It's a good idea if he's as much of a repeat offender as they seem to imply.
I mean, as a multi-millionaire, you could potentially afford the fines and just speed all you want, not caring. So you scale up the fines so he can't do that.
Of course, where I live they just use a point system instead. Big Speeding tickets get you points. Too many points and you lose your license. Drive without a license and shit gets BAD for you.
I think most places have a point system in addition to the fine system, but I still don't see why everyone should pay the same for speeding tickets.
Equality under the law. If the punishment for a certain crime is X, you shouldn't be treated differently under the law because you're poor, rich or whatever.
Unless said fine is "x% of income". There's no difference in treatment, there.
Speed traps in the sense of enforcing fines as a means to revenue enhancement as opposed to as a means to increasing public safety. Strictly enforcing a 35 MPH zone and fining me for going 38 strikes me as unnecessary and not conducive to public safety.
Enforcement of the law should not be dependent on how hard up for cash the police department is.
But the speed limit is still 35, and you were doing 38. I'm not arguing getting pulled over for an extra 3 miles isn't a hassle, but you still disobeyed the law.
And of course I've done more than the speed limit, but if I got pulled over, I wouldn't call it BS. I did something wrong, I got punished. Thats what happens if you get caught.
As for not knowing the speed limit, ignorance is no excuse from the law. If I'm not sure what the speedlimit is, I slow down to the limit I *guess* it is, and speed up when I see what the limit is. It's not that big of a deal.
Others have pointed out the problems of speed traps far more completely than me.
I said I "initially" thought this was a good idea because I then changed my mind. I started thinking about traffic fines and fines in general, and then I started considering: in America at least (not sure about the situation in other countries) there is a certain problem of police setting up speed traps as a revenue stream, which seems like a messed-up incentive to me.
Don't speed = trap becomes worthless. I hate when people bitch about cops trapping them. If you weren't doing something illegal, you wouldn't be "trapped".
Speed limits are not adjusted to reflect the actual road conditions under which they occur. This is why speed traps are called as such - they're setup in areas where it is unbelievably safe to go faster then the posted limit, or where it is likely people will cruise 5-10km over the limit (say, along a road with periodic ups and downs where continually breaking is actually more dangerous) for the express purpose that they generate a lot of tickets.
The general societal pressure is "slow down", yet in something like 60+% of accidents driver fatigue, rather then speed, is the main cause. As a motoring group recently pointed out - accurately - knocking a 110 limit down to 100 will add an hour to an inter-city trip. Does that really make the roads safer?
I agree, we should add a shitty roads clause.
If the road condition are really shitty, you're fine and point penalty is doubled, if the road conditions are perfect it is halved, if neither applies then you get the standard fine.
We double fines/penalties when passing road workers because of the increased risk, seems like doing the same for poor driving conditions would be reasonable.
Which is not at all the point I was making. Speed limits seem to bring out the worst in the "well it's the law!" crowd. Is 38 over 35mph going to make a difference? What about 40? There's an alarming lack of evidence cited when speed limits are changed - and like I said - the road toll doesn't reflect what is said. It goes up, it goes down - there's no trend, just random noise and usually the ever-present reality that certain roads are just innately dangerous and speed has nothing to do with it.
Can the citizen fine the government for not updating the infrastructure? Why not?
electricitylikesme on
0
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
I said I "initially" thought this was a good idea because I then changed my mind. I started thinking about traffic fines and fines in general, and then I started considering: in America at least (not sure about the situation in other countries) there is a certain problem of police setting up speed traps as a revenue stream, which seems like a messed-up incentive to me.
Don't speed = trap becomes worthless. I hate when people bitch about cops trapping them. If you weren't doing something illegal, you wouldn't be "trapped".
Speed traps in the sense of enforcing fines as a means to revenue enhancement as opposed to as a means to increasing public safety. Strictly enforcing a 35 MPH zone and fining me for going 38 strikes me as unnecessary and not conducive to public safety.
Enforcement of the law should not be dependent on how hard up for cash the police department is.
But the speed limit is still 35, and you were doing 38. I'm not arguing getting pulled over for an extra 3 miles isn't a hassle, but you still disobeyed the law.
And of course I've done more than the speed limit, but if I got pulled over, I wouldn't call it BS. I did something wrong, I got punished. Thats what happens if you get caught.
As for not knowing the speed limit, ignorance is no excuse from the law. If I'm not sure what the speedlimit is, I slow down to the limit I *guess* it is, and speed up when I see what the limit is. It's not that big of a deal.
I really can't believe this still has to be repeated, but here goes: just because something is the law doesn't mean it's just. And I don't get how you don't mind disobeying the law. Is everything made right when you're given a ticket? What happens if you're not caught? You weren't punished for breaking the law. Do you turn yourself in? Don't you think the right thing to do when someone breaks the law is that they turn themselves in?
As for ignorance, this isn't about ignorance, this is about local law enforcement taking advantage of ignorance for their own gain. If I don't know the speed limit I will make a guess but that guess will be based on the conditions of the road. This could still land me with a ticket from an overzealous police officer. When you make a guess what do you base it on?
Speed traps in the sense of enforcing fines as a means to revenue enhancement as opposed to as a means to increasing public safety. Strictly enforcing a 35 MPH zone and fining me for going 38 strikes me as unnecessary and not conducive to public safety.
Enforcement of the law should not be dependent on how hard up for cash the police department is.
But the speed limit is still 35, and you were doing 38. I'm not arguing getting pulled over for an extra 3 miles isn't a hassle, but you still disobeyed the law.
