Why I disobey traffic lights.

[Daniel Unplugged]

So I have stopped at a red light. No cars in front, none behind. None to the left or right either. I look around for the police, then look for a red light camera. I drive straight through. My passengers looks at me in horror. "I can't believe you just did that." I laugh at them, but feel a great deal of pity. Traffic lights have the computational ability of a toaster. I am a human, my senses serve me well. The power of my brain is unmatched by the worlds fastest supercomputer. I have had the ability to determine when it is safe to cross a road since I was 5.

 

Damn right I won't take orders from a toaster.

[Pepin]

I don't see the problem in this, but it is a risk. At least around here, cops are very sneaky in where they hide. Camera placements are also often not obvious.

[Wesley]

I have gotten super annoyed by the "intelligence" of traffic lights. I will sit at a light for 2 minutes and no one is anywhere in sight. Then, someone starts coming along in the cross direction and needs to stop suddenly for the light as it changes right then (when at that point it might as well stay green for 3 more seconds).

 

There also is a lot of evidence that traffic lights cause more accidents and when all markings, lights, and signs are removed on the road people tend to be much better drivers as they need to be inherently cautious and negotiate their way around the road rather than blind obedience and trying to break arbitrary and stupid rules that leads to accidents.

[dsayers]

I also drive safely, but not exactly as xmas light would tell me to do. However, I wouldn't do this if I had a passenger since I do not have the right to risk their time.

[nathanm]

There is one intersection on my commute where I used to do this regularly; stop at the red, check traffic and go.  One of the lanes was basically the outlet of an apartment parking lot so there was never anyone coming from that direction and not a whole lot coming in from the opposite side either.  But I would get a little nervous if any other cars were 'watching' me, and the light cycle itself wasn't really that long so I stopped doing it.  There are cops trawling around in the area on a pretty regular basis, so it was a risky move.

 

Traffic is an interesting thing for science and engineering, it would just be nice if totally bald-faced extortion was taken out of the issue.  Traffic needs consistent and universal rules, just as in moral questions, but they don't necessarily need to be in the form of lights and signs, but rather in the minds of drivers.  Merging onto freeways is the area I see the most selfish behavior.  People don't want to weave in there like a zipper, they just want to plow ahead full speed and get in front of the flow.  Sometimes people don't understand "yield to traffic from the left" in roundabouts, but I only go through one of them and always with very low volume of cars.

 

But what causes the most problems?  Cops pulling someone over.  Every fucking time.  Then add in that huge statist guilt trip campaign of "Move Over, Slow Down" and you're guaranteed a big fat embolism every time Johnny Law wants to Just Do My Job.

[Magnus]

Dealing with traffic is one of the absolute worst parts of being an anarchist.  And car registrations.  And driver's licensing.  Anything to do with cars, apparently. 

 

The State freezes technology.  The federal gov't took over radio in 1928, and that's the reason there are only a handful of "stations" on any local radio dial, even today.  The technology to allow many thousands of radio users to occupy the same area of the radio spectrum without interference was invented shortly after the federal radio take-over, but here we are, 90 years later, with cell phones that hop around easily, and yet the radio industry had to resort to satellites just to open up some telecom access. 

 

West Germans visited East Germany after the wall came down, and they said it was like a technology museum over there.  In Cuba, they're still driving cars from the 50s and 60s. 

 

In the US, both the electrical grid and traffic systems were taken over in the early 1900s.  That's why we still use massive trunk lines carrying power from centrally-generated (and State-owned and run) facilities, with wires on poles running through almost every neighborhood, as though it's still 1915. 

 

The supposed "need" to control both electricity and traffic was the reason used at the time to justify the virtually complete take-over of what they now call "public space." 

 

The traffic system is the ultimate expression of Statist values.  They claim to essentially own all of the space between and among us.  You can walk around your own quarter-acre, but if you want to interact with anyone, you have to pass through State-space. 

 

Notice how rare walkable urban areas are.  There's lower Manhattan, the old sections of places like Boston or San Francisco, and the tourist traps like the French Quarter, and that's about it.  The other 99% of us are housed in semi-urban spaces with government-designated set-backs between every building.  There are no virtually alleyways, no pedestrian spaces. 

