are accidentally doing their job. The article again:
…the twin benefits that were touted when local governments began installing cameras about a decade and a half ago… would simultaneously save lives and generate millions of dollars in extra fines.
The first half of that equation is arguably true: A federal study found a small but measurable reduction in injuries nationwide in accidents at intersections monitored by cameras, though there was an increase in some kinds of collisions.
I think this can’t be stated enough times - the police are removing the cameras, despite the fact that it is safer, specifically because revenue is going down. They aren’t doing it in favor of a safer method - they are doing it because the safer driving is causing them to write less tickets.
If you ever wondered why there are so many laws against so many things from drug-use to selling flowers without a license - it’s not to make society moral or orderly - it’s to make you into a criminal, on purpose. If you are a criminal it justifies government programs to punish you and rehabilitate you. It requires government agents to protect others from you. It justifies government interventions such as monopoly services, taxes and violations of civil and economic rights. As was eloquently put in V for Vendetta, the government wants “everyone to remember why they need us!”
Ouch, you quoted V for Vendetta? What an awful movie.
They tried putting in those red light cameras in Minneapolis, but I think they got removed because they were unlawful, since they punished owners of the vehicle instead of the driver.
Darius T said: “they punished owners of the vehicle instead of the driver.”
That’s also how it happens here in Dallas. The fines are levied against the owner of the vehicle regardless of who was driving. It doesn’t count against your driving record because the police can’t prove it was you driving the car, but you still have to pay the $75.
Colin,
I am a firm believer that less is more when it comes to government intervention, and I hate cameras on stoplights with a passion. The incident you describe in the article clearly shows the hypocrisy in the system. However, I think you go too far.
“They have a monopoly on law enforcement and they want to keep it. Thought it sounds redundant - they exist merely to perpetuate their own existence.”
Of course they want to keep their monopoly on power, but to claim the police force exists merely for the sake of existing seems rather extreme. Has any society ever, in the whole history of the world, thrived without law enforcement? I think not. Perhaps I misunderstood you, though.
Darius, just so you know, you hurt V for Vendetta’s feelings. V for Vendetta thinks a movie about you would be awful.
“thinks a movie about you would be awful.”
Indeed it would.
As for Colin’s monopoly comment, I think what he’s getting at isn’t a dislike of law enforcement per se, but a dislike of how law enforcement cares more about having a monopoly on power rather than understanding what that power is supposed to be used for. The red light camera article shows that so well, in that the police have forgotten that they exist to protect the public and now think that they are exist to merely continue their existence.
V is a great movie. The graphic novel is better, but I still loved the movie! That doesn’t mean I agree with it 100% however.
Way too much talking, almost no action. The previews made it look a lot better than it actually was. If you want to see a really cool movie that has a very similar idea behind it, watch Equilibrium with Christian Bale. Fantastic movie!
(Colin here) I don’t have time to fully comment, however, I wanted to note that Darius understands my point.
Thank you, Darius and Colin, for the clarification. I can get on board with that.
The talking gives the audience a lot more to think about than the action does.
FYI, Colin does have anarcho-capitalist leanings, which tend to expect each individual to contract for their own protection of person and property. The fact is though that law enforcement in any form short of a full police state can’t prevent crime from happening so much as punish it AFTER it happens. With well formed laws though, a citizenry can protect itself within the limitations of the law. For example, the law could allow any citizen to arrest people so long as the arrestee was taken directly to a court house. Arrests that failed to meet legal requirements would result in penalties for the person making the arrest. While there are downsides to such an approach (someone pretending to make an “arrest”, only to abuse the person they are pretending to arrest), it would allow law enforcement without paid police officers. Many societies have functioned without formal law enforcement agents, particularly at a primitive level where the accused were taken before a judge by force in the hands of the person filing charges. It is arguable whether this is preferable, but it is definitely possible.
A decidedly unpopular, lonely, and feminine word here from the protective mother: Colin, if you’ve gotten pulled over 14 times in 9 years, I hope you change your ways before you have a teenage son who is taking his driving cues from you. He’ll copy his dad and then kill someone because he’s not experienced enough to handle a car at high speeds, all the time assuming laws don’t apply to anyone who claims to be an anarcho-whatever.
Seen it Darius, well most of it since it was on TV I missed the beginning. V was better. True, it’s not a hyper-action movie, which I preferred, it deals more with the thought of what is happening instead of the action. Not every movie has to be action packed.
Really, you liked V better than Equilibrium? Perhaps seeing it on TV was part of the problem, and missing the first part. I’m not huge on action, but Equilibrium was nearly Matrix-like in that it set a new standard in the action genre. V was way TOO talkative while it was advertised as an action flick. All of the action was in the previews. And the talkative was really stilted in the anarchist’s favor, every high-ranking official was a caricature. It was obviously meant as a lambast of the Bush administration, but where they failed to connect the dots is that (whether or not his policies are all good or right) Bush actually really cares for people, whereas the dictator on V was a hateful lunatic. Ironically enough, it would be a Communist or Islamic government that would more likely act the way the government did in V.
