The chapter begins
of with a quote by Kai Ericson, "Societies somehow 'need' their quotas
of deviants and function in such a way as to keep them intact." The
quote demonstrates the overall theme of the chapter which is how does traffic
laws basically impact our society. We live in a structured yet unstructured
society, so what keeps us in place while driving un such an unsure and
unpredictable driving environment? This chapter discusses these issues.
Some people note that traffic laws basically are
ignored by drivers as the situation arises, so in terms of that we have
to ask the question, why do we need traffic laws in the first place?
Would we do fine without traffic laws governing our streets? To help
explain this, Chamblis and Seidman noted that as societies change and become
more industrialized and complex, laws that regulate the encounters of individuals
become necessary. This is to instate some type of predictability,
order, and coherence in human behavior.
The legal strategy behind all of this, enacted by
officials, compose of a series of decrees that rationalize driver behavior,
differentiate and classify drivers into separate types and categories,
and invoke a philosophy of deterrence. From this we see that categorization
plays a major role in what we, as drivers, are characterized as.
Lave and Lave observed that traffic laws enhance
mobility because if there were no legal controls, drivers would need to
engage in so much more social action that it would cause traffic to come
to a standstill. In fact, traffic laws exist to encourage a smooth
driving roadway and in addition to deal with the deviant drivers.
What is implied by all of this is that laws not only govern what we should
do and not do, but they also promote efficient social actions which is
essential to a smooth traffic flow. From this we see that deviant
drivers aren't the only types of drivers the laws are geared to govern.
Rothe examines the driver as a collectivist versus
the driver as an individual. What is implied by this is that to the
collectivist, the central idea is the individual who forgoes differentiated
privileges and attributes so that they may comfortably fit in with society.
On the other hand, today's traffic laws emphasize control of driver individualism
for the safety of all drivers and efficient mobility.
In terms of joint action, three groups of prescribed
conduct can be discussed:
1. Allocating the use of
parts of the roadway according to normative driving behavior (e.g.. lane
changes, etc.).
2. The order of presence
at intersections.
3. Driver and vehicle appropriateness
(ex. driver-wearing seat belts, intoxication, having insurance, etc.
Car-safe brake lights, tires, mechanical devices, etc.)
Traffic Laws and Accidents
Most violations, of the three sets of laws, usually
don't result in accidents. This is because motorists drive according
to how they define the traffic situations in which they are called to act.
For example, violations without accidents occur frequently. Due to
the fact that drivers try to avoid collisions as much as possible, it is
questionable to say that violations increase the possibility of traffic
accidents. In fact, not all violations discovered in connection with
accident contributed to those accidents. It is also noted that violations
also occur without recognition by drivers, such as the driver failing to
see a stop sign.
In addition, research has shown that up to 50 percent
of people's visual attention is directed toward non-driving related objects
and only 50 percent of all road signs are perceived by drivers. These
are scary facts which are probably true to the everyday driver. Many
of us are distracted by other things non-driving related, but once again
it is hard to indicate that non-traffic related items are the sole factor
causing accidents.
What about the statistics in terms of trusting other
drivers? In most places it is assumed that the driver should be familiar
with the local driving laws. Although, all of this comes down to
the point that nearly everyone disobeys traffic laws occasionally.
On Trial
When a motorist gets involved with the law, it is
believed that upon their action they'll be presumed innocent until proven
guilty. In fact, the burden of proof is to show "due diligence" or
reasonable effort under a regulatory scheme. Many times this is the
case when we see someone break the laws. It is unfortunate that there
are so many loopholes in the law where lawyers can exploit in order to
get their client, a traffic offender, dismissed from their conviction.
Traffic Laws as Deterrence
Most people, as well as law officials believe that
deterrence works, but sociologists, Bittner and Platt, advised punishment
based on deterrence is inherently unjust. Despite this, officials
still use deterrents to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities on
the road.
Deterrence, in order to become effective, must be
recognized by the people it governs which are the drivers. Media
and other types of broadcasting is used to promote that deterrence is out
there and that violators will suffer the consequences. Despite all
of this, what if we were to imagine that there was no law enforcement?
Carr and Schnelle inferred this by analyzing data
from a 1976 Kansas study. Their conclusion was that the overall level
of enforcement have no measurable effect on the frequency or severity of
accidents. Deterrence, at best, may give favorable short-term results,
but these soon regress to numbers established prior to increased enforcement.
So we ask the question, what about long term versus short term gains of
the law and deterrence? It has been found that while enforcement
deal primarily with negative motivation, strict reinforcement may be an
effective means of breaking drivers bad habits, but not as good in creating
good habits.
Attitudes Toward Traffic Laws:
A Guide to Behavior
200 young people's responses to open-ended questions
about the law and normal violations were re-analyzed for the topics that
are to follow:
-Views of the law before licensure:
Unlicensed teens defined how they expect to drive
as their friends do. Boys revealed that they would violate speed
limits when they were licensed. Girls had a collective attitude in
the speeding issue. Boys tended to use vehicles as recreational vehicles
while girls used vehicles for purposive journeys.
-Licensed young drivers and the law:
Boys felt that regulation and laws restricted their
driving style. There was little evidence to suggest that the internalized
a need to obey laws. On the other hand, girls tended to be more conservative
in terms of obeying the laws.
-Audience segregation an the law:
Boys tended to use driving as a performance to friends.
It was basically an act for whoever was in the car with them. Girls
tended to be more consistent in terms of their driving styles with an audience.
-Views of impaired driving:
Boys and girls both, from an objective point of
view, considered impaired driving to be dangerous.
-Impaired driving as a normal violation:
Boys were likely to drive after a few beers, but
not if they were drunk, while the girls were again more conservative to
the point of not participating in impaired driving.
So as we can see here there are many differences
between males and females in terms of issued of the law and driving behaviors,
but what I believe that Rothe was tring to get at was that although deterrence
may be a contributing factor to the reduction of traffic accidents and
fatalities, it is not the only sole solution. We have more work that
needs to be done and a mojor part of it should be educating our drivers
to handle the situations that need to be in check. Until then, our
driving laws must do.
If you have any suggestions or comments, feel free to email me by clicking on the email icon below!
