Are laws, laws, if there is no enforcement?

[Wilbur ★]

?  

[jsharr ★]

No, laws must be enforced consistently and without any sort of prejudice for them to be effective.

[maddmaxx ★]

Depends on your life view.  IMO they matter.  The person who runs the stop sign at the bottom of my hill because there is almost never any traffic is building muscle memory that may make an oncoming car invisible someday.  Had they learned to follow the law, even without enforcement, the outcome could be different for a positive reason.

[Wilbur ★]

13 minutes ago, jsharr said:

No, laws must be enforced consistently and without any sort of prejudice for the to be effective.

What if it is a hot chick in a short skirt that was speeding?   

[Indy]

Yes, if they are on the book still, they are still a law.  Just because they are not enforced today, doesn't mean someone might not decide they should enforce them tomorrow.

[2Far ★]

No.

And I have the same discussion about safety rules & policies.

[JerrySTL ★]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

Yes, if they are on the book still, they are still a law.  Just because they are not enforced today, doesn't mean someone might not decide they should enforce them tomorrow.

There are so many laws on the books now we are all criminals whether we know it or not. That dilutes the rule of law. 

[maddmaxx ★]

5 minutes ago, Indy said:

Yes, if they are on the book still, they are still a law.  Just because they are not enforced today, doesn't mean someone might not decide they should enforce them tomorrow.

That could be interesting.  Until recently CT had on the books laws that made any sex other than missionary a crime.  Of course they were left over from Puritan days and no one paid any attention

However when in Nara Japan I learned of a case hinging on an old obsolete law.  Deer are considered sacred in Nara and killing one was a capital offense.  The case I head of was because a prosecutor was bringing to trial a man who hit a deer with his automobile when the deer ran in front of him.  The prosecutor was not stupid.  He was bring the case in an attempt to get the ancient law removed from the books.

[Indy]

Just now, JerrySTL said:

There are so many laws on the books now we are all criminals whether we know it or not. That dilutes the rule of law. 

Yeah, it's maddening.  I've long believed someone needs to go back and look at the laws on the books and clean them up.

It just takes the wrong person with authority and axe to grind to really screw people over with some of the things you can find.  Just never have and never will understand the reason for just letting old antiquated laws ride.

[12string]

Back in the 70's, when the national speed limit was set at 55, EVERYONE knew it was an unenforceable law.  Police made it quite clear that they would enforce speed limits as they saw appropriate.  

Quite a few socialogists warned that creating a traffic law that everyone intended to break regularly and with repercussion would create, after the 2 generation behavioral change period, a generation of drivers quite comfortable with breaking traffic laws.

Yeah, that's exactly what happened.  Traffic laws are mere suggestions anymore

[ChrisL]

47 minutes ago, wilbur said:

What if it is a hot chick in a short skirt that was speeding?   

I’d cite her.  I had a rule that I cited every smoking hot girl I pulled over. I figured they had gotten enough breaks in their life based on looks.

They are still laws even without enforcement. Most of us have a moral compass that guides us and we don’t need codified law to direct behavior but yet they are still there.    For example would you commit murder if you knew for sure you could get away with it?

[maddmaxx ★]

5 minutes ago, 12string said:

Back in the 70's, when the national speed limit was set at 55, EVERYONE knew it was an unenforceable law.  Police made it quite clear that they would enforce speed limits as they saw appropriate.  

Quite a few socialogists warned that creating a traffic law that everyone intended to break regularly and with repercussion would create, after the 2 generation behavioral change period, a generation of drivers quite comfortable with breaking traffic laws.

Yeah, that's exactly what happened.  Traffic laws are mere suggestions anymore

I think the culture of modern society played it's part too.  Aren't you smarter and better that the other drivers on the road?  I know I am.  

[maddmaxx ★]

1 minute ago, ChrisL said:

I’d cite her.  I had a rule that I cited every smoking hot girl I pulled over. I figured they had gotten enough breaks in their life based on looks.

They are still laws even without enforcement. Most of us have a moral compass that guides us and we don’t need codified law to direct behavior but yet they are still there.    For example would you commit murder if you knew for sure you could get away with it?

Don't ask tough questions so early in the day.

[Razors Edge ★]

16 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

For example would you commit murder if you knew for sure you could get away with it?

Sure. Why is that even a question????

[Road Runner]

By definition, yes.

[Indy]

56 minutes ago, ChrisL said:

For example would you commit murder if you knew for sure you could get away with it?

That depends on who you want me to kill.

 

And on a serious note, yes, and the body count would probably be high.  Now if there was a set limit, like hunting, I'd have to be selective, but would probably tag my yearly limit.

[Indy]

57 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

I think the culture of modern society played it's part too.  Aren't you smarter and better that the other drivers on the road?  I know I am.  

Considering the amount of people that fly by me, only for me to then drive by with out slowing down a bit at my customary just under 10mph over, yes, yes I am.

[maddmaxx ★]

40 minutes ago, Indy said:

Considering the amount of people that fly by me, only for me to then drive by with out slowing down a bit at my customary just under 10mph over, yes, yes I am.

And everyone else is certain of exactly the same about those around them.

