Comments (68)

• darjen

  I just wrote about this very thing on my blog. There are three stop signs on the street I take to get to the highway. One of them is a three-way just like you describe. The other is there because of a sharp curve in the road. The third is a four-way that could easily be a two way on the side street.

  I got a couple tickets for running stop signs last year. I did absolutely nothing wrong, yet had to end up paying the city a couple hundred dollars and higher insurance premiums. Cleveland also has plenty of pointless traffic lights on little traveled side streets. You damn well better not go if there's no other traffic though.

  Police are the real criminals here.

  Published: September 9, 2008 8:48 AM

• J D

  Policemen should patrol on foot.

  Published: September 9, 2008 9:04 AM

• Steve Richardson (Adamantane)

  I passed along this resonant article to a number of friends with the following prefatory comment:

  
  This answers one of those many life mysteries of the kind to which we might like to seek answers from St. Peter before we are directed to door number One, Two or Three. Once again, the answer proves to be 'follow the money.'

  The real trick is that we don't always know where it can be found.

  (Is there anything, with the possible exception of matters of passion or childhood wonder, for which this is NOT the answer? Maybe "42" actually is the number of a secret account in Zuerich owned by gnomes.)

  Published: September 9, 2008 9:15 AM

• Fernando Chiocca

  One of the things that impress me most when I was living in US during 3 months was how the Americans seemed lobotomized because they used to stop completely in all STOP signs, even in those desert places ad in those which it was 100 % clear that no other car would cross at the same time. It surprised me because in my country nobody stops completely in such signs.
  Later on I noticed that they act like this for fear of receiving a ticket from a hidden useless cop.
  Today is common for a pacific and not criminal person fear the cops, mainly in the roads and highways.
  

  Published: September 9, 2008 10:21 AM

• Matthew

  In the state of California, you can go through the exact same scenario as Jeffrey described in the courtroom. Alternatively, you can contest the ticket via mail. According to things I've read at ticketassassin.com, police officers are not compensated for responding to written contestations. Perhaps Alabama and other states' laws are similar?

  Published: September 9, 2008 10:52 AM

• bill wald

  Libertarians are extra slow learners? Some sort of royalty who think the traffic code is for the trailer trash? Woe to you two-faced breakers of the law.

  Published: September 9, 2008 10:54 AM

• Jason

  I hate police. My wife and girls know this too. Every time my 4 or 5 year old notices a policeman they ask me if someone is in trouble. I tell them no, that the police are always watching even if someone has done nothing wrong. My girls say that is not nice. :)

  Published: September 9, 2008 11:04 AM

• Thomas

  I am wondering if it is still worth fighting these tickets. If everyone insisted on trials instead of plea bargaining, we tie up the courts and whatever money they make from the tickets is spent on paying the overtime, not least they can't use the proceeds for even more nefarious activities.

  Published: September 9, 2008 11:26 AM

• Lo

  If everyone insisted on trials instead of plea bargaining, we tie up the courts and whatever money they make from the tickets is spent on paying the overtime

  Actually increasing costs simply gives the courts an excuse to demand an increase in the budget. Increased spending on police and "criminal justice" is interpreted as increased safety and security. Notice how virtually all politicians are in favor of increased spending on police. We really need people to argue that decreased police spending actually improves our freedom and security.

  We also need people to publicly argue for decreased spending for public education. That's a totally different topic. The point is, anyone advocating decreased government spending for virtually anything is looked upon as being evil. That mindset has to be changed before it will be possible to reverse our long slow decline into democratic serfdom.

  Published: September 9, 2008 11:51 AM

• Ron

  Yes, Bill. We believe that traffic laws apply to everyone but us. That's the cornerstone of our philosophy, donchaknow...that we're above the law.

  Please...

  Read some of the material on this site before you post such nonsense. Learn something about the principles of non-aggression before you accept the traffic code as moral or in any way legitimate.

  Running a stop sign produces no victims. In itself, it harms no one. Obviously, pulling out in front of another car traveling at 50 mph would certainly produce one or more victims, but rolling through a stop sign when there's no other traffic to be seen in no way constitutes an act of aggression. Accepting the traffic code as necessary and legitimate is one of the reasons people drive the way they do. Rather than thinking for oneself, choosing the best course of action, and acting thereupon, responsible behavior is replaced with "follow these rules because we say so...it's for your own good."

  Published: September 9, 2008 11:58 AM

• Brad

  Ron hits the nail.

  The first shot over the bow is the signs placed there in the first place. Areas that never had stop signs before now do. But people used to drive by paying attention and stop signs at every intersection wasn't necessary. Now people are conditioned to keep going without paying attention until one of the signs or lights tells them what to do. It CAUSES more harm than good. And as people drive with their heads up their behinds, accidents rise (or at least the severity of the perhaps lesser overall incidents) giving more and more reason to turn every intersection into a stop - yields aren't even bothered with anymore. So this is what we get with the endless invasion of government into our lives - let them do all the thinking and we'll just go around the maze, and if we ever happen to stumble on some cheese, they'll find a way to take it from us.

  Published: September 9, 2008 12:13 PM

• David Bratton

  Here in Houston the cops don't write many tickets when there is a Democrat in the Mayor's office. When a Republican gets elected they sometimes have to hire temporary judges to handle all the cases and the city is usually swimming in cash.

  Published: September 9, 2008 12:26 PM

• Ron

  The most ridiculous signs I've seen so far are the "Mandatory Headlight Area" signs on some two-lane roads here in Maryland. They're not dark tunnels, there are no blind corners, it's mostly straight, slightly rolling roadway...in short, it's just like any other two-lane road on the planet.

  So why the mandatory headlight use? Some legislator somewhere thought drivers might forget that there are cars traveling the opposite direction in the other lane unless they have their headlights on? They might just drive across the double yellow line for no good reason? I don't get it. It's ludicrous, and I refuse to do it.

