So I got pulled over for speeding...

[AndrewBUD]

... So if I become a cop and fuck people's shit up, I'll get nice things?

You are required to get in to drug stealing/dealing,

[opticbit]

Well, then you are dealing with moral hazard before anything else.

Let me put my position another way.  If I build a road and people have the choice of whether or not to pay me to use it, if I decide to impose a speed limit of 90mph on it, am I right to do this?  What if I decide to impose no speed limit?  Am I also right to do this?

You aren't answering the question, and your new example has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  The discussion involves an individual choosing to exceed a publicly determined speed limit on a public road.  If you build a private road you can do whatever you want with it as far as I'm concerned.  Speed limit 1 mph, speed limit 250 mph.  Death penalty to those that exceed your speed limit.  As long as the rules, consequences, and costs are clearly known ahead of time by anyone choosing to use your road, I really don't care.

But you are stating that a speeder on a public road is not commiting a crime, since there is no victim.  I'm asking you to defend your position.  You state that the shooter example is a moral hazard.  That may be true, but do you consider this a crime?

I think odds of getting caught should also be clearly posted... 

[opticbit]

Lot of mad Juniors in this thread... Both for and against the idea of speeding tickets.

Here's a little about me;

I speed. A lot. I have always driven fast, my siblings also have, my parents as well. Always always always fast.

Number of accidents in the family as a direct result of speeding? Zero.
Number of accidents in the family as a result of our own shitty driving? Zero.

We've all been hit several times by idiots texting, old people, faulty road markings (This one was me, they repainted the street after I got hit.) and someone falling asleep at the wheel.

Here are some other facts some of you should consider before taking a stance here.

While I myself am a very defensive driver, and have the cognitive capabilites* to drive 80 on a deserted highway at night, some people don't. In fact, I would venture that a sizable population percentage of americans should not even have a license.

This is why laws like this are in place. Because if you take an average, this is what it takes to keep morons and old people from destroying everyone in their path.

Now me? I think I should be exempt from the limits, because I can handle my driving. (Cry foul, but come watch me drive before you tell me I'm just as shitty as anyone else.) BUT! There is no way to make an exception here, so instead taking it up with courts and representatives, I bitch to friends/family/forum.

My stance is such that we need these laws, but there are people out there who not only can get away, but should be allowed to get away with breaking laws such as speeding.

I pay every ticket, I never take it to court. I know I broke the rules, and accept my punishment.

(Fun tidbit for you all. If I had a ticket for every Stop-sign/Stop-light I have blazed through at 20+MPH, I would have approximately 14,000 instances of infraction. I drive for my job, and I know the neighborhoods I work in down to who's up at what time, who drives to work when, and even when/where the police patrol on their given patrol nights. Number of times anyone has even got close to being hurt by my actions? Zero. I can break the law in such a way that is smart and takes others into account. Keep in mind that this IS possible for people to do.)

There is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.  This is a good example of following the spirit of the law, while you have broken the letter many times.  The spirit is to keep everyone safe and ordly.  The letter of the law cannot account for all situations, and it is upto people to decide on appropriate actions.  Its seems more often the police are only looking at the letter, and letting the courts sort things out, I think this is a considerable waste as it usually takes a full day to week to deal with certain issues.

[SgtSpike]

Lot of mad Juniors in this thread... Both for and against the idea of speeding tickets.

Here's a little about me;

I speed. A lot. I have always driven fast, my siblings also have, my parents as well. Always always always fast.

Number of accidents in the family as a direct result of speeding? Zero.
Number of accidents in the family as a result of our own shitty driving? Zero.

We've all been hit several times by idiots texting, old people, faulty road markings (This one was me, they repainted the street after I got hit.) and someone falling asleep at the wheel.

Here are some other facts some of you should consider before taking a stance here.

While I myself am a very defensive driver, and have the cognitive capabilites* to drive 80 on a deserted highway at night, some people don't. In fact, I would venture that a sizable population percentage of americans should not even have a license.

This is why laws like this are in place. Because if you take an average, this is what it takes to keep morons and old people from destroying everyone in their path.

Now me? I think I should be exempt from the limits, because I can handle my driving. (Cry foul, but come watch me drive before you tell me I'm just as shitty as anyone else.) BUT! There is no way to make an exception here, so instead taking it up with courts and representatives, I bitch to friends/family/forum.

My stance is such that we need these laws, but there are people out there who not only can get away, but should be allowed to get away with breaking laws such as speeding.

I pay every ticket, I never take it to court. I know I broke the rules, and accept my punishment.