[Indy]

1 minute ago, maddmaxx said:

And everyone else is certain of exactly the same about those around them.

And pretty much everyone else has also proven themselves to be idiots, so they would be wrong.

[Razors Edge ★]

13 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

And everyone else is certain of exactly the same about those around them.

...and why auto-pilot and self-driving cars can't arrive soon enough!

[maddmaxx ★]

5 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

...and why auto-pilot and self-driving cars can't arrive soon enough!

Then there will be idiot programmers.  Don't you wonder what version of windows programmer now works for Tesla?

[Razors Edge ★]

3 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Then there will be idiot programmers.  Don't you wonder what version of windows programmer now works for Tesla?

Meh.  30,000 deaths in the US, per year, in car accidents. Thousands of pedestrians killed. A thousand cyclists killed.

Those numbers will BLOW people's minds in a generation. It's gonna be a truly wondrous day when we can look back and show how far we have come.

[Indy]

14 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

...and why auto-pilot and self-driving cars can't arrive soon enough!

As an engineer, who has done software too, I will gladly keep driving myself.

[Razors Edge ★]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

As an engineer, who has done software too, I will gladly keep driving myself.

Nah, that's likely gonna be something you won't be doing in a decade or two.  It's gonna creep up on you and the next thing you know, you'll be relaxing in the passenger seat watching a movie or reading a book.

[Dottleshead ★]

7 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Then there will be idiot programmers.  Don't you wonder what version of windows programmer now works for Tesla?

I don't think it's the programmers.  I think it's the economics.  It's really hard to have poor design or to let bugs through if the environment is sound.  Bugs happen because costs are cut and lots of folks cut corners -- initially not in the name of quality but in finances -- which always effects quality. As for Mickeysoft, that's why others were arguing monopoly.  They could dish out shit because they had no pressure to improve their shit.

[Indy]

2 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

Meh.  30,000 deaths in the US, per year, in car accidents. Thousands of pedestrians killed. A thousand cyclists killed.

Those numbers will BLOW people's minds in a generation. It's gonna be a truly wondrous day when we can look back and show how far we have come.

We are still a long way, away.  Despite Musk's claims, we are no where near close to having a processor that can handle the number of real time inputs needed to really do self driving cars 100% effectively on every road in every condition.  Realistically, best case scenario would be limited to self driving on interstate where it is limited and controlled access.

 

And by the way, in the at large engineering community, Musk is looked at as a loud mouth blow hard.

[Dottleshead ★]

3 hours ago, jsharr said:

No, laws must be enforced consistently and without any sort of prejudice for them to be effective.

What about Jerry Jones law?

[maddmaxx ★]

2 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

Nah, that's likely gonna be something you won't be doing in a decade or two.  It's gonna creep up on you and the next thing you know, you'll be relaxing in the passenger seat watching a movie or reading a book.

I know it's something I won't be doing in a decade or two but that has little to do with my trust or distrust in the abilities of software programmers everywhere.  Don't you just hope that Boeing isn't involved in driverless cars though.

[Razors Edge ★]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

We are still a long way, away.  Despite Musk's claims, we are no where near close to having a processor that can handle the number of real time inputs needed to really do self driving cars 100% effectively on every road in every condition.  Realistically, best case scenario would be limited to self driving on interstate where it is limited and controlled access.

 

And by the way, in the at large engineering community, Musk is looked at as a loud mouth blow hard.

Considering we are already beyond the "best case scenario would be limited to self driving on interstate where it is limited and controlled access.", it seems hard to take the rest of your comments seriously

[Razors Edge ★]

Just now, maddmaxx said:

Don't you just hope that Boeing isn't involved in driverless cars though.

That might go with Dottie's comments about cutting corners & economics.  I think, realistically, Boeing has done a pretty good job so far flying folks around the world using lots of automation.

[jsharr ★]

2 minutes ago, Dottie said:

What about Jerry Jones law?

What happens in the Hooters / Twin Peaks / Mens Club / The Lodge bathroom stays in the Hooters / Twin Peaks / Mens Club / The Lodge bathroom?

or 
 

There are no rules once the helicopter is airborne and the coke is flowing?

[Indy]

1 minute ago, Razors Edge said:

Considering we are already beyond the "best case scenario would be limited to self driving on interstate where it is limited and controlled access.", it seems hard to take the rest of your comments seriously

No we are not, considering Tesla's have crashed on off ramps changing interstates.  Current systems still require a driver to be ready to take control at a moments notice, which is actually far more dangerous in my opinion as it's hard to sit for a long period of time doing nothing and still be engaged and ready to take over.  When you can 100% confidently let the car drive down the interstate with no concern and need for worrying about user intervention then we are there.

[Razors Edge ★]

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

it's hard to sit for a long period of time doing nothing and still be engaged and ready to take over

That's when you take your nap!

 

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

When you can 100% confidently let the car drive down the interstate with no concern and need for worrying about user intervention then we are there.

That's about a 10x higher standard than the current one for cars WITH drivers.  Jeebus.  Moving the goal posts?

[Indy]

1 minute ago, Razors Edge said:

That's when you take your nap!

