# Most absurd road laws and amusing signalizations



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

g.spinoza said:


> So, if their parents drive a Mercedes E-Class (not to mention sports car), so should their kids? I don't think so.


I do, I think it's a nonsense rule. Yes it will probably prevent the odd accident, but it takes away much fun from young drivers, plus it means young people have to buy a slowass car rather than drive a normal car of their parents.

I never had a car slower than 100hbp/tonne.

First car was 140 bhp @ 1205 kg @ 18, second car was 165 bhp @1265 kg's @ 19 yo...



The most ridiculous sign in The Netherlands:










''cycling street, cars are guests''.

Has no legal status whatsoever. :bash: But the idea is that cyclists ride in the middle so cars can't overtake em. Way to reduce the respect and courtesy between cars and bikes... hno:


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

snowdog said:


> I never had a car slower than 100hbp/tonne.


You are indeed a speed freak :banana:

My car has just 65 hp with 1.5 L turbo diesel and don't care about it.  It's enough to keep up with normal traffic, while reducing the amount of stops at the IRS offices (gas stations).


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

EDIT


----------



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

g.spinoza said:


> If you can afford to buy 2 powerful cars in one year, you sure can buy a small one for your kid...


Affording is one thing, wanting is another, I learned a lot in my first car, and had a cheap car that was quite luxurious ( Climate control, Cruise control, Leather seats, heated seats, everything electric, and it all worked!). Small cars command a premium here, you get a lot less car for the same money.

Plus I had great fun in it.

I didn't crash it, sold it for pretty much the same price (100 euros less) than I bought it, so I'd have felt a bit miffed if I had to drive something else instead! Just because some 18 y/o's park their car in a ditch or around the tree, is no reason to punish the whole group. ( imo ofc.)

I can see that you'd want more safety, but the line between safety and freedom has already far been crossed imo.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

To me, we have far more freedom than we deserve.


----------



## John Maynard (Oct 1, 2013)

OulaL said:


> I don't find this absurd at all. All stationary vehicles on motorways are a hazard, and this is one very easily avoided.


For me it's OK, but for many European countries it's still something out of ordinary . Still, a license revocation for that is IMHO largely excessive.



OulaL said:


> Sometimes the speed limits are not set on the basis of road safety, but noise reduction. Of course this is hard to say without knowing the exact location; sometimes they are indeed stupid.


If noise is so disturbing, then why the hell not put noise barriers; many other European countries do so, instead of just annoy motorists?





OulaL said:


> I also disagree here: cameras don't create traffic jams, cars do. When there are too many of them in too small a place, there are always problems.


This is a clear example of what should not be made, but is in place only to "insult" motorists. Traffic lights in the entrance of Bienne/Biel on National highway 5 (in Switzerland, National highways are equivalent to motorways/expressways elsewhere) letting pass 2 cars each time, and cameras on 4 corners to trap full wallets: 
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Biel&hl=en&ll=47.138008,7.255869&spn=0.036549,0.077162&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.393645,79.013672&hnear=Biel%2FBienne,+Canton+of+Bern,+Switzerland&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=47.138046,7.239542&panoid=XIk3XOA4XCRZiEFw03ZJYw&cbp=12,61.56,,0,9.42
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Biel&hl=en&ll=47.138651,7.240591&spn=0.036549,0.077162&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.393645,79.013672&hnear=Biel%2FBienne,+Canton+of+Bern,+Switzerland&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=47.13876,7.240833&panoid=SJJ2wxld8RH8OKb4aKcCcw&cbp=12,248.51,,0,-4.19
If there is too many cars and they create problems, solutions must be find, and not only annoyances and aggravations for everyone behind a wheel or handlebar. The problem would be resolved long time ago, if only means were put in place. It's an easy excuse to say "because traffic creates problems", but nobody wants to work on it.