(Fun tidbit for you all. If I had a ticket for every Stop-sign/Stop-light I have blazed through at 20+MPH, I would have approximately 14,000 instances of infraction. I drive for my job, and I know the neighborhoods I work in down to who's up at what time, who drives to work when, and even when/where the police patrol on their given patrol nights. Number of times anyone has even got close to being hurt by my actions? Zero. I can break the law in such a way that is smart and takes others into account. Keep in mind that this IS possible for people to do.)

I'm kind of in the same boat as you... my wife and I both drive very aggressively/fast (though perhaps not quite as much as yourself) compared to the average person, but we are still safe/aware/defensive about it and we've never been in any accidents.  We've both been driving for 10 years now.  I think speeding is a good way to stay attentive to your driving as well.  I'd probably fall asleep on the freeway if I didn't give myself a little bit of excitement!  And lots of people do... heh.

[myrkul]

There are many children playing in a public park designed for children. A shooter sets up targets at one side of the park, then proceeds to the opposite side of the park and begins shooting his high powered rifle through the park at the targets.  Up until the moment where he accidentally shoots a child, in your personal opinion, is this shooter committing a crime?

No. He's doing a very stupid thing, and assuming his trajectories cross the potential paths of the children, a very risky thing no matter his level of skill, but not committing a crime. Of course, to avoid being confused for a criminal, he should make it very clear that this pubic park is about to become a shooting range.

Of course, this is where your comparison breaks down: the level of risk does not correlate to the skill and practice of the shooter. He could easily hit a kid because the kid moved into the path of the bullet. The level of risk assumed by the speeder is affected by the skill and practice of the driver.

I am not saying that either person should be able to avoid the consequences of his actions. But to punish someone before there are consequences is like charging you with murder because you might kill someone.

[Electricbees]

Another disclaimer: Aside from travel on the interstate up to Duluth one year, that is the FASTEST I have ever gone for more than a second or two when I redline my engine...

Typical speeding for me consists of maybe 8-12 over, but usually closer to 8 than 12. My speedo also over-reports my speed by about ~2%, so I really have no clue exactly HOW much over I'm going when I dip up and down.

This morning, I was REALLY late to work and that was the reason for the speedin'.

[DannyHamilton]

Number of accidents in the family as a direct result of speeding? Zero.
Number of accidents in the family as a result of our own shitty driving? Zero.

We've all been hit several times by idiots texting, old people, faulty road markings (This one was me, they repainted the street after I got hit.) and someone falling asleep at the wheel.

I would only offer the small possibility that some of those accidents may have been avoidable while traveling at a speed closer to the posted speed limit.  Slower speed would provide more reaction time, and would be less likely to put your vehicle in a position where an inattentive driver didn't expect you.

While I myself am a very defensive driver, and have the cognitive capabilites* to drive 80 on a deserted highway at night, some people don't. In fact, I would venture that a sizable population percentage of americans should not even have a license. . . . Now me? I think I should be exempt from the limits, because I can handle my driving . . . My stance is such that we need these laws, but there are people out there who not only can get away, but should be allowed to get away with breaking laws such as speeding.

I suspect that every driver out there that breaks laws intentionally believes that they belong in the same category as you.  Clearly many of them are wrong.  [sarcasm:mood=lighthearted]Only the few like yourself have an accurate image of their own driving skills, right?[/sarcasm]

I pay every ticket, I never take it to court. I know I broke the rules, and accept my punishment.

Glad to hear it.  This has been my only point all along.  Respect the job the police are tasked with.  Understand the reasons they must perform this job. Accept the consequences when you make a choice to intentionally violate a law.

I guess one interesting question is: Since the current fine does not act as a deterrent for you, but rather as a fee for the privilege of exceeding the posted speed limit, would the risk of fine act as a deterrent for you if the fine was higher? If it was a $1,000 fine for each infraction? $5000? $25,000?  What is the tipping point where you decide that given the choice of driving no faster than the posted limit, or the risk of being fined, you choose the posted speed limit?

That price has changed for me over the years.  When I was in my early 20's I'd have told you that it would require a fine in excess of $500 to act as a deterrent for me.  As I approached my 30's, I'd probably have told you that $200 was enough of a deterrent. By my mid-30's I was of the opinion that anything over $20 wasn't worth the risk. Now that I'm in my 40's I'm probably back up around $150 to $200. (assuming that I'll probably get caught by the police approximately 1 out 100 times, this works out to a $1.50 to $2.00 fee for the privilege of speeding each time I choose to do so).