 

That's about a 10x higher standard than the current one for cars WITH drivers.  Jeebus.  Moving the goal posts?

And that's the point, if you are going to do 100% self driving, it has to be better than humans.  If it's not significantly better, then it's not worth the cost.  These systems are not cheap, plus you have the liability issue because once you go 100% self driving, liability shifts from the operator to the manufacturer.

[Razors Edge ★]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

And that's the point, if you are going to do 100% self driving, it has to be better than humans.  If it's not significantly better, then it's not worth the cost.  These systems are not cheap, plus you have the liability issue because once you go 100% self driving, liability shifts from the operator to the manufacturer.

Most of these systems are already there in new cars as safety features.  It's not like there is any rush in the auto industry (or the consumer marketplace) to make cars LESS safe.  More tech is added to every iteration of a car, and the car you buy new today looks nothing like the car you bought a decade ago (safety tech-wise). 

It's a wave that is headed to shore. It will be arriving very shortly and we will adopt it and adapt to it.

Keep in mind, too, that regardless of where folks in your or my neck of the woods are moving currently, there's an additional ~7 billion folks elsewhere and in those pockets of population the change to full automation may/will pop up first, and then, like wildfire, it will spread. Software really doesn't sweat national, regional, or state borders.

[Indy]

3 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

Most of these systems are already there in new cars as safety features.  It's not like there is any rush in the auto industry (or the consumer marketplace) to make cars LESS safe.  More tech is added to every iteration of a car, and the car you buy new today looks nothing like the car you bought a decade ago (safety tech-wise). 

It's a wave that is headed to shore. It will be arriving very shortly and we will adopt it and adapt to it.

Keep in mind, too, that regardless of where folks in your or my neck of the woods are moving currently, there's an additional ~7 billion folks elsewhere and in those pockets of population the change to full automation may/will pop up first, and then, like wildfire, it will spread. Software really doesn't sweat national, regional, or state borders.

Yes, but the part you keep missing, they are far from fool proof and people thinking they are is why they keep killing people.  They are 100% dependent on a user taking over control at a moments notice when the system gets confused, and they do get confused often.

[Randomguy]

Laws are for the law-abiding. 

[Razors Edge ★]

17 minutes ago, Indy said:

Yes, but the part you keep missing, they are far from fool proof and people thinking they are is why they keep killing people.  They are 100% dependent on a user taking over control at a moments notice when the system gets confused, and they do get confused often.

Still not convinced that is an issue in anything more than the short term, and absolutely not a problem in the mid-to-long term.

I still remember maybe three or so years ago when folks just argued about electric cars being viable or reasonable.  This auto-pilot and driver-less stuff is just next up on the list. Tune in here in 2023 and see what the discussion is about.  Probably whether the Mr Fusion is too dangerous for everyday passenger use.

[maddmaxx ★]

58 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

That might go with Dottie's comments about cutting corners & economics.  I think, realistically, Boeing has done a pretty good job so far flying folks around the world using lots of automation.

You will be first in line for a 737 test flight then?

[maddmaxx ★]

14 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

Still not convinced that is an issue in anything more than the short term, and absolutely not a problem in the mid-to-long term.

I still remember maybe three or so years ago when folks just argued about electric cars being viable or reasonable.  This auto-pilot and driver-less stuff is just next up on the list. Tune in here in 2023 and see what the discussion is about.  Probably whether the Mr Fusion is too dangerous for everyday passenger use.

I remember when I was promised my flying car in just a few years.  They were the wave of the future and still are.

[Razors Edge ★]

23 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

You will be first in line for a 737 test flight then?

I flew on 4 different 737s in the past couple weeks. Seem to make it there and back in one piece and with all my luggage!

[Razors Edge ★]

23 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

I remember when I was promised my flying car in just a few years.  They were the wave of the future and still are.

I love that one.  Still works.  I prefer jet packs, but I am too young (at 49) to have been promised flying cars or jet packs.

[maddmaxx ★]

2 hours ago, Razors Edge said:

I flew on 4 different 737s in the past couple weeks. Seem to make it there and back in one piece and with all my luggage!

I believe I meant the maxx.

[MoseySusan]

Law is a system, and enforcement is part of that system, but the other parts don’t cease to exist in the absence of enforcement.

[Square Wheels]

3 hours ago, Randomguy said:

Laws are for the law-abiding. 

This is true.  We are finally hands free in MA.  I see hundreds of people on the phone every day while driving.  What's the purpose of that law?  I wish they would all die and make my commute easier.

[shootingstar]

8 hours ago, ChrisL said:

I’d cite her.  I had a rule that I cited every smoking hot girl I pulled over. I figured they had gotten enough breaks in their life based on looks.

They are still laws even without enforcement. Most of us have a moral compass that guides us and we don’t need codified law to direct behavior but yet they are still there.    For example would you commit murder if you knew for sure you could get away with it?

Awesome Chris......beautiful women do occasionally get away with a lot and some will blatantly use their looks. 

It's ...kinda ..pathetic.  And then they try to carry over same trick when they get older. A lot older, You can tell....wearing cleavage quite often.