I’m not suggesting that the moral character of the individual is in any way relevant here, and I’m glad driver’s licenses are not issued or revoked on that basis. This is instead a straightforward question of public safety - anyone who consistently demonstrates that they are unable or unwilling to safely operate a motor vehicle on public roads according to the clearly posted and non-negotiable law should not permitted to risk the lives of others, and will be subject to escalating sanctions in order to accomplish that. There is definitely room for improvement in the system but it is fundamentally reasonable and sound. Yes, essentially anyone who lives in Toronto can get by without a car. Even if someone is severely physically disabled and confined to a wheelchair they can still use not only the fully accessible bus and subway system but also a separate disabled-specific transit system that provides door-to-door service using the same fee scale as the broader system. Toronto may not be a perfect utopia but it has gotten pretty close to solving this particular problem.
anyone who consistently demonstrates that they are unable or unwilling to [follow] the clearly posted and non-negotiable law
This right here is a moral argument. You’re suggesting that people are repeatedly making a conscious decision to “break the law”.
The entire concept around “if only they just didn’t choose to break the law” is a moral argument that places sole blame onto the individual for externalities that occurred as a result of the punitive nature of modern justice systems because they are based on the assumption that the individual “deserved to be punished because they are a ‘bad person’ for repeatedly ‘breaking the law’, so the consequences are their fault” instead of taking into account the material circumstances, understanding that humans are fallible creatures who unconsciously make mistakes, and not assign blame or punishment as it is inefficient at repressive, especially when those externalities have far reaching consequences for those of lesser means resulting in the punishment being unfairly weighted based on financial status. Instead, we need to improve our roadways to influence drivers through affecting the material conditions directly at the root cause.
And cool, that’s your anecdotal take on Toronto and a single service exclusive to disabled people. What about non disabled people? They exist, in Toronto, you can go read those anecdotal accounts in the FuckCars sub on Reddit who speak about how car-centric areas of Toronto still are. Their anecdotal accounts are just as valid as yours. You simply assume that there are no situations that would be limiting to someone. I am making the opposite assumptions.
I emphatically disagree that it is “fundamentally reasonable and sound”. I am fundamentally opposed to this kind of justice system and believe it to be systemically flawed and oppressive.
Though this is getting into the larger topic about the validity of hierarchical, punitive justice systems. The entire point is cities need to stop relying on ineffectual and harmful stop-gap methods and instead improve the damn urban design which is proven to be leagues more effective without the systemically harmful side effects.
This right here is a moral argument. You’re suggesting that people are repeatedly making a conscious decision to “break the law”.
Well, that’s exactly the case. People have speedometers in their cars and speed limits are posted in visible places. If someone is incapable of seeing the speed limit or the speedometer or someone is incapable of comparing one to the other, then they are not fit enough to drive.
In my area they are extensively using a system called “section control”, where cameras take a picture of your license place when you enter and exit a certain section, and from the time it took you to get from A to B they calculate your average speed. That way speeders are caught at a rate of almost 100%. And suddenly everyone manages to drive at a fair margin below the speed limit.
Because it’s a concious decision to break the law and drive too fast. And if people choose to do so, they should expect to be fined and shouldn’t expect compassion.
I have never gotten a single speeding ticket in the last 17 years since I have a license.
Not one.
Speeding is a choice. If you can’t stay below the speed limit, you are too incompetent to drive and a danger to yourself and everyone else on the road.
It is not injust to stop you from endangering other people with your gross incompetence.
Edit: Let’s put this differently: Are you seriously argueing that you are incapable of controlling the speed of your car and I should feel sorry for you for that reason?
You are not a victim if you “absentmindedly speed”, same as you are not a victim if you “absentmindedly drift into opposing traffic” or “absentmindedly drive up the highway in the wrong direction”.
Driving absentmindedly means you are not paying attention while operating a multi-ton vehicle which moves with a murderous amount of speed. That is not normal and no, you are not a victim for doing so, no matter how sad and poor you feel about the fact that you are not fit to drive.
Stop feeling like a victim from driving dangerously. If you are not capable to focus on operating your vehicle you are not fit to drive. You are a danger to yourself and others and you should not drive.
And no, not being in control of the speed of your vehicle is not normal and it is not ok.
And you will not get pitty points if the “evil system” punishes you poor little bunny for endangering others because watching your speed is too much to handle for you.
There’s nothing immoral about you being incapable of driving. There’s something incredibly immoral about you choosing to get behind the wheel regardless.