  Published: September 9, 2008 1:10 PM

• JP

  There's another reason: When you got to court, and they've written you for say $75 and 4 pts, they will frequently offer you the alternative of $150 and 2 points for example. Since most people realize it costs them more in the long run in insurance costs, many will take the option. This puts more money in the municipal coffers (which they'd rather), rather than money in the hands of the insurance company (who they could care less about).

  Published: September 9, 2008 1:39 PM

• Mike

  You can't use up the courts money by fighting the ticket in Texas.
  Here's how it works...and this is from experience:
  you fight the ticket. the judge stacks things against you. he rigs the jury if you chose trial by jury. you lose the trial. especially if you chose trial by judge.
  you then have to pay all the court costs including the punk cop's overtime along with your ticket. those costs are only eaten by the city if you win. it is in the court's interest that you lose.

  you will lose because the judge will ALWAYS believe the cop...they work together. who do you think protectst the judge if someone goes nuts? they say the cop is an objective witness. Objective my foot.

  my son got a ticket for failing to use a turn signal. the court won't even set a date for him to fight the ticket and they won't dismiss it. that's been 6 months ago. so much for a speedy trial, too.

  It's all about generating revenue. plain and simple.

  Published: September 9, 2008 1:44 PM

• Eric

  This is why the cops love the drug laws. More fish in a barrel.

  Published: September 9, 2008 2:01 PM

• Mike D.

  It also provides a perverse incentive. Take the Oakland BART station. Park you car in the wrong place or the wrong time you will get a ticket. Yet there is broken glass all over the lot from people breaking into cars. My solution - voters should set a limit for the maximum number of crimes in the city. If this number is exceeded, all revenue from parking tickets would have to be returned.

  Published: September 9, 2008 3:44 PM

• Mike D.

  Jeff
  
  Perhaps you need the "Cool-Hand Luke" approach. Demand a jury trial. Act as your own counsel (you'll have a fool for a client, as the saying goes) and then present your case to the jury. You can even suggest jury nullification!
  You're lucky - in California three moving (in your case hardly moving) violations will result in the DMV pulling your license.

  Published: September 9, 2008 3:52 PM

• Zinzindor

  Under a more just and fair property rights regime, the road would be privately owned ... and the transportation company owner would still have stop signs there.

  If you violated their stop sign, though, you wouldn't just get a "ticket". They wouldn't want you risking the safety of their other customers, nor would they want their insurance premiums boosted for allowing unsafe driving. You'd be booted off the road, and lose the privilege of driving on it.

  Then what would you have left to whine about?
  

  Published: September 9, 2008 4:55 PM

• Som

  I think this mass subservience to the growing police state is rooted in a deeper belief. That is, that people are too dangerous and stupid to manage risks on their own, and everything must be done to stop them.
  
  I say this because the stop sign ordeal is a problem on my street as well. Luckily I live in a gated community where the police do not come to give tickets (hooray for private roads). However, the way the association arranged the stop signs in my community is extremely dangerous. One of the stop signs is on the main road with a speed bump on its side (!?). Most people on my street do not stop for this stop sign, because they know its not necessary since they can clearly see that no one is coming from the crossing street (coming from only one way, like a fork in the road almost, but perpendicular) which is normally fine. However, to avoid the small speed bump on their side they come in the opposite lane, so if someone was coming at them from the opposite way (which has no stop sign) it could be a head on collision! This is much more dangerous than anything else on that road (barely any car can go over 35 mph on that thin curved road either way)

  I took this case to the association to have that one stop sign and speed bump removed, but it fell on deaf ears. They were shocked that i could think of such of thing like remove that stop sign, giving me the usual excuses (children could be hit by drivers who don't stop, too many fast cars, etc), hardly addressing the concerns I brought up and even ignoring the literature I bought on the subject.

  What I did sense was the unanimous fear of other people in their eyes, their "don't question this, you don't stand a chance" demeanor. In other words, they looked at me like a common criminal (because I apparently was one of the community members who drives too fast for them i.e. the posted 20 mph speed limit) and i was pretty much laughed out of there.

  My point is that this attitude is similar to the police and courts and is not confined to state institutions alone. I know first hand that there is a widespread deeply ingrained belief that risk is unacceptable because "what if something bad happens" and people are too stupid and dangerous to be left to manage themselves (esp on the road) so human nature must conform to institutions rather than the reverse, rationality and common sense be damned!

  The way to start reforming these crooked police and court systems is to change this common belief first, otherwise another similar system will take its place in no time (even in a private community).

  Published: September 9, 2008 5:10 PM

• brentcu

  I always ask myself the same question: "So what am I going to do about it?"

  In this case nothing, since I'm lucky enough to live where nobody seems to get ticketed ('nice' neighbourhood in urban Seattle).

  But if I had feelings as strong as those I have read in the comments then I'd push for changing stop sign laws to be 'reasonable'.

  Reasonableness is a test that is used in law for all sorts of actions and could apply well to stop signs. It is reasonable to roll through stop signs when there is no other traffic near. It is not when traffic is lined up from other directions.

  But this may end up with a whole lot of cases in court arguing over what is reasonable. The intelligence that read mises.org should be able to come up with something better.

  Published: September 9, 2008 5:15 PM

• Inquisitor

  Bill wald, do you enjoy being a slave to the state? Would you like some shackles?

  Published: September 9, 2008 5:16 PM

• Maximus Minimus

  I have been railing against police power for months on an off topic section of a sports forum. Why a sports forum? It's the only place I've found that I can have civil discourse with folks.

  Many of them now realize that police power is getting out of hand. I can't help but wonder how out of hand it will have to get before people say ENOUGH!

  It's going to get worse before it gets better.
  