OulaL said:


> As of your picture; the speed limit and parking prohibition may concern horse-drawn vehicles and bicycles. Yes, both could exceed 30 km/h :lol:


On those vehicles, you do not need to have a speedometer, so how could know your speed anyway?


----------



## John Maynard (Oct 1, 2013)

New fantasy they've found in Lausanne to trap "1 km/h too high speeders", and at the same time by reducing 2 or more, the already very limited public parking places :lol:.









New very ugly "Mobile" stationary Traffistar "super" radar with 3D technology, 2-sided 
and video surveillance, equipped with plate-recognition infrared cameras 
and wireless transmission.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

John Maynard said:


> New fantasy they've found in Lausanne to trap "1 km/h too high speeders", and at the same time by reducing 2 or more, the already very limited public parking places :lol:.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See the bright side: at least they didn't try to conceal it. :lol:


----------



## John Maynard (Oct 1, 2013)

italystf said:


> See the bright side: at least they didn't try to conceal it. :lol:


Awesome, warning of a radar is illegal here (and put bright reflecting signs on them), as well as having positions of stationary radars on your navigation system . Not only, they're not concealed, but they're an add to the already existing artillery of hidden radars :lol:.


----------



## Neverworld (Sep 4, 2011)

g.spinoza said:


> So, if their parents drive a Mercedes E-Class (not to mention sports car), so should their kids? I don't think so.


Well, I understand the rule, I just think 90bhp is weirdly strict (and probably partly a relic from years back when cars were less powerful and less weighty?). The power-to-weight ratio is more logical to use for a rule like this.


----------



## Kanadzie (Jan 3, 2014)

snowdog said:


> I do, I think it's a nonsense rule. Yes it will probably prevent the odd accident, but it takes away much fun from young drivers, plus it means young people have to buy a slowass car rather than drive a normal car of their parents.
> 
> I never had a car slower than 100hbp/tonne.
> 
> First car was 140 bhp @ 1205 kg @ 18, second car was 165 bhp @1265 kg's @ 19 yo...


I have 275 hp at 1400 kg :cheers:

Why limit power for inexperienced driver? If anything, inexperienced driver needs more power to get out of miscalculated situation (like... passing a truck without looking far enough...)


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

I'm going to bother to talk about the cost of car insurance for young drivers in the UK again.

Anyway, in the UK, speed cameras are signed from quite far, and often (probably most of the time) there are signs and no cameras, and when there are cameras they mostly have no flash. Also, the section of road covered by each camera is marked out on the road with little white lines.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

g.spinoza said:


> To me, we have far more freedom than we deserve.


It should be made a distinction between safety-oriented law enforcement and money-collecting-oriented law enforcement. Unfortunately, many times the second is prevalent.


----------



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

Kanadzie said:


> I have 275 hp at 1400 kg :cheers:
> 
> Why limit power for inexperienced driver? If anything, inexperienced driver needs more power to get out of miscalculated situation (like... passing a truck without looking far enough...)


Probably wouldn't get in the situation with a slower car though :lol:.

Don't get me wrong I'm against forbidding anything.
But you know how young people are, give em 275 bhp and they end up around a tree or in a ditch . 

I agree that limits like in Italy are stupid, but giving most 18 year olds 300 ish bhp is not the smartest move either :lol:.


----------



## John Maynard (Oct 1, 2013)

Furthermore, Lausanne a city of 130'000 souls, have more stationary and mobile radars than Warsaw, which has "officially" more than 1,7 mln. inhabitants :cucumber:.


----------



## Kanadzie (Jan 3, 2014)

snowdog said:


> Probably wouldn't get in the situation with a slower car though :lol:.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I'm against forbidding anything.
> But you know how young people are, give em 275 bhp and they end up around a tree or in a ditch .
> ...


The young people will always end up in the tree or the ditch! I wonder though, about the newer cars with "stability program" and similar... it might turn a lot of those trees into ditches, and ditches into recoverable skids 



John Maynard said:


> Furthermore, Lausanne a city of 130'000 souls, have more stationary and mobile radars than Warsaw, which has "officially" more than 1,7 mln. inhabitants .


