Enforcement on the traffic

[[Rstar]Paul]

PM from an individual.

Is reversing in lane or driving backwards on a road illegal towards the Argonath Constitution? Please answer this on the topic if you'd like to. I'd really want an explanation if it isn't.

Answer:
I'm not the one to decide on this, it goes through the courts. They will state whether it is legal or not.

[Pingster]

Suppose you were driving a car down the off ramp from the LS-LV Highway and a car was reversing in lane up the wrong ramp [Going the Opposite Direction] without being able to switch lanes [a car was in the lane next to you] or not enough time to avoid their car, you smashed into the back of their vehicle. I believe that it would be their fault for reckless driving.

We can each create hypothetical situations all we want, proving each other's points incorrect. Reality is that there are more accidents in front of Idlewood PNS in 1 hr than there are at Mulholland Intersection in 1 week. You want to quote what can be considered reckless, go ahead. Thing is, that act is worded so curiously, that it doesn't necessarily make anything illegal, it just states that it could be illegal. Which means, all cases should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Could it endanger other citizens? Just driving around could do that, doesn't mean you pull over everyone driving a monster truck. Does your driving endanger other citizens at that point? That's where the argument should be.

So yeah, in a situation where there are no other driving cars or citizens within visible range me reversing in my lane does not nor could possibly endanger anyone. Thus it's not reckless driving no matter which way you point your act.

Try looking for reckless driving at Idlewood PNS, you'd have your hands filled there.

[TinMan]

Try looking for reckless driving at Idlewood PNS, you'd have your hands filled there.

Yes, I was just speaking hypothetically and I knew you were going to bring up the part we can both prove each other incorrectly and I agree with that.

Okay, lets evaluate your reversing in lane.

"Could it endanger other citizens?" Yes.

At that point that is when a law enforcement officer may step in and pull the person over, or especially the ARA and VOSA will take the person who violates into court.

After that the person has the right to defend themselves in court to prove that they have valid reason on why they were doing such act. 

So yeah, in a situation where there are no other driving cars or citizens within visible range me reversing in my lane does not nor could possibly endanger anyone. Thus it's not reckless driving no matter which way you point your act.

Your opinion basically says it would be legal to peel out, speed, or drive erratically as long as nobody is around. Therefore, that statement would be false.

:ps: I always will stick with Mulholland Intersection, thank you very much.

[Pingster]

Your opinion basically says it would be legal to peel out, speed, or drive erratically as long as nobody is around. Therefore, that statement would be false.

Speed? No, that's a separate crime. But the constitution is clear on what it understands as reckless driving, driving that can harm other citizens. Can you harm other citizens when there are none within miles? No, you can not. So not reckless driving. It's not my opinion, it's what it says.

Yes, you can argue that the constitution means "can potentially, in a hypothetical situation, harm other citizens", but in that case driving in general is understood as reckless driving. I mean, someone could jump out on the street, and you could potentially harm them.

[TheLegitHabibi]

What the constitution says means that any sort of driving which has the potential to harm citizens, is reckless driving. Whether you're alone in Tierra Robada, or Idlewood PNS. Still counts as reckless....

[Pingster]

Yes, you can argue that the constitution means "can potentially, in a hypothetical situation, harm other citizens", but in that case driving in general is understood as reckless driving. I mean, someone could jump out on the street, and you could potentially harm them.

[SugarD]

Whether you're alone in Tierra Robada, or Idlewood PNS, still counts as reckless....

Agreed. You never know where someone may be at. It's still a risk to their lives, even if you think they aren't there, hence why it's illegal even when no one is around.

[Pingster]

Agreed. You never know where someone may be at. It's still a risk to their lives, even if you think they aren't there, hence why it's illegal even when no one is around.

Except you can kinda see if anyone is nearby. It's not thinking they aren't there, it's knowing they aren't there.

