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.
No it isn't. A speed trap is anywhere the cops set themselves up to catch speeders.
Like for instance a spot near me. It's a big flat straight 2-lanes-both-ways strip of road with no lights. People speed like CRAZY down it. And the cops speed trap is like mad. Because the limit there is 40KPH. Because there are 5 schools along it's length so the entire thing is a school zone.
It's a speed trap and it's there for a damn good reason.
No wonder you have strange views on this issue, you have one fucked up definition of a speed trap.
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.
So it's a local issue present many places.
Again, you are not making an argument against speeding laws and their enforcement you are making an argument against a specific area's speed limit set-up.
The entire point of a lot of those protests was to show how retarded those laws were by getting arrested for them. Nobody arresting them would have gone against their purposes.
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.
Again, we're talking about effect. A wealthy individual losing their ability to drive is not as much of a social/financial burden as for low and moderate income folks.
And I'd prefer to keep this between the state and an individual. No need to have insurance companies (whose motives are certainly not safety or protection) mixed in with all this.
We need to move away from this myth that our modern culture is based around anything besides accumulation of wealth.
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.
Speed cameras of any sort are a money grab. Recently, Chicago and the outlying suburbs have let these hobgoblins into their worlds and not much has changed except the towns that implemented them got more money. Accidents don't go down, they tend to go up.
Tribune did a report on red-light cameras. If you don't know what they are, basically, they ticket anyone that goes past the white line on an intersection when the light is red. Yes, it doesn't matter if you still stop. If any part of the car breaks the white line (how many of us has done that?), it takes a picture and sends a ticket.
Funny thing, these kinds of cameras in the suburbs have actually increased car crashes because people are stopping too suddenly or are overly cautious (thus causing accidents).
I consider these cameras another one of law enforcement's speed traps. The tickets themselves are $100 a pop, but if you notice the suburbs they have used them all in, they aren't exactly the wealthy kind.
This quote gets down to the bottom of it all (I think):
The first suburban camera did not click on until after a 2006 state law authorized their use outside the city. That was at 25th and Harrison streets in Bellwood, a site near an on-ramp to the Eisenhower Expressway that a town official once publicly likened to a "lotto or casino" when it came to generating ticket revenue.
What exactly is god-win-able about, "Don't go over 65 if it says not to"?
Your statement was that if you know you're breaking a law and you get caught doing it, you shouldn't have any complaints about it.
This completely ignores the huge swaths of human social advancement that has come from active, public violation of unfair laws. You vastly oversimplified the entire statement, if your intent wasn't "fuck criminals, regardless of intent or fairness."
It's like bitching about people going 70 in the passing lane.
What are you supposed to go.
I go 70. After that it's difficult to figure out how fast you can go without the cops pulling you over. I've been pulled over for almost going 80 and another time went by a cop doing the same speed without a problem.
This is all on the highway with a posted limit of 65.
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.
Speed cameras of any sort are a money grab. Recently, Chicago and the outlying suburbs have let these hobgoblins into their worlds and not much has changed except the towns that implemented them got more money. Accidents don't go down, they tend to go up.
Tribune did a report on red-light cameras. If you don't know what they are, basically, they ticket anyone that goes past the white line on an intersection when the light is red. Yes, it doesn't matter if you still stop. If any part of the car breaks the white line (how many of us has done that?), it takes a picture and sends a ticket.
Funny thing, these kinds of cameras in the suburbs have actually increased car crashes because people are stopping too suddenly or are overly cautious (thus causing accidents).
I consider these cameras another one of law enforcement's speed traps. The tickets themselves are $100 a pop, but if you notice the suburbs they have used them all in, they aren't exactly the wealthy kind.
This quote gets down to the bottom of it all (I think):
The first suburban camera did not click on until after a 2006 state law authorized their use outside the city. That was at 25th and Harrison streets in Bellwood, a site near an on-ramp to the Eisenhower Expressway that a town official once publicly likened to a "lotto or casino" when it came to generating ticket revenue.
I'm just waiting the first serious lawsuit.
The Crowing One on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
What exactly is god-win-able about, "Don't go over 65 if it says not to"?
Your statement was that if you know you're breaking a law and you get caught doing it, you shouldn't have any complaints about it.
This completely ignores the huge swaths of human social advancement that has come from active, public violation of unfair laws. You vastly oversimplified the entire statement, if your intent wasn't "fuck criminals, regardless of intent or fairness."