And of course I've done more than the speed limit, but if I got pulled over, I wouldn't call it BS. I did something wrong, I got punished. Thats what happens if you get caught.
As for not knowing the speed limit, ignorance is no excuse from the law. If I'm not sure what the speedlimit is, I slow down to the limit I *guess* it is, and speed up when I see what the limit is. It's not that big of a deal.
Others have pointed out the problems of speed traps far more completely than me.
I saw and thought I addressed that, sort of. But none of those points make it ok to go above the speed limit. They point out why people dont like them, not how cops are making them go faster than the speed limit, thus trapping them.
I really can't believe this still has to be repeated, but here goes: just because something is the law doesn't mean it's just. And I don't get how you don't mind disobeying the law. Is everything made right when you're given a ticket? What happens if you're not caught? You weren't punished for breaking the law. Do you turn yourself in? Don't you think the right thing to do when someone breaks the law is that they turn themselves in?
As for ignorance, this isn't about ignorance, this is about local law enforcement taking advantage of ignorance for their own gain. If I don't know the speed limit I will make a guess but that guess will be based on the conditions of the road. This could still land me with a ticket from an overzealous police officer. When you make a guess what do you base it on?
This is actually what pisses me off about "civil disobedience".
You're breaking the law. It may be for a moral cause, but you're still breaking the law. Don't get all butthurt when you suffer the consequences.
You're supposed to accept those consequences, and stand on your principles despite them.
Speed traps in the sense of enforcing fines as a means to revenue enhancement as opposed to as a means to increasing public safety. Strictly enforcing a 35 MPH zone and fining me for going 38 strikes me as unnecessary and not conducive to public safety.
Enforcement of the law should not be dependent on how hard up for cash the police department is.
But the speed limit is still 35, and you were doing 38. I'm not arguing getting pulled over for an extra 3 miles isn't a hassle, but you still disobeyed the law.
And of course I've done more than the speed limit, but if I got pulled over, I wouldn't call it BS. I did something wrong, I got punished. Thats what happens if you get caught.
As for not knowing the speed limit, ignorance is no excuse from the law. If I'm not sure what the speedlimit is, I slow down to the limit I *guess* it is, and speed up when I see what the limit is. It's not that big of a deal.
Others have pointed out the problems of speed traps far more completely than me.
I saw and thought I addressed that, sort of. But none of those points make it ok to go above the speed limit. They point out why people dont like them, not how cops are making them go faster than the speed limit, thus trapping them.
Really, isn't it rather well documented that the vast majority of tickets are written for 10+ MPH above the limit, and that state police generally provide a 7MPHish "grace"?
I said I "initially" thought this was a good idea because I then changed my mind. I started thinking about traffic fines and fines in general, and then I started considering: in America at least (not sure about the situation in other countries) there is a certain problem of police setting up speed traps as a revenue stream, which seems like a messed-up incentive to me.
Don't speed = trap becomes worthless. I hate when people bitch about cops trapping them. If you weren't doing something illegal, you wouldn't be "trapped".
Speed limits are not adjusted to reflect the actual road conditions under which they occur. This is why speed traps are called as such - they're setup in areas where it is unbelievably safe to go faster then the posted limit, or where it is likely people will cruise 5-10km over the limit (say, along a road with periodic ups and downs where continually breaking is actually more dangerous) for the express purpose that they generate a lot of tickets.
The general societal pressure is "slow down", yet in something like 60+% of accidents driver fatigue, rather then speed, is the main cause. As a motoring group recently pointed out - accurately - knocking a 110 limit down to 100 will add an hour to an inter-city trip. Does that really make the roads safer?
I agree, we should add a shitty roads clause.
If the road condition are really shitty, you're fine and point penalty is doubled, if the road conditions are perfect it is halved, if neither applies then you get the standard fine.
We double fines/penalties when passing road workers because of the increased risk, seems like doing the same for poor driving conditions would be reasonable.
Which is not at all the point I was making. Speed limits seem to bring out the worst in the "well it's the law!" crowd. Is 38 over 35mph going to make a difference? What about 40?
That's a really dumb line of reasoning.
Look, the line has to be drawn somewhere. 40KPH is ok. 100KPH is way to fast. At some point in between, you've got to just set a firm number and say "This fast, no faster.".
And the truth is (at least in Canada), nobody will pull you over for going 10KPH over the limit. And ever when they do pull you over for doing like 20KPH+ over the limit, they'll often give you a lesser ticket then you deserve if you aren't a dick to them.
Speed traps in the sense of enforcing fines as a means to revenue enhancement as opposed to as a means to increasing public safety. Strictly enforcing a 35 MPH zone and fining me for going 38 strikes me as unnecessary and not conducive to public safety.
Enforcement of the law should not be dependent on how hard up for cash the police department is.
But the speed limit is still 35, and you were doing 38. I'm not arguing getting pulled over for an extra 3 miles isn't a hassle, but you still disobeyed the law.
And of course I've done more than the speed limit, but if I got pulled over, I wouldn't call it BS. I did something wrong, I got punished. Thats what happens if you get caught.
As for not knowing the speed limit, ignorance is no excuse from the law. If I'm not sure what the speedlimit is, I slow down to the limit I *guess* it is, and speed up when I see what the limit is. It's not that big of a deal.
Others have pointed out the problems of speed traps far more completely than me.
I saw and thought I addressed that, sort of. But none of those points make it ok to go above the speed limit. They point out why people dont like them, not how cops are making them go faster than the speed limit, thus trapping them.
