Why do some laws exist if everyone is expected to just break them?
Why do some laws exist if everyone is expected to just break them?
Example: Traffic Speed. Everyone always exceed the speed limit on highways. Why do we still have the limit? Like, either enforce it, or remove it. This stuff doesn't make sense at all.
Aside from selective enforcement, some laws (like traffic laws) are there for your protection AND to establish liability if something goes wrong.
If the government sets the limit at 30 and everyone goes 50, when an incident occurs, nobody can sue the city for bad roads because everyone was going faster than the intended speed.
They exist just in case they need to crack down on you.
I always think of dog leash laws this way. In many places they arenât enforced and the majority of dog owners let their dogs off leash. However, if the owner loses control of their dog and it gets into trouble, like biting someone or another dog, then the law can always say, youâre liable because your dog was supposed to be on leash.
I think the same goes for speeding and other laws. It basically puts liability on the lawbreaker if they take a certain risk. If nothing bad happens, fine. But, if something does, then itâs your fault.
You seem to be assuming that people would keep driving as they currently do if we removed speed limits entirely. I'd be willing to bet that this is not the case. Most drivers have a number in mind on how much they're willing to exceed the speed limit. For me that is 5 - 10kph, so if the limit is 60kph, then you're not going to catch me going 80. Without speed limits I probably would.
So why do we have such laws? Because they work. Not perfectly but to some extent.
It's so the police always have something they can stop you for.
You're not expected to break them. For your example, you're not supposed to go over the speed limit. And it is, in fact, extremely easy to do so. Most people are fine with it. And, no, it's not impossible to do so. There is nothing forcing you to go faster for little to no gain and increased risk for you and other.
You expecting to go over tells something about you.
So you can selectively punish.
This sounds like a distinctly cultural problem where the word 'limit' clearly doesn't mean very much to the population in question.
It's a limit, not a target, and certainly not a floor as some USAsians seem to treat it.
Here in Australia you can be fined for exceeding the limit by less than 10km/h. Yes, even if you are 1km/h over, and whilst this would probably get thrown out in court you'd still have to take time off to attend court.
In general speed limits are enforced IMO, just within a certain level. IE yes everyone exceeds the speed limit... but typically by set amounts. IE I know myself I generally go 9 over the speed limit. I expect to get a ticket if I go 11-20 over the speed limit.
That being said, yeah the social construct is probably intentionally encouraged by cops, so that say when they are pulling over random minorities for an excuse to search the car, they have an automatic excuse for why they pulled them over.
On the highways here, the original speed limit of 55 was to save our nation's resources, not just "55 to stay alive" but also it was an efficient speed to maintain and still pretty fast.
Inside the city it works much better to make drivers feel unsafe going fast. Narrower lanes, speed bumps, roundabouts, etc.
In answer to your actual question - some laws are just old and haven't been unwound yet and others are used as pretext for profiling, police (or, more properly whoever is running them) like to be able to stop people for no reason but that can be seen as illegitimate, so they keep laws that everyone breaks, jaywalking, etc to have an excuse.
I don't think there is any one law everybody breaks really but also no person who has lived perfectly law abiding life.
Bureaucracy is a nightmare. There's national laws, local laws, technical laws, practical laws, petty laws, incompetent laws, minority laws, old laws nobody bothered to get rid of, potential laws for possible situations that might happen at some point in an imaginary future.. and so on.
Basically, it depends on who writes the law and why. All laws are subjective to humans, by humans and against anything that annoys the specific humans in charge at any given point in time.
Take jaywalking for example. Most people aren't going to be bothered by some woman crossing the street when no cars are around.
Is it worth a cops time who's within eyeshot to do anything about it? Waste of resources, she's not endangering anyone.
Same situation but cars are all over, some swerving to avoid or slam on their breaks because she blindly runs out. She gets hit or cars pile into each other.
Cops in eyeshot. Well the drivers certainly are not the ultimate cause of this accident.
That's my guess anyways.
Counter question: do you think everyone is sensible?
True, but traffic not following "the algorithm" is more dangerous than moderate speeding.
I don't think everyone always breaks the speed limit, but probably they do at some point during every journey. They knew this went they introduced the 20mph speed limit but they introduced it anyway because they thought it would reduce the average speed by a few mph.
just magically "enforce" it with no unintended consequences, please