And my statement was made in this thread, meaning the context applies to driving laws. It's not my fault you want to stretch it out. I expected more integrity of you.
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.
Speed cameras of any sort are a money grab. Recently, Chicago and the outlying suburbs have let these hobgoblins into their worlds and not much has changed except the towns that implemented them got more money. Accidents don't go down, they tend to go up.
Tribune did a report on red-light cameras. If you don't know what they are, basically, they ticket anyone that goes past the white line on an intersection when the light is red. Yes, it doesn't matter if you still stop. If any part of the car breaks the white line (how many of us has done that?), it takes a picture and sends a ticket.
Funny thing, these kinds of cameras in the suburbs have actually increased car crashes because people are stopping too suddenly or are overly cautious (thus causing accidents).
I consider these cameras another one of law enforcement's speed traps. The tickets themselves are $100 a pop, but if you notice the suburbs they have used them all in, they aren't exactly the wealthy kind.
This quote gets down to the bottom of it all (I think):
The first suburban camera did not click on until after a 2006 state law authorized their use outside the city. That was at 25th and Harrison streets in Bellwood, a site near an on-ramp to the Eisenhower Expressway that a town official once publicly likened to a "lotto or casino" when it came to generating ticket revenue.
Wasn't a city caught shortening the timer on yellow lights to increase the tickets red light cameras were handing out, too?
Just statically fund the police out of the city budget, throw in a minor tax hike for it, and make all ticket funds go directly to a government run charity for the victims of car accidents, tying monetary gain to reduced safety seems to be a really bad idea.
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'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 exactly is god-win-able about, "Don't go over 65 if it says not to"?
Your statement was that if you know you're breaking a law and you get caught doing it, you shouldn't have any complaints about it.
This completely ignores the huge swaths of human social advancement that has come from active, public violation of unfair laws. You vastly oversimplified the entire statement, if your intent wasn't "fuck criminals, regardless of intent or fairness."
And my statement was made in this thread, meaning the context applies to driving laws. It's not my fault you want to stretch it out. I expected more integrity of you.
Look, it was a throwaway joke/observation about the non-universality of the statement. Sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way.
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?
A wealthy individual losing their ability to drive is not as much of a social/financial burden as for low and moderate income folks.
This reasoning can go on forever. People with more money or more equipped to handle just about anything. Jail won't have as much of an effect on them as it would a poor person. Especially if all you are judging is the financial burden.
And if we are so interested in effects, why not let's analyze the net effect of a wealthy person being late for where he's going vs. the poor person? What if he's a CEO headed to a meeting that could create 1000s of jobs in the local area? Note: we won't really get anywhere if we actually tried to pursue that as a legitimate point.
And I'd prefer to keep this between the state and an individual. No need to have insurance companies (whose motives are certainly not safety or protection) mixed in with all this.
We need to move away from this myth that our modern culture is based around anything besides accumulation of wealth.
I don't know what this has to do with anything I said.
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."
Which a person can think is stupid and unjust.
And if they get a ticket for it, they can still think it's stupid and unjust.
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.
Oh, there are a lot of roads that make sudden and extreme changes to the speed limits, at least in CO. US-36 goes straight form 65 to 35 is the one I encounter the most, but those things are fucking everywhere in this state.
It's like bitching about people going 70 in the passing lane.
What are you supposed to go.
I go 70. After that it's difficult to figure out how fast you can go without the cops pulling you over. I've been pulled over for almost going 80 and another time went by a cop doing the same speed without a problem.
This is all on the highway with a posted limit of 65.
I would say 65 with 70 being the max. I get really upset at people who suggest that someone going 70 has no right to use the passing lane.
Which, from my anecdotal experience, is a pretty common sentiment.
It's like bitching about people going 70 in the passing lane.
What are you supposed to go.
I go 70. After that it's difficult to figure out how fast you can go without the cops pulling you over. I've been pulled over for almost going 80 and another time went by a cop doing the same speed without a problem.
This is all on the highway with a posted limit of 65.
Well, you're supposed to go the speed limit, on paper. But that's not what the general population does, and can actually be a little dangerous in situations where lots of traffic is moving much faster.
Of course you won't get pulled over every time you go some particular amount over the speed limit.
Generally, I go 75 in a 65, 70 in a 55, and slow down a bit if no one is passing me.