There are roads where the speed limit changes 6-8 times in a 1-2km stretch. It is actually dangerous to breaking hard between most of these speed limit changes, which is what you'd have to do to strictly obey them. And no, you can't pick a level and cruise at it, because speed limits generally don't work like that - the idea is supposed to be that once it changes you can reasonable expect to accelerate up to it and have stopping distance and notification in order to adjust to a slower one.
electricitylikesme on
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I said I "initially" thought this was a good idea because I then changed my mind. I started thinking about traffic fines and fines in general, and then I started considering: in America at least (not sure about the situation in other countries) there is a certain problem of police setting up speed traps as a revenue stream, which seems like a messed-up incentive to me.
Don't speed = trap becomes worthless. I hate when people bitch about cops trapping them. If you weren't doing something illegal, you wouldn't be "trapped".
Speed limits are not adjusted to reflect the actual road conditions under which they occur. This is why speed traps are called as such - they're setup in areas where it is unbelievably safe to go faster then the posted limit, or where it is likely people will cruise 5-10km over the limit (say, along a road with periodic ups and downs where continually breaking is actually more dangerous) for the express purpose that they generate a lot of tickets.
The general societal pressure is "slow down", yet in something like 60+% of accidents driver fatigue, rather then speed, is the main cause. As a motoring group recently pointed out - accurately - knocking a 110 limit down to 100 will add an hour to an inter-city trip. Does that really make the roads safer?
I agree, we should add a shitty roads clause.
If the road condition are really shitty, you're fine and point penalty is doubled, if the road conditions are perfect it is halved, if neither applies then you get the standard fine.
We double fines/penalties when passing road workers because of the increased risk, seems like doing the same for poor driving conditions would be reasonable.
Which is not at all the point I was making. Speed limits seem to bring out the worst in the "well it's the law!" crowd. Is 38 over 35mph going to make a difference? What about 40?
That's a really dumb line of reasoning.
Look, the line has to be drawn somewhere. 40KPH is ok. 100KPH is way to fast. At some point in between, you've got to just set a firm number and say "This fast, no faster.".
And the truth is (at least in Canada), nobody will pull you over for going 10KPH over the limit. And ever when they do pull you over for doing like 20KPH+ over the limit, they'll often give you a lesser ticket then you deserve if you aren't a dick to them.
Wow. It's totally a good thing we don't have speed cameras all over the place, added because they net huge revenues to state governments, and which have recently had their tolerances adjusted from +5kph over the limit to +3kph over the limit. Yeah I'm glad that's not happening at all instead of upgrading inter-state highway to dual carriage way instead of setting an 80kph speed limit on a two lane road without even concrete dividers and traffic going in both directions separated by double white painted lines.
I said I "initially" thought this was a good idea because I then changed my mind. I started thinking about traffic fines and fines in general, and then I started considering: in America at least (not sure about the situation in other countries) there is a certain problem of police setting up speed traps as a revenue stream, which seems like a messed-up incentive to me.
Don't speed = trap becomes worthless. I hate when people bitch about cops trapping them. If you weren't doing something illegal, you wouldn't be "trapped".
Speed traps in the sense of enforcing fines as a means to revenue enhancement as opposed to as a means to increasing public safety. Strictly enforcing a 35 MPH zone and fining me for going 38 strikes me as unnecessary and not conducive to public safety.
Enforcement of the law should not be dependent on how hard up for cash the police department is.
But the speed limit is still 35, and you were doing 38. I'm not arguing getting pulled over for an extra 3 miles isn't a hassle, but you still disobeyed the law.
And of course I've done more than the speed limit, but if I got pulled over, I wouldn't call it BS. I did something wrong, I got punished. Thats what happens if you get caught.
As for not knowing the speed limit, ignorance is no excuse from the law. If I'm not sure what the speedlimit is, I slow down to the limit I *guess* it is, and speed up when I see what the limit is. It's not that big of a deal.
I really can't believe this still has to be repeated, but here goes: just because something is the law doesn't mean it's just. And I don't get how you don't mind disobeying the law. Is everything made right when you're given a ticket? What happens if you're not caught? You weren't punished for breaking the law. Do you turn yourself in? Don't you think the right thing to do when someone breaks the law is that they turn themselves in?
As for ignorance, this isn't about ignorance, this is about local law enforcement taking advantage of ignorance for their own gain. If I don't know the speed limit I will make a guess but that guess will be based on the conditions of the road. This could still land me with a ticket from an overzealous police officer. When you make a guess what do you base it on?
Usually my familiariztion with the local laws. But in a strange place, I usually travel about 5-10 less than the average person. 5-10 over is usually what most people find to be acceptable. If I'm wrong, I get a ticket. Big deal.
And what does "just" have to do with a speed limit? This isn't murder, it's just the maximum speed you're legally allowed travel at.
I really can't believe this still has to be repeated, but here goes: just because something is the law doesn't mean it's just. And I don't get how you don't mind disobeying the law. Is everything made right when you're given a ticket? What happens if you're not caught? You weren't punished for breaking the law. Do you turn yourself in? Don't you think the right thing to do when someone breaks the law is that they turn themselves in?
As for ignorance, this isn't about ignorance, this is about local law enforcement taking advantage of ignorance for their own gain. If I don't know the speed limit I will make a guess but that guess will be based on the conditions of the road. This could still land me with a ticket from an overzealous police officer. When you make a guess what do you base it on?
This is actually what pisses me off about "civil disobedience".
