It did say repeat offender. So a small fine obviosly didn't work. I'm ok with gradually increasing fines until they actually are noticable.
Double it for every ticket in a six month period or whatever. It seems pretty extreme to charge someone a huge amount of money for their first ticket, just because they are wealthy. But, if they don't learn their lesson, they need to pay more (and be assessed more points on their license).
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
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.
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.
So, basically, we're not talking about the same thing.
"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.
Of course I wouldn't turn myself in. Like everyone else, I'm happy I didn't get caught. I can't even imagine what a cop would say if I tried turning myself in for doing 5 over.
It did say repeat offender. So a small fine obviosly didn't work. I'm ok with gradually increasing fines until they actually are noticable.
Double it for every ticket in a six month period or whatever. It seems pretty extreme to charge someone a huge amount of money for their first ticket, just because they are wealthy. But, if they don't learn their lesson, they need to pay more (and be assessed more points on their license).
It's "huge" in the exact same way that a $200 ticket is huge for someone who makes $600 a month cleaning houses.
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".
Go out to the country for a bit. Oh, hey, I went over a hill and the speed limit dropped from 65 to 45! Oh, hey, there's a cop with a radar gun immediately on the other side of the sign! Oh, hey, I now have to pay a $200 ticket for reckless driving to support Bumfucknowheresville's county government!
It did say repeat offender. So a small fine obviosly didn't work. I'm ok with gradually increasing fines until they actually are noticable.
Double it for every ticket in a six month period or whatever. It seems pretty extreme to charge someone a huge amount of money for their first ticket, just because they are wealthy. But, if they don't learn their lesson, they need to pay more (and be assessed more points on their license).
It's "huge" in the exact same way that a $200 ticket is huge for someone who makes $600 a month cleaning houses.
Just being a douche, but if the punishment is more severe for 90+% of the people, doesn't that mean it should significantly deter what it is trying to prevent?
Okay, so if I think a law is unfair, and I break it, I'm not allowed to bitch about it?
Can I bitch about the law if I don't break it?
Does breaking an unfair law mean my bitching rights are revoked?
I don't really get how this works.
It's fine to think a law is unfair. If you are going to intentionally break said law in protest, then no, you don't have a right to bitch about being caught and punished.
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!
So basically your problem is not with speeding laws, speed limits or speed traps but with the specific way speed limits and speed traps are set up in some area near you.
It did say repeat offender. So a small fine obviosly didn't work. I'm ok with gradually increasing fines until they actually are noticable.
Double it for every ticket in a six month period or whatever. It seems pretty extreme to charge someone a huge amount of money for their first ticket, just because they are wealthy. But, if they don't learn their lesson, they need to pay more (and be assessed more points on their license).
It's "huge" in the exact same way that a $200 ticket is huge for someone who makes $600 a month cleaning houses.
Just being a douche, but if the punishment is more severe for 90+% of the people, doesn't that mean it should significantly deter what it is trying to prevent?
Equal Protection. Honestly, percentage is more fair in every definition.
The Crowing One on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
It did say repeat offender. So a small fine obviosly didn't work. I'm ok with gradually increasing fines until they actually are noticable.
Double it for every ticket in a six month period or whatever. It seems pretty extreme to charge someone a huge amount of money for their first ticket, just because they are wealthy. But, if they don't learn their lesson, they need to pay more (and be assessed more points on their license).
It's "huge" in the exact same way that a $200 ticket is huge for someone who makes $600 a month cleaning houses.
Just being a douche, but if the punishment is more severe for 90+% of the people, doesn't that mean it should significantly deter what it is trying to prevent?
Equal Protection. Honestly, percentage is more fair in every definition.
I'm fine with percentages, actually.
Chanus on
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
Breaking the law knowing you are, whether or not it is in protest of the law, still doesn't give you the right to bitch about being caught and punished. You know what you're not supposed to do, you get caught, you fucking pay the fine.
So basically your problem is not with speeding laws, speed limits or speed traps but with the specific way speed limits and speed traps are set up in some area near you.
A speed "trap," by definition, is a place where the speed limit is poorly posted or inappropriately low. So I'd argue that I have a problem with speed traps no matter where they are.
