Would Road Rage Decrease If...

[SandEagle]

honestly dash cams in every car will dramatically decrease road rage. when you know you are being monitored, you will tend to act less like a dumbass

 

[Balt]

honestly dash cams in every car will dramatically decrease road rage. when you know you are being monitored, you will tend to act less like a dumbass

Ever watch Jersey Shore? 😛

 

[PrinceofWands]

Define your terms, because as defined by most ethical perspectives the law has little to do with being a better or 'worse' human being.

It's not that the law is inherently right, because it isn't. Slavery proved this.

However, simple things with no appreciable negative impacts (such as reasonable speed limits based on compiled research) are simply an agreement to exist within a society. ANYONE who remains within a societies boundaries, benefiting from the existence of that society, while refusing to be subject to its laws, is a poorer human being than one who either leaves, or abides. Purely by my own warrants and definitions of course.

 

[PrinceofWands]

So when you gum up the lanes, that is you abusing the power you have when you are behind the wheel? Some sort of god complex? If you want to stop speeders, maybe you should become a cop. If you don't want to become a cop, maybe you should just mind your own business.

No need. I can continue to do what's right, staunchly defend it, and report the rest of you to the police and laugh every time I see one of you have your lives negatively impacted by your own selfishness and stupidity. I do a little Irish jig every time I think of one of you losing your license or home or job because you're simply not evolved enough to earn a place in my society.

 

[dank69]

No need. I can continue to do what's right, staunchly defend it, and report the rest of you to the police and laugh every time I see one of you have your lives negatively impacted by your own selfishness and stupidity. I do a little Irish jig every time I think of one of you losing your license or home or job because you're simply not evolved enough to earn a place in my society.

Report away, oh great reporter.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

reasonable speed limits based on compiled research

Found your problem right there.

They aren't. The social-influences that create our driving laws are unrelated to maximization of the public welfare.

Simple things with no appreciable negative impacts are simply an agreement to exist within a society.

You make the faulty assumption, as well, that the laws codify social norms and values properly. This is false. Again because of elite interest's influence on the legislative process laws are often at-odds not only with the public welfare, but also with general socially-constructed norms and rationality.

Speed limits are a prime example of this. In many places the agreement to exist within the society of motorists is requires going against the law.

ANYONE who remains within a societies boundaries, benefiting from the existence of that society, while refusing to be subject to its laws, is a poorer human being than one who either leaves, or abides. Purely by my own warrants and definitions of course.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Report away, oh great reporter.

I do...anytime someone is driving like a madman.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Found your problem right there.

They aren't. The social-influences that create our driving laws are unrelated to maximization of the public welfare.

Actually they generally are. Environmental impacts, energy concerns, roadway maintenance, accident and reaction studies, traffic flow, international comparisons, etc. They're not ALL done that way, and not always wholly correct, but they are usually pretty well founded.

You make the faulty assumption, as well, that the laws codify social norms and values properly. This is false. Again because of elite interest's influence on the legislative process laws are often at-odds not only with the public welfare, but also with general socially-constructed norms and rationality.

Speed limits are a prime example of this. In many places the agreement to exist within the society of motorists is requires going against the law.

Do they always? No. Do they often? Certainly. I realize there are many many people who are utterly selfish, ignorant, and delusional and believe they have some kind of superpowers and are inherently entitled to drive however they want. Don't let yourself fall into the trap of believing they're a vast majority however. Most people more or less obey the law...ok, maybe 5 over, or in certain A-type strongholds like LA, but generally people mostly agree on obeying traffic laws and speed limits.

Back in 70s-80s roughly 60-80% of people obeyed speed limits (not 5 over, OBEYED) overall, with MOST of the abusers centered in a few metro areas. Now the numbers have dropped to 40-60% (again, not 5 over) overall, with those same metro areas astonishingly different (like 10-15%). Because those few metro areas have so much people, more A-type personalities, more materialism/entitlement, more vocal complainers, etc it's far too easy to believe that everyone speeds, but it's simply not true.

Bottom line: it's entitled selfish assholes in bastions of entitled selfish assholeness that have a problem with speed limits. Everyone else is just fine.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I realize there are many many people who are utterly selfish, ignorant, and delusional and believe they have some kind of superpowers and are inherently entitled to drive however they want. Don't let yourself fall into the trap of believing they're a vast majority however.

I'm from Texas, For me: they are the majority. (Houston, Dallas, San-Antonio, Austin, that's 16 million out of 25 million)

Ever drive in Houston?
10 over or you're a dead man.

Ever do the math on driving just over 13 & 1/2 hours across Texas at 65?
Turns into just enough under 10&1/2 to make-up for the gass-break at 80.

If we had long-term sustainability-based laws on speed we'd be capped at 45-ish (vehicle dependent). If we had social-responsive laws we'd set the limit via local county/municipality.

it's entitled selfish assholes in bastions of entitled selfish assholeness that have a problem with speed limits.

Maybe. Or maybe it's self-righteous, pretentious, smug assholes in bastions of entitled, self-righteous, pretentious, smug assholeness that have a problem with people who speed?

Spoiler

It's what you said

 

[Stayfr0sty]

Im a defensive driver and tend not to have road rage.
Dont wanna get shot, too many nuts out there.

 

[Train]

You can only have speed limits or impeding, you can't have both. Either you have to stay under a certain speed or you have to go fast enough not to disrupt traffic, there is no middle ground.

But we DO have both. And it works fine for people who have a brain.

 

[olds]

Just because a road is posted at 55 MPH, that doesn't mean that is the safest speed for that road. How many times have we raised and lowered limits?