You're breaking the law. It may be for a moral cause, but you're still breaking the law. Don't get all butthurt when you suffer the consequences.
You're supposed to accept those consequences, and stand on your principles despite them.
I'm gonna get all shouty now >.<
What do you mean by "accept those consequences"? Do you mean pay the fine? Or do you mean accept that the law is the law, you shouldn't change it or try? I am talking about the latter, what are you talking about? I don't care whether someone decides to pay the fine just to end the hassle, but they shouldn't accept a law just because it's a law, and it being a law shouldn't prevent them from trying to change it. Laws are not sacred. They are meant to be shaped or thrown out if necessary.
Sarksus on
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
It's a good idea if he's as much of a repeat offender as they seem to imply.
I mean, as a multi-millionaire, you could potentially afford the fines and just speed all you want, not caring. So you scale up the fines so he can't do that.
Of course, where I live they just use a point system instead. Big Speeding tickets get you points. Too many points and you lose your license. Drive without a license and shit gets BAD for you.
I think most places have a point system in addition to the fine system, but I still don't see why everyone should pay the same for speeding tickets.
Equality under the law. If the punishment for a certain crime is X, you shouldn't be treated differently under the law because you're poor, rich or whatever.
Unless said fine is "x% of income". There's no difference in treatment, there.
Not percentage-wise, sure, but it does lead to differences in the total punishment imposed. Subjectively, paying a $1000 fine might be the same to a wealthier person as paying a $100 fine might be for a poorer one. But, objectively, one person is being punished ten times as much for the same crime.
It would be like determining prison sentences based on the age of the criminal- so, manslaughter would require a sentence of 20% of your remaining life (based on average life expectancy) or whatever, so you would serve more time the younger you were when you committed the crime.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Wow. It's totally a good thing we don't have speed cameras all over the place, added because they net huge revenues to state governments, and which have recently had their tolerances adjusted from +5kph over the limit to +3kph over the limit. Yeah I'm glad that's not happening at all instead of upgrading inter-state highway to dual carriage way instead of setting an 80kph speed limit on a two lane road without even concrete dividers and traffic going in both directions separated by double white painted lines.
It's totally protecting the public.
To be frank, cameras prevent a lot of due process concerns and issues. In most cases the issuer of the ticket isn't a law enforcement officer.
I said I "initially" thought this was a good idea because I then changed my mind. I started thinking about traffic fines and fines in general, and then I started considering: in America at least (not sure about the situation in other countries) there is a certain problem of police setting up speed traps as a revenue stream, which seems like a messed-up incentive to me.
Don't speed = trap becomes worthless. I hate when people bitch about cops trapping them. If you weren't doing something illegal, you wouldn't be "trapped".
Speed limits are not adjusted to reflect the actual road conditions under which they occur. This is why speed traps are called as such - they're setup in areas where it is unbelievably safe to go faster then the posted limit, or where it is likely people will cruise 5-10km over the limit (say, along a road with periodic ups and downs where continually breaking is actually more dangerous) for the express purpose that they generate a lot of tickets.
The general societal pressure is "slow down", yet in something like 60+% of accidents driver fatigue, rather then speed, is the main cause. As a motoring group recently pointed out - accurately - knocking a 110 limit down to 100 will add an hour to an inter-city trip. Does that really make the roads safer?
I agree, we should add a shitty roads clause.
If the road condition are really shitty, you're fine and point penalty is doubled, if the road conditions are perfect it is halved, if neither applies then you get the standard fine.
We double fines/penalties when passing road workers because of the increased risk, seems like doing the same for poor driving conditions would be reasonable.
Which is not at all the point I was making. Speed limits seem to bring out the worst in the "well it's the law!" crowd. Is 38 over 35mph going to make a difference? What about 40?
That's a really dumb line of reasoning.
Look, the line has to be drawn somewhere. 40KPH is ok. 100KPH is way to fast. At some point in between, you've got to just set a firm number and say "This fast, no faster.".
And the truth is (at least in Canada), nobody will pull you over for going 10KPH over the limit. And ever when they do pull you over for doing like 20KPH+ over the limit, they'll often give you a lesser ticket then you deserve if you aren't a dick to them.
Wow. It's totally a good thing we don't have speed cameras all over the place, added because they net huge revenues to state governments, and which have recently had their tolerances adjusted from +5kph over the limit to +3kph over the limit. Yeah I'm glad that's not happening at all instead of upgrading inter-state highway to dual carriage way instead of setting an 80kph speed limit on a two lane road without even concrete dividers and traffic going in both directions separated by double white painted lines.
It's totally protecting the public.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Is it that your local Australian speed enforcement sucks or something?
It's a good idea if he's as much of a repeat offender as they seem to imply.
I mean, as a multi-millionaire, you could potentially afford the fines and just speed all you want, not caring. So you scale up the fines so he can't do that.
Of course, where I live they just use a point system instead. Big Speeding tickets get you points. Too many points and you lose your license. Drive without a license and shit gets BAD for you.
I think most places have a point system in addition to the fine system, but I still don't see why everyone should pay the same for speeding tickets.
Equality under the law. If the punishment for a certain crime is X, you shouldn't be treated differently under the law because you're poor, rich or whatever.
Unless said fine is "x% of income". There's no difference in treatment, there.
Not percentage-wise, sure, but it does lead to differences in the total punishment imposed. Subjectively, paying a $1000 fine might be the same to a wealthier person as paying a $100 fine might be for a poorer one. But, objectively, one person is being punished ten times as much for the same crime.