[DannyHamilton]

There are many children playing in a public park designed for children. A shooter sets up targets at one side of the park, then proceeds to the opposite side of the park and begins shooting his high powered rifle through the park at the targets.  Up until the moment where he accidentally shoots a child, in your personal opinion, is this shooter committing a crime?

No. He's doing a very stupid thing, and assuming his trajectories cross the potential paths of the children, a very risky thing no matter his level of skill, but not committing a crime.

Interesting point of view.  I'm not sure that your viewpoint is one shared with a significant majority of the population, but at least it is consistent.

Of course, this is where your comparison breaks down: the level of risk does not correlate to the skill and practice of the shooter. He could easily hit a kid because the kid moved into the path of the bullet. The level of risk assumed by the speeder is affected by the skill and practice of the driver.

Actually the comparison does not break down here at all.  In both cases an actor is tacking an action that sends an object at a higher than normal speed through an area populated with innocent and unaware citizens.  In either case, one of these unaware citizens could at anytime move unexpectedly into the path of the object being propelled by the actor.  In either case, the laws of physics can prevent the actor from diverting the propelled object from intersecting the path of the unaware citizen.  In both cases the intersection of paths can result in the loss of life.

In other words, as the high speed driver passes another inattentive slower speed driver, the slower driver can change lanes suddenly and unexpectedly cutting off the high speed driver, and leaving the high speed driver without enough time or traction to avoid the collision.

Of course, to avoid being confused for a criminal, he should make it very clear that this pubic park is about to become a shooting range.

So, given your response, it seems that to avoid being confused for a criminal, the high speed driver should make it very clear that the public road is about to become a high speed race track?  Why is it that the shooter 's right to shoot supersedes the children's right to play?

I am not saying that either person should be able to avoid the consequences of his actions. But to punish someone before there are consequences is like charging you with murder because you might kill someone.

So if I understand this correctly, the law should never be able to prevent risky actions that have a significant chance of injuring others.  It should always be acceptable for an individual to decide by themselves how much risk everyone else can be exposed to?  I should be legally allowed to increase your risk of death as high as I want, and should be punished until/unless I actually injure or kill you?

[Electricbees]

I would only offer the small possibility that some of those accidents may have been avoidable while traveling at a speed closer to the posted speed limit.  Slower speed would provide more reaction time, and would be less likely to put your vehicle in a position where an inattentive driver didn't expect you.

Most of these accidents occurred at stop lights. Step-brother was hit while stopped, Got whiplash.
I took a left turn, and was hit by a forward moving vehicle coming from a right-turn only lane at about 25mph (He was that fast.)
Father had a man drive a truck into his fender while stopped...
Sister was T-boned by a lady NOT obeying a stop-sign.

So yes, if we had been going slower, all these idiots would have had plenty of time continue plowing their vehicles into my family, because all of these accidents occurred at high speed. Especially the stopped ones.

I suspect that every driver out there that breaks laws intentionally believes that they belong in the same category as you.  Clearly many of them are wrong.  [sarcasm:mood=lighthearted]Only the few like yourself have an accurate image of their own driving skills, right?[/sarcasm]

Already commented on this. See me drive before you go and criticize. My wager is, I am much better at driving and have better control of my vehicle than you. I can (and have) commute to work completely in reverse without hitting anyone. Can you?

I guess one interesting question is: Since the current fine does not act as a deterrent for you, but rather as a fee for the privilege of exceeding the posted speed limit, would the risk of fine act as a deterrent for you if the fine was higher? If it was a $1,000 fine for each infraction? $5000? $25,000?  What is the tipping point where you decide that given the choice of driving no faster than the posted limit, or the risk of being fined, you choose the posted speed limit?

That price has changed for me over the years.  When I was in my early 20's I'd have told you that it would require a fine in excess of $500 to act as a deterrent for me.  As I approached my 30's, I'd probably have told you that $200 was enough of a deterrent. By my mid-30's I was of the opinion that anything over $20 wasn't worth the risk. Now that I'm in my 40's I'm probably back up around $150 to $200. (assuming that I'll probably get caught by the police approximately 1 out 100 times, this works out to a $1.50 to $2.00 fee for the privilege of speeding each time I choose to do so).

500 would probably be enough to deter me. Any form of non-monetary punishment, such as license revocation or jail-time? That would definitely deter me. $146.50? Definitely not enough when I'm caught on average, one time per year and drive in excess of 20,000 miles every year. Less than a penny per mile. God help my wallet.

