Punish Those Who Cause Traffic Delays

[guywithashovel]

Roughly a week or so ago, someone in my city wrote a letter to the editor of the metropolitan newspaper about major traffic delays on the highways. This person identified himself as a longtime veteran of law enforcement and said that he believed that people who cause traffic crashes that lead to major traffic jams and delays on the highways should be fined $1,000. He went on to say that those delays cause people to be late for work, appointments, job interviews, etc., and that many people have even been reprimanded and terminated from their jobs because they were late due to delays on the highways. He also said that most of these crashes are caused by people being careless, and that's another reason why the steep fine should be implemented. The writer stated that if this policy were to be executed, people would start being more careful on the highways and the number of crashes would drop.

I'm wondering what everyone thinks about this. To be honest, I can see some logic in this. I've been stuck in a few of those delays, and I have to be honest, it's irritating. I was even late for my job one day because of one, but fortunately, my employer was very understanding. Of course, we'd had a few inches of snow that day, and the crash that caused the delay was related to the snowfall.

I'm a little interested and disturbed over the notion that people get reprimanded and fired for being late due to traffic delays. These things are completely out of their control, and it shouldn't be hard to verify their claims of being stuck in delays, since the news stations monitor traffic conditions.

[lordlundar]

Just recently, there was a fatal collision on a major highway in the city where I live, and it had a massive cleanup, so it took a while. The article continued on to say that later in the day, a rubbernecker wound up as the cause of a four car pileup because he was more intent on the accident instead of his driving.

So yeah, I think it's fair, though not really to the ones causing the accident in the first place. Put that to the rubberneckers.

[KabeRinnaul]

There was also an experiment done (which I can no longer find a link or anything to) that showed that hitting the brakes for something like four seconds on a busy highway could cause traffic backups in that area for up to 2 hours.

It'd be hard to enforce with things like that.

[blas87]

It'd be hard for cops to always be around, especially on every stretch of highway. Major highways like 53 and 94 around here, you'll see State Troopers, but not every mile marker.

I live in an area where a new freeway was put in a few years ago, and these idot Simpletons can't seem to get the concept of the speed limit of 65 (despite highway 94 being not far away and I doubt for one second these people go 50 mph on 94 on their way to the Dells or Minnesota), and it would be nice to see a few people get fined or pulled over in the mornings and afternoons when their merging at 40 mph or tootling at 50 on a nice sunny day causes delays, but it'd be so hard to enforce.

[BlaqueKatt]

So yeah, I think it's fair, though not really to the ones causing the accident in the first place.

the term "accident" is no longer used, as it implies there was no way to prevent it-studies have shown that 80- 99.5%* of vehicle crashes are preventable.

*depending on country

[HYHYBT]

No, "accident" only means it was unintentional.

The premise of this idea is badly flawed. It hinges on the idea that people would avoid having accidents, if only there were negative consequences of having them. But there *are* such consequences, usually amounting to far more than $1000 worth. Your own lost time, repairs, medical bills/time off work, sometimes permanent injury, plus insurance costs, possible charges if you can be proven to have been doing something wrong, etc.

[blas87]

Plus with most insurance companies, you're partially to blame just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Like you are supposed to know that that semi truck is going to hurl a huge rock at your windshield or some dumb schmuck is going to park too close to you and hit you.

[Greenday]

It'd be a pretty ridiculous fine that'd I'd fight to the bitter end. If people didn't rubberneck, there wouldn't be traffic. I'm not paying a $1,000 fine along with everything from the accident because it makes someone feel better about being stuck in traffic. Deal with it.

[BlaqueKatt]

No, "accident" only means it was unintentional.

accident
1. an unforeseen event or one without an apparent cause
2. anything that occurs unintentionally or by chance

Driver error is not "chance" nor is it unintentional-and it is a cause.

If a person is posting to facebook while driving-and hits someone, that is not chance, nor is it unintentional. One doesn't just have their phone jump into their hand and they have to start typing into it-they intended to pick up the phone, ignore what they were doing and proceed to give full attention to their phone and not driving-how is that unintentional?

That's like the term "accidental shooting" if you were following the rules it wouldn't have happened, therefore it is not an "accident".

Would you buy "I only had 4 drinks and picked up the shotgun, took the safety off and pointed it at Earl-it just went off, I didn't mean to shoot him, it was an accident"

then "I only looked at my phone/radio/that random cow for a second while driving a 2000+ pound piece of machinery at 70 MPH, I didn't mean to hit that other car, it was an accident". doesn't fly either.

Or "I was running late for work, I didn't think anyone would be coming through that intersection, so I ran the stop sign, I didn't mean to hit that school bus full of blind nuns, it was an accident"

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

The writer stated that if this policy were to be executed, people would start being more careful on the highways and the number of crashes would drop.