Q. How should speed limits be set?
A. Traffic engineers maintain that speed limits should be established according to the 85th percentile of free flowing traffic. This means the limit should be set at a level at or under which 85 percent of people are driving. Numerous studies have shown that the 85th percentile is the safest possible level at which to set a speed limit.



http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/faq

 

[homercles337]

are you suggesting that 98% of the cars being 'impeded' are not exceeding/or attempting to exceed, the posted speed limit?

which law takes precedence?
or i guess they can just ticket everyone, sounds like a win-win

Like it or not, the left lane is not meant for squatters of any sort. Its a passing lane. That means you use it to pass, not squat. Even squatting at 10 mph over is not acceptable.

 

[PrinceofWands]

But we DO have both. And it works fine for people who have a brain.

It creates a legal trap, and therefore can't exist under our legal system. People MUST be able to avoid consequence by obeying the law, or law itself loses all meaning. Under the current perceived system there is NOTHING a citizen can do to be guaranteed avoiding a ticket.

 

[Train]

It creates a legal trap, and therefore can't exist under our legal system.

No it is not a legal trap. And yes, as has already been pointed out a dzoen times in this thread, DOES exist.

People MUST be able to avoid consequence by obeying the law, or law itself loses all meaning. Under the current perceived system there is NOTHING a citizen can do to be guaranteed avoiding a ticket.

This is just flat out wrong. You don't want a ticket? Stay under the speed limit and pull over. It's THAT FUCKING SIMPLE.

 

[heymrdj]

No it is not a legal trap. And yes, as has already been pointed out a dzoen times in this thread, DOES exist.



This is just flat out wrong. You don't want a ticket? Stay under the speed limit and pull over. It's THAT FUCKING SIMPLE.

Wow someone's getting road rage right her on the forum. Are you going to go run over some old ladies or something to feel better?🙄

You are to stay in the right lane, and be at or under the speed limit. That includes passing at the speed limit. Get over yourself. :awe:

 

[Dr. Zaus]

It creates a legal trap, and therefore can't exist under our legal system. People MUST be able to avoid consequence by obeying the law, or law itself loses all meaning. Under the current perceived system there is NOTHING a citizen can do to be guaranteed avoiding a ticket.

Bingo. This is the case sometimes, our system is horribly flawed and justice exists to the degree that you are central to society.

I know a highway patrolman showed me his ticket-book; The check-box started at 7mph over the speed limit. They've essentially decriminalized 5over between the cities in Texas. At the same time there are shit-hole cities where driving at the limit will get you pulled over just because they want to screw with you. One shit-hole city makes it illegal to pull over onto the shoulder unless your car has broken down: cop flashes his lights, you pull over BAM instant ticket.

If a law is no-longer enforced then it is no-longer a law; but rather meaningless scrawl on some paper somewhere. If the law is used to trap and coerce and make money for elite powerful interests at the expense of the common man, then it is our duty to resist it.

 

[Train]

If you go to a party and someone passes a crack pipe to you, do you:

1) Say no thanks and/or pass it on
2) Drop it to the ground, stomp on it, destroying both the pipe and the drugs, because after all, crack is illegal!

If you do #1, you are a normal person. If you do #2, you are an epic douche.

When you feel the need to enforce your ideals on others by camping in the left lane because the guy behind you might wanna speed, you are basically an epic douche.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

If you go to a party and someone passes a crack pipe to you, do you:

1) Say no thanks and/or pass it on
2) Drop it to the ground, stomp on it, destroying both the pipe and the drugs, because after all, crack is illegal!

If you do #1, you are a normal person. If you do #2, you are an epic douche.

When you feel the need to enforce your ideals on others by camping in the left lane because the guy behind you might wanna speed, you are basically an epic douche.

I leave and find out what went wrong in my life that I'm spending time with crack-addicts.

There's a thread on shitty metaphors around here somewhere.

 

[PrinceofWands]

No it is not a legal trap. And yes, as has already been pointed out a dzoen times in this thread, DOES exist.



This is just flat out wrong. You don't want a ticket? Stay under the speed limit and pull over. It's THAT FUCKING SIMPLE.

Apparently it's not since some people are demanding that the ONLY place you can legally drive the speed limit is the farthest right lane, which is simply not true. The only place you're required to pull over is the farthest left (or 2 farthest left in some places) lanes. Anything else and the speed limit is the limit.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Anything else and the speed limit is the limit.

It's all context dependent and does not fall into your ideals-type model: I'm surprised you fail to see this.

 

[dank69]

Apparently it's not since some people are demanding that the ONLY place you can legally drive the speed limit is the farthest right lane, which is simply not true. The only place you're required to pull over is the farthest left (or 2 farthest left in some places) lanes. Anything else and the speed limit is the limit.

I'm not surprised you don't even understand the argument. You should be driving in the rightmost lane unless you are actively passing someone. Speed limit has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I'm not surprised you don't even understand the argument. You should be driving in the rightmost lane unless you are actively passing someone. Speed limit has absolutely nothing to do with it.

No, I shouldn't. I should be obeying the law and the suggested driving methods, which say I should do exactly what I do. YOU and people like you are wrong, and its because you're ignorant, selfish assholes. 100%.

 

[alkemyst]

No, I shouldn't. I should be obeying the law and the suggested driving methods, which say I should do exactly what I do. YOU and people like you are wrong, and its because you're ignorant, selfish assholes. 100%.

umm, hey bro...about umm, like everywhere, suggested driving methods state slower traffic stay right bro.

just sayin'

 

[Dr. Zaus]

No, I shouldn't. I should be obeying the law and the suggested driving methods, which say I should do exactly what I do. YOU and people like you are wrong, and its because you're ignorant, selfish assholes. 100%.

100% legit, I looked into it.

Spoiler

Failing to follow this law does not preclude you from being enlightened, egalitarian nor does it preclude personal affability