I don't like to insult people, so I don't think I could follow your advice.
Moreover, the few times I tried to directly engage with people parking in the bike lane, driving too fast, etc I was met with harsh, violent reactions. Not doing it anymore.
Btw, parking in dangerous spots, could be more than a "minor inconvenience" and cause serious accidents.
I understand that many people don't like being confrontational. Quick question though, If someone parks where they should not and there is an accident. Does the parking violator get punished fined etc. Yeah, he does. So whats the problem?
You could also get poked in the eye by someone giving directions. Should we make fines for that too?
My issue is this. Let's say I get a blowout in the middle of the night. No traffic, no cyclists. Some Karen comes running out of her apartment and takes a picture of my car in the bicycle lane while I am changing the tyre.
Now I am stuck with appeals and a mess of trying get a heartless, breathless institution off my back. I end up paying the fine just to get it over and done with.
I pay the bill and she collects her welfare check.
If you piss enough people off with dumb laws like this you end up having to ban political parties from participating in the democratic process. It ends badly.
Okay, hang on. Another try.
Human beings are infinitly complex in their choices and actions. Everytime a law is added to society you add an infinite number of ways the law could be misinterpreted and explioted.
Laywers love complexity because it gives them wiggle room. Engineers love efficiency meaning reductions in complexity. If you have a system that is irreducibly complex then you cut out the glut and mess and have smooth operation as far as human error or malfeasance is not introduced. I believe that it is better to have systems that help align human incentives as far as possible. Rational humans should take responsibility for their desires and circumstanced and not petition or lobby a higher power to brute force compliance onto a populace.
State intervention in affairs where there is no victim causes more harm than good. Hurt feelings or fear of confronting someone for inconvenience is not a matter requiring automation of state interference.
Then we might just as well be living in a mental institution.
OK, I understand your views, but I do not share them.
I do believe traffic laws are a necessity and, no matter how they can be misused and misinterpreted, the benefits of having robust regulations outweigh the risks.
I don't think human incentives alone are able to achieve road safety.
I do not want to expose myself to violence (it happened) because I just point out a dangerous situation. I do not like the jungle. Therefore, I do not see proper law enforcement as an interference with my freedom.
> Quick question though, If someone parks where they should not and there is an accident. Does the parking violator get punished fined etc. Yeah, he does. So whats the problem?
The problem is that the accident happened already! People might have been injured or killed. I'd like to prevent this by timely letting the police know there is a dangerous situation.
As absurd as it sounds, traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for children and young adults.
I do appreciate our exchanges, but here let's agree to disagree.
I do believe that enforceable roadside traffic laws may one day be a relic of a bygone age displaced by algorithmic math and common sense alignment of incentives. Accidental death will always exist in spite of these breakthroughs.
I see your point.