Yeah.

And the death penalty has reduced the number of murders in the US.
And prohibition reduced the number of people illegally drinking alcohol.
And the war on drugs has reduced the number of people doing drugs.
And the crackdowns on the internet has reduced the number of pedophiles trolling the chatrooms.
And the traffic laws and speed limits have drastically reduced the number of douchebags on the roads.
And the anti-smoking campaigns really makes a difference in Big Tobacco's bottom line.

I understand where this guy is coming from. But I doubt that imposing fines is going to do more than be a revenue earner for the districts that enforce it.

And what about the celebrities that have caused these traffic delays? Bruce Springstein held a party/political rally and damn near shut down a sizeable chunk of New Jersey a number of years ago. $1,000 isn't going to teach him a goddamn thing. This guy could likely find a grand if he looks under his couch cushions.

Something needs to be done, but I doubt that is it.

[smileyeagle1021]

It'd be a pretty ridiculous fine that'd I'd fight to the bitter end. If people didn't rubberneck, there wouldn't be traffic.

How bout make it illegal to rubberneck... it wouldn't be too hard to have an officer set up a video camera at the scene of an accident after they respond and just mail out tickets to each person that they saw who slowed down to look (which does have some problem of being an objective call since in some cases it is hard to tell if someone is slowing down to increase safety or to rubberneck, but some people are really obvious)

[Red Panda]

That would be pretty impossible to enforce. At best it would encourage people to drive quickly past a scene where they should be slowing down for safety.

[Greenday]

Oh wait, I forgot, there already is a law about stopping traffic. It's called: Disrupting Traffic.

/thread

[HYHYBT]

accident
1. an unforeseen event or one without an apparent cause
2. anything that occurs unintentionally or by chance

Driver error is not "chance" nor is it unintentional-and it is a cause.

If a person is posting to facebook while driving-and hits someone, that is not chance, nor is it unintentional. One doesn't just have their phone jump into their hand and they have to start typing into it-they intended to pick up the phone, ignore what they were doing and proceed to give full attention to their phone and not driving-how is that unintentional?

They (presumably) did not intend to crash; therefore the crash is unintentional. Drivers make errors all the time, or are looking at one possible problem source rather than another, or glance away from the road, or whatever. Everyone can do better than they do, but none can be perfect. The vast majority of the time, nothing bad comes of this. Every once in a while, by chance, the error does cause a noticeable near-miss of some kind, or even a crash: usually this occurs because another person makes a corresponding error at the same time. So you have poor judgement (sometimes), imperfect attention, and a hefty dose of coincidence involved, leading to a result that nobody wanted. Hence calling it an accident. Only if one of the drivers intends the result would it qualify as intentional.

All of your examples confirm this. Yes, if you shoot someone out of carelessness, it is an accident. That does not excuse your having done it, but it's an accident nonetheless unless you meant to shoot him. Yes, an accident resulting from driving drunk (or doing quite a lot of other things drunk) is an accident. That does not mean you should not go to prison for it, as drunk driving is an irresponsible, and illegal, thing to do; but to redefine "accident" in the way you're trying to would make the word virtually useless while also leaving us with no simple word to describe events for which "accident" is currently used.

As for outlawing rubbernecking, one reason it could never work is that, except when the accident first happens, generally people are driving slowly past the site whether they look or not, simply because traffic is backed up, because there was an accident. So at that point a quick look to see what it is that's made you two hours late isn't really slowing anything down.

[BlaqueKatt]

but to redefine "accident" in the way you're trying to would make the word virtually useless while also leaving us with no simple word to describe events for which "accident" is currently used.

I'm not the one redefining it-pay attention to news stories and commercials for insurance-the National Highway Safety Administration no longer allows the use of the word "accident" in reporting-they require the use of the word "crash", as 99% of the time it was avoidable. The term "Accident"-implies inevitable and removes fault or blame-psychologists are also doing away with the term "accident"

[QUOTE Stewart and Lord]Abstract from the National Institutes of Health:

We assert that motor vehicle crash should replace motor vehicle accident in the clinical and research lexicon of traumatologists. Crash encompasses a wider range of potential causes for vehicular crashes than does the term accident. A majority of fatal crashes are caused by intoxicated, speeding, distracted, or careless drivers and, therefore, are not accidents. Most importantly, characterizing crashes as accidents, when a driver was intoxicated or negligent, may impede the recovery of crash victims by preventing them from assigning blame and working through the emotions related to their trauma.[/QUOTE]

Sorry language changes, it's up to us to keep up with the changes.