There’s a reform of traffic laws where I live. A major talking point is that the penalties for offences will follow a scaling system, where if you keep committing them, the penalty increases. Penalties scale based on the severity of the crime. For example, parking on an illegal spot where you block public transport will net you a 350€ fine plus confiscation of your license for 70 days. Meanwhile, driving with over 1.1 g/l of alcohol in your blood will result in a 1200€ fine, losing your license for 180 days, plus 2 months to 5 years of prison time. If you get caught for that a second time, you lose your license for 7 years, and 10 more years if you do it a third time.

Some listed offences:

  • Not respecting a stop sign

  • Driving 50km/h over the limit

  • Parking on a spot reserved for people with special needs

  • Driving on a bus lane

  • Using your phone while driving

  • Driving under the influence (higher BAC leads to a higher fine)

  • Driving without a seat belt (cars) or helmet (motorcycles)

Also, the default speed limit in residential areas will decrease to 30 km/h from 50 km/h, except in roads with at least two lanes per direction (or two lanes for one-way streets).

Yesterday, while walking, I saw a poster from an anarchist group bashing these reforms, saying that the new traffic laws are only focused on penalties and that the police will only enforce them on poor people. I will also quote one of their closing statements: “it’s true that if the traffic laws were to be enforced for even some hours, cities would ‘freeze’”

I hadn’t given much thought to the changes to the laws, with my general idea being that they were a good change, but the poster got me thinking. Of course, penalties like these will disproportionately target poor people. Also, as leftists, we should be weary of excessively penalizing some crimes, focusing on the root cause instead. Year-long sentences for stealing food will not decrease similar thefts, but feeding people will.

However, there are no material conditions that cause someone to ignore a stop sign, scroll TikTok while waiting for the traffic lights, speak on the phone while driving or driving without a seat belt. At best you can make contrived arguments about people being on a rush to get to their jobs, but that’s what it is; a contrived argument that probably applies to less than 1% of the offenses.

Drunk driving is also a big issue. I acknowledge that some people feel forced to do it because of the lack of good nightly public transport. However, no one is forcing them to drink over the limit and drive back, or stay up so late that they can’t catch public transport on their way home, or not have a designated driver. Is wanting to have fun in a specific way a valid argument for risking your life, and worse, risking the life of other innocent bystanders?

Finally, their closing statement makes them sound like people that break traffic laws because “they know better” or “it’s better this way” even when it’s not and they’re excessively selfish. It feels weird to side with the increased penalties and surveillance, but I’ve come to believe it is a broken clock moment.

What do you think?

  • amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml
    8·
    5 days ago

    One of the first things I always consider with a law, or potential law, is “how hard is this to enforce and what would be likely to occur in order to enforce it?” I learned it from abortion laws because it’s important for swaying people who are morally opposed to abortion, but can still see that laws against abortion directly harm women’s health overall.

    With driving under the influence, my understanding is one method is setting up checkpoints. Considering how deadly serious the consequences of drunk driving can be for everyone on the road, this seems fair, provided there’s no racial profiling or the like going on.

    Some of the rest of it I assume can be caught with cameras, like at certain stop signs. However, might be tricky depending on the kind of road and how it tends to be, and whether the offense is considered to be not stopping at all or also slowing and continuing. To be clear, I think in 99% of cases, the safe thing to do is always to stop completely as you are supposed to. There can be edge cases where there is no traffic anyway and the design of the road is such that slowing down a lot gives you plenty of time to check. I don’t condone driving based on what you personally think will be safe, but the point is that it edges onto difference of letter of the law vs. preventing harm and if this is enforced purely on letter of the law without any consideration of harm done or lack of harm done, that can be a problem.

    The using your phone, I’m not sure how they’d catch that. Maybe with certain cameras? I don’t know. It is probably about on par with drunk driving in terms of danger to everyone on the road, but it may be hard to enforce unless someone gets in an accident and there is evidence they were on their phone.

    I don’t want to go through all of them, but those are some thoughts. Another thing to consider is, what is the enforcement like, historically, where you live. Is there a history of racial profiling, for example? Or of poor people being targeted? Is that where these anarchists are coming from?

    The other thing about poor vs. not, is not so much about who is targeted and whether it’s legit as it is, what the penalty means for them. A poor person loses a lot more from a fine, they lose a lot more if they lose their main means of getting around. A rich person can just take the fine and (if they are losing their license too) hire someone to drive them around. In this context, the road is arguably safer either way, if the offense was a danger to others, but the end result is class stratified. The rich person will not be much inconvenienced by it, but the poor person’s life could be made significantly worse by it.