It would be like determining prison sentences based on the age of the criminal- so, manslaughter would require a sentence of 20% of your remaining life (based on average life expectancy) or whatever, so you would serve more time the younger you were when you committed the crime.
That's just wrong.
It presents an even fairer means of associating fine with crime.
What do you mean by "accept those consequences"? Do you mean pay the fine? Or do you mean accept that the law is the law, you shouldn't change it or try? I am talking about the latter, what are you talking about? I don't care whether someone decides to pay the fine just to end the hassle, but they shouldn't accept a law just because it's a law, and it being a law shouldn't prevent them from trying to change it. Laws are not sacred. They are meant to be shaped or thrown out if necessary.
Apparently you can't complain if you think something is unfair.
Nope, just gotta bend over and take it like a man.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Man my "Failure to Stay in Marked Lanes" ticket worth 0 points fucked over my insurance in Mass hard and I've been paying for that $20 dollar ticket for 3 years. If I had known then what I know now, I would have atleast fought the ticket myself. I have 3 more years of paying for that ticket. And the accident related to it (that's another story that goes more into an anti-insurance rant that driving laws).
That said, I don't agree with raising the ticket because of the amount of money a person has. The penalty should reflect the crime, not the person committing it.
Man my "Failure to Stay in Marked Lanes" ticket worth 0 points fucked over my insurance in Mass hard and I've been paying for that $20 dollar ticket for 3 years. If I had known then what I know now, I would have atleast fought the ticket myself.
That said, I don't agree with raising the ticket because of the amount of money a person has. The penalty should reflect the crime, not the person committing it.
In order to accurately reflect the crime, one must take the contextual "offender" into consideration. Like how having previous offenses in a criminal case works against you.
There are roads where the speed limit changes 6-8 times in a 1-2km stretch. It is actually dangerous to breaking hard between most of these speed limit changes, which is what you'd have to do to strictly obey them. And no, you can't pick a level and cruise at it, because speed limits generally don't work like that - the idea is supposed to be that once it changes you can reasonable expect to accelerate up to it and have stopping distance and notification in order to adjust to a slower one.
You're making it sound like the changes are 75 to 35 out of no where. Usually, its 75, 65, 45, 35. Not exactly holy shit slam the brakes changes. Also those cool speed zone ahead signs are usually pretty good signs it's time to start slowing down.
I said I "initially" thought this was a good idea because I then changed my mind. I started thinking about traffic fines and fines in general, and then I started considering: in America at least (not sure about the situation in other countries) there is a certain problem of police setting up speed traps as a revenue stream, which seems like a messed-up incentive to me.
Don't speed = trap becomes worthless. I hate when people bitch about cops trapping them. If you weren't doing something illegal, you wouldn't be "trapped".
Speed traps in the sense of enforcing fines as a means to revenue enhancement as opposed to as a means to increasing public safety. Strictly enforcing a 35 MPH zone and fining me for going 38 strikes me as unnecessary and not conducive to public safety.
Enforcement of the law should not be dependent on how hard up for cash the police department is.
But the speed limit is still 35, and you were doing 38. I'm not arguing getting pulled over for an extra 3 miles isn't a hassle, but you still disobeyed the law.
And of course I've done more than the speed limit, but if I got pulled over, I wouldn't call it BS. I did something wrong, I got punished. Thats what happens if you get caught.
As for not knowing the speed limit, ignorance is no excuse from the law. If I'm not sure what the speedlimit is, I slow down to the limit I *guess* it is, and speed up when I see what the limit is. It's not that big of a deal.
I really can't believe this still has to be repeated, but here goes: just because something is the law doesn't mean it's just. And I don't get how you don't mind disobeying the law. Is everything made right when you're given a ticket? What happens if you're not caught? You weren't punished for breaking the law. Do you turn yourself in? Don't you think the right thing to do when someone breaks the law is that they turn themselves in?
As for ignorance, this isn't about ignorance, this is about local law enforcement taking advantage of ignorance for their own gain. If I don't know the speed limit I will make a guess but that guess will be based on the conditions of the road. This could still land me with a ticket from an overzealous police officer. When you make a guess what do you base it on?
Usually my familiariztion with the local laws. But in a strange place, I usually travel about 5-10 less than the average person. 5-10 over is usually what most people find to be acceptable. If I'm wrong, I get a ticket. Big deal.
And what does "just" have to do with a speed limit? This isn't murder, it's just the maximum speed you're legally allowed travel at.
"Justice" does not have to do with just murder, sorry. Traffic laws, jaywalking laws, laws about whether or not it's okay to put a scoop of ice cream on cherry pie can all be just or unjust, right or wrong, sensical or nonsensical. Now I'll repeat what I said: just because something is the law doesn't mean it's just. And I would also like you to respond to my question regarding what you do if you break the law, which you admit to, but aren't caught.
Man my "Failure to Stay in Marked Lanes" ticket worth 0 points fucked over my insurance in Mass hard and I've been paying for that $20 dollar ticket for 3 years. If I had known then what I know now, I would have atleast fought the ticket myself.
Stuff like this is why some Canadian Provinces have provincially run car insurance and why other provinces want to set their own up.
shryke on
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
What do you mean by "accept those consequences"? Do you mean pay the fine? Or do you mean accept that the law is the law, you shouldn't change it or try? I am talking about the latter, what are you talking about? I don't care whether someone decides to pay the fine just to end the hassle, but they shouldn't accept a law just because it's a law, and it being a law shouldn't prevent them from trying to change it. Laws are not sacred. They are meant to be shaped or thrown out if necessary.