Friggin Warsaw, too many photoradars there.


----------



## Natomasken (Apr 25, 2008)

snowdog said:


> The most ridiculous sign in The Netherlands:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We have a similar thing is the US called a "sharrow" (share + arrow). It's a bike symbol below two chevrons painted on the pavement and it allows bikes to legally ride in the center of the lane. It's supposed to be used where the road is too narrow for a car to pass a bike, or where parked cars pose a danger (door opening) to bikes riding too close to them. I think it's a sensible idea, so long as it's not used where not appropriate (on streets wide enough to allow safe passing) and riders use consideration (ride to the right where there aren't any parked cars).


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

Neverworld said:


> Well, I understand the rule, I just think 90bhp is weirdly strict (and probably partly a relic from years back when cars were less powerful and less weighty?). The power-to-weight ratio is more logical to use for a rule like this.


I agree. I think we could discuss about the limitation threshold, but some kind of limitation is necessary. But then again, for some people here we're stupid and nonsensical... 



Kanadzie said:


> I have 275 hp at 1400 kg :cheers:
> 
> Why limit power for inexperienced driver? If anything, inexperienced driver needs more power to get out of miscalculated situation (like... passing a truck without looking far enough...)


:uh: if inexperienced driver aren't capable of passing a truck, maybe they shouldn't overtake at all


----------



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

g.spinoza said:


> I agree. I think we could discuss about the limitation threshold, but some kind of limitation is necessary. But then again, for some people here we're stupid and nonsensical...


I'm allergic to words like ''limitation'', ''limit'', ''forbidden'', ''ban'' and other authoritarian stuff. 

Believing in a Libertarian system, I dislike most government influence... Be that on the road or anywhere else. I absolutely hate bureaucracy. In the Netherlands at least half the government workers should go immediately and do something useful in the private sector imho. I don't like political correctness and people that are stuck up on a moral high horse either.

Leave the people more to be as they want to be.


----------



## Neverworld (Sep 4, 2011)

snowdog said:


> I'm allergic to words like ''limitation'', ''limit'', ''forbidden'', ''ban'' and other authoritarian stuff.
> 
> Believing in a Libertarian system, I dislike most government influence... Be that on the road or anywhere else. I absolutely hate bureaucracy. In the Netherlands at least half the government workers should go immediately and do something useful in the private sector imho. I don't like political correctness and people that are stuck up on a moral high horse either.
> 
> Leave the people more to be as they want to be.


In general I agree, I'm against government regulation myself too. However, I can't ignore statistics and statistics tell me that teenagers are by far the most dangerous road users. If they were isolated from the rest of the world, I'd be inclined to say: let them be. However, they are not, they share the roads with the rest of us and so I am open to solutions that limit their danger to fellow humans (as long as it is statistically proven to actually help).

Although on the other hand it's also a good thing to realize that roads are dangerous and we'll never be able to take away all risk.


----------



## Palance (Mar 23, 2005)

snowdog said:


> I dislike most government influence... Be that on the road or anywhere else.


Perfect. So no more desicions should be made about new roads and no more roads should be built. Gouvernments decide about building roads, you know...


----------



## pi3141 (Jan 3, 2014)

Palance said:


> Perfect. So no more desicions should be made about new roads and no more roads should be built. Gouvernments decide about building roads, you know...


It's possible to have private companies decide about road construction projects as well. IMHO private economy would plan, construct and maintain much more efficiently... instead of having usually corrupt bureaucrats decide about it.


----------



## verreme (May 16, 2012)

g.spinoza said:


> :uh: if inexperienced driver aren't capable of passing a truck, maybe they shouldn't overtake at all


You know they will, so why adding another dangerous circumstance (no power to get out)?


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

pi3141 said:


> It's possible to have private companies decide about road construction projects as well. IMHO private economy would plan, construct and maintain much more efficiently... instead of having usually corrupt bureaucrats decide about it.