 

And yet, people travel all over the world to visit vestigial places like these:

 

 

 

 

These non-car, archaic spaces are so desirable that they're now being built solely for fantasy.

 

Harry Potter Land:

 

 

 

Liberty Square in Disney World's Magic Kingdom:

 

 

 

Ask any policeman where most people in jail are arrested, and they'll readily admit that over 90% of them come in through traffic stops. 

 

As with everything else, the State's traffic system serves the interests of the State. 

[J. D. Stembal]

Ah yes, public roads. One of the biggest annoyances for me is the proliferation of useless signs and signals on every street and corner. I see permanent memorial signs for victims of car accidents and drunk driving. I'm not against people leaving flowers by the side of the highway in remembrance of the tradegy, but do we really need more signs distracting drivers? Who pays for these signs? The family of the victim or the taxpayer?

 

Also, high on the irony scale, I noticed the last time I drove through Illinois and Iowa (two states that recently banned talking on your phone without a hands-free device) that they are using the amber alert highway emergency signs to promote the bright, flashing message: "One text or call could wreck it all." Let's distract drivers with propaganda because there are too many distracted drivers!

[cab21]

if it was a traffic light on a private road, and you signed a contract saying you would follow the traffic lights, would you disobey the traffic lights?

[Wesley]

if it was a traffic light on a private road, and you signed a contract saying you would follow the traffic lights, would you disobey the traffic lights?

I would not. I do not disobey them now. I just often get irritated and think they are doing a poor job and think that traffic lights on private roads (if they would exist at all) would have to be much more intelligent. If they were not, I would drive on less annoying roads.

[Carl Green]

I also drive safely, but not exactly as xmas light would tell me to do. However, I wouldn't do this if I had a passenger since I do not have the right to risk their time.

 

I'm not sure about the driver's obligation in that scenario.  It could also be that the passenger implicitly accepted the driver's route and driving preferences by accepting the role of passenger?

[dsayers]

if it was a traffic light on a private road, and you signed a contract saying you would follow the traffic lights, would you disobey the traffic lights?

 

On a privately owned road, the likelihood is that traffic control along it would be logical, reasonable, and necessary. Or if not, subject to feedback which would be tantamount to correction.

 

I can't speak for others, but I do not have that option now. Where I'm at, there are a lot "smart lights" that will favor left turns over through traffic. This often leads to 1 person being able to go while 4-5 people are made to wait, which means they'll get caught at the next light a quarter mile down the road. Much better is to just let that road have the intersection and let the people sort out when it's safe to cross what would otherwise be oncoming traffic. It would lead to lower downtime for perpendicular traffic and serve more people quicker. But it risks more accidents, so they switch to lockdown mode. As if "put everybody into prison and there'd be no crime" is a rational approach.

 

What these central planners don't realize is that they're making the roads unsafe in general because so many drivers aren't paying attention to their surroundings. They just check to see what a light or sign says they can do and obey, even if that means sitting somewhere for a couple minutes for no reason at all.

[cab21]

logical, reasonable, and necessary are good criteria for the road rules and norms

 

it's not like a guy saying " i own a monster truck, if you don't want to be run over you best get out of the way" or " why i disobey "wrong way" signs and road norms".

 

normal road rules have right of ways and who should yield to who, so a traffic system being designed that way makes sense.

 

i think it's supposed to be understood that people don't just follow signs, but follow signs and their own brains. like a pedestrian crossing the street, even if the walk sign is showing , still looking to see if cars are following is crucial. that just makes a problem for the blind man if some person thinks he would rather hit a blind man crossing the road than " obey a traffic light". i mean what risk does a driver have of hitting and killing a pedestrian, they can simply hit and run if we don't flat out call that the initiation of aggression and murder or manslaughter.

[Magnus]

if it was a traffic light on a private road, and you signed a contract saying you would follow the traffic lights, would you disobey the traffic lights?

