6 Dumb Traffic Laws That Should Be Repealed
November 14th, 2008 Posted in Eric Peters, Roadblocks, Speed Limits, Speed Traps, Traffic Tickets
By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist
Just because it’s “the law” doesn’t mean it’s right — or even sensible — when it comes to traffic law, anyhow.
While we may have no choice but to obey — or risk a ticket — that doesn’t make bad traffic laws any more worthy of our respect than the Prohibition ban on alcohol.
Here are a few current laws that ought to be on the other end of a piece of payin’ paper for a change:
1) No Right On Red
This is a form of idiot-proofing designed to protect over-cautious, under-skilled drivers with poor vision and a weak sense of spatial relationships — the kind who need both lanes to be totally clear for at least a football field’s length before they feel confident enough to make the turn. Since they can’t safely judge the speed and distance of oncoming traffic, we get to wait at the light like morons, too — even if there isn’t another car in sight.
Everyone else gets to stack up behind the piece of arteriosclerotic traffic plaque clogging up the road, awaiting the fleeting green light that’s also timed to coincide with pedestrian right-of-way on the opposing cross street - thus assuring only a handful of cars get through before it goes red again.
Instead of dumbing-down the roads to accommodate dumbed-down, least-common-denominator drivers, why not encourage (even demand) better driving? Those lacking the skills to perform basic maneuvers such as safely pulling into an intersection without the aid of a green light ought to be taking the bus.
2) Midnight Red
It’s 2 o’clock in the morning and you come to a red light that stays red for an eternity. You sit and sit and sit — engine idling, gas and time wasting — even though there isn’t another car around for miles. Sometimes, the light even cycles without giving you the green. (A common problem for motorcycle riders.) Of course, if you become exasperated and run the light — even after stopping completely to make sure it’s safe and the way is absolutely clear — it’s almost guaranteed there will be a cop lurking nearby, burning the midnight oil just for you.
In Europe, where sensible traffic laws are more the rule than here, many signaled intersections switch over to flashing yellow — “proceed with caution” — after a certain hour, when traffic has died down to a trickle. It is assumed that drivers are competent enough to make a judgment call on their own — and it seems to work perfectly well. It’s a custom we should definitely import.
3) No Left At Light
Cousin to the no-right-on-red rule, this is the one where you find yourself at an intersection wanting to make a left turn across an opposing lane of traffic onto a sidestreet. But instead of a “yield to oncoming traffic” green light - sensible policy - you’re stuck with a red light made just for you - on the assumption you’ve got inch-thick cataracts and the ability to judge the speed and distance of oncoming traffic of Mr. Magoo. You’re supposed to wait patiently for the green arrow — even when there’s no oncoming traffic at all and you could literally get out and push the car safely across the intersection. Like no right on red, it’s a well-intended law designed to protect the worst drivers out there from their own marginal skills and poor judgment — at the expense of everyone else.
4) Under-posted Speed Limits
Speed limits are not supposed to be random numbers picked at whim by a government bureaucrat — or revenue-minded police chief. They’re supposed to be done according to traffic surveys that indicate an appropriate speed that balances safety with the goal of smoothly flowing traffic traveling at a reasonable pace for a given stretch of road. (The formal traffic safety engineering term for this is the “85th percentile speed.”) Yet most posted speed limits are set well below the 85th percentile speed — typically at least 5-10 mph below it.
This turns almost every driver on the road into a “speeder” — in the legalistic/technical sense of driving faster than the number on the sign. It usually has nothing to do with safe driving, however. Things are set up this way to give police an easy reason to pull over just about anyone at just about any time — and to generate lots of tax revenue by proxy.
We’ve all encountered what amount to obvious speed traps — the classic example being a broad, two-laned divided road posted at a ridiculous 30 or 35-mph instead of the 45-50 mph everyone’s driving. Since most of us routinely drive faster than posted maximums, we’re all either reckless fools — or the speed limits have been set absurdly low for the road. Common sense says it’s the latter; any law that is flouted by almost everyone is probably a bad law — like Prohibition.