  Published: September 9, 2008 5:34 PM

• Mike D.

  I think that this is just "If you want to understand how people behave, look at the behavior that is rewarded."
  
  The officer shows up in court because it nets him $21,000 in overtime.
  
  In California, traffic fines were tripled - Jeff's infractions would cost a minimum of $271 (each).
  
  What is even more odious is cameras at intersections where the lights have been timed to maximize revenue, at the expense of promoting safety.

  Published: September 9, 2008 6:28 PM

• James

  Zinzindor,

  Whatever political philosophy you hold seems to leave you in a position where your best response to alternative views is flippant speculation (You don't really pretend to know how I'd manage the road I'd own, do you?) and the use of pejoratives (You do know the distinction between criticism and whining, right?).

  I know that if any of my beliefs left me in such an embarassing position as you seem to find yourself in, I'd be looking for a good alternative. If you wish to get out of this rut, try libertarianism.

  Hint: The fact that you don't feel embarassed is neither here nor there.

  Published: September 9, 2008 7:11 PM

• Bogomips

  Som,

  I think I see what you mean. I myself have come to a similar conclusion. Mind you there's no possible way either of us could prove it, but there does seem to be a deep and growing fear in people of other people. I've tried to explain to friends that most people seem to think that the average person is evil, and therefore in need of regimentation. Now I don't think its conscious in most cases, but to me it seems that most people act as if others cant be trusted, even if they've never explicity contemplated it. I feel vindicated by the look of horror on the casual acquaintance's face when I mention letting society "work it out" without the state getting involved in whatever we're talking about. To me, the overall lack of confidence in individuals being able to work things out between themselves without coercion suggests an overall pessimism about people: they're always out to get ya!

  And as far as regimentation goes, I remember a professor of history quoting St. Augustine (I think). Something about strong government being necessary to check the people's iniquity. He looked pensive when I asked him what the point of ruling evil people was if you could only appoint other evil people to the positions of ruler. He hadn't thought about it, and most people don't. So although I would say that most people think their fellow man is a cheat-in-wait, he thinks that electing other cheats to political office can somehow redeem society. And most don't seem to see anything irrational in this.

  Anyway, if that belief is prevalent, no amount of small-government and non-coercion talk is going to affect anyone. Their paranoia will prevent any rational ideas from sinking in. Replace their irrational fear and we might have a chance, though.

  Published: September 9, 2008 7:36 PM

• Bartleby

  I think more and more people are starting to realize the loss of liberty that is taking place, but it will take time before the masses get feed up (I think most people generally think that they are immune from the abuse). I see so many people say, don't break the law and you won't get stopped, harrassed or arrested by the cops. But this is a farce and until it happens to you (and more than likely it will), most people will just be too busy to care.

  My father was a cop for 20 years and I always thought highly of the police until I had an epiphany about 6 years ago and I woke up to the abuse of the police and now I can't stand cops. There are no such things as good cops or bad cops, they are all the same (To harrass and arrest and take your money). To Protect and Serve, how I long for those days.

  Published: September 9, 2008 7:59 PM

• Alan

  If you think that the police work for you ask any person being threatened who requests protection. In a case in, I believe New York, a woman called 911 and said someone was breaking in. A few minutes later she called again and said he was in the house. A third call was made stating that he had killed one person. A day and a half later a concerned parent made the discovery of the dead people in the house. It was ruled that the police had no responsibility to protect any particular person or persons. Whoops, we missed this one. so to speak. They work for the "state" not the people.

  Published: September 9, 2008 8:16 PM

• hz

  ____ tha police, coming straight from the Grove Hill underground.

  seriously Jeff, I don't disagree on any particular point. You might think of hitting up the HOA for a camera to record the goings-on at the relevant intersection. This is not an expensive endeavor nowadays, esp. since you have power on -hand. That way you have some backup in court, the residents i'm sure will be grateful.

  Published: September 9, 2008 10:50 PM

• kalmia

  We have to start standing up to the state if any of this is going to change. Tie up their courts as much as possible. Make it cost more to collect the extortion money than what they get.

  Check out Marc Stevens. He has info on fighting them in court. It involves challenging the legitimacy of their courts.

  Jeffrey, I would suggest heading down to that sign one night with a paint roller soaked in paint. Coat that sign real good. It will put their revenue collection scam out of service for a little while.

  Look up that cops personal details and follow him with a video camera sometime. Record all the infractions he makes. It's even better if you can do it when he is in his personal vehicle. It will be harder to pull out the old lie that he was on an emergency call.

  It wasn't Kanapsky with you, Jeffrey. So what is his name, if you happen to know.

  Published: September 10, 2008 12:55 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  Under a more just and fair property rights regime, the road would be privately owned ... and the transportation company owner would still have stop signs there.
  
  Are you a road transportation expert? Maybe they would still have a stop sign at that particular point, or maybe their experts would tell them it's safe to not have one there. Even if they did have a stop sign there, maybe they'd be smart enough to recognize that not coming to a full stop when there's no other traffic isn't all that hazardous and do nothing about it.
  
  A free market in roads would do the same thing any free market would do. It would provide the incentives to find the best ways to do things, and wouldn't be locked into doing things according to a rigid set of laws.
  
  Some of the findings by road experts are surprisingly counter-intuitive, yet few municipalities have implemented them on their roads.

  Published: September 10, 2008 9:28 AM

• Andrew Thorne

  I don't know where you people live, but in my 16 years of law enforcement experience I have NEVER gone to court for a simple speeding ticket. Are you kidding me? Due to the amount of plea bargains going on, I've only been to court for a handful of DUI's in the last 10 years. For that matter, my two years spent in the Crimes Against Children Unit as a detective only netted me about three court appearences. (Please exuse my spelling. It has been a long and emotional week as you will find out in the last paragraph)

  Do you have a problem with getting tickets for running stop signs? The solution is simple. Don't blame the police. Blame yourself for not following very basic rules of the road. Just stop at the damn sign!