 

The entire car-and-road based transportation system -- every aspect of the automobile technology and the construction of the physical space to accommodate them -- has been designed and implemented by and for the State. 

 

Even private spaces and their roads (including a few private neighborhoods that exist here and there, and large private commercial areas like Disney World) are all influenced in their design by the need to connect to the State's road system. 

 

Private areas just don't treat you the way the State treats us.  They want you to have a good time.  They want you to enjoy being there.  They have security to protect people from the rare trouble-maker who might ruin the experience for everyone, not as a make-work union project with a jail cell at the ready for anyone who denies their authori-tay. 

 

There is not any aspect of our physical living space that has not been corrupted by Statism.  Conversely, in the absence of Statism, the entire structure of cities, and our movement within them, would be radically different.  You can't expect a simple answer to a question that supposes that only one aspect -- a contract -- is changed in isolation.

[cab21]

 i would suggest that state road systems could become private roads, then people can see if companies hate government roads or see them as subsidies that drive business to the company without the company having to pay for the infrastructure itself.

[Magnus]

 i would suggest that state road systems could become private roads, then people can see if companies hate government roads or see them as subsidies that drive business to the company without the company having to pay for the infrastructure itself.

 

It's not just the roads.  The State controls all land use -- the location, type, size and configuration of every type of commercial and residential structure.  The government creates the demand for its own roads. 

 

Even if private owners were to simply take over the responsibility for the existing State road system, all 4 million miles of it, as a single change made in isolation from all the other State controls over land use, the result would not approximate the land use patterns of a free, property-based society.  Private enterprise would simply bear the immediate and full cost of an inefficient and poorly-designed road system, one that services development that is itself poorly sited and designed. 

[cab21]

make the change not in isolation.

 

the road system is there, take the state control away, and things happen as they happen

[ribuck]

I also drive safely, but not exactly as xmas light would tell me to do. However, I wouldn't do this if I had a passenger since I do not have the right to risk their time.

 

As a courtesy to your passenger, you could ask them if they're OK with you working around the cause of the delay.

[Magnus]

make the change not in isolation.the road system is there, take the state control away, and things happen as they happen

That is a change isolation -- the State has already situated all the roads, their type and design and locations, of all 4 million miles of them. Merely transferring control of the 4 million miles of State-designed, State-built roads doesn't, by itself, make America's land use system private. The State's roads are located where they are, and sized and designed that way, in order to service the current housing and commercial patterns, which are dictated by the State's comprehensive development plans. Getting into a debate over the system for maintaining the roads alone, without also addressing the entire system of State-mandated development restrictions and subsidies, is pointless.Your suggestion is like when the government contracts its jail-administration operations to contractors, and then calling it "privatized." No, jails are inherently Statist, in their use, design, construction and operation, even if one tiny component of the larger system is superficially, nominally private.

[powder]

So I have stopped at a red light. No cars in front, none behind. None to the left or right either. I look around for the police, then look for a red light camera. I drive straight through. My passengers looks at me in horror. "I can't believe you just did that." I laugh at them, but feel a great deal of pity. Traffic lights have the computational ability of a toaster. I am a human, my senses serve me well. The power of my brain is unmatched by the worlds fastest supercomputer. I have had the ability to determine when it is safe to cross a road since I was 5.Damn right I won't take orders from a toaster.

 

Although I really get this perspective, I have changed my attitude in more recent years.  I used to be more defiant and challenging of stupid laws and their enforcers.  Now I have come to the place in my life where I understand that we live in a tyrannical authoritarian culture run by psychos, some of them in funny uniforms with guns and the ability to mess with my life and physical well-being.  Now I do what I am told, keep my head down, and say "yes sir."  There are other ways to work towards freedom that I prefer to look into.  

[cab21]

That is a change isolation -- the State has already situated all the roads, their type and design and locations, of all 4 million miles of them. Merely transferring control of the 4 million miles of State-designed, State-built roads doesn't, by itself, make America's land use system private.The State's roads are located where they are, and sized and designed that way, in order to service the current housing and commercial patterns, which are dictated by the State's comprehensive development plans.Getting into a debate over the system for maintaining the roads alone, without also addressing the entire system of State-mandated development restrictions and subsidies, is pointless.Your suggestion is like when the government contracts its jail-administration operations to contractors, and then calling it "privatized." No, jails are inherently Statist, in their use, design, construction and operation, even if one tiny component of the larger system is superficially, nominally private.