Roads with under-posted speed limits are designed to be “revenue enhancers” for the local constabulary. But this sort of thing only creates antagonisms between the otherwise law-abiding public and the police — whose motto should be “To Serve and Protect,” not “To Harrass and Collect.” Genuinely dangerous drivers should be aggressively targeted; but using the law to extract the “motorists’ tax” from unwary drivers over trumped-up BS “speeding” charges is an altogether different matter.
5) Primary Enforcement Seat Belt Laws
This is the name given to laws that give police the authority to pull a motorist over simply for not wearing a seat belt. The question, though, isn’t whether it’s prudent to buckle-up — of course it is. Rather, it’s whether failing to wear a seat belt ought to qualify as a “moving violation” — and give police pretext to pull over an otherwise law-abiding motorist.
Not wearing a seat belt may increase your risk of injury or death if there is an accident. But is that anyone’s business but yours? Not wearing a seat belt has about as much effect on others as failing to eat right or exercise. It increases your personal risk, perhaps — but it’s really no one’s business but your own. What’s next — random blood pressure and cholesterol checkpoints? Are they going to begin issuing cops calipers to measure our body fat ratio?
Turning on the flashing lights and pointing Glocks our way for this “violation” is completely over the top — and ought to stop.
6) Sobriety Checkpoints
In the name of law and order, we’ve come to accept the idea of being randomly stopped, questioned and made to produce ID — rigmarole that would be familiar to a citizen of Berlin in 1940 or Moscow in 1970. “Your papers, please!” is not what America is supposed to be all about. The goal of getting drunks of the road is beside the point. Probable cause is — or ought to be — the point.
It’s wrong to subject people who have done absolutely nothing to suggest they’ve been drinking and driving to random stops and interrogations. It violates one of the most basic tenets of the Western European legal theory going back to Magna Carta. Until you, specifically, have given the authorities a specific reason to suspect that you have violated (or may be about to violate) a law, the authorities should have no authority to interfere with you in any way. That we have lost sight of this basic, once-cherished principle and are so willing to give it up in the name of “safety” or “getting drunks off the road” shows we’re very far down a Dark Road, indeed.
By all means, stop and check out any driver who appears to be weaving, driving erratically or otherwise giving good reason to suspect he may be liquored up. But leave the rest of us alone and free to go about our business until we’ve given good reason to warrant a closer look.
Comments?
www.ericpetersautos.com
Other Related Articles
58 Responses to “6 Dumb Traffic Laws That Should Be Repealed”
By David on Dec 31, 2008
Warson Woods Missouri has been ticketing motorists according to paragraph number 4 (under posted speed limits) for years. I tried to get the word out on the speedtrap exchange but the information was removed after a few weeks. Warson Woods Missouri is ticketing at will anyone not dropping to 15 mph in a school zone when the posted speed limit is 30 mph. I feel this is a rip off of the motoring public because the Missouri Department of Transportation clearly says no school zones under 25 mph. I can ride my bicycle at 18 mph. In theory I could receive a ticket for over $200 in a Warson Woods Missouri school zone on my bicycle!!!. I would like to see if Warson Woods could afford to return all of the money collected from their 15 mph school zone.
By James Young on Dec 22, 2008
po po writes: {[Driving] is a privilege because it is not a right afforded to us by the federal constitution or any state constitution that I’m aware of. It has not been made a right by any legislature or been interpreted as such by any judicial body.}
Neither legislatures nor judges can create “rights,” which exist simply by stint of our humanity. OTOH, the US Supreme Court decided that holding a driver’s license (and utilizing it to operate a vehicle on a highway) was an entitlement, a combination of right and privilege. Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971).
A privilege can be rescinded by its grantor at will and for any reason. A right cannot be rescinded except by operation of due process. Thus, a person who has demonstrated the requisite skills to operate a motor vehicle must receive certification of that, i.e., a driver’s license. Further, a state DMV who wishes to revoke that license may not do so until they have fulfilled the due process outlined for such revocation. In harsher terms, they cannot just take it away willy-nilly.