  Do you want us to concentrate more on more serious crimes? Great. Then stop calling us to quell your 15 year old daughter when she is calling you every four letter word in the book! Be your own parent to your own children and quit expecting law enforcement to be a parent for you! Stop calling 911 when you lock your keys in your car and are too much of a cheap ass to pay a lock smith! Stop calling 911 when traffic is speeding down your street and then call back when you are the one who gets the ticket for speeding! Don't call us and expect us to fix in a few minutes what your actions in the last 15 years have caused! And last but not all...don't ever call 911 after you have gotten to work and remembered you left your eggs on the burner and you want us to go to your house to make sure it is alright! Are you kidding me? That was a joke right? NO! Pathetically truthfully speaking it was not. She even gave directions to where she hid the house key!

  You want us to spend less time in court, making millions of dollars of course, then stop at the sign when you are supposed to, and, when you don't, and you get caught, or, when the speed limit does not apply to you, and you get caught, take it like an American man or woman, admit your mistake, pay YOUR dues, and learn from it. Obey the laws. They are there to protect all of us.

  Now, you really want something to bitch about? Why don't you start pointing your fingers at such agencies as FEMA and DEM. For crying out loud! Talk about taking local control away from law enforcment. Haven't you noticed these last few years everytime some "emergency" is about to befall you, the national guard under the direction of some FEDERAL agency is brought it to "Supervise" evacuations and take control of entire cities? Have you noticed the increase in these kinds of news reports or, are you too busy picking on your local police who are just trying to hold the line between keeping order and allowing people to live as their constitution guarantees. Ever and more increasingly WE in local law enforcement find ourselves pushed out of the picture when FEMA or DEM "takes over" a situation and the way the news reports it, people have begun to expect national guard troops in their cities to protect them from some disaster or that hurricane that hasn't even hit land yet.

  Wake you and shame on you, you whiners. If you do not fight for LOCAL law enforcment, the day will come when you are going to have FEDERAL agencies patrolling your neighborhoods and, if WE Americans do not band together and take care of this, you won't be getting pulled over for running some stop sign, you are going to be arrested for violating some U.N. charter. Then...then you will wish for the good old days when the cop behind you is that same man or woman who lives in your neighborhood and knows your area, customs, ways of life, and respects them because they are a part of them.

  WE in law enforcement are certainly not blind to the fascist state that this country is rapidly entering into. My concern, and it is not a matter of "if" but "when" the American citizen has had enough, and civil disobedience becomes the color of the day, is there going to be enough good and LOCAL officers and deputies left to help stem the tide of a complete and total police state?

  Do you really think every officer or deputy out there likes what is going on with all these traffic cameras that are supposed to be there for our "safety"? I for one am also sick and tired of this trend, this ever watchful eye prying into my personal life and the personal lives of our citizens while private corporations like for instance, the Federal Reserve, gets away with doing more to knock down your constitutional liberties as an American than I ever could by writing you a ticket for running a stop sign.

  Good cop bad cop? I'm sure there are! Good citizen bad citizen? You bet! Ask yourself, at the end of the day would you rather get a ticket from a cop who lives in your neighborhood, or, would you rather try to live freely knowing the Federal Police Agency just shipped a thousand troops into your neighborhood to "keep it safe and secure"?

  While you are asking, know that my partner, a local female deputy, who had a heart of gold and not a fascist bone in her body, was shot and killed last week while trying to help a family in need. She was one of 6 people killed by the same person who was then smart enough to turn himself in, right in the parking lot of the LOCAL Sheriff's office where we all work.

  I bet she would love to get a ticket for running a stop sign right now.

  God bless you and God bless this beautiful Republic we call America!

  Deputy Name Withheld

  Published: September 10, 2008 10:05 AM

• Paul Aubert

  I find myself thinking these things every day as I drive to and from work and see the police car positioned in the same spot catching all of the same people who invariably exceed the ridiculous 35 mph limit. They position themselves in a place where people feel safe exceeding their set limit (where there are less pedestrians and cross streets) precisely because they know it is completely safe to exceed 35. It has nothing at all to do with safety and everything to do with making money. In the areas where it might actually make things safer to patrol for violators, I never see the police. Perhaps they might have to work a bit too hard for their money there.

  Also, let's not forget the power over the people that government actors exert during times of crises. Last week, during the ridiculous enforced evacuations in my childhood home of southeast Louisiana, the Jefferson Parish President told residents that he works for and was elected by that they'd better not drive around "his" parish because it would not be "Andy Griffith's Mayberry." Oh, would that it were.

  Published: September 10, 2008 10:46 AM

• Erik

  Andrew,

  Sorry for your loss. I have friends who are police officers and they are good people. Perhaps in your emotional state you are not understanding the point of the article. Mr. Tucker is making the point that government is not the answer to every problem we face, whether large or small. We as a society have been conditioned to believe that our rulers know better than us regarding the most minute details of our life -- including small inconsequential traffic rules. We would be better served, both as a society, and as individuals, if we used common sense to solve our problems (like when to stop at an intersection) rather than rely on government force. In addition, this reliance on government force has caused our freedom to diminish and sets up situations where some less scrupulous police officers and government officials exploit us (fellow citizens) for their own gain.

  Published: September 10, 2008 11:15 AM

• Vincent Mross

  Without a doubt the most absolutely beautiful defense of a "traffic ticket" that I have ever heard (in this case "driving without a license") was described by a man named Joseph Edwards on Randy Kelton's Rule Of Law radio show. Listen to the 8/15, 8/22 and 8/29 shows, WOW!