[myrkul]

In other words, as the high speed driver passes another inattentive slower speed driver, the slower driver can change lanes suddenly and unexpectedly cutting off the high speed driver, and leaving the high speed driver without enough time or traction to avoid the collision.

You make a good point, but in that instance, the accident wouldn't even be the speeder's fault. The speeder was paying attention. The idiot in the other car cut him off. If you honestly think that anyone getting on a highway isn't aware that there are other drivers out there who go faster than the speed limit, you have less brains rattling around in your head than the moron who changes lanes without looking.

Of course, to avoid being confused for a criminal, he should make it very clear that this pubic park is about to become a shooting range.

So, given your response, it seems that to avoid being confused for a criminal, the high speed driver should make it very clear that the public road is about to become a high speed race track?  Why is it that the shooter 's right to shoot supersedes the children's right to play?

There's no superseding going on here. Those rights can (and on public property, must) co-exist. If you would like to prevent all possibility of a shooter doing some target practice, play at a privately owned park. Likewise, if you want to do some target practice without taking the risk of shooting some little kids, go plink at a privately owned gun range.

I am not saying that either person should be able to avoid the consequences of his actions. But to punish someone before there are consequences is like charging you with murder because you might kill someone.

So if I understand this correctly, the law should never be able to prevent risky actions that have a significant chance of injuring others.  It should always be acceptable for an individual to decide by themselves how much risk everyone else can be exposed to?  I should be legally allowed to increase your risk of death as high as I want, and should be punished until/unless I actually injure or kill you?

Remember that risk is a two-way street. There are very few ways you can greatly increase my risk of death without my implicit consent. If I wish to avoid the risk of speeders on the highway, I should stay off the highway. If I would like to avoid the risk of my children getting shot, I should not let them play on (even temporary) shooting ranges.

[SlaveInDebt]

When pulled over I always reply to "You know why I pulled you over?" with "For driving my vehicle within the manufactures specifications."

If the state frowns on speeding so much then go after the manufactures of vehicles and impose a 70mph governor on all vehicles for public road use. Then go even further than that with sensors and gps to regulate speeds in lower areas. While their at it go a couple steps further and have us punch in or destination on our gps, sit back and enjoy a nap.

The technology is there and would solve many of the problems with our current transportation system.

Technicians solve problems not politicians.

[DannyHamilton]

Most of these accidents occurred at stop lights. Step-brother was hit while stopped, Got whiplash.
I took a left turn, and was hit by a forward moving vehicle coming from a right-turn only lane at about 25mph (He was that fast.)
Father had a man drive a truck into his fender while stopped...
Sister was T-boned by a lady NOT obeying a stop-sign.

So yes, if we had been going slower, all these idiots would have had plenty of time continue plowing their vehicles into my family, because all of these accidents occurred at high speed. Especially the stopped ones.

You didn't include that data previously, so obviously I couldn't take it into consideration in my comments.  So far you and your family have been fortunate not to be involved in a high speed accident.  I hope your luck holds out.  Even if you are the best drivers that have ever existed, it doesn't prevent a poor driver from causing an accident while youa re traveling at high speed.

I suspect that every driver out there that breaks laws intentionally believes that they belong in the same category as you.  Clearly many of them are wrong.  [sarcasm:mood=lighthearted]Only the few like yourself have an accurate image of their own driving skills, right?[/sarcasm]

Already commented on this. See me drive before you go and criticize. My wager is, I am much better at driving and have better control of my vehicle than you. I can (and have) commute to work completely in reverse without hitting anyone. Can you?

Certainly I can, but generally I prefer not to.  I'm not criticizing, I'm just pointing out that as a general rule people tend to overestimate their driving skill.  They all feel as sure as you do of their own skill, and yet many of them are wrong.  You may very well be right, or you may be one of the many who are overconfident.  I have no way of knowing, and if you are overconfident, then you don't really have any way of knowing either. In the end it doesn't really matter.  You believe in the ability of yourself and your family, and you will continue to drive as you see fit.  It will continue to cost you money in an occasional fine, and it may or may not eventually result in the serious injury or death to yourself or others.

[DannyHamilton]

In other words, as the high speed driver passes another inattentive slower speed driver, the slower driver can change lanes suddenly and unexpectedly cutting off the high speed driver, and leaving the high speed driver without enough time or traction to avoid the collision.