By Mike on Dec 22, 2008
Con-des-cending… that’s a BIG word for you, isn’t it? Congratulations on trying to paraphrase my statements. I didn’t say “working with the local police department,” I said MANY police departments, as in a professional capacity. I taught upclose hand-to-hand combat within a couple feet as that’s where the worst conflicts usually occur.
Candidate for Mensa? With a measured IQ of 146, Mensa has been suggested to me a few times. Which brings us to the crux of your argument, constitutional law. It’s funny that I was agreeing with you about driving being a privilege, but I should have realized that you’d need to argue with someone even if they agreed with you, say, about the REASON it’s a privilege. Fine, since you’re determined to argue, let’s do it. Driving is NOT a privilege; it is a Right. That right has been upheld in a variety of judicial decisions. While a right can be regulated for the benefit of society, it cannot be denied without due process, equally provided for as demanded by the 14th Amendment.
“The right of the citizen to travel upon public highways and to transport his/her property thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City/State may prohibit at will, but a common right which he/she has under the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” ~ Thompson v. Smith
“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right which the public and individuals cannot be rightfully deprived.” ~ Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago
“The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” ~ Kent v. Dulles
“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” ~ Miller v. U.S.
Please don’t portend to speak of constitutional law as a learned expert. You’re only parroting departmental literature. I’m weary of police who claim to understand the law better than the lawyers because, after all, it’s the police who must enforce it. If that were true, there would be no need of lawyers nor courts, as the police could not possibly be mistaken.
By Mia on Dec 22, 2008
I’m alarmed by the comment from po po, which asserts that driving is not a right because it is not granted by a constitution. That is a massive misinterpretation of what rights are and of the United States Constitution. In America it is assumed that rights are endowed to individuals by a creator, not by any government or law. The Bill of Rights merely lists several important ones that the government is reminded not to forget. The ninth and tenth amendments explicitly spell this out for the benefit of overzealous public servants who wish to deny the people rights that are not listed. Personally, I’m disgusted by po po’s interpretation of the Constitution; and if he really is an LEO, I’m underwhelmed by his legal education.
By po po on Dec 21, 2008
Yes, Mike, number 6 was regarding check points, however, the comments here seemed to evolve into a situation other than a check point. If I misunderstood anyone’s comments I offer my apology.
Congratulations on parenthood, “working with” your local law enforcement, your former security clearance, et. al. None of which have seemed to further your understanding of constitutional law. Driving is not a privilege because the government funds the roadways. It is a privilege because it is not a right afforded to us by the federal constitution or any state constitution that I’m aware of. It has not been made a right by any legislature or been interpreted as such by any judicial body.
You can call me names and be as condescending as you like (”badge-heavy paternalistic apologists” “swaggering tinhorn Barny Fifes with an authority complex”)but that doesn’t make you right, reasonable, or a candidate for Mensa.
Finally, I do not view constitutional rights as an obstruction to my job. In fact, I take great pride in protecting those rights for all citizens, even those who seek to to infringe on the rights of society.
I’m done here. Safe motoring…
By Jeff on Dec 21, 2008
Check point stops are illegal in Wisconsin and Michigan, and many other states.
By Mike on Dec 21, 2008
Popo, after 40 years of raising 4 kids to adulthood, of working with many police departments, of working with many foreign governments, holding a federal security clearance, and no traffic citations in nearly 20 years…
I am ever so grateful for your paternalistic advice to educate me in staying out of trouble in your neck of the woods. In the meantime, I hope to avoid checkpoints in Maryland where I apparently must submit proof of my innocence while presumed guilty. And, yes, the topic was sobriety checkpoints, whether or not you can read.
By po po on Dec 21, 2008
Mike, clearly you can’t read.
1. No one said anything about a check point stop. Check point stops are permitted, however, there must be an alternate route for a driver to take after seeing notification of the check point. That was not the scenario I offered.