I’m not suggesting that the moral character of the individual is in any way relevant here, and I’m glad driver’s licenses are not issued or revoked on that basis. This is instead a straightforward question of public safety - anyone who consistently demonstrates that they are unable or unwilling to safely operate a motor vehicle on public roads according to the clearly posted and non-negotiable law should not permitted to risk the lives of others, and will be subject to escalating sanctions in order to accomplish that. There is definitely room for improvement in the system but it is fundamentally reasonable and sound. Yes, essentially anyone who lives in Toronto can get by without a car. Even if someone is severely physically disabled and confined to a wheelchair they can still use not only the fully accessible bus and subway system but also a separate disabled-specific transit system that provides door-to-door service using the same fee scale as the broader system. Toronto may not be a perfect utopia but it has gotten pretty close to solving this particular problem.
This right here is a moral argument. You’re suggesting that people are repeatedly making a conscious decision to “break the law”.
The entire concept around “if only they just didn’t choose to break the law” is a moral argument that places sole blame onto the individual for externalities that occurred as a result of the punitive nature of modern justice systems because they are based on the assumption that the individual “deserved to be punished because they are a ‘bad person’ for repeatedly ‘breaking the law’, so the consequences are their fault” instead of taking into account the material circumstances, understanding that humans are fallible creatures who unconsciously make mistakes, and not assign blame or punishment as it is inefficient at repressive, especially when those externalities have far reaching consequences for those of lesser means resulting in the punishment being unfairly weighted based on financial status. Instead, we need to improve our roadways to influence drivers through affecting the material conditions directly at the root cause.
And cool, that’s your anecdotal take on Toronto and a single service exclusive to disabled people. What about non disabled people? They exist, in Toronto, you can go read those anecdotal accounts in the FuckCars sub on Reddit who speak about how car-centric areas of Toronto still are. Their anecdotal accounts are just as valid as yours. You simply assume that there are no situations that would be limiting to someone. I am making the opposite assumptions.
I emphatically disagree that it is “fundamentally reasonable and sound”. I am fundamentally opposed to this kind of justice system and believe it to be systemically flawed and oppressive. Though this is getting into the larger topic about the validity of hierarchical, punitive justice systems. The entire point is cities need to stop relying on ineffectual and harmful stop-gap methods and instead improve the damn urban design which is proven to be leagues more effective without the systemically harmful side effects.
Well, that’s exactly the case. People have speedometers in their cars and speed limits are posted in visible places. If someone is incapable of seeing the speed limit or the speedometer or someone is incapable of comparing one to the other, then they are not fit enough to drive.
In my area they are extensively using a system called “section control”, where cameras take a picture of your license place when you enter and exit a certain section, and from the time it took you to get from A to B they calculate your average speed. That way speeders are caught at a rate of almost 100%. And suddenly everyone manages to drive at a fair margin below the speed limit.
Because it’s a concious decision to break the law and drive too fast. And if people choose to do so, they should expect to be fined and shouldn’t expect compassion.
Removed by mod
Nobody forces you to speed.
I have never gotten a single speeding ticket in the last 17 years since I have a license.
Not one.
Speeding is a choice. If you can’t stay below the speed limit, you are too incompetent to drive and a danger to yourself and everyone else on the road.
It is not injust to stop you from endangering other people with your gross incompetence.
Edit: Let’s put this differently: Are you seriously argueing that you are incapable of controlling the speed of your car and I should feel sorry for you for that reason?
Removed by mod
You are not a victim if you “absentmindedly speed”, same as you are not a victim if you “absentmindedly drift into opposing traffic” or “absentmindedly drive up the highway in the wrong direction”.
Driving absentmindedly means you are not paying attention while operating a multi-ton vehicle which moves with a murderous amount of speed. That is not normal and no, you are not a victim for doing so, no matter how sad and poor you feel about the fact that you are not fit to drive.
Stop feeling like a victim from driving dangerously. If you are not capable to focus on operating your vehicle you are not fit to drive. You are a danger to yourself and others and you should not drive.
And no, not being in control of the speed of your vehicle is not normal and it is not ok.
And you will not get pitty points if the “evil system” punishes you poor little bunny for endangering others because watching your speed is too much to handle for you.
There’s nothing immoral about you being incapable of driving. There’s something incredibly immoral about you choosing to get behind the wheel regardless.
Removed by mod
There is nothing deep about the fact that people who are too incompetent to drive safely should not be driving.