 

my post was meant to address the entire system of state mandated development regulations , ownership, subsidies.

 

all components private

 

what i was saying is that once all components are private, they still need to deal with or chance current infrastructure. the miles of road are still there, im not sure people would just destroy them and do something else, but they might

[dsayers]

As a courtesy to your passenger, you could ask them if they're OK with you working around the cause of the delay.

 

Unless my passenger was a pregnant woman, the delay would just be more quality time spent with somebody whose company I enjoy. Though it might make for an interesting conversation starter on the topic of traffic control.

[cobra2411]

Ohh... HOT topic for me... 

 

First, the state has agreed that we have a right to travel; including automobiles. They also say that rights can not be converted to a privilege for the purpose of issuing a license and charging a fee. That's supreme court case law that's never been challenged or overturned. You only need a license if you make money directly by using the roads - aka a taxi driver or package delivery driver. Anyway, I don't think anyone here will be surprised that the state doesn't even follow it's own laws... 

 

I ride a motorcycle and many times the smart lights don't work as there's not enough mass to activate them. What to do? Simple, if ever stopped for going through a light remember this line: "I felt the light was malfunctioning so I treated it as a stop sign and proceeded when it was safe to do so." 

 

I do run lights, speed, drive the wrong way down one way streets, etc. I'm doing it less and less because the state is hungry for money and eager to take it from wherever they can get it. I believe in safe and prudent driving and that we should all agree to follow the same basic rules for harmony on the road. You can not have an absolute set of rules however, because what's safe today on a sunny day with little traffic is completely unsafe tomorrow when it's raining and there's lots of traffic. The "rules" are simply suggestions and from there you base your behavior on the principal of safe and prudent actions. For example, when I have ample forward visibility I frequently drive in the middle of the road if there is no on coming traffic. It gives me the most room to maneuver if there is a surprise like a deer running onto the roadway. As traffic approaches or other conditions change I return to my lane. 

 

I wish I could find it again, but there was a psychology paper that talked about how the proliferation of signs has changed how drivers interact. There is more of an us against them attitude now. The sign says I can do this so piss off! Also there's a numbing affect where you begin to rely on the signs and technology to keep you safe. Here in the snow belt there are tons of accidents from people doing the speed limit relying on their car's all wheel drive, traction control and anti-lock brakes to save them. You usually find those idiots in the ditch. Sometimes dead. A few years ago a jeep rammed a plow truck on the highway from behind. The jeep was estimated at 55mph, the speed limit and the plow truck was doing 15mph. But but but, he was doing the speed limit and he had 4wd and anti-lock brakes! Yawn... 

 

It's a giant revenue scheme. The PA state police where the first state police in the US and they were formed under the department of revenue. That should tell you everything you want to know right there. They sell the idea of police issuing tickets as "public safety". However, they frequently offer deals where you pay the fine but there are no points. If it's about safety wouldn't you want an accurate record of people's driving history? Wouldn't the "deal" be a reduction in the fine, but an accurate reporting of your driving history? Then there's the real idiotic stuff like the fact in PA you can be fined for not wearing a seat belt, but there is no helmet law. They actually repealed the helmet law around the same time they enacted a seat belt law. It's for your safety you know... 

 

I know, all the statists are thinking "How can we drive without government, police, traffic lights, etc???"

 

Take a look at this from Ethiopia.

 

 

Looks like sweet, beautiful anarchy right there baby!

 

It's funny, I had learned about the right to travel and the scam that is the motor vehicle code long before I was an anarchist. It takes some rethinking - ok, a lot of rethinking and yet I still this "that idiot should get a ticket..." It's hard to let go, but what I realized is that I'm not bothered that some idiot broke a traffic law, it's that they were simply rude and ignorant. Take for example a power outage where you have a main road and a cross street with a traffic light. The light isn't working, but normally would be. The drivers on the main road speed through the intersection like it's their right. Very few will stop and follow the rules. I get pissed not because they're breaking the rules but because it's ignorant to the other drivers on the road. 