Ok, but the government has yet to fund infrastructural projects. These aren't things that pay for themselves. And the government has to decide the construction priorities too.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

snowdog said:


> I'm allergic to words like ''limitation'', ''limit'', ''forbidden'', ''ban'' and other authoritarian stuff.
> 
> Believing in a Libertarian system, I dislike most government influence... Be that on the road or anywhere else. I absolutely hate bureaucracy. In the Netherlands at least half the government workers should go immediately and do something useful in the private sector imho. I don't like political correctness and people that are stuck up on a moral high horse either.
> 
> Leave the people more to be as they want to be.


Bureaucracy and rules are quite different things, actually.

Yes, leave people as they want to be. Go to lawless Somalia and see if it's a nice place.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

verreme said:


> You know they will, so why adding another dangerous circumstance (no power to get out)?


So the most inexperienced get to use the most powerful machinery? This is an upside-down world. Why don't we elect a toddler as president. He's inexperienced so he must be good.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

The more free is better only when it doesn't take away someone else's freedom. I want to be free to travel by road without meeting morons endangering my life. Problems?


----------



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

g.spinoza said:


> Bureaucracy and rules are quite different things, actually.
> 
> Yes, leave people as they want to be. Go to lawless Somalia and see if it's a nice place.


Anarchy is not the same as libertarism.
Some basic laws to keep order are always needed, but there are more and more of them each year. The law does not have to say what lawn you should keep.:nuts:

The insurance companies do a good enough job keeping most young drivers driving slow bangers...



> I want to be free to travel by road without meeting morons endangering my life. Problems?


The roads are safer than ever, I didn't hear about people complaining this much 20 years ago.


----------



## Neverworld (Sep 4, 2011)

g.spinoza said:


> Bureaucracy and rules are quite different things, actually.
> 
> Yes, leave people as they want to be. Go to lawless Somalia and see if it's a nice place.


Libertarianism will never advocate no government, but I'm sure you know that 

Anyway, using Libertarian theory to defend a lack of rules in traffic is a flawed argument. Libertarian theory argues that the market can clear itself, by getting rid of inefficiency. I think that's a good thing in the economy, but in traffic I'm not so sure. I don't think getting rid of poor drivers the hard way is socially optimal especially as they are interconnected with good elements in a way you won't find in an economc market.


----------



## Kanadzie (Jan 3, 2014)

snowdog said:


> Anarchy is not the same as libertarism.
> Some basic laws to keep order are always needed, but there are more and more of then each year. The law does not have to say what lawn you should keep.


Indeed - we need rule of law, where laws exist and are followed strictly. But these laws need to be justifiable and reasonable (no killing, no stealing...). Somalia isn't rule of law, only rule of gun. 



Neverworld said:


> Libertarianism will never advocate no government, but I'm sure you know that


Anarcho-libertarian will though, just not minarchist  I am kind of happy (amazed?) there are some European who knows this word...



Neverworld said:


> In general I agree, I'm against government regulation myself too. However, I can't ignore statistics and statistics tell me that teenagers are by far the most dangerous road users. If they were isolated from the rest of the world, I'd be inclined to say: let them be. However, they are not, they share the roads with the rest of us and so I am open to solutions that limit their danger to fellow humans (as long as it is statistically proven to actually help).
> 
> Although on the other hand it's also a good thing to realize that roads are dangerous and we'll never be able to take away all risk.


Sure, but logic always indicates inexperienced drivers to be most dangerous - they have the least skill, and also, the drivers who will probably kill themselves, end up dead before they are old 

But - _specifically _in regards to power limits for inexperienced drivers, what is of prime importance is, IF this particular legislation can justify its existence by improving road safety. I posit that such legislation does not achieve this, and consequently only acts as a nefarious influence on society (a limitation on freedom without any tangible benefit to society). I base my assumption on the absence of such laws in most countries where there doesn't seem to be any issue (even in USA where 16 year old drivers and 300 hp vehicles is not at all uncommon, especially today) Similarly, lower speed limit on highways for inexperienced drivers doesn't seem to do any difference, considering same driver will go to Germany and have no issue driving 200 km/h. And of course, the young driver will be driving 200 km/h at some point regardless of the limit!


