Miscellaneous desk
< August 9	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 10

Traffic laws

When is it justifiable to break a law? speed limits, turning right on red when not allowed, turning only on a flashing red light, disobeying traffic signals if there is no traffic?Hitchcockinmaryland (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I changed the section heading since it was so big. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is arguably never justifiable to break a law, except perhaps when doing so will protect someone from death or injury without a serious risk to others. For example, if a woman was in labor and a motorist driving the woman made one of the maneuvers you describe, I think most police officers would either let the driver go or escort him/her to the hospital. Marco polo (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean morally or legally justified ? StuRat (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justifiable to who? --Mr.98 (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My answer was coming at the question from the moral angle. From that angle, theft of food might be justifiable if a person or her child risked death from starvation, and so on. As for legal justification, I don't have the expertise to answer that question, nor can we offer legal advice. Marco polo (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for when it is moral to break a law, that definitely applies when a law itself is immoral, such as with pro-genocide laws, but that doesn't seem to apply to traffic laws. On the other hand, many traffic laws don't seem to have any moral weight behind them, ay least at certain times, such as waiting for a light to change when you can clearly see nobody is on the crossing road (the moral reasons to obey at other times are to avoid accidents and "take turns"). So, going through the red light is morally defensible, although probably not legally so. I was once parked at a traffic light that refused to change, with a cop parked behind me. I had no confidence that I'd be allowed to go through the red light unmolested, so I put the car in park and left it there until the cop pulled past me, when through the red, and disappeared out of sight. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for legal justification, I don't think many, or maybe any, jurisdictions have a principle that you can legally ignore laws that are, at the time, unnecessary, like ignoring red lights on empty streets. Even in more extreme cases, where obeying a law is impossible, violates another law, or will result in injury or death, there usually isn't a principle that the law may be legally ignored. At best, you end up with police officer, judges or juries who may choose to ignore it, but can also choose to enforce it. StuRat (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The legal defense of necessity is widely available in Western legal systems (including the United States and the UK), either as a principle of common law or as specifically enshrined statute. There are generally clear and specific exceptions for exactly those situations where "obeying a law...will result in injury or death". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could see how running a red could be legally defensible if doing so would prevent a tragedy, but legally defensible probably is not quite the same as legally justifiable. Googlemeister (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what the distinction you're making is between "legally defensible" and "legally justifiable". In situations where it applies, necessity is considered an affirmative defense, just like duress (I ran the red light because the carjacker was going to shoot me if I didn't) or self defense (I assaulted the carjacker in order to prevent him from shooting me) would. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not too many Australians can have seen this thread yet. It's standard practice here for the 80% of drivers who believe they are better at it than average to argue that speed limits are too low and that exceeding them is morally acceptable at almost all times. I often wonder why. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question with a right or wrong answer. Personally, I don't think that an action's illegality automatically makes it wrong. Something may be illegal because it is wrong. It is certainly morally wrong to drive recklessly, because you're endangering others. And the illegality of an action may contribute to its wrongness. For example, it may theoretically be safe to drive 75 mph on the highway, but if everyone else is driving 60 because the speed limit is 55, you're likely to tailgate or surprise people. If safety is not an issue, practical considerations may be the key factor. Is it worth risking a $100 ticket and an extra $1,000 in insurance premiums to get home 20 minutes sooner?