No wonder you have strange views on this issue, you have one fucked up definition of a speed trap.
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.
Okay, we're getting into semantics here. Basically, I don't have a problem with sensible enforcement of the law. Pulling over speeders going through a school zone? That's fine by me.
What I have a problem with, regardless of whether you call it a speed trap or not, is unfair enforcement of the law that does less to promote public safety than it does to pad revenue.
I don't have any sort of abstract logical objection against the Platonic ideal of a speed limit. I'm arguing that there are widespread problems with the way speed limits are set up and enforced, at least in the US.
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
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."
Which a person can think is stupid and unjust.
And if they get a ticket for it, they can still think it's stupid and unjust.
And they'll be wrong to think so.
Edit - Addendum: speed traps and poorly placed speed limits are an issue though.
A wealthy individual losing their ability to drive is not as much of a social/financial burden as for low and moderate income folks.
This reasoning can go on forever. People with more money or more equipped to handle just about anything. Jail won't have as much of an effect on them as it would a poor person. Especially if all you are judging is the financial burden.
And if we are so interested in effects, why not let's analyze the net effect of a wealthy person being late for where he's going vs. the poor person? What if he's a CEO headed to a meeting that could create 1000s of jobs in the local area? Note: we won't really get anywhere if we actually tried to pursue that as a legitimate point.
The issue, for me, is that it assumes that this CEO's "worth" in getting to work late is something I care about.
I care about the people who are picking up bottles out of the snow outside my window right now.
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."
Which a person can think is stupid and unjust.
And if they get a ticket for it, they can still think it's stupid and unjust.
And they'll be wrong to think so.
Edit - Addendum: speed traps and poorly placed speed limits are an issue though.
So people are wrong to think a speed limit is dumb and unjust. Interesting.
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.
Oh, there are a lot of roads that make sudden and extreme changes to the speed limits, at least in CO. US-36 goes straight form 65 to 35 is the one I encounter the most, but those things are fucking everywhere in this state.
The sudden changes are more common in european countries.
SkyGheNe on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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.
I think it's cool, but I don't think it would work for every culture.
I remember nearly dieing several times in Spain because people would ignore the speed limit while driving on cliff-sides that have a yellow divide yet contain room for only one car and several winding paths.
SkyGheNe on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
And if they get a ticket for it, they can still think it's stupid and unjust.
And they'll be wrong to think so.
Edit - Addendum: speed traps and poorly placed speed limits are an issue though.
So people are wrong to think a speed limit is dumb and unjust. Interesting.
Hmm... I was going to post a "That's not what I'm saying and I don't think that's what Henroid means" response... got distracted... and then this happened.
So people are wrong to think a speed limit is dumb and unjust. Interesting.
"This is fucked up, I should be allowed to drive really fast an endanger others!" Yeah, sounds about right!
I'd say for the most part that it isn't wrong for people to think the speed limit is unjust. However, I think it's wrong of them to protest that by driving recklessly through speeding.
There are few instances where I've said to myself "hey, the speed limit could stand to be a bit higher here."
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."
Which a person can think is stupid and unjust.
And if they get a ticket for it, they can still think it's stupid and unjust.
And they'll be wrong to think so.
Edit - Addendum: speed traps and poorly placed speed limits are an issue though.
Wait are you saying they are wrong to think a traffic law is unjust or are you saying they are wrong to protest a traffic law they think is unjust. The difference is vast and important.
Sarksus on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The issue, for me, is that it assumes that this CEO's "worth" in getting to work late is something I care about.
I care about the people who are picking up bottles out of the snow outside my window right now.
I agree this won't go anywhere.
That rich guy was hurrying to a meeting to close the deal on a new factory that would offer sweet jobs and benefits to all those picking up bottles outside your window.
Look, all I'm saying is that the "net economic effect" argument swings both ways. The rich guy's time is worth more, economically speaking, and there for he has more right to be speeding in the first place. If we're going to apply economic analysis to sentencing, maybe we should apply to law enforcement as well. The reason I say "this won't go anywhere" is the same reason I say that we ought not be focusing on money as a way to enforce things.
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."
Which a person can think is stupid and unjust.
And if they get a ticket for it, they can still think it's stupid and unjust.
And they'll be wrong to think so.
Edit - Addendum: speed traps and poorly placed speed limits are an issue though.