----------



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

Neverworld said:


> Anyway, using Libertarian theory to defend a lack of rules in traffic is a flawed argument. Libertarian theory argues that the market can clear itself, by getting rid of inefficiency. I think that's a good thing in the economy, but in traffic I'm not so sure. I don't think getting rid of poor drivers the hard way is socially optimal especially as they are interconnected with good elements in a way you won't find in an economc market.


As in my edit, don't the insurance companies do that ? Young drivers pay a lot of premium, or are being blatantly refused by most insurers for high powered/high risk cars.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

I think there's no point in discussing politics here. Everybody will stay in his own position.


----------



## De Klauw (Apr 20, 2006)

pi3141 said:


> It's possible to have private companies decide about road construction projects as well. IMHO private economy would plan, construct and maintain much more efficiently... instead of having usually corrupt bureaucrats decide about it.


I don't like that hyper-liberal stuff. You clearly only see the benefits of it. The government is not the enemy you know and also be aware that what's called 'corruption' in government agencies is called 'profit' in private companies.

BTW: in all European countries it's the government that decide where the roads come. Planning a road and maintaining it are two different things.


----------



## OulaL (May 2, 2012)

John Maynard said:


> For me it's OK, but for many European countries it's still something out of ordinary . Still, a license revocation for that is IMHO largely excessive.


Guess so too.



John Maynard said:


> If noise is so disturbing, then why the hell not put noise barriers; many other European countries do so, instead of just annoy motorists?


Maybe they also want to use the same road that causes the noise.

It doesn't have to be logical if they are the same people who (using their electoral rights and the city council, for instance) make the rules.



John Maynard said:


> On those vehicles, you do not need to have a speedometer, so how could know your speed anyway?


The speed limit must be obeyed, with or without a speedometer. They can use a GPS device or just have a lucky guess...



snowdog said:


> I'm allergic to words like ''limitation'', ''limit'', ''forbidden'', ''ban'' and other authoritarian stuff.
> --
> Leave the people more to be as they want to be.


Traffic doesn't work like this.

Whenever your car is at any lane at any metre of any public road, then, at that very moment, nobody else's car is - cannot be - at the same lane at the same metre of the same road.

In other words, _you are limiting everybody else's right_ to be at that very moment at that lane at that metre of that road.

Now isn't this a problem...


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I think lower speed limits under rain are not necessary for moderate rain over highways with draining aslphalt


----------



## verreme (May 16, 2012)

g.spinoza said:


> So the most inexperienced get to use the most powerful machinery?


Not necessarily. But then again, powerful machinery is often safe machinery.



g.spinoza said:


> This is an upside-down world. Why don't we elect a toddler as president. He's inexperienced so he must be good.


I don't see the connection here. I didn't say lack of experience meant being good at driving; I said it requires adequate wheels.


----------



## Neverworld (Sep 4, 2011)

Kanadzie said:


> Indeed - we need rule of law, where laws exist and are followed strictly. But these laws need to be justifiable and reasonable (no killing, no stealing...). Somalia isn't rule of law, only rule of gun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ha, you think we are all communist in europe I guess  It's a pity that in both Europe and US the economic right is far from libertarian in practice.

Regarding your last paragraph, I agree completely with you that any sort of policy needs to be data-driven. It's hard to compare countries, a before/after or random selection would be more convincing in adopting or debunking a young-driver policy.



snowdog said:


> As in my edit, don't the insurance companies do that ? Young drivers pay a lot of premium, or are being blatantly refused by most insurers for high powered/high risk cars.


