* No right on red (ever) - This one is apparently intended to protect over-cautious, under-skilled drivers - the kind who need both lanes to be totally clear for at least a football field's length before they feel confident enough to make the turn. Since they can't safely judge the speed and distance of oncoming traffic, we get to wait at the light too - even if it's obvious there isn't another car coming for miles.
* Midnight red - It's 2 o'clock in the morning and you've come to a red light that stays red forever. You sit and sit and sit - engine idling, gas and time wasting - even though it's clear the roads are empty in all directions. Sometimes, the light even cycles without giving you the green. (A common problem for motorcycle riders, because the bike doesn't trip the sensor that triggers the light.) Of course, if you become exasperated and run the light - even after stopping completely to make sure it's safe and the way is absolutely clear - it's almost guaranteed there will be a cop lurking nearby, burning the midnight oil just for you.
In Europe, where sensible traffic laws are more the rule than here, many signaled intersections switch over to flashing yellow - "proceed with caution" - after a certain hour, when traffic has died down. It is assumed that drivers are competent enough to make a judgment call on their own - and it seems to work perfectly well. It's a custom we should think about importing.
* No left turn at light - Cousin to the no-right-on-red rule, this is the one where you find yourself at an intersection wanting to make a left turn across an opposing lane of traffic onto a sidestreet. But instead of a "yield to oncoming traffic" green light - sensible policy - you're stuck with a red light - on the assumption you've got inch-thick cataracts and the ability to judge the speed and distance of oncoming traffic of Mr. Magoo. You're supposed to wait patiently for the green arrow - even when there's no oncoming traffic and you could literally get out and push the car safely across the intersection.
Like no right turn on red, it's a well-intended law designed to protect the worst drivers out there from their own marginal skills and poor judgment - but which treats the rest of us like dumbos, too.
* Under-posted speed limits - This is the biggie. Speed limits are not supposed to be random numbers picked at whim by a government bureaucrat - or revenue-minded police chief. They're supposed to be done according to traffic surveys that indicate an appropriate speed that balances safety with the goal of smoothly flowing traffic traveling at a reasonable pace for a given stretch of road.
A specific formula exist to determine this, too. It's called the "85th percentile speed" - which boils down posting the limit in accordance with the natural flow of traffic. When speed limits are set at the 85th percentile, "speeding" is virtually eliminated - without any need for cops or radar traps. Reason? Most people are neither stupid nor reckless and drive within reason, given the road, conditions and their "comfort zone." On most highways, today, the 85th percentile speed is about 70 mph. And fortunately, most highway limits are now close to 70 mph, too.
However, most posted speed limits on secondary roads still set well below the 85th percentile speed - typically at least 5-10 mph below it. This turns almost every driver out there into a "speeder" - in the legalistic/technical sense of driving faster than a number on a sign. It usually has nothing to do with safe driving, though. Things are set up this way to give police an easy reason to pull over just about anyone at just about any time - and to generate lots of revenue for the local government's piggy bank. We all know it - and so do the cops, even if they don't say so openly.
Genuinely dangerous drivers should be aggressively targeted; but using the law to extract the "motorists' tax" from unwary drivers over trumped-up "speeding" charges is unfair and cynical and does nothing to make the roads safer.
* Primary enforcement seat belt laws - This is the name given to laws that give police the authority to pull a motorist over simply for not wearing a seat belt.
The question here isn't whether it's prudent to buckle-up. Obviously, it is. It's whether failing to wear a seat belt ought to qualify as a "moving violation" - and give police a pretext to pull over an otherwise law-abiding motorist. Not wearing a seat belt may increase your risk of injury or death if there is an accident. But is that anyone's business but yours? Not wearing a seat belt poses about as much of a threat to others as failing to eat right or exercise. It increases your personal risk, perhaps - but it's really no one's business but your own.
Turning on the flashing lights and pointing guns our way for this "violation" is completely over the top - and ought to stop.
* Sobriety checkpoints - In the name of law and order, we've come to accept being randomly stopped, questioned and made to produce ID without having done anything at all - or even given reason to suspect we may have done something wrong. "Your papers, please!" is not what America is supposed to be all about. The goal of getting drunks of the road is beside the point. Probable cause is - or ought to be - the point.
It's wrong to subject people who have done absolutely nothing to even suggest they've been drinking and driving to random stops and interrogations. It violates basic civil liberties - the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; to be left in peace until you've given clear reason for a cop to suspect that you, specifically, have committed a crime. By all means, stop and check out any driver who appears to be weaving, driving erratically or otherswise giving good reason to suspect he may be liquored up. But leave the rest of us alone and free to go about our business until we've given good reason to warrant a closer look.
