Police should be more reasonable for traffic/ speeding violations.
Debate Rounds (3)
I also see a difference in the definition of breaking the law. I consider breaking the law to mean that a person consciously breaks the law. Like in my 80 in a 55 example. Not just accidently going to fast but still being safe. Like in my 65 in a 55 example.
Start your debate in round one.
Laws and regulations are set up as a maximum of the legal systems tolerance for acts they see as harmful to you and the people around you. If the state decides that the maximum you can drive is 55 then you are obligated by the agreement you had when you signed for your license to follow the laws. I can tell you when the law was made to set the speed limit there was at least some research done about the highway. How hilly it was, how many turns there was, how the sun shines on the road in dusk (which is the time the most accidents happen). They took this all into consideration to set the maximum speed. This means that it is the max of how fast the state feels it can let people drive with them still being safe.
The police officer that pulls people over for speeding because it is there job, they don"t just pull people over because they can, it is because they are obligated to. To comment on the "police not watching what the traffic is doing or how many cars are out there" it doesn"t matter what the traffic is doing. What if you came out of a curve going 7 miles above the speed limit and saw another car coming that was going to have a collision with you; you did not have enough time to move out of the way. No one was killed and you were not hurt, but the other driver has injuries that put them into the hospital. You are to blame even if the speeding was not the cause of the accident and are legally obligated to pay for the medical bills. The speed limit is there to protect you from this situation and other drivers also.
Also if the police let the speeding of 10 miles an hour go by without a ticket then where do they stop. Do they let this person speed because to was a sunny day and there was no cars around, or do they not because it is deer season and is more dangerous during this time of year. Do they let this man speed because he looks to be a safe driver, or do they not let him speed because there is a lot of traffic? The speed limit allows police not to have to make such decisions that could jeopardize them legally or morally.
Let us move from speed onto stop signs. For many people, it takes a second to look both ways and see that it is clear. They do not need to stop. Especially if it is at midnight and there are obviously no cars coming. The cops still pull you over, but you were absolutely no threat to anyone.
Now, going back to speed, I would like to bring up the Smith System. The Smith System is commonly used by commercail drivers and is regarded highly for its safety. The Smith System NEVER says to go the speed limit. But how can a system that tells drivers not to go the speed limit possibly be safe? It tells people to go the flow of traffic. Drivers who go the speed limit, particularly on interstates, are often at a greater threat because people constantly try to pass them. The Smith System teaches drivers to go the flow of traffic. However, police will still pull people over for going the flow of traffic, the right way to drive according to the safe Smith System. People get tickets for driving safely. This is just a lazy cop trying to meet his quota.
For the record, the person driving in the wrong lane would be held liable. Only if it is your fault will your speed be blamed.
Cops should only pull people over for aggressive and reckless driving. Not for something as accidental as speeding. Especially considering that I have seen cops going at least 70 in a 55, and they had no lights on.
People who don"t stop at stop signs start to get complacent and not watch things around them with as much intention as they would with a stop. You may look both ways when crossing, but you have to ask yourself, are you actually looking? Or, are you just going through the motions?
During midnight, driving can be more dangerous than you think it can be. If you get into a mindset of "I don"t believe that anyone is coming because I almost never see anyone during that time of night" can be the reason for many night time accidents. Also, one of the main reasons experienced drivers get into accidents is because they become comfortable with situations, such as driving at midnight.
I have heard of the phrase "Go with the flow of traffic" and I agree with the idea that everyone going the same pace is safer than one car going slower and interrupting the flow. But, if everyone was following all the rules, and everyone was going the correct speed then going the flow of the traffic would not only be safe, but would be legal. I understand that this situation is unrealistic, but one must be responsible for their choices and going over the speed limit is still illegal and is still punishable by a ticket that the "messenger" of the law is entitled to follow.
My, situation with the car accident was misleading. All I meant was that if there is an accident with no apparent person at fault, then it will be blamed on the person speeding. Also, whatever police you saw going 70 was breaking the law, but that is a different point to discuss.
2. It is not the police's job to keep you safe(this was an actual supreme court case)
3. Your entire argument is based on the few drivers who are irresponsible. If a cop sees someone driving aggressively, failing to maintain their lane, or turning out in front of people, they should pull them over. This debate is about not ticketing those who may break the law, but are not posing in type of danger to someone.
4. Your argument of going through the motions and just looking instead of really looking has no proof to it. If I see headlights, I will wait for them to pass, simple as that.
5. You have a utopian driving view. You want everyone to obey the law. In reality, those who are simply driving safely, keeping with the flow, get tickets everyday. Those same people go the speed limit in the future, and get ran off the road. I know people who have actually had this problem.
6. If the following the law proves to be dangerous, do not follow the law. If you can drive safely and reasonably without following the law to a T, do it.
7. My point with the cop was really that it would have been safe to go sixty or seventy on that road. The cop did it, why are regular drivers not capable of doing it. Cops are supposed to "lead by example" aren't they?
8. The cop may not pass the law, but he or she enforces it. A cop should pull someone over and tell them that they are behaving dangerously, have a tail light out, or failing to maintain their lane. A cop should not ticket them for it.
9. If a person is driving down the road and sees a cop, they immediately feel as if they are doing something wrong and get scared. Police are supposed to be nice and friendly, not make us feel as if they are the Gestapo or something.
Spirit-bear forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.