Atanamis makes a good point - and, like most libertarian/minarcho solutions - I can definitely compromise with it. I would definitely call it 1000x preferable to what we have going on now.
I will take the advise in the caring and thoughtful manner in which I know it is motivated. However, on the details, I should mention that assuming that I am speeding or driving reckless just because I have been accused of breaking traffics laws (only two tickets from those stops) is not really an appropriate connection.
I will not obey laws for two reasons (in some cases this is not pragmatic):
1) there is a direct conflict with biblical principles (home school ban)
2) it is a biblically neutral law that is unethical, unprincipled, inconsistent, unnecessary or impossible to obey (55 speed limit on a deserted highway I have traveled hundreds of times)
I would be proud if my children did the same thing. I do not want my child driving recklessly - but I would feel no fear if my child is driving over the speed limit or rolling through stop signs.
I did really like the movie, but the graphic novel was better. The novel (published starting in 88) had nothing to do with the Bush Administration or the current going on in the world as it was written to address what they saw in Margret Thatcher’s government. V in the graphic novel is also explicitly anarchist, he has given up on justice and isn’t trying to make the world a better place as much as he is in the movie. There is also a whole plot in the novel about giving up government control to a computer which is 100% left out of the movie.
Colin, I do understand what you are saying about certain laws. As for driving speed, my personal rule is more like “drive safely and stay with the general flow of traffic.” But two things:
1. A teenage boy (or girl) with a new driver’s license and an attitude that “I can break any ‘unnecessary’ law if I want to” is very dangerous. My point is that a child driver isn’t experienced enough to know how not to be reckless, and speed especially is a killer. And kids do what you do, not what you say.
2. Scripturally, I’m not so sure we have the right to just pick and choose which laws we want to obey. Further, a law that tells you to come to a complete stop at a 4-way intersection doesn’t exactly break any biblical principles–it just annoys you. Who knows, maybe obeying that particular law will help us build patience–something God does ask us to have.
And just for the record, are you saying that most of the 14 times you’ve been stopped it was when you were NOT breaking any law?
Only two tickets? Sounds like me, I’ve got like 3 in like 14 traffic stops… didn’t get a ticket until like the 6th time I was pulled over… Dumb Texas cop!
Oh, they were picking on Thatcher? Not too much of a surprise, she was one of the last conservatives in Britain, they’re pretty much all gone now. Yeah, I’ve heard the novel was very different from the movie.
Darius wrote, “It was obviously meant as a lambast of the Bush administration”
aha, even your movie criticisms boil down to political hackery, don’t they? you come up with a million reasons why you hate the movie, but all you had to say was this.
Colin, I mostly agree with your article, but I think you’re missing a key point (maybe not the most important point, but an important one). The problem with all of these traffic laws is that they see driving as nothing more than a series of rules to be followed. Driving is so much more than that! Let’s look at the red-light camera for example: As I approach an intersection and the light goes yellow, what is the better option: 1) Cruise through so that the light turns red as I exit the intersection (resulting in a ticket), or 2) Jam on the brakes with that big SUV right behind me? I think we all know that the lawful answer is not the safer answer.
Every suburban neighbourhood seems to demand more and more 4-way-stop intersections, and the politicians submit to these demands despite the fact that it has been proven that these stop signs create FAR MORE collisions.
Secondly, this form of punishment should be entirely illegal. If two burglars break into a house, and then the one criminal kills the other criminal, should the murder charge be applied to the holder of the deed to that house? This was the main justification for photo-radar being eliminated in Ontario: the charge has got to be laid to the perpetrator of the crime only.
This story reminds me of a limited-time pilot program that was run in several municipalities across Ontario. A small stretch of road (for example when a regular 50kph road becomes a 40kph residential zone) is deemed especially in need of speed enforcement: Signs are put up that say [url=http://www.cityofkingston.ca/residents/transportation/streets/trafficcalming/safetyzone.asp]”Community Safety Zone”[/url] and somehow drivers are supposed to know that all fines are automatically doubled in this stretch (just a few blocks long). The program was initially justified by saying it was a “test” to see if it would improve “safety”. At the end of the study, two results were clear: 1) Driver behaviour in these zones had not been changed one bit, and 2) The police departments were raking in WAY more money.
Naturally, the government continued the program.
gurr8, the movie was bunk. Everything I’ve read is that the novel is way better and that the movie took great liberties with the novel to make it some diatribe against the Bush administration. That is no secret, so for you to deny it shows your political motives more than my own.
Any “reckless driving” they pursue is not going to be learned from me. I don’t drive recklessly. My kid would have to be pretty dumb (in which case they would not be getting a license under my watch or at least with severe restrictions) to take the way I drive and render any kind of “reckless” driving out of it.
On the converse: scripturally, we are commanded to break certain laws. If I took the view that deliberately seeking out annoying/redundant situations to “build patience” was acceptable, then I don’t think I would be able to even make it out of my house - seeing how there is plenty of opportunity in “patience building” (maybe heating my toast with matches, for example). I would say that attitude is quite ministerial - and I think it’s not scriptural - to sort of “manufacture” patience by the methods of the flesh.
