🚀 go-pugleaf

One of the really tough realities of DC is that its population is very
international. Some, who come from Europe already come here with good
driving discipline, while many from around the world do not. So until
you stop foreigners from coming here, tough laws in the DC area will
not do that much. (Of course, I am not suggesting that we stop
foreigners from coming here, but that you get in touch with reality.)

Furthermore, when laws just get "tough"  without real justification,
there is enough resentment and backlash that the majority just scoff
the laws. For example, I know a stretch of interstate that has a
"tough" 55 mph limit, but clearly 90 percent drive 70-80 mph on this
stretch, depending on the day of the week and if its rush hour or not.
The reason is obvious. The road is much safer than the speed limit,
and the majority feel that way, and so resent it and scoff the law.

Despite having said this, I concur with tough drunk driving laws, but
keep in mind that in the process of attempting to save lives, one can
destroy the "quality of life" if driving laws were so tough that
people cannot drink in moderation and still drive. In otherwords,
what's the point in saving lives, if we take away the joy of living?

I also concur with 100% seat belt use, no exceptions and stict fines,
since the lack of seat belt use drives up insurance costs for everyone
else, not to mention, saves lives. Seat belt use does not impose on
the "quality of life", since one can even slip on their belt while
just starting out, if not while waiting a few secibds for their engine
to warm up and the oil to be circulating properly.

As for graduated restrictions for teens, it helps a bit, but not that
much since the real problem, "inexperience" is a problem whether
people start driving at age 16, 21 or even 30. Inexperience is at
least 95% of the problem for teens, while only 5% is attitude.
So graduated restrictions does not do that much.


"Ken M." <poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>States Get Graded on Traffic Safety 
>California, D.C. Top List; Montana Rated Last 
>
>Dec. 22, 2000 
>
>By Joe Beaird 
>
>ARLINGTON, Va. (APBnews.com) -- A new study ranks
>California's traffic safety laws the strictest of any state,
>while Montana's laws rate the weakest. 
>
>The Arlington-based Insurance Institute for Highway
>Safety looked at all 50 states and the District of
>Columbia to see which had enacted laws that have
>been shown to promote safer driving behavior and
>reduce the number of crash deaths and injuries. 
>
>"Clearly, some states do a better job than others of
>getting good traffic safety laws on the books," said the
>institute's senior vice president, Allan Williams. 
>
>States were graded from "good" to "poor" in six
>categories. California collected good ratings in every
>category while the District of Columbia scored "good" in
>five. Montana rated "poor" in four categories and
>"marginal" in two others. The study, released earlier this
>week, looked only at the laws, not how well they have
>been enforced. 
>
>Tough measures lauded 
>
>Some of the key laws thought to improve traffic safety
>include tougher anti-drunken driving measures such as
>immediate driver's license suspensions and making 0.08
>percent the legal blood-alcohol limit; vigorous seat belt
>and child safety seat law enforcement; requiring all
>motorcyclists to wear helmets; and using cameras to spot
>drivers who run red lights. 
>
>Another law the study looked at is a so-called graduated 
>licensing system in which teenage drivers face restrictions 
>on their driving privileges, such as not getting behind the 
>wheel at night or with numerous passengers, during their first 
>year or more on the road. California was the first state in 
>the nation to enact a graduated license system. 
>
>"California is ahead of the crowd in getting some of the 
>best laws," said Susan Ferguson, the safety institute's 
>senior vice president for research. 
>
>Official defends Montana record 
>
>The Montana Department of Transportation supports many 
>of the traffic safety initiatives cited in the study, but 
>state lawmakers have resisted stricter measures. The state 
>has a history of leaving traffic safety up to individual 
>drivers. Until 1999, no daytime speed limit was enforced 
>on Montana highways, Williams said. 
>
>"We're very independent; we don't like having laws crammed 
>down our throats," said Jack Williams, the research and 
>evaluation supervisor for the Montana Department of 
>Transportation. "If you look at the laws, we're not that 
>good. But if you look at the results, we're fair -- I don't 
>feel like it's an unsafe state." 
>
>Differing laws 
>
>Traffic safety laws vary widely from state to state, the 
>study makes clear. For instance, while every state but New 
>Hampshire has a law requiring that motorists and passengers 
>wear seat belts, only 17 states and the District of Columbia 
>let police stop drivers solely for not wearing their belts. 
>Other states require police to cite people for seat belt 
>offenses only after they have been pulled over for some 
>other offense. 
>
>Prior studies have shown that "you boost seat belt use by 
>12 or 13 percent by just making it a primary offense" for 
>which you can be pulled over, said Liz Neblett, a public 
>information officer for the National Highway Traffic 
>Safety Administration. 
>
>The NHTSA, while leaving traffic safety laws to the 
>discretion of the states, praises tough seat belt 
>enforcement, a 0.08 blood-alcohol limit and graduated 
>driver's license restrictions. 
>
>The Insurance Institute plans to conduct its study 
>again next year to see if states implement new traffic 
>safety measures. 
>
>"The goal is to get states to look at the laws they have 
>and consider making some changes," Ferguson said.
>=====================================
>Read the whole article at:
>http://www.apbnews.com/newscenter/breakingnews/2000/12/22/traffic1222_01.html