Whether it's a "legal law" or a "moral law", you have to apply the "greater sin" rule, as implied by some of the answers. It's illegal to drive through a red light, but if you're in the way of an emergency vehicle such as an ambulance, then you have to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate principle is that if you are willing to suffer the consequences then feel free to commit the offense. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, you are saying it is not illegal unless you get caught? Googlemeister (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Consequences" could including causing a traffic accident that kills or injures somebody, so that's not necessarily what the poster is saying. thx1138 (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that externally expressed spoken and written rules do not absolve us from the responsibility of being autonomous moral agents. Most laws are rather practical, but since they are merely words meant to achieve an end they differ little in fact from prayers or magic spells. The conscious human's responsibility is to weigh his values and act accordingly in the context. "Take what you want and pay for it." Indeed, if you claim for yourself that mechanically obeying laws is the highest good you are simply identifying conformity as your highest value. In the minor case, I might run a red light if I were confident there were no measurable physical risk, and that my haste was sufficient to justify it. Were I then to get a ticket, or die in a car crash, I couldn't possibly complain it was "unfair." At the other extreme, I might consider murdering the man who murdered my boyfriend and got away with it on a technicality. But I wouldn't do so blind to the chance that I might have to pay for the satisfaction of private vengeance with my own life. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially saying you don't believe in moral constraints at all, either on you or on the State. On the first point, by that reasoning, if you're certain you can get away with it, you can do whatever you want. On the other hand, it suggests that you shouldn't complain even if the State punishes you for doing something that you ought to be able to do whether they like it or not. --Trovatore (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to define what you mean by moral constraint. There is no such thing as the state apart from individuals who agree to act in a certain way, and to force certain ends on others. Not only would I complain that certain things were unfair if they were unfair, I would actively or passively resist those things. What would you do? Bitch and feel sorry for yourself? I have taken the law into my own hands plenty of times, and did so because I knew my actions were justified according to my own standards, which I believe objectively good. I don't pretend, therefore, to have some supernatural sanction from God or the government for my actions. I don't expect rational people to think I am a criminal monster because of such things--stabbing a would-be home intruder, physically throwing riotous people off a train. Just as I wouldn't expect rational people to stand by while I tried to invade their homes or endanger their lives.

There is a difference between me setting not eating actual poison as a principal, and my pretending that cyanide isn't a poison, and that I can eat it because I don't believe it to be bad. You are conflating the fact that only individuals can ever act or judge with the fact that individual judgment may be mistaken, wrong, or even insane, in concluding that because a judgment is made by a person it is necessarily subjective, and hence necessarily baseless.

Finally, in implying that I am amoral, you are make precisely the same kind of personal decision that I have claimed is the sole physical basis of real moral judgment. There is no escaping personal standards personally enforced. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with my bike?

Yesterday while I was biking suddenly the pedals got stuck, so I couldn't pedal forward. Ultimately (I'm not sure if this was after getting it unstuck and then restuck - it was dark and rainy and I was fumbling around), I figured that the chain had gotten crammed between the smallest gear on the back of the bike and the static metal next to the gear, and then I pulled it out (with a good deal of force) and put it back on the gear properly. But now when I pedal backward even slightly the chain gets really loose, and I'm not sure I can even coast properly. What's wrong, and is it something I can fix myself or something I need to take my bike to the shop to repair? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have some muck in your derailleur that is jamming it -- a thorough cleaning and lubrication will fix the problem. Looie496 (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second the "clean and lube" suggestion, but also check that nothing is bent. Check the chain, cog teeth, and derailleur arm. Then try shifting to every gear. If there are gears you can't shift to, if the bike shifts itself, or if your (clean, lubed) drivetrain is weirdly noisy, then your derailleur(s) might need to be adjusted or your chain might be stretched out. If you fiddle with the derailleur and still can't get it to work, you probably need either a new derailleur or a new chain. And since you'd have to go to a bike store for either of those things, you might as well bring your bike in and get a professional's opinion. Here's an article on checking your chain wear, in case you want to investigate that on your own first. --Fullobeans (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and since you're in Boston, you also have Broadway Bicycle School and Bikes Not Bombs available to you, if you want to learn more about bike repair or just get your hands dirty. There's almost nothing on a bike you can't fix on your own with a little knowledge and the right tools.--Fullobeans (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your rear derailleur is out of alignment or needs adjusting. If you are unable or unwilling to fix it yourself, there's not much to do but get it to a bike shop. This site is pretty informative for a run down of what is likely the problem and how to have a go at fixing it. --jjron (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]