If you drive carefully when you see there are others nearby, then the law has achieved it's goal, it's preventing harm of other people. If you're at a point when there's no way to harm other people, then the law is meaningless, it literally has no point to it, other than punishing of citizens. Doing the same thing in different situations leads to different results, does not mean you should act upon it all the same in all of the situations. TinMan is trying to establish reversing as a crime, because in some bizarre one in a million situation, it will harm other people. No, that's silly and wrong. I can give you ways any single thing about traffic can harm others, we might as well ban vehicles in general.

[SugarD]

Except you can kinda see if anyone is nearby. It's not thinking they aren't there, it's knowing they aren't there.

You can't say that with 100% certainty. What if a player logs in right where you are speeding/recklessly driving?

[Pingster]

What if a player logs in right where you are speeding/recklessly driving?

What if a player logs in right where you are driving carefully? Opcodes middle of the street? Pull over every single person because someone may log in where they're driving?

Speeding and reckless driving are separate things anyway, and I don't argue about speeding, I'm arguing about reckless driving.

[SugarD]

What if a player logs in right where you are driving carefully? Opcodes middle of the street? Pull over every single person because someone may log in where they're driving?

Speeding and reckless driving are separate things anyway, and I don't argue about speeding, I'm arguing about reckless driving.

Speeding may be a different crime, but it is still a form of reckless driving. If you are driving the speed limit and being completely safe, and someone logs in, right in front of you, and gets hit, then it's purely an accident. If you are speeding and/or recklessly driving and you hit someone who logs into the game in front of you, it's still your fault because you could have reacted better if you followed the laws.

[Pingster]

Speeding may be a different crime, but it is still a form of reckless driving. If you are driving the speed limit and being completely safe, and someone logs in, right in front of you, and gets hit, then it's purely an accident. If you are speeding and/or recklessly driving and you hit someone who logs into the game in front of you, it's still your fault because you could have reacted better if you followed the laws.

Speeding is not the same at all, speeding is a crime regardless of conditions, whereas reckless driving is an incredibly conditional crime.

Anyway, if someone logs in right in front of you, you will hit them regardless if you drive carefully at 80km/h or if you took an excessively wide turn at 80km/h, as I said, any and all driving has the potential of harming someone, that does NOT classify it as reckless driving.

Unless president or supreme courts state otherwise, unless there is an actual, real threat or damage to other citizens at that point in space and time, not just "potentially, if this exact weird scenario plays out", it shouldn't be reckless driving. I'm not saying that driving in the wrong lane or speeding would be legal, I'm saying that if there is no way possible to harm even a baby, then it's not reckless driving, just as the law states. Driving on the curb in Pershing Square - sure, reckless driving, populated area and a lot of people are there almost 24/7. Cutting a corner in Montgomery, not so much. Or, god forbid, reversing with no one anywhere near you.

[SugarD]

Speeding is not the same at all, speeding is a crime regardless of conditions, whereas reckless driving is an incredibly conditional crime.

Reckless driving is not conditional at all. If you drive recklessly, it's reckless driving. It's pretty straightforward. It doesn't matter who is around, it is still a crime.

[Pingster]

Reckless driving is not conditional at all. If you drive recklessly, it's reckless driving. It's pretty straightforward. It doesn't matter who is around, it is still a crime.

The Constitution's definition on reckless driving is driving that can endanger other citizens. So not really, if you bump down every single pole around you, that's not reckless driving, that's harm to property instead. However, if there are people standing near these poles, that turns into reckless driving as well. See how it's conditional?

[SugarD]

The Constitution's definition on reckless driving is driving that can endanger other citizens. So not really, if you bump down every single pole around you, that's not reckless driving, that's harm to property instead. However, if there are people standing near these poles, that turns into reckless driving as well. See how it's conditional?

Those people are not taking reckless actions that could potential damage the poles. If they are swinging bats around near the poles, which could potentially damages those poles, they are being reckless. It's not conditional.

You are trying to justify something illegal as legal when no one is around. That does not make it legal.