"Public Good" , or "Tyranny"?

Format for printing
Submitted by adam ricketson on Sat, 2009-06-13 08:32.

Are speed limits a public good, or just a form of tyranny? Apparently, the answer depends on who you ask. I view speed limits from within the public goods paradigm -- that there is a conflict between the driver's desire for rapid transportation (or power tripping) and the general public's desire to avoid high-speed collisions. However, others seem to disagree and even consider it to be an altruistic act to undermine the enforcement of speed limits...implying that they view speed limits as a form of tyranny.

In this second category are the drivers who map out speed traps for Trapster. Trapster is part of the newest generation of Internet applications that rely on a community of volunteers to construct a map of speed traps for the benefit of the community of users. As far as I am aware, Trapster and similar systems provide no rewards to users who contribute information. This behavior seems to be driven by anti-authoritarian sentiments among the contributors ("F**k the police!") or perhaps by a more focused opposition to speed limits.

This issue raises a fundamental problem in the "public goods" justification for governmental action: if people disagree about whether the "public good" is actually good, then can it legitimately be considered a public good? At what point does it simply become tyranny? Some Georgists have argued that community collection of land rents would address this problem by dispersing the net value of the "public good" evenly among all citizens. I don't follow this line of thought, and am driven towards more traditional libertarian responses, either by devolving governmental power to the smallest geographic level and allowing citizens to "vote with their feet", or limiting governmental action to areas where that action is supported by almost all of the people in the jurisdiction.

 

adam ricketson's blog »

55 Speed Limits...

#7194 On Sun, 2009 06 14 06:59 ka1igu1a said,

I believe the "55 mile speed" federal limit originated from the Carter Admin as a result of high oil prices during the 70s(a conservation effort); originally it wasn't a public safety as "a public good issue." It stuck around, even when oil prices subsequently declined, because it was a good way for States to extract revenue(from aggressive enforcement). Later, groups like MADD succeeded to increase "road collectivization" as means to enforce their alcohol prohibitionist agenda. And road collectivization proved convenient in enforcing "drug prohibition." Of course, "safety studies" came into play as means to justify this crap...

login or register to post comments

part of a larger system of enforcement

#7208 On Sun, 2009 06 28 21:06 adam ricketson said,

Any social policy is bound to be justified by reasons that are as diverse as the members of society. Even an individual can see multiple benefits to a decision, which add together to offset the costs of the decisions.

If the public safety benefits are not strong enough to justify strict speed limits in themselves, then the legitimacy of enforcement rests on the legitimacy of the additional motivations for the enforcement, which all seem to be less clearly legitimate.

These additional motivations seem to be:

1) Economic management

2) State revenue generation

3)  Producing citizen-police interaction to aid in the enforcement of victimless crime laws.

(I'm basically just restating what you wrote)

login or register to post comments

Shifting rationale

#7196 On Sun, 2009 06 14 16:08 b psycho said,
The funny thing about speed limits is the way they're enforced deliberately undermines the public good argument. If it's recognized as so important, then how come there's intentional speed trap areas & so much discretion concerning who gets pulled over? The mood of local cops is the only difference between being able to go 70 in a 55 w/ no big deal & being pulled over once you hit 60. Not that I want to do Mach 2 in my car or anything, but is it any wonder people react against them when they're staring at a textbook case of How Not to Enforce Laws?
 
Besides, if knowing ahead of time that a speed trap is coming means you slow down, then what's the problem w/ sharing them?
 
BTW: I remember as a kid asking why they bothered to show so many speeds you legally can't go on speedometers. Never did get an answer...
login or register to post comments

enforcement of speed limits

#7204 On Sun, 2009 06 28 14:18 adam ricketson said,

That's a good point on how arbitrary enforcement undermines public respect for the law.

However, I think that there is a legitimate law enforcement rationale for speed traps (i.e. unexpected enforcement). If drivers don't know where the trap is, then they have incentive to always stay below the speed limit. If they know where the trap is (and when it is active), then they only need to slow down in the vicinity of the trap (when it is actually active) and can speed elsewhere.

Are you saying that this rationale is undermined by "targeted enforcement areas"? If so, I think the rationale is only partially mitigated by such focusing of enforcement effort -- both because drivers still don't know if the speed limit is being enforced at any particular moment, and because it only slightly reduces the amount of enforcement in other zones (i.e. drivers still can't drive with the knowledge that the law will not be enforced where they are).

login or register to post comments

Not the What, the Why

#7205 On Sun, 2009 06 28 14:58 b psycho said,

In many places speed traps are openly described as intended to raise money rather than to actually promote safety. I've seen spots myself where the speed goes from 60 to 35 & you can barely see the sign because there's an overgrown bush in front of it.

login or register to post comments

sudden changes in the speed limit

#7206 On Sun, 2009 06 28 20:56 adam ricketson said,

In my experience, that sort of speed trap is used by small towns that receive a lot of thru-traffic (often between a city and the beach). As I understand these policies, they are intended to raise revenues from people who 1) don't vote in that municipality, and 2) won't show up to contest the fine in court.

While that's exploitative, it's a small part of the speed-limit system in my experience. I've always lived in large metropolitan areas where speed traps consist of a cop car set up behind a tree or just past a curve in the road. Sometimes the cops set up marked cars with dummies in them just to remind drivers of the risk of being caught--suggesting that they really are focused on getting people to slow down.

The most "abusive" situation that I've encountered in day-to-day traffic is the rumor that cops have quotas for the number of tickets that they have to give out, so they will apply more stringent standards at the end of the month (or whenever their "productivity" is about to be evaluated).

login or register to post comments

thanks for the feedback

#7207 On Sun, 2009 06 28 20:58 adam ricketson said,

anyway, thanks for pointing out why people would view speed traps as exploitative.

login or register to post comments