I mean understand that when you protest by breaking the law, you are still breaking the law. If caught, you will be punished.
There are other ways to protest without breaking the law.
It's up to you to decide whether or not it's worth whatever principle you're trying to uphold to break the law in order to defend it. If you decide it is worth it, you accept the god damned consequences and don't cry about it when you get caught.
Wow. It's totally a good thing we don't have speed cameras all over the place, added because they net huge revenues to state governments, and which have recently had their tolerances adjusted from +5kph over the limit to +3kph over the limit. Yeah I'm glad that's not happening at all instead of upgrading inter-state highway to dual carriage way instead of setting an 80kph speed limit on a two lane road without even concrete dividers and traffic going in both directions separated by double white painted lines.
It's totally protecting the public.
To be frank, cameras prevent a lot of due process concerns and issues. In most cases the issuer of the ticket isn't a law enforcement officer.
They are, in the end, pretty unconstitutional.
I wouldn't have an issue with most speed limits if the trend wasn't perpetually downwards. If it actually felt like they reflected road conditions, or time of day or incident traffic conditions. The reality is, most often they don't and most often those done for them are not egrerious exceeding the posted limit, but in turn that asks the question: are people just choosing to go a little faster or are they tending towards the speed they feel confident driving at on the road?
In recent years, I think we've trended the limits towards people choosing the less egrerious likely fine by lowering the limits, and in the process eliminated the idea that you should choose your speed according to road conditions in the process. Other things then follow - there's a never-ending stream of people near my house who don't understand why we might put "no stopping" signs all along the curvy road with blind corners coming down a hill.
electricitylikesme on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
A rich repeat offender being fined this much for a speeding ticket sounds alright to me. Ticket fines are supposed to be a financial punishment, and if you make it the same across the board it becomes less of a punishment the higher on the income scale you go.
We should adopt this for the top 10 to 5 % of income earners in our country.
Wow. It's totally a good thing we don't have speed cameras all over the place, added because they net huge revenues to state governments, and which have recently had their tolerances adjusted from +5kph over the limit to +3kph over the limit. Yeah I'm glad that's not happening at all instead of upgrading inter-state highway to dual carriage way instead of setting an 80kph speed limit on a two lane road without even concrete dividers and traffic going in both directions separated by double white painted lines.
It's totally protecting the public.
To be frank, cameras prevent a lot of due process concerns and issues. In most cases the issuer of the ticket isn't a law enforcement officer.
They are, in the end, pretty unconstitutional.
I wouldn't have an issue with most speed limits if the trend wasn't perpetually downwards. If it actually felt like they reflected road conditions, or time of day or incident traffic conditions. The reality is, most often they don't and most often those done for them are not egrerious exceeding the posted limit, but in turn that asks the question: are people just choosing to go a little faster or are they tending towards the speed they feel confident driving at on the road?
In recent years, I think we've trended the limits towards people choosing the less egrerious likely fine by lowering the limits, and in the process eliminated the idea that you should choose your speed according to road conditions in the process. Other things then follow - there's a never-ending stream of people near my house who don't understand why we might put "no stopping" signs all along the curvy road with blind corners coming down a hill.
"Speed limits" are an imperfect measure of lawfulness.
People are also pretty huge asswipes when they get behind the wheel of their car.
Hell, I've seen no less than 4 or 5 officers run red lights for the whim of it. Everyone here does it.
The Crowing One on
0
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Anyway, I don't see how scaling traffic fines for the income of the offender is any different from scaling punitive damages.
It makes sense to scale them but I think the points system would work better. Eventually their license will be suspended and if they still drive then they can go to jail. It's what we want to happen. Fines are an ancillary penalty that don't need to occur in order for our end goal to be realized. Though maybe they are necessary for funding the police or they do provide some additional deterrent. I don't mind keeping fines around but I would need more information to decide whether they are to be scaled.
There are roads where the speed limit changes 6-8 times in a 1-2km stretch. It is actually dangerous to breaking hard between most of these speed limit changes, which is what you'd have to do to strictly obey them. And no, you can't pick a level and cruise at it, because speed limits generally don't work like that - the idea is supposed to be that once it changes you can reasonable expect to accelerate up to it and have stopping distance and notification in order to adjust to a slower one.
You're making it sound like the changes are 75 to 35 out of no where. Usually, its 75, 65, 45, 35. Not exactly holy shit slam the brakes changes. Also those cool speed zone ahead signs are usually pretty good signs it's time to start slowing down.
Yeah, except those don't exist. These aren't mythical roads, these are actuals ones I drive on. The speed limit goes 70, 60, 70, ?? (sometimes it's a school zone, when it's not is it still 70?), 60. Why? Why along that stretch of road should the limit change so frequently?
And no, there are not speed change ahead signs. There are just changes. Any sudden change in velocity, if we expect it to be obeyed exactly (which is the underlying implication in this thread) is a hazard on the roads. Fortunately most people ignore it and cruise half of the 60 zone decelerating to 60 but then oh hey it's a 70 zone again!
electricitylikesme on
0
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
I've heard of some scattered areas, mainly in western Europe, where they've actually removed all the speed limits. Not only that, but all the other road signs too. The towns also make the roads really curvy, and put a whole bunch of shit in the road.
It sounds insane, but the theory goes that drivers are paying more attention to what the signs say they can do than they do to what's actually on the road in front of them. Sometimes a driver psyches him/herself out by looking for the sign and taking their eyes off the actual flow of traffic. If you force the drivers to actually pay attention to the road rather than the signs, the theory goes, problems decrease.
