|
Death reduction as a justification for laws (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Beat Blog |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Interestingly, some towns in Germany and the Netherlands have recently removed their traffic signals and signs, with pretty favorable results, including fewer accidents and fatalities. You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
It makes sense if you think about it for a bit: If you take away the usual signals, people will have to concentrate entirely on watching for cars and pedestrians instead of just looking at signs and traffic lights.
When people see a green light under the normal system, for example, they tend to just speed on through without even looking side to side to check for people that might be running red lights on the perpendicular road, and tons of accidents happen in exactly that situation. But if they had no light giving them "permission" to stop watching the road, they would have to stay more alert. |
All well and good, but that approach just wouldn't work in big cities, though I think you probably figured that out yourself. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ted Promo
Yes, but then the Hummer H2 wins against all mankind. |
The Hummer still has to watch out for eighteen-wheelers and cement trucks. ;) |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The basic idea is that the way things are now, people rely on the traffic laws to watch out for them.
Take away the laws, and they would have to watch out for themselves. And apparently most people do a decent job of that, at least on European streets. |
And this is America we're talking about here. We practically invented George Bush. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The Hummer still has to watch out for eighteen-wheelers and cement trucks. ;) |
Not with the price of diesel these days :p |
|
|
| Ang ' ela_ie |
| All except one of the potential laws you just listed are bans on personal choices as opposed to negative externalities. That's the difference. It's actually a very clear line. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
A ton of things fall under "personal choice."
Basically any safety regulations are ultimately banning some "personal choices," namely the choices to manufacture or eat potentially unsafe food, make or use potentially unsafe machines or other products, and so on. Should "personal choice" always be sacrosanct and unregulatable by default, in your view? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
What about the laws restricting your "personal choice" to build or own a hydrogen bomb? Such an activity does not necessarily involve any negative externalities.
I really don't think that guidelines for a sane legal system are as clear or simple as you might like them to be. |
|
|
| Ang ' ela_ie |
| Do you understand what a negative externality is? Yeah, you can make personal choices all you want, but when they start to affect people that didnt make that choice, then its BAD. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie
Do you understand what a negative externality is? |
Yes.
| quote: | | Yeah, you can make personal choices all you want, but when they start to affect people that didnt make that choice, then its BAD. |
My choice to build a hydrogen bomb doesn't necessarily affect anyone, other than the people I buy the materials from--they get paid.
:) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Interestingly, some towns in Germany and the Netherlands have recently removed their traffic signals and signs, with pretty favorable results, including fewer accidents and fatalities. You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
It makes sense if you think about it for a bit: If you take away the usual signals, people will have to concentrate entirely on watching for cars and pedestrians instead of just looking at signs and traffic lights.
When people see a green light under the normal system, for example, they tend to just speed on through without even looking side to side to check for people that might be running red lights on the perpendicular road, and tons of accidents happen in exactly that situation. But if they had no light giving them "permission" to stop watching the road, they would have to stay more alert. |
Yes, you will find if there arent signs and lights etc, that people take their own safety more personally, and look out for themselves rather than expecting that light or that sign to do it for them. Did a course ages ago, "sex, drugs & toxic waste: the politics of regulation" which dove into this topic. was quite fascinating.
even taking into account the higher (human) traffic levels at designated crossings etc, there is a far higher percentage of accidents at these marked and regulated crossings than at other places. |
|
|
| T-Soma |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Yes.
My choice to build a hydrogen bomb doesn't necessarily affect anyone, other than the people I buy the materials from--they get paid.
:) |
If you it up affects everyone with a 100 mile radius.
You make a stupid point.
Censorship laws, now they are stupid. |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by T-Soma
Censorship laws, now they are stupid. |
yes they are.. thank god im not living in america... i love the fact that one could get on the 7'o clock news in norway and say "cunt master" without too much commotion getting started by soccer moms and whatnot.. Might be some angry letters coming from old people and extremist christians, but thank god they are outnumbered by "normal" people.. |
|
|
|
|