As for the rest, what elm describes might be local to his area, but I've encountered areas like that on my side of the globe, too. So has Salvation and a lot of people I know online and offline. So it's not accurate to treat it as just a provincial issue.
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.
It did say repeat offender. So a small fine obviosly didn't work. I'm ok with gradually increasing fines until they actually are noticable.
Double it for every ticket in a six month period or whatever. It seems pretty extreme to charge someone a huge amount of money for their first ticket, just because they are wealthy. But, if they don't learn their lesson, they need to pay more (and be assessed more points on their license).
It's "huge" in the exact same way that a $200 ticket is huge for someone who makes $600 a month cleaning houses.
Just being a douche, but if the punishment is more severe for 90+% of the people, doesn't that mean it should significantly deter what it is trying to prevent?
Equal Protection. Honestly, percentage is more fair in every definition.
I'm fine with percentages, actually.
I know.
Punishment as deterrent is based on effect. A wealthy person serving 10 years of a 75 year life is the same as a poor person serving 10 years of a 75 year life (that's another issue). In order to receive a "fair" punishment in monetary fine, the fine must hold the same financial impact, not static-amount.
Breaking the law knowing you are, whether or not it is in protest of the law, still doesn't give you the right to bitch about being caught and punished. You know what you're not supposed to do, you get caught, you fucking pay the fine.
But then why do we have a system set up to challenge those fines? Sure, if I get caught doing 50 in a 35, I'm in the wrong, but the system gives me the option to challenge it. I might not win, but the resource is there. I mean the system actively encourages not bending over and taking it.
It's fine to think a law is unfair. If you are going to intentionally break said law in protest, then no, you don't have a right to bitch about being caught and punished.
You said that, but you haven't really explained why.
It's kind of a silly topic of conversation in regards to speeding, because I wouldn't intentionally break a speed limit in protest... but if we generalize this attitude to other laws, it basically invalidates the entire concept of civil disobedience.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Breaking the law knowing you are, whether or not it is in protest of the law, still doesn't give you the right to bitch about being caught and punished. You know what you're not supposed to do, you get caught, you fucking pay the fine.
See I don't know who is saying we should do this. Maybe I passed those posts over but is anyone saying we should be arguing with the police officer while they're trying to give us the ticket? Because this is what you are referring to, I assume? The disobedient dickhead who is protesting the law in all the wrong ways?
Sarksus on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
It did say repeat offender. So a small fine obviosly didn't work. I'm ok with gradually increasing fines until they actually are noticable.
Double it for every ticket in a six month period or whatever. It seems pretty extreme to charge someone a huge amount of money for their first ticket, just because they are wealthy. But, if they don't learn their lesson, they need to pay more (and be assessed more points on their license).
It's "huge" in the exact same way that a $200 ticket is huge for someone who makes $600 a month cleaning houses.
Just being a douche, but if the punishment is more severe for 90+% of the people, doesn't that mean it should significantly deter what it is trying to prevent?
Equal Protection. Honestly, percentage is more fair in every definition.
I'm fine with percentages, actually.
I know.
Punishment as deterrent is based on effect. A wealthy person serving 10 years of a 75 year life is the same as a poor person serving 10 years of a 75 year life (that's another issue). In order to receive a "fair" punishment in monetary fine, the fine must hold the same financial impact, not static-amount.
Initially, when I heard about this, I thought it was actually a pretty good idea. A $200-300 fine just isn't much of a deterrent to people who have a lot of money, this seems like it (should) change that optimal choice arithmetic.
Here in Sweden we have the concept of day fines - lesser crimes are punishable with X to Y day fines, no less than 30 and no more than 200.
The day fine was historically the amount of money you earned in one day, but nowadays I think it's 1/1000th of your yearly income - 200 fines would then be 20% of your yearly income.
Speeding is one of the offenses with a day fine penalty.
Of course, when it comes to the filthy rich they tend to not actually make much money attached to their own name.