  Published: September 10, 2008 11:43 AM

• Vincent Mross

  Oops, forgot a link to above referenced shows:
  http://mp3.wtprn.com/Kelton08.html
  

  Published: September 10, 2008 12:06 PM

• Curio

  Here’s a point to ponder – many countries that do not have strong enforcement of traffic laws have horrendous traffic accident rates. It is not unusual for these people to merely slow down at red lights and then proceed, nor to drive on sidewalks if necessary to get around traffic, etc. Ask anyone who has spent time in Latin or South America. Is it safe to say this same would occur in the US if the rules were not so strictly enforced?

  Hypothetically, if we were “allowed” to roll through stop signs and otherwise make our own decisions as to whether it was safe to stop at red lights or not, would the rate of accidents greatly increase due to the lax attitudes that would inevitably develop (like our southern neighbors)?

  (I, like most people, also have my traffic police stories and thus am not condoning all of their activities per se but merely bringing up what I believe is a valid point)

  The other part of the argument is that of gray area. I believe that many traffic officers use common sense in traffic situations, i.e. the proverbial “warning”. They technically could ticket you, but understand reality and sensibility and therefore “remind” you of the law. Then you have the others that for various reasons ticket every little offense possible. How do you encourage the former and prevent the latter?

  I was ticketed in a small town that depended upon traffic violations as a primary source of revenue, so naturally I was doomed. And I’ve been pulled over in larger metro areas where I was merely “warned”. The problem is how do you encourage the former and prevent the latter? Metro cops obviously have more important things to do and have larger budgets regardless, whereas small town and upscale suburban cops don’t (and may even depend upon the revenue). The irony is, the more congested urban areas are where traffic needs to obey the rules most, and the opposite is true of small towns/upscale suburbs.
  

  Published: September 10, 2008 1:33 PM

• lightbearer

  What a terrible theory this author presents, to privatize the police and with free market menality! Profiting over people is not ethical but abusive. Dont fall for this nonsense! Do we want a blackwater police force? We already lost most of our civil liberties!

  Published: September 10, 2008 3:44 PM

• lightbearer

  What a terrible theory this author presents, to privatize the police and with free market economics! Profiting over people is not ethical but abusive. Dont fall for this nonsense! Do we want a blackwater police force? We already lost most of our civil liberties!

  Published: September 10, 2008 3:46 PM

• lightbearer

  What a terrible theory this author presents, to privatize the police with free market economics! Profiting over people is not ethical but abusive. Dont fall for this nonsense! Do we want a blackwater police force? We already lost most of our civil liberties!

  Published: September 10, 2008 3:48 PM

• Ron

  You said it, lightbearer!

  We all know how profitable it is for private security forces to rape, kill, and steal from the very people they're paid to protect. Other "free market" industries are exactly the same way. I had to find a new dentist because mine would bash my teeth out with a nine iron every time I went in for a checkup, thereby ensuring that I'd have to come back.

  Also, I took my car to the repair shop the other day, and when I went to pick it up they had let all the air out of my tires, broken off all the door handles, and changed all my radio presets to NPR! I'm sure they made some massive profits off me by doing that, but I'm not sure how.

  The worst was when I went to a computer store to buy a new laptop a few weeks ago. When I got it home, I found out that the Windows logo had been drawn on the screen with markers, the keys had no letters on them, and the laptop itself was filled with parts from an old Plinko game. I was outraged! Then, to make matters worse, they wouldn't fix it or let me return it.

  Yes, it's much more profitable to hose people than to put any energy or effort into satisfying customers. Government really knows what's best for us. We should put it in charge of everything.

  Give me a break.

  Published: September 10, 2008 4:01 PM

• rube goldberg

  Som,
  
  My point is that this attitude is similar to the police and courts and is not confined to state institutions alone. I know first hand that there is a widespread deeply ingrained belief that risk is unacceptable because "what if something bad happens" and people are too stupid and dangerous to be left to manage themselves (esp on the road) so human nature must conform to institutions rather than the reverse, rationality and common sense be damned!
  >

  this is why everything is bailed out and not allowed to fail.

  Published: September 10, 2008 4:03 PM

• jeff

  You are required have a drivers license,register your vehicle and obey the traffic rules If you are engaged in Commercial activity (transporting persons or goods for hire) ..

  otherwise the Traffic Scam by cops and judges
  (revenue officers) is a fraud upon the people..

  Published: September 10, 2008 4:24 PM

• Peter

  Obey the laws. They are there to protect all of us.

  No they aren't.

  Published: September 10, 2008 7:56 PM

• Baxter

  Factually, if People read the 13th and 14th Amendments carefully, not according to the fraudulent interpretations of the government and schools, they would come to understand that claiming US citizenship is the problem! It is a "subject" [slave] political status into which we are conned to voluntarily claim.

  I no longer claim such, and "they" cannot prove such unless I volunteer by stating, where and when I was born.Think folks... Since NO ONE "knows" [legal word] these things, I only answer, "I don't 'know' where, when or to whom I was born."

  I show no ID and claim no "name" but only state "who I am." Big difference. Using this approach with them has defeated them 100%.

  Ask yourself, seriously, "What is a US citizen?" "How does a person become one?"[Surprise, it is NOT by birth!!!] "What are the benefits?" [None that I have found in 68+ years]

  Read Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419 [1794] The Posterity of the "People" are SOVEREIGN over the government they created and they are NOT US citizens!

  Learn WHO you are or your true political status.

  Published: September 10, 2008 8:29 PM

• josh m

  "Here’s a point to ponder – many countries that do not have strong enforcement of traffic laws have horrendous traffic accident rates. It is not unusual for these people to merely slow down at red lights and then proceed, nor to drive on sidewalks if necessary to get around traffic, etc. Ask anyone who has spent time in Latin or South America. Is it safe to say this same would occur in the US if the rules were not so strictly enforced?" --Curio

  I'll take a stab since no one else has: sure that might occur, but that would not change the point of the article because the failure you're describing would still be the result of government management.
  

