Signs, Signs, Everywhere a Sign

"You people want to live in a world where there's no stop signs or traffic lights!" It's probably the most oft repeated argument I hear from critics of the Libertarian philosophy.

Actually, I don't. I understand the necessity of things like speed limits, and traffic lights to negotiate a safe and even traffic flow. I do realize that sometimes, those speed limits are set ridiculously low. For the twenty years between the Nixon Administration and the 94 Republican takeover of Congress, speed limits nationwide were held down to 55 miles per hour. Energy conservation was the initial excuse for this unnatural pace, but when gas prices were allowed to rise naturally, in the post Carter years, the shortages evaporated. At that point, safety was the selling point of the speed limits. I always speculated that the speed limits were kept low, so that people would naturally exceed them, giving authorities the cause to pull anyone over. The fines assessed on people driving a normal speed would also benefit regional governments.

I've also believed for some time, that when laws become too easy to break, they will be broken lasciviously. If everybody breaks the law, it erodes people's respect for it. Such is the case in the big cities of America, and most third world nations, where the amount of laws make it is almost impossible to abide by all of them; and unnecessary, as long as you can bribe the appropriate official.

An observation of this erosion is the recent lowering of the allowable blood alcohol level to .08% in 2000. There was a time when drunk driving was not taken seriously enough, and there were too many needless accidents, injuries and deaths caused by our apathy. Thanks to stricter enforcement, and an effective public awareness campaign, the amount of alcohol related auto accidents has dropped dramatically over the past couple decades. But .08% is probably too low. Most experienced drinkers can operate a vehicle quite well a that level. You can get a 0.08% blood alcohol level, from a generous shot of NyQuil®.

Hence a lot more people are getting arrested. Being arrested for a DUI was originally a stigma that would force a person into rehab, and make them re-evaluate their habits. Today, so many people are getting arrested for it, that everyone outside of Utah, probably knows a couple people who have received one. Hence, rather than being a life altering event, DUIs are nothing more than really bad traffic tickets. Today, people laugh about them, and at parties you'll often find groups of people comparing what percentage they blew, the night they got theirs.

And it is reflected in the statistics. Since the 08% was initiated, the amount of people who admit to driving when they shouldn't has increased for the first time since the clamp down began. According to the Department of Transportation, in 2003, alcohol related fatalities have increased in 17 states since 1995. A recent study indicates that alcohol related traffic incidents are up almost 50%. Strangely, it would seem that the solution to Drunk Driving is not more restrictions, but less. It would be a really bold legislator that would risk his career on supporting that move. Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. suggested this back in 2000. Perhaps the zeitgeist is slowly correcting itself, but I don't expect to see it change in my lifetime.

Back to traffic signs. Conventional wisdom would say, that if you took down stop signs, that people would rush straight through intersections, and there would be a measurable amount of increased accidents. That's the reason why a kid with a stop sign decorating his wall, was always punished more severely than the kid who had one that said: Bong Recreation Area

But there is also the possibility, that if there were no stop signs, people would approach every intersection with caution. Rather than counting on the drivers in opposing traffic to stop at theirs, while you blow through yours, both cars are going to stop. There would be a disincentive to speeding, through several intersections at a time, because you never know if the other guys are going to stop. Self preservation and protection of personal property is more incentive than the risk of a hundred dollar fine.

There is also the factor, that for a certain percentage of humans, if you tell them to do something, they won't. Not only are rules meant to be broken, the very existence of a rule is a challenge. (I think I fall into that category.) It is quite possible that if you don't make it a law that you have to stop at every intersection, more people will.

Up until now, these ideas were nothing more than a very interesting thought experiment. Whenever I sugested it, I was usually made fun of. Today I ran into this item on the Drudge Report from Der Spiegel. It seems that some European towns are experimenting with this idea: "... in the town of Drachten in the Netherlands, which has 45,000 inhabitants. ...'More than half of our signs have already been scrapped," says traffic planner Koop Kerkstra. "Only two out of our original 18 traffic light crossings are left, and we've converted them to roundabouts." Now traffic is regulated by only two rules in Drachten: "Yield to the right" and "Get in someone's way and you'll be towed.'"

While I suggest that perhaps their ventures into these experiments are inspired by limited resources, rather than more loftier goals, like an advancement of Liberty, there is no mistaking the result: "...the number of accidents has declined dramatically. Experts from Argentina and the United States have visited Drachten. Even London has expressed an interest in this new example of automobile anarchy."

From the Continent that gave the world Marxism, comes this fresh breeze of Liberty. It looks like I've just been given one more reason to applaud the Netherlands, and perhaps I should readjust my prejudice of Europe.