Wait are you saying they are wrong to think a traffic law is unjust or are you saying they are wrong to protest a traffic law they think is unjust. The difference is vast and important.
My growing impression is that the assumption is that traffic laws aren't inherently unjust, so anyone who thinks they are is wrong.
I would hope the undercurrent here isn't about speaking up whenever potential injustice is spotted.
Posts
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
No it isn't. A speed trap is anywhere the cops set themselves up to catch speeders.
Like for instance a spot near me. It's a big flat straight 2-lanes-both-ways strip of road with no lights. People speed like CRAZY down it. And the cops speed trap is like mad. Because the limit there is 40KPH. Because there are 5 schools along it's length so the entire thing is a school zone.
It's a speed trap and it's there for a damn good reason.
No wonder you have strange views on this issue, you have one fucked up definition of a speed trap.
So it's a local issue present many places.
Again, you are not making an argument against speeding laws and their enforcement you are making an argument against a specific area's speed limit set-up.
Just a note.
What exactly is god-win-able about, "Don't go over 65 if it says not to"?
It's like bitching about people going 70 in the passing lane.
Again, we're talking about effect. A wealthy individual losing their ability to drive is not as much of a social/financial burden as for low and moderate income folks.
And I'd prefer to keep this between the state and an individual. No need to have insurance companies (whose motives are certainly not safety or protection) mixed in with all this.
We need to move away from this myth that our modern culture is based around anything besides accumulation of wealth.
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.
Speed cameras of any sort are a money grab. Recently, Chicago and the outlying suburbs have let these hobgoblins into their worlds and not much has changed except the towns that implemented them got more money. Accidents don't go down, they tend to go up.
Tribune did a report on red-light cameras. If you don't know what they are, basically, they ticket anyone that goes past the white line on an intersection when the light is red. Yes, it doesn't matter if you still stop. If any part of the car breaks the white line (how many of us has done that?), it takes a picture and sends a ticket.
Funny thing, these kinds of cameras in the suburbs have actually increased car crashes because people are stopping too suddenly or are overly cautious (thus causing accidents).
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-red-light-cameras-suburbs-18dec18,0,4307283.story
I consider these cameras another one of law enforcement's speed traps. The tickets themselves are $100 a pop, but if you notice the suburbs they have used them all in, they aren't exactly the wealthy kind.
This quote gets down to the bottom of it all (I think):
This completely ignores the huge swaths of human social advancement that has come from active, public violation of unfair laws. You vastly oversimplified the entire statement, if your intent wasn't "fuck criminals, regardless of intent or fairness."
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Rigorous Scholarship
What are you supposed to go.
I go 70. After that it's difficult to figure out how fast you can go without the cops pulling you over. I've been pulled over for almost going 80 and another time went by a cop doing the same speed without a problem.
This is all on the highway with a posted limit of 65.
Speed cameras of any sort are a money grab. Recently, Chicago and the outlying suburbs have let these hobgoblins into their worlds and not much has changed except the towns that implemented them got more money. Accidents don't go down, they tend to go up.
Tribune did a report on red-light cameras. If you don't know what they are, basically, they ticket anyone that goes past the white line on an intersection when the light is red. Yes, it doesn't matter if you still stop. If any part of the car breaks the white line (how many of us has done that?), it takes a picture and sends a ticket.
Funny thing, these kinds of cameras in the suburbs have actually increased car crashes because people are stopping too suddenly or are overly cautious (thus causing accidents).
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-red-light-cameras-suburbs-18dec18,0,4307283.story
I consider these cameras another one of law enforcement's speed traps. The tickets themselves are $100 a pop, but if you notice the suburbs they have used them all in, they aren't exactly the wealthy kind.
This quote gets down to the bottom of it all (I think):
I'm just waiting the first serious lawsuit.
And my statement was made in this thread, meaning the context applies to driving laws. It's not my fault you want to stretch it out. I expected more integrity of you.
Speed cameras of any sort are a money grab. Recently, Chicago and the outlying suburbs have let these hobgoblins into their worlds and not much has changed except the towns that implemented them got more money. Accidents don't go down, they tend to go up.
Tribune did a report on red-light cameras. If you don't know what they are, basically, they ticket anyone that goes past the white line on an intersection when the light is red. Yes, it doesn't matter if you still stop. If any part of the car breaks the white line (how many of us has done that?), it takes a picture and sends a ticket.