They might, but at the moment young drivers are statistically more prone to create accidents. Maybe society should accept this, maybe there is no easy fix.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

verreme said:


> Not necessarily. But then again, powerful machinery is often safe machinery.


Sure. Like a Victorinox against a chainsaw.




> I don't see the connection here. I didn't say lack of experience meant being good at driving; I said it requires adequate wheels.


No. All it requires is adequate brain, and teacher.


----------



## verreme (May 16, 2012)

^^ You're taking it all out of the context. It does obviously look absurd that way, but I was talking of a particular case (a powerful car compensating the lack of experience), not a general rule.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

When they made the law that states what kind of cars can be driven by beginners, there were some controversies because, according to the parameters included in the law, some "regular" cars became forbidden to beginners, while some SUVs weren't.
And, while SUVs are very safe for drivers, they're less safe for others, so giving them to 18 y.o. kids isn't so appropriate. According to some, SUVs incourage reckless driving, since drivers feel safer in them.


----------



## Kanadzie (Jan 3, 2014)

it is absurd to put someone in jail for a noncriminal offense like speeding, especially a country bordering Germany of all places :lol: what next, hanging homosexuals like the Iranians?


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

To endanger other people is a crime. In Germany as well.


----------



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

earthJoker said:


> To endanger other people is a crime. In Germany as well.


Nobody is going to bat an eyelid if you drive by on the autobahn at 180+ km/h.
In Switzerland you're ****ed if the police or a camera catches you...

The all dreaded argument from people who sit on the moral high horse.

Speeding ≠ Endangering people.
Barely any accidents happen due to excessive speeds, yes I know it has a major effect on the result of an accident, but I don't believe in changing the speed factor, but rather preventing the cause of the accident in the first place. Otherwise you might just as well set the speed limit @ 30 km/h everywhere then nobody will crash fast enough to die :bash:hno:.

A much better soluction would be crash detection on every car on the road, that brakes automatically when needed. Problem solved, you can drive faster and the technology prevents you from crashing in most of the crash situations ( not holding enough distance) outside of an intersection.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

Kanadzie said:


> it is absurd to put someone in jail for a noncriminal offense like speeding, especially a country bordering Germany of all places :lol: what next, hanging homosexuals like the Iranians?


It's the same in Spain. You risk jail for more than 90 in cities, 160 outside cities and 190 on autopistas\autovias.


----------



## volodaaaa (Apr 9, 2013)

I'm looking for a jokey video I have already seen on youtube. The caption was "why it is safer to drive fast".
On first scene, there was a pedestrian crossing and a car driving 50 km/h in city. The pedestrian stepped on the crossing and the car ran over him.
The second scene starts similarly, but there was a car driving 100 km/h in city. The pedestrian did not even get coming close to the pedestrian crossing done and the car just passed by while nobody died.


----------



## Natomasken (Apr 25, 2008)

Here's a link to an excellent video from someone in British Columbia, Canada called "Speed Kills Your Pocketbook." It's a scathing critique of the low speed limits in BC and makes the point that their purpose is not safety but generating revenue. It's very funny and entertaining, but also very well researched and convincing. Well worth 15 minutes of your time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BKdbxX1pDw


----------



## verreme (May 16, 2012)

italystf said:


> It's the same in Spain. You risk jail for more than 90 in cities, 160 outside cities and 190 on autopistas\autovias.


Actually it's 110 (+60) inside city limits, 170 outside and 200 in motorways (+80).

In most countries you will potentially go to jail for high speeding, though you're not likely to the first time.


----------



## John Maynard (Oct 1, 2013)

snowdog said:


> ICriminalizing someone who did a minor offence. Sorry but someone who does vmax+40 km/h in the middle of the night on a motorway is harmless and criminalising people like that is wrong, there are criminals that get away with less. Wrong priorities imho.