You make a good point, but in that instance, the accident wouldn't even be the speeder's fault. The speeder was paying attention. The idiot in the other car cut him off. If you honestly think that anyone getting on a highway isn't aware that there are other drivers out there who go faster than the speed limit, you have less brains rattling around in your head than the moron who changes lanes without looking.

I'd argue that fault lies with both in such a situation.  I don't think that most people aren't aware that some drivers exceed the speed limit, but that doesn't prevent high speed accidents from occurring every day.

Of course, to avoid being confused for a criminal, he should make it very clear that this pubic park is about to become a shooting range.

So, given your response, it seems that to avoid being confused for a criminal, the high speed driver should make it very clear that the public road is about to become a high speed race track?  Why is it that the shooter 's right to shoot supersedes the children's right to play?

There's no superseding going on here. Those rights can (and on public property, must) co-exist. If you would like to prevent all possibility of a shooter doing some target practice, play at a privately owned park. Likewise, if you want to do some target practice without taking the risk of shooting some little kids, go plink at a privately owned gun range.

I'm impressed with your consistent opinion on the matter and can certainly respect that.  Unfortunately I can't agree with your viewpoint.  I doubt any amount of conversation will ever bring either of us around to the other's point of view on such a matter.  In my opinion, society can collectively own a piece of land, and can through law determine uses for that land that they find acceptable.  Perhaps it needs to be a majority, or a super majority, or 95%, but at some level, the local community should be able to protect intended use.

I am not saying that either person should be able to avoid the consequences of his actions. But to punish someone before there are consequences is like charging you with murder because you might kill someone.

So if I understand this correctly, the law should never be able to prevent risky actions that have a significant chance of injuring others.  It should always be acceptable for an individual to decide by themselves how much risk everyone else can be exposed to?  I should be legally allowed to increase your risk of death as high as I want, and should be punished until/unless I actually injure or kill you?

Remember that risk is a two-way street. There are very few ways you can greatly increase my risk of death without my implicit consent. If I wish to avoid the risk of speeders on the highway, I should stay off the highway. If I would like to avoid the risk of my children getting shot, I should not let them play on (even temporary) shooting ranges.

Again I respect your opinion, but personally disagree.  I feel that it is extreme to say that there are very few ways one person can greatly increase another's risk of death without implicit consent, and even if it is true should I be allowed to choose that level of risk for both of us? Should there be no limit on how much risk I can place you at as long as I'm willing to accept nearly identical risk for myself?

[FirstAscent]

Myrkul,

DannyHamilton's viewpoint is more reasonable. It also results in better control and predictability of one's life. Furthermore, it's pretty much the norm. And finally, the position he takes is mostly inevitable.

You might want to instead argue something more constructive.

[FirstAscent]

In reference to my above post, imagine something as absurd as an inflatable life raft out in the middle of the ocean with five passengers on board where one of the passengers is an aspiring knife juggler. Swimming around the raft are sharks. Are you going to let this knife juggler practice his juggling while on board the raft just because of your principles?

[malevolent]

I can't believe what I am reading. 79 mph (126.5 kph) and 'pretty damn fast'? lol

Love that part too:

Another disclaimer: Aside from travel on the interstate up to Duluth one year, that is the FASTEST I have ever gone for more than a second or two when I redline my engine...
Typical speeding for me consists of maybe 8-12 over, but usually closer to 8 than 12. My speedo also over-reports my speed by about ~2%, so I really have no clue exactly HOW much over I'm going when I dip up and down.
This morning, I was REALLY late to work and that was the reason for the speedin'.

I didn't expect the land of the muscle cars to be so harsh on public roads' speed limits. If the driving conditions are safe I don't even see problems in driving 120 mph in the center of a city (although there might not be many possibilities, I can often drive at ~80 mph and much more on highways).

[SgtSpike]

I can't believe what I am reading. 79 mph (126.5 kph) and 'pretty damn fast'? lol

Love that part too:

Another disclaimer: Aside from travel on the interstate up to Duluth one year, that is the FASTEST I have ever gone for more than a second or two when I redline my engine...
Typical speeding for me consists of maybe 8-12 over, but usually closer to 8 than 12. My speedo also over-reports my speed by about ~2%, so I really have no clue exactly HOW much over I'm going when I dip up and down.
This morning, I was REALLY late to work and that was the reason for the speedin'.

I didn't expect the land of the muscle cars to be so harsh on public roads' speed limits. If the driving conditions are safe I don't even see problems in driving 120 mph in the center of a city (although there might not be many possibilities, I can often drive at ~80 mph and much more on highways).

Where do you live?  The speed limits absolutely are very harsh here.  I wish the US had its own version of the autobahn...