Usually I was breaking a traffic code/law - just often not in a very provable, definable or obvious way - as I would let the office know. Many police still can discern a pathologically dangerous driver from an efficient one - although theory tells me this will be less and less in time.
Dairus, I’m impressed. Conratuations. May cops write us both few tickets!
Gurr8, I agree with everything you wrote and it makes a great supplement to he article. This is the view I have on driving that I think makes me a very safe driver, despite seeing the laws as something much more flexible than, say, laws against murder.
This is implied (only a little bit though) in the idea that traffic laws are often made, not out of safety reasons, but in order to fit some political agenda (putting in the 4-way stop to appease certain constituents).
Colin said, “If I took the view that deliberately seeking out annoying/redundant situations…”
Now you’re misunderstanding me. I said nothing about deliberately seeking out a 4-way stop. I said you could simply obey the law–a law you don’t like and one that annoys you–and use that opportunity as a discipline of obedience to build patience in yourself. There is no law against that. (Galatians 5:22-23)
I don’t believe or intend to say that you are a reckless driver. I’m just saying that a young driver NEEDS to have rules because they aren’t yet experienced enough to break the laws safely. And even more to the point, if a young driver has a cavalier attitude about traffic laws–feeling it their own prerogative to decide which ones they want to obey at any given time–that is just bound to be dangerous either to themselves or to someone else. (The mother speaking here again: When you see your precious child behind the wheel of a heavy machine that goes fast and can kill people, you might be glad there are rules to protect him from others’ impatience and vice versa.)
And lastly, I confess, I don’t know what your phrase “that attitude is quite ministerial” means. Could you explain?
gurr8 said: “As I approach an intersection and the light goes yellow, what is the better option: 1) Cruise through so that the light turns red as I exit the intersection (resulting in a ticket)”
That’s not usually how it works. At least in Texas, you can’t be ticketed unless you enter the intersection when the light is red. The red light cameras in Dallas aren’t triggered if you’re already in the intersection when the light turns red. Once I learned that I became a better driver, because I’m not worried about getting ticketed for a phantom offense.
Thainamu - that should have read “monesterial.”
Sorry, I’m still confused. I can’t find “monesterial” in anybody’s dictionary.
Monasterial.
Colin, I don’t know about the driving police, but you definitely need to get pulled over by the spelling police.
OK, Jew solves the puzzle.
But what could be wrong with letting the disciplines of everyday life help form patience in us, like a monk would do?
Monks don’t live everyday lives. They shut themselves away from the regular world. I don’t know if you can relate that to traffic laws, though.
As long as we’re talking about traffic laws, it might help to read these thoughts on boundaries: http://eclexia.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/boundaries/
This part especially could be applied to traffic laws.
As I drive, I have to continually remind myself that it isn’t enough to just follow the rules of the road. Those in themselves won’t keep me safe. The real goal is safe driving, not following a set of rules. The rules of the road can help as a guide, but my mind must be focused on the task of identifying and avoiding possible dangerous situations. I can’t just go through an intersection because I have the right of way. I still have to check to make sure it’s safe. Most of the time I’m not worried about following the law, I’m just focused on being safe and responsible.
I always think safety first myself. That being said the only traffic law I break frequently is crossing double white lines on merges, often it’s the better thing to do.
Ironically, while I sort of complained a lot about the driving in the UK at first, I can tell you now that it is a much better system. I was talking with an ex-cop at our home fellowship group tonight and he mentioned how they are extremely lax because it’s safer to be so. They let people speed, run over the lines, run stops because they want drivers to be more concerned about driving safe than driving legal. The entire traffic system is designed for maximum efficiency - traffic almost never stops - even in large cities. They run everything so as to keep things going smooth and safe. Obviously I’m sure there is problems - but the comparison is pretty staggering.
My point is that there are unavoidable “annoyances” in life, but deliberately not fixing things I would ascribe as tantamount to deliberate self-inflicted suffering. The bible is clear that suffering itself is not a virtue - but suffering for or because of Christ. Deliberately not fixing problems in your power and authority to fix is a form of masochism (how’s that for spelling?)
Darius wrote, “gurr8, the movie was bunk. Everything I’ve read is that the novel is way better and that the movie took great liberties with the novel to make it some diatribe against the Bush administration. That is no secret, so for you to deny it shows your political motives more than my own.”
I have no political motives about that movie…I never saw a connection to any specific administration…only against general political ideas. Perhaps not being from the USA, I missed the point. Or perhaps you’re putting words in the mouths of the movie’s producers.
Jasen wrote, “I always think safety first myself. That being said the only traffic law I break frequently is crossing double white lines on merges, often it’s the better thing to do.”
Do you drive a Viper? Or you’re one of the many people that pull onto the freeway while still doing far below the speed limit? People’s inability to handle merging makes kittens cry.
No and No.