Actually, you are right, Switzerland has become notoriously infamous for its very lax - when not driving offenses -, promoting violent criminals against victims, justice system.
More than 90% of convicted violent criminals get away without even being locked behind bars, notably thanks to a system of day fine (replacing up to 2 years of jail; not applicable in the new law for "Offenses Drivers") based on your salary introduced not long time ago (a drug dealer, by definition, don't pay taxes on drug incomes, so he'll pay peanuts), and a new criminal procedures code that induces all, so convicted criminals are being kept out of prison.
Moreover, a recent leak revealed scandals, where many violent criminals where kept out of jail, in spacious downtown flats (when actually there is a huge shortage of accessible housings), having an "individual special program" that includes more than 10 persons to take care of them individually (psychologists, sociologists, private trainers, coaches, etc.), private lessons and trainers of preferred sports with the help of word champions, music activities, yogas, martial art, and much more; That a "ordinary" Swiss cannot afford; costing to the taxpayers up to +600K CHF per year/individual. Of course, for the victims - many being handicapped to life - have none of this; if they are lucky to be still alive, as murderers are also included in these "programs".
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_n...usual_Swiss_justice_system_.html?cid=33999476

On the other hand, in towns, authorities are extremely passive to drug dealers, for more than a decade now. In my city of Lausanne, you can't go downtown without being addressed by one of them, mainly African fellows. As a matter of fact, they are everywhere in the center - and not as you may think, in remote areas - all day/night long, following you, with the most openly way possible, pushing you to buy hard drugs. For a while, they even came to me when I was in my car stopped in a traffic light on the main place of downtown, knocking to my window to sell their s***. Many citizens have addressed petitions and complains to the municipality, but they are playing deaf; according to the last, we are exaggerating the problem. In face of such neutrality, citizens having more than enough to be upset by dealers in front of their house, of their businesses, in the city, and their children being offered drugs by dealers out of schools, decided to set up an association seeking solutions to this "silent" problem: https://fr-fr.facebook.com/pages/Stop-dealers-lausanne/211405612295741

Well, It's not easy to understand, and with at historically low road accidents death toll, that such harsh measures may come into effect. Furthermore, majority of radars are being put in areas with no history of serious crashes events. IMHO, priorities should be in more urgent and serious crimes, that are actually being treated "very easy go" or simply ignored hno:.


----------



## KiwiGuy (Jul 9, 2009)

I don't think there's anything unusual or ridiculous about traffic regulations in NZ. It's no different than other places, aside from the fact that insurance is optional and fairly lax speeding enforcement.

Oh, and the legal driving age is 16 as opposed to 18 in most European states and there's no restrictions on what beginner drivers can have as their first car.


----------



## AnOldBlackMarble (Aug 23, 2010)

John Maynard said:


> Actually, you are right, Switzerland has become notoriously infamous for its very lax - when not driving offenses -, promoting violent criminals against victims, justice system.
> More than 90% of convicted violent criminals get away without even being locked behind bars, notably thanks to a system of day fine (replacing up to 2 years of jail; not applicable in the new law for "Offenses Drivers") based on your salary introduced not long time ago (a drug dealer, by definition, don't pay taxes on drug incomes, so he'll pay peanuts), and a new criminal procedures code that induces all, so convicted criminals are being kept out of prison.
> Moreover, a recent leak revealed scandals, where many violent criminals where kept out of jail, in spacious downtown flats (when actually there is a huge shortage of accessible housings), having an "individual special program" that includes more than 10 persons to take care of them individually (psychologists, sociologists, private trainers, coaches, etc.), private lessons and trainers of preferred sports with the help of word champions, music activities, yogas, martial art, and much more; That a "ordinary" Swiss cannot afford; costing to the taxpayers up to +600K CHF per year/individual. Of course, for the victims - many being handicapped to life - have none of this; if they are lucky to be still alive, as murderers are also included in these "programs".
> http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_n...usual_Swiss_justice_system_.html?cid=33999476


What? Are you serious? I guess its time for me to go to Switzerland and commit crimes. :nuts:


----------