What do you mean by "accept those consequences"? Do you mean pay the fine? Or do you mean accept that the law is the law, you shouldn't change it or try? I am talking about the latter, what are you talking about? I don't care whether someone decides to pay the fine just to end the hassle, but they shouldn't accept a law just because it's a law, and it being a law shouldn't prevent them from trying to change it. Laws are not sacred. They are meant to be shaped or thrown out if necessary.
I mean understand that when you protest by breaking the law, you are still breaking the law. If caught, you will be punished.
There are other ways to protest without breaking the law.
It's up to you to decide whether or not it's worth whatever principle you're trying to uphold to break the law in order to defend it. If you decide it is worth it, you accept the god damned consequences and don't cry about it when you get caught.
I'm not proposing we protest the law by intentionally driving over the speed limit. That's stupid. And I didn't say you shouldn't accept the consequences, but part of those consequences gives you the option to contest the ticket in court which is perfectly reasonable. And then after that you can go about changing the law so it's less stupid.
Anyway, I don't see how scaling traffic fines for the income of the offender is any different from scaling punitive damages.
It makes sense to scale them but I think the points system would work better. Eventually their license will be suspended and if they still drive then they can go to jail. It's what we want to happen. Fines are an ancillary penalty that don't need to occur in order for our end goal to be realized. Though maybe they are necessary for funding the police or they do provide some additional deterrent. I don't mind keeping fines around but I would need more information to decide whether they are to be scaled.
Look, the only currency in our world is cash. You want to change a law? Pay off the right congresspeople. Need a building permit fast? a few donations will make it easier.
Our enforcement and justice system needs to adapt to our staggering and depressing reliance on the free market.
The Crowing One on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
There's a stretch of road on Loop 323 (Tyler, TX) where the speed limit goes from 65 to 45 to 65 to 45 again, all within a mile.
Edit - Not sure if that really counts as a speed trap but it was ridiculous going through it.
Posts
Unless said fine is "x% of income". There's no difference in treatment, there.
Others have pointed out the problems of speed traps far more completely than me.
Which is not at all the point I was making. Speed limits seem to bring out the worst in the "well it's the law!" crowd. Is 38 over 35mph going to make a difference? What about 40? There's an alarming lack of evidence cited when speed limits are changed - and like I said - the road toll doesn't reflect what is said. It goes up, it goes down - there's no trend, just random noise and usually the ever-present reality that certain roads are just innately dangerous and speed has nothing to do with it.
Can the citizen fine the government for not updating the infrastructure? Why not?
I really can't believe this still has to be repeated, but here goes: just because something is the law doesn't mean it's just. And I don't get how you don't mind disobeying the law. Is everything made right when you're given a ticket? What happens if you're not caught? You weren't punished for breaking the law. Do you turn yourself in? Don't you think the right thing to do when someone breaks the law is that they turn themselves in?
As for ignorance, this isn't about ignorance, this is about local law enforcement taking advantage of ignorance for their own gain. If I don't know the speed limit I will make a guess but that guess will be based on the conditions of the road. This could still land me with a ticket from an overzealous police officer. When you make a guess what do you base it on?
I saw and thought I addressed that, sort of. But none of those points make it ok to go above the speed limit. They point out why people dont like them, not how cops are making them go faster than the speed limit, thus trapping them.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
This is actually what pisses me off about "civil disobedience".
You're breaking the law. It may be for a moral cause, but you're still breaking the law. Don't get all butthurt when you suffer the consequences.
You're supposed to accept those consequences, and stand on your principles despite them.
I'm gonna get all shouty now >.<
Really, isn't it rather well documented that the vast majority of tickets are written for 10+ MPH above the limit, and that state police generally provide a 7MPHish "grace"?
You really don't understand "Civil Disobedience" very well.
That's a really dumb line of reasoning.
Look, the line has to be drawn somewhere. 40KPH is ok. 100KPH is way to fast. At some point in between, you've got to just set a firm number and say "This fast, no faster.".
And the truth is (at least in Canada), nobody will pull you over for going 10KPH over the limit. And ever when they do pull you over for doing like 20KPH+ over the limit, they'll often give you a lesser ticket then you deserve if you aren't a dick to them.
There are roads where the speed limit changes 6-8 times in a 1-2km stretch. It is actually dangerous to breaking hard between most of these speed limit changes, which is what you'd have to do to strictly obey them. And no, you can't pick a level and cruise at it, because speed limits generally don't work like that - the idea is supposed to be that once it changes you can reasonable expect to accelerate up to it and have stopping distance and notification in order to adjust to a slower one.
I don't recall Martin Luther King Jr. shouting "Waah! Don't taser me bro!"
There used to be dignity.
Wow. It's totally a good thing we don't have speed cameras all over the place, added because they net huge revenues to state governments, and which have recently had their tolerances adjusted from +5kph over the limit to +3kph over the limit. Yeah I'm glad that's not happening at all instead of upgrading inter-state highway to dual carriage way instead of setting an 80kph speed limit on a two lane road without even concrete dividers and traffic going in both directions separated by double white painted lines.
It's totally protecting the public.
Usually my familiariztion with the local laws. But in a strange place, I usually travel about 5-10 less than the average person. 5-10 over is usually what most people find to be acceptable. If I'm wrong, I get a ticket. Big deal.
And what does "just" have to do with a speed limit? This isn't murder, it's just the maximum speed you're legally allowed travel at.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
We don't want your dignity.