  Published: September 11, 2008 1:51 PM

• Som

  Bogomips & Rube,

  Thanks to both of you for your feedback. I'm not the first one to detect that there are certain attitudes that affect our entire cultural and political climate. I got the idea from John Taylor Gatto's essay, the six lesson schoolteacher, and his other writings. Ever since then what he said has been verified in real life for me over and over again.

  If you haven't read his essay/ speech, you can read it here:

  http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html

  If we allow this to go on everywhere, is there any reason not to believe that we would allow sit back and take such an abusive police and court system?? (among an endless list of other absurdities)

  Published: September 11, 2008 7:32 PM

• curio

  Josh M -

  However, MY point was that in the absence of government management, people are prone to drive more dangerously. Therefore do we conclude that government management creates a safer driving environment? Or is there some other variable at work here?

  I am not arguing if it is "right" or "wrong", merely which is safer - govt management or no.
  

  Published: September 16, 2008 5:00 PM

• Kevin B

  curio,

  Obviously there isn't just the problem with government management of road traffic, but government management of road construction.

  The "other variable here" is that the roads are built as publicly-owned-and-operated means of transport, rather than privately-owned-and-operated.

  The dangerous environment is created when the government builds the roads in the first place.

  Published: September 16, 2008 6:53 PM

• Zinzindor

  Michael asks,

  "Are you a road transportation expert?"

  -- Ah, what Rand used to refer to as "the argument from intimidation."

  " Maybe they would still have a stop sign at that particular point, or maybe their experts would tell them it's safe to not have one there. "

  -- It is irrelevant to ask whether the firm would have a stop sign at any particular corner. They surely would have stop signs, or red lights, or some other method of traffic control. And they surely would not permit customers to selectively decide, on an individual basis, whether they need to comply with any traffic control mechanism.

  --- Imagine, for example, using a firing range, where shooting at any direction other than the targets is prohibited. Do you believe that the owner would just shrug if the violator insisted, "But I judged that no one would be endangered by me firing backwards."?

  -- And no, James, that's not "flippant speculation." That's reasonable deduction and observation about how private markets operate. Try reading some of the literature (e.g., Tannehill "The Market for Liberty" or Friedman "The Machinery of Freedom").
  

  Published: September 17, 2008 4:03 PM

• curio

  Kevin B –

  I find the “other variable” you present to be invalid and does not answer the question.

  There are plenty of private roads in this country, and they use the same set of rules and are constructed the same way. I’ve traveled some myself, and the only noticeable difference is that there is no one enforcing the rules. I rolled through stop signs when I felt it was safe, and I also drove non-street legal vehicles on those roads. I drove at whatever speed I felt comfortable with, although typically I stayed close to the posted limit.

  On certain occasions, typically holiday weekends, the private management board would ask a local officer to come in and patrol the roads and help keep the peace. He did not write tickets that I am aware of, merely warned people.
  
  So, now apply my same argument to this case. Say there were statistics demonstrating that on those weekends the traffic laws weren’t enforced, accidents were significantly higher than those weekends the laws were enforced (there were no official statistics in reality, however there was obvious evidence from years past which was enough to cause the management to call the officer in during typically dangerous weekends).

  I would argue that government management does create a safer driving environment than a lack of any enforcement. I do not see an alternative that involves keeping driving as safe or safer than currently without gov management, although I would probably welcome it.
  

  Published: September 17, 2008 6:07 PM

• Kevin B

  curio: "I do not see an alternative that involves keeping driving as safe or safer than currently without gov management, although I would probably welcome it."

  What you (and I) do not see are the conditions that would have arisen (and would exist) had government not monopolized transportation pathway infrastructure. I am not arguing that there need be no rules or enforcement of rules, but that, due to the destiny of government inefficiency, improvement of built-in hazard reduction will relatively crawl, and ridiculous methods will eventually permeate any government effort at rule-making.

  It seemed to me that you were saying that there is a need for government management of road in order to have a safe driving environment. I am saying that it isn't necessarily so, that "safety" involves not being forced off the road by a guy with a gun just so that he can make some cash, as happens quite often on government roads. Did you take that into consideration before you came to the conclusion that roads are safer?

  The bottom line is that I'm saying we should expect a hazardous driving environment on government roads, and that we should consider whether a total shift to private responsibility of pathway infrastructure would be a far more efficient alternative. If so, then a lack of government management(/enforcement) of traffic rules would mean safer travel.

  Published: September 17, 2008 6:45 PM

• curio

  I agree with the premise that we have no idea how traffic rules and/or safety would have transpired without government involvement; however there are many basic safety rules that necessarily must come about. Therefore it is safe to assume that the road rules would not be drastically/fundamentally different; plus it is extremely likely there would still be some type of enforcement, even if it was private, in order to assure safety. Otherwise, as I illustrated, the roads would be much more dangerous.

  The simple fact that rules would even exist (which surely they would in any scenario) necessitates following the rules and enforcing the rules. If not, again, the roads would be chaotic and more dangerous than currently.

  Yes, I did consider being coerced to comply with the rules under the threat of violence, but safety involves making decisions and the risks of those decisions. I could travel a private road without the threat of police and drive my motorcycle 180 mph through a 4-way intersection, but that does not make me safer than rolling through a stop sign, getting a ticket, and complying with the order to pay. If I chose not to comply, I understand the risks of doing so, just as I understand the risks of speeding my bike through a stop sign. Would I like not having any risk when I roll through a stop sign? Of course. I would also like no risk of speeding through one, but there are known possible consequences of these actions.