2. I said .08 was the presumptive level of impairment here. Below .08, .015 as you say, there MUST be other factors to give an officer probable cause to charge and get a conviction for DWI. That’s the way it is here in MD.
3. Traffic citations here are essentially an arrest without the processing associated with a physical arrest most people think of. You sign the ticket indicating you will abide by the requirement set forth in the citation - specifically pay the pre-pay fine on the ticket or show up for court. You are released on your signature, your promise, to satisfy those requirements. Failing to sign may lead to that consideration not being extended to you. The officer has to have proof of your identity and a reasonable belief you will pay or show up for court. It’s as simple as that.
In the example YOU provided of not rolling down your window on a stop, you’re going to jail. Why? You can’t provide your license through a closed window so I do not have satisfactory proof of your identity. Next, you can’t sign a ticket through glass so I can not reasonably believe you will comply with the requirements of the citation.
It’s not about prohibition - I can get my drink on with the best of them. BUT I am smart enough not to drive after drinking AS ALL. The bottom line is everyone needs to be responsible for their choices and actions. Your example of a BAC .015 would have little to no impairing effect on a 200 pound 30 year old drinker. That same .015 in a 95 pound 19 y/o female rookie drinker may very well cause impairment.
Be smart - be safe this holiday. Don’t drink (at all) and drive. If stopped by the police for any reason don’t be an idiot and think if you ignore the officer we will be forced to go away. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
By Jeff on Dec 21, 2008
In the city of Detroit, the person receiving the ticket does not sign the ticket.
By Mike on Dec 21, 2008
So, he was taken into custody. See what happens when you don’t roll down the window and sign the ticket?
By Randy on Dec 21, 2008
Mike no he did not have to sign a ticket because he did not commit any traffic offense. He also was taken into custody so I do not know what he had to sign when he went to be booked but it was not a traffic ticket.
It also would not have been classified as a chase by me but more of a following because no high speeds occured.
By Mike on Dec 21, 2008
Randy, they were chasing OJ, whether or not he was driving. So when they stopped him, did he have to sign a ticket?
By Mike on Dec 21, 2008
POPO, at a checkpoint, you aren’t observing any behavior; you’re stopping and checking everyone, whether or not they’ve done anything to warrant it.
And if any drinks at all are considered to impair your driving,, then you’re one of those who would stop someone for having ONE drink, and getting into his car a 1/2 hour later. He’d still blow .015% and you’d bust him, because even one or two drinks are unacceptable. You’re not a representative of the law; you’re an anti-alcohol zealot who’s going to rid the country of that demon booze.
You assert what YOU would do as a cop, and presume that every other 657,000 cops in this country do the same thing. Either you’re pathetically clueless as a cop (very possible as there are many of them) or you’re a pretend cop for the purposes of this forum only (again, very possible).
If you believe that the 4th and the 5th Amendments are cumbersome obstructions to your job, then you are one of the many badge-heavy paternalistic apologists who help the unfavorable attitude of many toward the police. Granted that driving, due to government financing of public highways, is not a right but a permission. But that permission comes from the government, not from you and your buddies with badges.
I support the police in my community, but they’re not swaggering tinhorn Barny Fifes with an authority complex. Too bad other communities can’t say the same.
By Randy on Dec 21, 2008
Jeff why would he have to sign a traffic ticket if he was not driving?
By Jeff on Dec 21, 2008
I never said he was driving.
By Randy on Dec 21, 2008
Jeff you are an idiot again. Simpson was not driving. Get at least one fact right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson_murder_case
By Jeff on Dec 21, 2008
When the jury views the videotape of the whole incident, what do you think will be the outcome?
Did O.J. sign a ticket when he was finally caught after that long chase around L.A.?