Echo on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Punishment as deterrent is based on effect. A wealthy person serving 10 years of a 75 year life is the same as a poor person serving 10 years of a 75 year life (that's another issue). In order to receive a "fair" punishment in monetary fine, the fine must hold the same financial impact, not static-amount.
Breaking the law knowing you are, whether or not it is in protest of the law, still doesn't give you the right to bitch about being caught and punished. You know what you're not supposed to do, you get caught, you fucking pay the fine.
If a person thinks the law's unjust I'm pretty sure they have a right to bitch about it, even when caught.
Generally along the lines of "Fuck that this shit isn't just".
Punishment as deterrent is based on effect. A wealthy person serving 10 years of a 75 year life is the same as a poor person serving 10 years of a 75 year life (that's another issue). In order to receive a "fair" punishment in monetary fine, the fine must hold the same financial impact, not static-amount.
I like the cut of your jib.
That's because I'm a socialist.
The Crowing One on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Breaking the law knowing you are, whether or not it is in protest of the law, still doesn't give you the right to bitch about being caught and punished. You know what you're not supposed to do, you get caught, you fucking pay the fine.
See I don't know who is saying we should do this. Maybe I passed those posts over but is anyone saying we should be arguing with the police officer while they're trying to give us the ticket? Because this is what you are referring to, I assume? The disobedient dickhead who is protesting the law in all the wrong ways?
I saw someone else addressing someone else about it and was checking back to see if people were actually suggesting it. The thing is, with the forum, I could never be sure. People suggest all sorts of shit all the time.
Henroid on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Punishment as deterrent is based on effect. A wealthy person serving 10 years of a 75 year life is the same as a poor person serving 10 years of a 75 year life (that's another issue). In order to receive a "fair" punishment in monetary fine, the fine must hold the same financial impact, not static-amount.
I like the cut of your jib.
That's because I'm a socialist.
I think I might be too. What are the warning signs?
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.
People probably shouldn't be going 65 around that particular loop anyway. But I don't think it is helpful for us to discuss the sheer awfulness that is Tyler traffic.
Punishment as deterrent is based on effect. A wealthy person serving 10 years of a 75 year life is the same as a poor person serving 10 years of a 75 year life (that's another issue). In order to receive a "fair" punishment in monetary fine, the fine must hold the same financial impact, not static-amount.
I like the cut of your jib.
That's because I'm a socialist.
I think I might be too. What are the warning signs?
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.
one would also think there'd be speeds where it is slightly dangerous to have cars traveling that fast, but the danger of that is less bad than paying all the cops that would be necessary to enforce it.
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
It's fine to think a law is unfair. If you are going to intentionally break said law in protest, then no, you don't have a right to bitch about being caught and punished.
You said that, but you haven't really explained why.
It's kind of a silly topic of conversation in regards to speeding, because I wouldn't intentionally break a speed limit in protest... but if we generalize this attitude to other laws, it basically invalidates the entire concept of civil disobedience.
The "why" is that you are knowingly provoking consequences. You don't walk up to a 300lbs dude, poke him in the chest until he hits you, and then go, "Why the fuck did you hit me? That's fucked up!"
Is this getting off-topic?
Chanus on
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Punishment as deterrent is based on effect. A wealthy person serving 10 years of a 75 year life is the same as a poor person serving 10 years of a 75 year life (that's another issue). In order to receive a "fair" punishment in monetary fine, the fine must hold the same financial impact, not static-amount.
I like the cut of your jib.
That's because I'm a socialist.
I think I might be too. What are the warning signs?
Humanity and compassion.
And the love of other people making your money for you :P
Breaking the law knowing you are, whether or not it is in protest of the law, still doesn't give you the right to bitch about being caught and punished. You know what you're not supposed to do, you get caught, you fucking pay the fine.
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.
one would also think there'd be speeds where it is slightly dangerous to have cars traveling that fast, but the danger of that is less bad than paying all the cops that would be necessary to enforce it.
The issue has been well documented not be a static "X Speed is too fast", but most accidents occur when traffic is traveling at significantly different speeds. So Granny going 45mpg in the right lane while Mommy goes 65mpg is as dangerous as Mommy going 65 and Daddy going 95.