  The risk of breaking the rules and eventually being killed or seriously injured (by not paying, resisting arrest, or the like) is less than the risk of being killed by greatly increased recklessness. When driving, I have a choice to comply with the rules or not and face the consequences as such. I do not have a choice if no rules are enforced and my odds of being in a serious/fatal accident increase greatly. This is where I am coming from.

  As for your bottom line, of course we should consider all alternatives, but I fail to see how lack of government enforcement would mean safer travel. Unless you mean someone else enforcing rules, in which I see no difference; or you mean no enforcement whatsoever, in which I would love to hear examples of how that could translate to safer roads.

  It is nice to talk theory, but at some point we must reconcile with reality. If anyone has a vision that involves a superior method than current, let’s hear it. Otherwise, it sounds like a lot of proponents of more dangerous driving in the name of not paying tickets. I personally believe taking the risk of paying a ticket (or simply following the rules of the road) is far less than an increase in reckless driving. I suppose I’m in the minority, but I really don’t like being in traffic accidents.
  

  Published: September 18, 2008 11:20 AM

• curio

  How’s this for a theory – over the long-term, anything the government does that is significantly inefficient is eventually replaced by market forces. Of course there are examples of government monopolizing certain services, however, are they so significantly inefficient that a business can profitably do much better? If so, they will be.

  In this case of road infrastructure and traffic enforcement, I believe if there was a better way all around, it would have been done by now. I also suspect that when the initial infrastructure was being created, it was not a bunch of gov officials sitting in a room thinking how they would like to create the road systems. It likely involved private consultants, engineers, and road construction businesses input. The money to build came from government, but not the rest.

  I’m no expert on the subject, but it’s very likely most roads existed previously due to simple walking/horse trails in which the gov had nothing to do with. By the same token, there were likely unwritten rules of the road in the early days that also came from regular, innovative folk which eventually turned into law simply to help enforce the rules in the name of safety.

  So the notion that the whole system is a government creation and we have no idea how it would have otherwise turned out does not appear credible. The primary purpose of government involvement was funding to build and enforcement of rules. The rest was market forces. If there were a “better” way to enforce using private enterprise, I’m sure it would have been done.
  

  Published: September 18, 2008 11:45 AM

• Kevin B

  curio: "The risk of breaking the rules and eventually being killed or seriously injured (by not paying, resisting arrest, or the like) is less than the risk of being killed by greatly increased recklessness."

  Are you saying that if you choose to run away from police, and you try your best to avoid capture, that you have less chance of being killed or seriously injured than if there weren't police pulling people over for traffic violations?

  Published: September 18, 2008 4:23 PM

• curio

  No, I meant in context of the sentences following that statement. Namely, the risk of that happening to me are virtually nil because I am highly unlikely to choose to flee the police and resist arrest.

  Obviously I am not in the minority in that, since most people do not resist traffic violations by fleeing.

  Again, I make the choice and understand the consequences. Were there no enforcement at all, the odds of a fatal or serious accident increase significantly, of which I have no choice.

  I choose to risk paying a fine and having a significantly safer driving environment than the alternative. There is a risk of being violently subdued if I choose not to pay and resist (or even killed if I take it a step further and equally threaten the officers life), but I simply choose not to do that.

  Published: September 18, 2008 4:59 PM

• Kevin B

  curio,

  I don't think being robbed qualifies as "safe." Sure, you don't necessarily suffer any physical damages, but you certainly aren't free of injury...unless of course you enjoy crouching down and licking the hands that feed you.

  Published: September 18, 2008 5:54 PM

• curio

  Using the term "robbed" implies that I had no choice in the matter. And if you equate financial injury to physical injury, I'm not sure I can have a rational conversation with you. Yes, I feel safer choosing to risk paying a $100 fine than increasing my risk (through no choice) of getting into a serious accident and potentially dying. At any rate, I still haven't seen any refute that the roads are safer under the current system of enforcement.

  
  In this case, the issue was rolling through a stop sign. Say the rules were changed to not enforce rolling through stop signs. Then it becomes "what is the definition of rolling through"? 5 mph? 10 mph? 20 mph? I slowed down from 50 mph to 45 mph? Inevitably, the rates of accidents increase significantly.

  At this point, rational people decide that it was worth enforcing the stop rule after all, and have the choice to either stop or continue rolling through and facing a fine. Then we're back to square one.

  However, going through that exercise is not necessary, because rational people already understand that the current system is the safest, and that in this case being safer trumps the "freedom" to ignore the rule without any man-made penalty.
  

  Published: September 18, 2008 6:43 PM

• Kevin B

  I wasn't equating financial injury with physical injury; that should be quite obvious. However, the threat of physical force is definitely a reality when being pulled over. I find the threat of violence to be a safety issue.

  Furthermore, there is threat of violence in gathering the funds to build the roads. There is threat of violence when gathering funds to enforce traffic rules. I am forced to pay for roads that (apparently) I must have permission to use. To say that I make a choice to obey the traffic cops or not is like saying that slaves have the choice to obey their masters or not. If they try to run away and get hurt, then they CHOSE to take the risk. If they would have just obeyed their masters, they would have been "safe".

  Apparently, you don't recognize a right to be left alone. It's no wonder you can't imagine the roads being any safer.

  Published: September 18, 2008 11:30 PM

• Jerry S

  I guess I feel qualified to talk about the inane traffic laws. I'm a registered Professional Engineer who has designed Roads for Towns and Cities up and down the east coast. The problem with most stop signs is that there are too many (mostly the 4 -way stops) and most of the time not needed. My recommendation is to follow more of the European way of having roundabouts at most busy intersections where 4-way stops are deemed neccessary. If designed properly and people understand how to use them, they keep traffic flowing and minimize unnecessary stopping and starting (which by the way uses more energy from your car's engine, thus increasing the amount of your tailpipe emissions). Although I doubt many cities in the US would go thie route, as there would be a decline in ticket revenue.