By po po on Dec 20, 2008
Jeff, they are not meant to be amusing. I observe behavior that gives me grounds to perform a traffic stop. I stop you, approach your window and request your license and registration which you must produce on demand. Since you will not roll down your window you obviously can’t and won’t provide those documents. I go back to my car, complete the citations, and return to your car for a signature. Again, you don’t sign for them since you don’t roll down your window. I’m sorry sir but since your signature is your promise to appear in court and you haven’t signed it and received your copy, a reasonable and prudent officer could not expect that you will comply with the requirements of the citation so at this point you are being placed under arrest. When my supervisor arrives, and I requested them back when I wrote your citation in my car, I WILL get the green light to take you into custody by any lawful means necessary - that includes breaking your window and removing you from the car.
If my original stop was to investigate possible DWI, that process will continue after you’re in custody. Either way, your actions dictate how the traffic stop goes. You can be an a55hat and make things hard for yourself or you can act in a reasonable manor and, if you are not DWI, be on your way no harm no foul. If you think for one second you can stop, sit in your car on the side of the road and not comply with a lawful request and hinder a criminal investigation, you’d be wrong.
Traffic stops are not personal; the officer does not know you from Adam and cops don’t randomly pick a car for a stop when no violation has been committed. When there are so many true offenders out there to pick from to think otherwise is just…well, dumb.
By Jeff on Dec 20, 2008
My retirement will be funded by the lawsuit I win against the individual and his department for breaking that window and false arrest. I’m sure a jury will not find those actions amusing.
By po po on Dec 20, 2008
Oh, and Jeff you are correct you can be asked to roll down your window and you can refuse. However, you will just end up with a broken window, a tow bill, additional charges, and a pair of pretty silver bracelets. I end up with the bonus of having one more articulable observation of probable impairment since that is not normal or reasonable behavior during a traffic stop.
By po po on Dec 20, 2008
Most comments here are just the ramblings of people who should not be driving.
1. You’re right, cops just randomly stop people and lock them up. Because there really aren’t drunks on the road cops just stop anyone for their quotas.
2. Everyone thinks .08 is the legal limit - it is not. A .08 is the legal presumptive limit which means that is the driver at .08 is assumed to be impaired. You can be convicted of DWI with ANY level of alcohol below .08 provided additional evidence of impairment can be shown. For example driving activity prior to the stop, performance of SFSTs (there is no pass / fail), statements made, etc.
3. Driving a motor vehicle is not your right. When you accept your license you are agreeing to the terms and conditions that come along with it. If you don’t like it - take the bus.
4. All the other things mentioned as being dangerous such as driving tired, reading, cell phone use, applying make-up are already illegal. The charge is failure to pay full time and attention to the operation of a motor vehicle.
In short to those who think a couple of drinks is OK - grow up, get a clue…and a bus pass. I hope to see you out there!
By southern boy on Dec 19, 2008
As you get your window broken out and you get slammed face first to the ground for not obliging the nice officers request . So sure you can refuse their request for about 15-20 seconds …………..
Randy as on other strings ,,,,,,,, Ignore .
No point in trying to engage in a discussion with a brick wall . No offense to the brick wall intended .
By Jeff on Dec 19, 2008
I can be asked to open the car window. I do not have to honor that request.
By Randy on Dec 18, 2008
Mike what liberty are you giving away when you are stopped on the roadway and asked to open your window to talk? It is little more than that to determine if you have probably had too much to drink. If Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin heard that you would rather have thousands killed instead of that then they would have laughed in your face. It is just too bad that they are not here.
By the way, how many drinks did you have tonight before you drove home?
I suppose if there was a major shooting or something else bad in an area that you do not want police to stop at your door asking if you could provide any details of the events that happened in the area. It is pretty much the same invasion of privacy.
By Mike on Dec 18, 2008
You’ve been, and continue to be moreso, argumentative for its own sake. What difference does it make whether it’s my wife or child or closest friend who is killed? Does that impart special consideration on their importance as opposed to a complete stranger? According to your premise, anyting that the government can do under the guise of safety is justified. I don’t remember if it was Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin who said something that “Those who would trade essential liberty in return for temporary security deserve neither.”
100% prevention toward security is a realistic impossibility entertained only by young children, idiots, and politicians. Please take your sophomoric blather to some other forum.