🚀 go-pugleaf

On 19 Nov 1998 10:43:51 GMT, Rahul Dhesi <c.c.eiftj@22.usenet.us.com> wrote:
>In <slrn757m1i.15r.joel-garry@home.com> joel-garry@nospam.home.com (Joel Garry) writes:
>
>[ trying to define "reckless driving" in a way suitable for
>inclusion in the California Vehicle Code ]
>
>>>>It's inherently a judgement call.
>>>
>>>This will not suffice for the purposes of the criminal justice system.
>>>It makes the police officer judge and jury.
>
>>Tell it to the judge.
>
>On the one hand, you want to not have limits on speed or rate of lane
>changes, because you don't think they are good indicators of lack of
>safety in driving.  On the other hand you also are not able to provide a
>good substitute for inclusion in the CVC.  I personally think we need
>either the one or the other.

There already are more than enough laws covering these issues.  It is to
the point of conflicting laws already.  The issue should be how to conform
behavior outside of the CVC.  When people start perceiving the laws as overly 
restrictive or overly arbitrary, their behavior changes in ways not intended
by the laws.   Just making a law doesn't make people drive safer - in fact,
it may have the opposite effect as some people obey it and some blow it
off, creating additional risk in the differential.

>
>Did you want to reduce the CVC to a series of clauses essentially saying
>'judgement call'?

Well, it would be nice to be rid of many arbitrary infractions, but it is
probably too late for that.

>-- 
>Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@spams.r.us.com>
>a2i communications, a quality ISP
>    "Any idiot can avoid automobile accidents that are his own fault.  It
>     takes skill to avoid accidents that are the *other* person's fault."

jg
-- 
These opinions are my own. 
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel_garry@compuserve.nospam.com  Available for Oracle DBA work.