  The problem I've seen throughout, is that every time there is an accident at an intersection, the answer is add a stop sign and it is assumed that will cure it. And it typically will at that location, but the accident will typically just occur somewhere else.

  My 2 cents.

  Published: September 19, 2008 9:39 AM

• Jerry

  Hypothetically, if we were “allowed” to roll through stop signs and otherwise make our own decisions as to whether it was safe to stop at red lights or not, would the rate of accidents greatly increase due to the lax attitudes that would inevitably develop (like our southern neighbors)? - curio

  I don't know about your neighborhood, but I don't see anyone in my neighborhood come to a complete stop at a stop sign and there hasn't been an accident for years as far as I know. Traffic lights are there for a reason, to control the volume of traffic (not for safety). The problem I have with traffic lights is late at night, when there is no traffic at all. I've sat at lights at 3 a.m. without a car on the road, there is no reason you can't slow down, make sure it's clear and proceed, but of course there could be a Cop lying in wait to pounce (you might have had a drink and they hope they can bust you for a DUI), thereby giving you a ticket when there is no chance of hurting anyone.

  Published: September 19, 2008 10:21 AM

• curio

  Kevin –

  Despite your insinuations that I like to be controlled under the threat of violence, I still have not seen any reference towards how a road system can be less dangerous.

  I do not enjoy the current system, but I am at a loss to envision a superior alternative. You have not referenced a credible alternative. So the implication (correct me if I’m mistaken) is that you believe an un-enforced private road system would be safer, despite the evidence of higher rates of accidents. This is all you need to say, rather than inflammatory remarks like “licking the hands that feed you” and slave analogies. That analogy is offensive and simply does not work, and leads to a derailment of serious discussion. Normally when someone begins to go down that road rather than stating logical conclusions and/or alternatives, they have ceased being able to add any more value to the conversation.

  As for the right to be left alone, in this case, I simply stay home or have someone else drive me. Or I drive on private roads. Of course, my risk of being in an accident increases greatly on that private road. You may feel that is ultimately safer than an enforced road; I do not.

  If I felt that complying with the rules of the enforced road where so unreasonable and unbearable to abide by, I would likely feel the same way. However, as stated before, I do not feel that way, nor do I feel that the financial penalty for breaking those rules is unbearable. Were the roads just as safe or safer (from an accident perspective) without enforcement, then yes, I would feel the current way unreasonable.

  Lastly, the threat of violence exists everywhere and at any time regardless of the government. It is the level, or likelihood of that risk that is at stake.
  

  Published: September 19, 2008 3:09 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Thanks for the comments, Jerry.
  
  -- It is irrelevant to ask whether the firm would have a stop sign at any particular corner. They surely would have stop signs, or red lights, or some other method of traffic control. And they surely would not permit customers to selectively decide, on an individual basis, whether they need to comply with any traffic control mechanism.
  
  Yes, they would surely have some method of traffic control. They would choose a method of traffic control that works best, and is easy for traffic to comply with, and not arbitrarily assume that a Stop sign is always the best solution. But you've heard of Yield signs, haven't you? They're not as common as they used to be, I guess, but they still exist. At a Yield sign, you yield to cross traffic--it's not necessary to come to a full stop if there's no traffic.

  Published: September 19, 2008 3:23 PM

• curio

  Jerry S –

  I think the roundabouts are a great idea, and in the state I live in they are catching on and becoming more popular.

  
  Jerry (assuming the second post is from a different Jerry) –

  I agree with you. The problem is reality. Rules are black and white in a gray world. So either you have a rule or you don’t. In your neighborhood, should it be legal to roll through the stop sign for the reasons you mentioned? Where do you draw the line at what is considered a “roll”? That was my point if you continued reading my post.
  

  Published: September 19, 2008 3:28 PM

• Kevin B

  curio,

  I'm sorry. It appears that we have been wasting each other's time. I was under the impression that you wished to solve the problem of overall traffic safety, but I now see that you merely wish to win a very narrow argument.

  I am not here to argue with you or anyone else. I am here to discover the truth.

  Good hunting,

  Kevin B

  Published: September 19, 2008 3:49 PM

• curio

  Kevin -

  My initial premise, which has been the same all along, is which is safer - government management of the roads or not. You have never directly addressed this question, only attacked specific passages I have written and ignored the rest. I am unsure of what "very narrow argument" you speak of.

  Note - rather than the word "argument" I suppose I should have been using the term "debate", which is what I meant. That is a miscommunication on my behalf.

  I do notice that you have a very strong aversion towards the consequences of enforcement, yet you stated earlier that you are "not arguing that there need be no rules or enforcement of rules". I am very curious as to how rules could exist (or be valid) without enforcement, and how enforcement could exist (or be valid) without the threat of violence. Alas, I suppose that is another argument for another time.

  My goal was to be convinced that I am incorrect, that there was something critical I was missing. Unfortunately the discussion came nowhere near that, and instead began to degrade and become somewhat hostile.

  Nonetheless, as you cannot seem to engage in a convincing "debate" with me on the subject for whatever reason, I wish you best wishes in your seeking of truth.
  

  Published: September 19, 2008 7:03 PM

• John

  I got an idea asshole, come to a complete stop. You're absolutely ignorant and stupid if you think you live in a "safe" neighborhood. You have no idea what will happen in the future. Instead of posting ridiculous blogs. Completely stop. I would have learned that on my 1st ticket. What will be your excuse when you roll through a stop sign and hit someone??? Laws are put in place for a reason. Just cause' they don't suit you, doesn't mean they are incorrect. Smarten up.

  Published: February 26, 2009 8:47 PM

• Dave

  Wow, John, I see that right above the comment form it asks you to "Post an intelligent and civil comment." You fail both requirements.

  Published: July 14, 2009 11:29 AM