Hacker News Reader

Comment by brenns10 | Hacker News Reader

There's no alternative here. You're asking for a law where a driver gets to interpret the situation and decide whether a traffic law should apply to them or not. That's just unenforceable, imagine trivial court cases hinging on whether a "reasonable person" would drive a certain speed. Plus, most drivers think they're a better and safer driver than they really are. Do you really trust them to correctly assess the risk, not just to themselves but to others? I certainly don't.

These rules have to be black and white! Do triple digit (mph) speeds on a highway? Get an expensive ticket, even if the highway wasn't busy.

View on HN

> imagine trivial court cases hinging on whether a "reasonable person" would drive a certain speed.

Why is this dystopian? It's literally the point of courts to apply judgment.

A bright line doesn't only make it clear what's illegal - it also makes it clear what's legal.

With a less clear law, how would you know if your speed was legal?

I think I'm a reasonable person and while sober, well-rested and attentive on an empty freeway at sunset on a road drying after 0.1 inch of rainfall in the preceding hour with no other cars in view driving eastbound at 70 mph would be reasonable.

But what if a cop is having a bad day, or has a quota to hit, or doesn't like my bumper sticker, and decides the legal limit is 65 mph because the setting sun might be dazzling in my rear view mirror?

And if I don't want the cost and inconvenience of going to court, should I go at 60 mph instead, just in case?

The reality is the courts are very slow and very expensive for decisions that are being made millions of times per day.

It's possible to break the law and not be penalized for it.

>But what if a cop is having a bad day, or has a quota to hit, or doesn't like my bumper sticker, and decides the legal limit is 65 mph because the setting sun might be dazzling in my rear view mirror?

You would take it to court like you do now and fight the assessment.

>And if I don't want the cost and inconvenience of going to court, should I go at 60 mph instead, just in case?

Yes, no different than today

> A bright line doesn't only make it clear what's illegal - it also makes it clear what's legal.

But doing the speed limit is not always legal. It depends on the conditions. If the sunset is dazzling, the speed limit might not be safe for conditions, so you could be ticketed for violating the basic speed law. Or if there's heavy rain or snow or what have you.

It's not dystopian, but it raises the standard of evidence beyond what is feasible to support. With simple limits, you can say "I clocked you at 80 on a 65mph road" and that's evidence enough. You'd need far more evidence and deliberation to enforce the rule "you went faster than a reasonable person should".

Black and white thought process is what leads to things like minimum/mandatory sentencing which having a lot of criticism

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/end-...

>imagine trivial court cases hinging on whether a "reasonable person" would drive a certain speed

That's exactly how they cite things like reckless driving

All of that, plus discretionary enforcement is incredibly conducive to all of the bad -isms.

The current reality we live in where pretty much all traffic is technically speeding unless there's something preventing it (weather, congestion, whatever) has no less discretionary enforcement than ye olden days where there were no nominal speed limits on many stretches of rural highway.

It’s worse today because there is always a law you are violating. Cops often decide who to stop first, and then what the reason was.

At least in the olden days it was a subjective matter and acknowledged as such. Today we have objective laws that we all objectively break, and discretionary enforcement.

Simply remove speed limits on suitable roads, as in Germany.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com