 

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox for now... 

[cab21]

so the wikipedia says ethiopia has  11 666.7* fatalities per 100k motor vehicles and that the usa has 15 per 100k motor vehicles

[Magnus]

Looks like sweet, beautiful anarchy right there baby!

 

 

That's insane -- without long traffic lights, when are drivers supposed to have the time to check their smartphones for recent texts or emails?

[cobra2411]

Yeah, it is a bit extreme and I don't think we need to go that far, but it does show that without traffic signs/signals things to get along and people try to not hit each other. 

[James Dean]

Yeah, people would always talk about the "rules of the road" like there was this book somewhere that contained all these "rules" ... but really I can think of only one rule for driving... don't crash. If everyone just tried their hardest not to crash, I don't think there would be too many accidents; just like in economics, everyone acting in their self interest.

[...]

.

[cobra2411]

Yeah, people would always talk about the "rules of the road" like there was this book somewhere that contained all these "rules" ... but really I can think of only one rule for driving... don't crash. If everyone just tried their hardest not to crash, I don't think there would be too many accidents; just like in economics, everyone acting in their self interest.

There is a book... http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/drivers_manual/pa_driversman.shtml

 

Don't crash is easier to do when everyone is on the same page. So simple things like everyone driving on the same side of the road help. As do rules about red, yellow and green lights. I view the "rules" as more of suggestions - it makes it easier for me to follow them. While the state might disagree, I have supreme court case law that supports my belief that I can do whatever I want, whenever I want on the road as long as I don't place anyone in immediate harm or that I don't actually harm anyone. I follow them because I don't want to feed the state and I also don't want to crash. 

 

I dropped out of driving school some years ago. I found it very hard to learn to drive and learn all the rules in the traffic book at the same time. Bureaucracy by different laws certainly wasn't the only case why I dropped the whole thing but it's completely different to drive the car, learn how to observe the traffic while driving a vehicle that's new to you, and then mixing all the new stuff to go under some mindless rules. Mindless, because in using the vehicle in the traffic they're completely useless and only disturb doing the thing itself.

They've certainly gone overboard IMO with the "rules". I never had time for things like "don't park 15 feet from a stop sign" and stuff like that. When I was visiting my father I got into a major argument with a cop because I had parked the wrong way - I was facing traffic. I informed him that here in Philly they park in the middle of the street, facing both directions. Too bad it was before Google maps... Put Broad Street and Passyunk Avenue, Philadelphia Pa into Google maps and look up and down Broad St. That's valid parking.

 

I drove my first car at 11, went on mini road trips at 13 and got my license without much effort at 16. My problem was all the technical stuff about parking and what not. The useless stuff IMO. Then there's the stupid stuff, like how they'll let you take the whole test without your seatbelt and fail you simply because you didn't put on your seatbelt. When I took my test, in the snow BTW, the officer told me I passed and said to pull directly up to the building. The problem was, there was a stop sign in between and if you ran it, you failed. I know people who've done that and he even told me, after I stopped, "good, you passed the last part". 

 

For me, getting a motorcycle made me a better driver as it taught me to be much more aware of my surroundings and to try harder to predict the intentions of the other drivers. I've joked many times that drivers should be made to drive a motorcycle or scooter one day a year in normal traffic... It really goes toward James' idea of "don't crash"...

[manormachine]

I think on private roads there would be more of a warning system and common law or traffic rules on others.  In rural areas, I just want to know if anything is coming the other way, in higher and higher traffic conditions the amount of cooperation and information I want would increase.  I can only guess what the condition and types of travel would exist if we had had true property rights in the last century.  Maybe farmers would have invented personal jetpacks and never given up useable farm lands that are now millions of miles of mostly crappy roads.  Maybe private schools would have invented the internet so kids could stay home with their families.  I also think you can't live life without running a few red lights.