The Crowing One on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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.
People probably shouldn't be going 65 around that particular loop anyway. But I don't think it is helpful for us to discuss the sheer awfulness that is Tyler traffic.
I might have to move back there and the idea of being around those drivers irritates me.
This is one thing I can say about walking or taking public trans - I don't have to deal with law enforcement bullshit, or people endangering my life. The only way someone walking fast as fuck could endanger me is if they shove me off the sidewalk and into the way of traffic somehow.
Henroid on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
Okay would everyone chill out, I am pretty sure each of us are talking about two completely different things. One side is not denigrating civil protest and the other side is not suggesting we scream at the police officer for being a fucking unjust pig.
Punishment as deterrent is based on effect. A wealthy person serving 10 years of a 75 year life is the same as a poor person serving 10 years of a 75 year life (that's another issue). In order to receive a "fair" punishment in monetary fine, the fine must hold the same financial impact, not static-amount.
I like the cut of your jib.
That's because I'm a socialist.
I think I might be too. What are the warning signs?
Humanity and compassion.
And the love of other people making your money for you :P
I dunno how it works in Switzerland, but the fines here aren't the behavioral-changing aspect of the punishment. The points system takes care of that. Too many points and you lose your ability to drive.
Then again, I'm one of those evil people who thinks you don't just take money from people because you deem they can afford it.
This. While it is true that a $300 speeding ticket is unfair to the guy who can't afford to pay it vs. the guy who can, we ought to be looking towards solutions that affect people equally, and not through scaled monetary fines. Points, losing your license, jail, etc. 6-figure fines on rich people has about a 100% chance of becoming a corrupt racket. Police do enough of this already - right near where I work, police make up any deficiencies in tax revenue by targeting corridors of traffic that have above-average net-worth individuals and hit them hard with ruthless speed-trapping and strict enforcement of minor traffic violations.
Breaking the law knowing you are, whether or not it is in protest of the law, still doesn't give you the right to bitch about being caught and punished. You know what you're not supposed to do, you get caught, you fucking pay the fine.
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.
one would also think there'd be speeds where it is slightly dangerous to have cars traveling that fast, but the danger of that is less bad than paying all the cops that would be necessary to enforce it.
The issue has been well documented not be a static "X Speed is too fast", but most accidents occur when traffic is traveling at significantly different speeds. So Granny going 45mpg in the right lane while Mommy goes 65mpg is as dangerous as Mommy going 65 and Daddy going 95.
That's just for highways, though, right? what about for streets inside a city?
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Breaking the law knowing you are, whether or not it is in protest of the law, still doesn't give you the right to bitch about being caught and punished. You know what you're not supposed to do, you get caught, you fucking pay the fine.
Fuck those civil rights protesters, amiright?
Obviously there are exceptions. And anyway, speeding laws aren't biased toward race, ethnicity, gender, etc. It's not an interpretive law is the point. It's a law based on hard written numbers. "Hey, see this number? Your speedometer can't go higher than that 'til whatever the next sign says." There's no gray area. There's no misunderstanding. There's no two ways to interpret it. "Speed limit 65."
Posts
Rigorous Scholarship
So, basically, we're not talking about the same thing.
Of course I wouldn't turn myself in. Like everyone else, I'm happy I didn't get caught. I can't even imagine what a cop would say if I tried turning myself in for doing 5 over.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
It's "huge" in the exact same way that a $200 ticket is huge for someone who makes $600 a month cleaning houses.
Go out to the country for a bit. Oh, hey, I went over a hill and the speed limit dropped from 65 to 45! Oh, hey, there's a cop with a radar gun immediately on the other side of the sign! Oh, hey, I now have to pay a $200 ticket for reckless driving to support Bumfucknowheresville's county government!
No.
Okay, so if I think a law is unfair, and I break it, I'm not allowed to bitch about it?
Can I bitch about the law if I don't break it?
Does breaking an unfair law mean my bitching rights are revoked?
I don't really get how this works.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Just being a douche, but if the punishment is more severe for 90+% of the people, doesn't that mean it should significantly deter what it is trying to prevent?