[myrkul]

I'd argue that fault lies with both in such a situation.  I don't think that most people aren't aware that some drivers exceed the speed limit, but that doesn't prevent high speed accidents from occurring every day.

No, it doesn't. But I think my point is clearly illustrated by the anecdotal evidence presented by Electicbees. Skill and attention plays a large part in it.

I'm impressed with your consistent opinion on the matter and can certainly respect that.  Unfortunately I can't agree with your viewpoint.  I doubt any amount of conversation will ever bring either of us around to the other's point of view on such a matter.  In my opinion, society can collectively own a piece of land, and can through law determine uses for that land that they find acceptable.  Perhaps it needs to be a majority, or a super majority, or 95%, but at some level, the local community should be able to protect intended use.

But why should even 95% of the population get to enforce their will on the other 5%? Simply because there are more of them? How does their right to use the land supersede the right of the minority?

Again I respect your opinion, but personally disagree.  I feel that it is extreme to say that there are very few ways one person can greatly increase another's risk of death without implicit consent, and even if it is true should I be allowed to choose that level of risk for both of us? Should there be no limit on how much risk I can place you at as long as I'm willing to accept nearly identical risk for myself?

The problem is the fact that the roads, and other public property, are equally owned by everyone. The speeder has just as much right to do whatever he wants on the road as anyone else. All of this is solved by making roads private property. Then you can place whatever restrictions on their use that you want. In the meantime, don't impede the man's right to use his property as he sees fit, unless he harms someone else.

[DannyHamilton]

I'd argue that fault lies with both in such a situation.  I don't think that most people aren't aware that some drivers exceed the speed limit, but that doesn't prevent high speed accidents from occurring every day.

No, it doesn't. . .

That would be an opinion, not a fact.  It is as easy to argue that the speeder is responsible for hitting the person who cuts them off, as it is to argue that the shooter is responsible for shooting the person that suddenly steps in front of their bullet.

I'm impressed with your consistent opinion on the matter and can certainly respect that.  Unfortunately I can't agree with your viewpoint.  I doubt any amount of conversation will ever bring either of us around to the other's point of view on such a matter.  In my opinion, society can collectively own a piece of land, and can through law determine uses for that land that they find acceptable.  Perhaps it needs to be a majority, or a super majority, or 95%, but at some level, the local community should be able to protect intended use.

But why should even 95% of the population get to enforce their will on the other 5%?

Why shouldn't they get to?  I can't agree that you should be allowed to turn your home in the middle of a residential community into a high explosives factory.  You may be willing to accept that risk, but you shouldn't be allowed to force that risk on the people who own homes next door to yours.

The problem is the fact that the roads, and other public property, are equally owned by everyone. The speeder has just as much right to do whatever he wants on the road as anyone else. All of this is solved by making roads private property. Then you can place whatever restrictions on their use that you want. In the meantime, don't impede the man's right to use his property as he sees fit, unless he harms someone else.

No, eliminating public property doesn't solve the problem.  As you can see in my example of turning a home into a high explosives factory, you still have to deal with a community being able to control the safety of its residents. Public or private, the fact remains. We live in a world populated by a multitude of people who are not exactly like ourselves.  There is no way to exist peacefully in such a world if everyone chooses to live entirely selfishly.  The only way it works is if there is a system in place to ensure that certain rights of some are not imposed on by others.  It is my opinion, and the opinion of a controlling majority of the population, that a community has to have control over risk management.  The majority will always force their will upon others if enough of them feel that the will of the others increases their risk to an unacceptable level.

[SgtSpike]

But why should even 95% of the population get to enforce their will on the other 5%? Simply because there are more of them? How does their right to use the land supersede the right of the minority?

Because the two cannot coexist.  Either gunners get to use the playground and force people out of it who would be using it as intended, or laws are put into place for acceptable use of public property.  Either speeders get to user the road and force people off of it who would be using it as intended, or laws are put into place for acceptable use of public property.

To me, it is all about intended usage.  Roadways are built so that people can get from point A to point B, not so that people can use it as a racetrack.  Playgrounds are built so that kids have play structures to play on, not so that gun-wielding people can use it as a shooting range. Gun shooting ranges are built for guns to be shot in, not for kids to play in.  Racetracks are built for races to take place, not for people to get from point A to point B on.  And laws enforcing those proper uses are absolutely legitimate and necessary (in my opinion).  Otherwise, those who wished to use it for its intended purpose will be largely evicted from it via the risk forced upon them by others.