What do you mean by "accept those consequences"? Do you mean pay the fine? Or do you mean accept that the law is the law, you shouldn't change it or try? I am talking about the latter, what are you talking about? I don't care whether someone decides to pay the fine just to end the hassle, but they shouldn't accept a law just because it's a law, and it being a law shouldn't prevent them from trying to change it. Laws are not sacred. They are meant to be shaped or thrown out if necessary.
I don't want your life!
It would be like determining prison sentences based on the age of the criminal- so, manslaughter would require a sentence of 20% of your remaining life (based on average life expectancy) or whatever, so you would serve more time the younger you were when you committed the crime.
Rigorous Scholarship
To be frank, cameras prevent a lot of due process concerns and issues. In most cases the issuer of the ticket isn't a law enforcement officer.
They are, in the end, pretty unconstitutional.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Is it that your local Australian speed enforcement sucks or something?
It would be like determining prison sentences based on the age of the criminal- so, manslaughter would require a sentence of 20% of your remaining life (based on average life expectancy) or whatever, so you would serve more time the younger you were when you committed the crime.
That's just wrong.
It presents an even fairer means of associating fine with crime.
Apparently you can't complain if you think something is unfair.
Nope, just gotta bend over and take it like a man.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That said, I don't agree with raising the ticket because of the amount of money a person has. The penalty should reflect the crime, not the person committing it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
In order to accurately reflect the crime, one must take the contextual "offender" into consideration. Like how having previous offenses in a criminal case works against you.
You're making it sound like the changes are 75 to 35 out of no where. Usually, its 75, 65, 45, 35. Not exactly holy shit slam the brakes changes. Also those cool speed zone ahead signs are usually pretty good signs it's time to start slowing down.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
"Justice" does not have to do with just murder, sorry. Traffic laws, jaywalking laws, laws about whether or not it's okay to put a scoop of ice cream on cherry pie can all be just or unjust, right or wrong, sensical or nonsensical. Now I'll repeat what I said: just because something is the law doesn't mean it's just. And I would also like you to respond to my question regarding what you do if you break the law, which you admit to, but aren't caught.
Stuff like this is why some Canadian Provinces have provincially run car insurance and why other provinces want to set their own up.
I mean understand that when you protest by breaking the law, you are still breaking the law. If caught, you will be punished.
There are other ways to protest without breaking the law.
It's up to you to decide whether or not it's worth whatever principle you're trying to uphold to break the law in order to defend it. If you decide it is worth it, you accept the god damned consequences and don't cry about it when you get caught.
I wouldn't have an issue with most speed limits if the trend wasn't perpetually downwards. If it actually felt like they reflected road conditions, or time of day or incident traffic conditions. The reality is, most often they don't and most often those done for them are not egrerious exceeding the posted limit, but in turn that asks the question: are people just choosing to go a little faster or are they tending towards the speed they feel confident driving at on the road?
In recent years, I think we've trended the limits towards people choosing the less egrerious likely fine by lowering the limits, and in the process eliminated the idea that you should choose your speed according to road conditions in the process. Other things then follow - there's a never-ending stream of people near my house who don't understand why we might put "no stopping" signs all along the curvy road with blind corners coming down a hill.
We should adopt this for the top 10 to 5 % of income earners in our country.
Sometimes they are.
Not always.
Those aren't always present.
Sometimes when they are present, they are obscured by trees.
Guess where cops like to set up speed traps?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
"Speed limits" are an imperfect measure of lawfulness.
People are also pretty huge asswipes when they get behind the wheel of their car.
Hell, I've seen no less than 4 or 5 officers run red lights for the whim of it. Everyone here does it.
It makes sense to scale them but I think the points system would work better. Eventually their license will be suspended and if they still drive then they can go to jail. It's what we want to happen. Fines are an ancillary penalty that don't need to occur in order for our end goal to be realized. Though maybe they are necessary for funding the police or they do provide some additional deterrent. I don't mind keeping fines around but I would need more information to decide whether they are to be scaled.
Why not?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, except those don't exist. These aren't mythical roads, these are actuals ones I drive on. The speed limit goes 70, 60, 70, ?? (sometimes it's a school zone, when it's not is it still 70?), 60. Why? Why along that stretch of road should the limit change so frequently?
And no, there are not speed change ahead signs. There are just changes. Any sudden change in velocity, if we expect it to be obeyed exactly (which is the underlying implication in this thread) is a hazard on the roads. Fortunately most people ignore it and cruise half of the 60 zone decelerating to 60 but then oh hey it's a 70 zone again!
It sounds insane, but the theory goes that drivers are paying more attention to what the signs say they can do than they do to what's actually on the road in front of them. Sometimes a driver psyches him/herself out by looking for the sign and taking their eyes off the actual flow of traffic. If you force the drivers to actually pay attention to the road rather than the signs, the theory goes, problems decrease.
It's worked. A lot. Like, accidents go down by a third.
Because you're intentionally provoking the law.
This is the specific type of case I'm referring to. I don't know if that's clear.
I'm not proposing we protest the law by intentionally driving over the speed limit. That's stupid. And I didn't say you shouldn't accept the consequences, but part of those consequences gives you the option to contest the ticket in court which is perfectly reasonable. And then after that you can go about changing the law so it's less stupid.
Look, the only currency in our world is cash. You want to change a law? Pay off the right congresspeople. Need a building permit fast? a few donations will make it easier.
Our enforcement and justice system needs to adapt to our staggering and depressing reliance on the free market.
Edit - Not sure if that really counts as a speed trap but it was ridiculous going through it.