I think it means you lose your right to vote.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's fine to think a law is unfair. If you are going to intentionally break said law in protest, then no, you don't have a right to bitch about being caught and punished.
So basically your problem is not with speeding laws, speed limits or speed traps but with the specific way speed limits and speed traps are set up in some area near you.
Equal Protection. Honestly, percentage is more fair in every definition.
I'm fine with percentages, actually.
A speed "trap," by definition, is a place where the speed limit is poorly posted or inappropriately low. So I'd argue that I have a problem with speed traps no matter where they are.
As for the rest, what elm describes might be local to his area, but I've encountered areas like that on my side of the globe, too. So has Salvation and a lot of people I know online and offline. So it's not accurate to treat it as just a provincial issue.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I know.
Punishment as deterrent is based on effect. A wealthy person serving 10 years of a 75 year life is the same as a poor person serving 10 years of a 75 year life (that's another issue). In order to receive a "fair" punishment in monetary fine, the fine must hold the same financial impact, not static-amount.
But then why do we have a system set up to challenge those fines? Sure, if I get caught doing 50 in a 35, I'm in the wrong, but the system gives me the option to challenge it. I might not win, but the resource is there. I mean the system actively encourages not bending over and taking it.
You said that, but you haven't really explained why.
It's kind of a silly topic of conversation in regards to speeding, because I wouldn't intentionally break a speed limit in protest... but if we generalize this attitude to other laws, it basically invalidates the entire concept of civil disobedience.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
See I don't know who is saying we should do this. Maybe I passed those posts over but is anyone saying we should be arguing with the police officer while they're trying to give us the ticket? Because this is what you are referring to, I assume? The disobedient dickhead who is protesting the law in all the wrong ways?
Are we arguing? I'm confused
Here in Sweden we have the concept of day fines - lesser crimes are punishable with X to Y day fines, no less than 30 and no more than 200.
The day fine was historically the amount of money you earned in one day, but nowadays I think it's 1/1000th of your yearly income - 200 fines would then be 20% of your yearly income.
Speeding is one of the offenses with a day fine penalty.
Of course, when it comes to the filthy rich they tend to not actually make much money attached to their own name.
I like the cut of your jib.
If a person thinks the law's unjust I'm pretty sure they have a right to bitch about it, even when caught.
Generally along the lines of "Fuck that this shit isn't just".
That's because I'm a socialist.
I saw someone else addressing someone else about it and was checking back to see if people were actually suggesting it. The thing is, with the forum, I could never be sure. People suggest all sorts of shit all the time.
I think I might be too. What are the warning signs?
People probably shouldn't be going 65 around that particular loop anyway. But I don't think it is helpful for us to discuss the sheer awfulness that is Tyler traffic.
Humanity and compassion.
one would also think there'd be speeds where it is slightly dangerous to have cars traveling that fast, but the danger of that is less bad than paying all the cops that would be necessary to enforce it.
The "why" is that you are knowingly provoking consequences. You don't walk up to a 300lbs dude, poke him in the chest until he hits you, and then go, "Why the fuck did you hit me? That's fucked up!"
Is this getting off-topic?
And the love of other people making your money for you :P
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The issue has been well documented not be a static "X Speed is too fast", but most accidents occur when traffic is traveling at significantly different speeds. So Granny going 45mpg in the right lane while Mommy goes 65mpg is as dangerous as Mommy going 65 and Daddy going 95.
I might have to move back there and the idea of being around those drivers irritates me.
This is one thing I can say about walking or taking public trans - I don't have to deal with law enforcement bullshit, or people endangering my life. The only way someone walking fast as fuck could endanger me is if they shove me off the sidewalk and into the way of traffic somehow.
Actually, that's capitalism.
Let's not use Godwin-like arguements, Zed.
Obviously there are exceptions. And anyway, speeding laws aren't biased toward race, ethnicity, gender, etc. It's not an interpretive law is the point. It's a law based on hard written numbers. "Hey, see this number? Your speedometer can't go higher than that 'til whatever the next sign says." There's no gray area. There's no misunderstanding. There's no two ways to interpret it. "Speed limit 65."