Funny thing, these kinds of cameras in the suburbs have actually increased car crashes because people are stopping too suddenly or are overly cautious (thus causing accidents).
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-red-light-cameras-suburbs-18dec18,0,4307283.story
I consider these cameras another one of law enforcement's speed traps. The tickets themselves are $100 a pop, but if you notice the suburbs they have used them all in, they aren't exactly the wealthy kind.
This quote gets down to the bottom of it all (I think):
Wasn't a city caught shortening the timer on yellow lights to increase the tickets red light cameras were handing out, too?
Just statically fund the police out of the city budget, throw in a minor tax hike for it, and make all ticket funds go directly to a government run charity for the victims of car accidents, tying monetary gain to reduced safety seems to be a really bad idea.
:^:
I find this fascinating.
xbl - HowYouGetAnts
steam - WeAreAllGeth
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This just makes my heart bleed all warm.
It's a lot better than many states south of it.
Anything surrounding TN makes me want to castrate myself.
And if we are so interested in effects, why not let's analyze the net effect of a wealthy person being late for where he's going vs. the poor person? What if he's a CEO headed to a meeting that could create 1000s of jobs in the local area? Note: we won't really get anywhere if we actually tried to pursue that as a legitimate point.
I don't know what this has to do with anything I said.
Which a person can think is stupid and unjust.
And if they get a ticket for it, they can still think it's stupid and unjust.
Oh, there are a lot of roads that make sudden and extreme changes to the speed limits, at least in CO. US-36 goes straight form 65 to 35 is the one I encounter the most, but those things are fucking everywhere in this state.
I would say 65 with 70 being the max. I get really upset at people who suggest that someone going 70 has no right to use the passing lane.
Which, from my anecdotal experience, is a pretty common sentiment.
Well, you're supposed to go the speed limit, on paper. But that's not what the general population does, and can actually be a little dangerous in situations where lots of traffic is moving much faster.
Of course you won't get pulled over every time you go some particular amount over the speed limit.
Generally, I go 75 in a 65, 70 in a 55, and slow down a bit if no one is passing me.
Okay, we're getting into semantics here. Basically, I don't have a problem with sensible enforcement of the law. Pulling over speeders going through a school zone? That's fine by me.
What I have a problem with, regardless of whether you call it a speed trap or not, is unfair enforcement of the law that does less to promote public safety than it does to pad revenue.
I don't have any sort of abstract logical objection against the Platonic ideal of a speed limit. I'm arguing that there are widespread problems with the way speed limits are set up and enforced, at least in the US.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And they'll be wrong to think so.
Edit - Addendum: speed traps and poorly placed speed limits are an issue though.
The issue, for me, is that it assumes that this CEO's "worth" in getting to work late is something I care about.
I care about the people who are picking up bottles out of the snow outside my window right now.
I agree this won't go anywhere.
So people are wrong to think a speed limit is dumb and unjust. Interesting.
The sudden changes are more common in european countries.
"This is fucked up, I should be allowed to drive really fast an endanger others!" Yeah, sounds about right!
I think it's cool, but I don't think it would work for every culture.
I remember nearly dieing several times in Spain because people would ignore the speed limit while driving on cliff-sides that have a yellow divide yet contain room for only one car and several winding paths.
Hmm... I was going to post a "That's not what I'm saying and I don't think that's what Henroid means" response... got distracted... and then this happened.
Well, that's not what I'm saying anyway... Jesus.
That's a strawman.
Nobody here is arguing that speed limits in general are unjust. We're arguing that particular speed limits can be unfair.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'd say for the most part that it isn't wrong for people to think the speed limit is unjust. However, I think it's wrong of them to protest that by driving recklessly through speeding.
There are few instances where I've said to myself "hey, the speed limit could stand to be a bit higher here."
That's an amazing extreme you've taken it to.
Has it occurred to you that maybe a person simply thinks a current limit is stupidly low?
Hell, it is stupidly low in a lot of places.
Wait are you saying they are wrong to think a traffic law is unjust or are you saying they are wrong to protest a traffic law they think is unjust. The difference is vast and important.
Which is why I had the addendum in a previous post.
Look, all I'm saying is that the "net economic effect" argument swings both ways. The rich guy's time is worth more, economically speaking, and there for he has more right to be speeding in the first place. If we're going to apply economic analysis to sentencing, maybe we should apply to law enforcement as well. The reason I say "this won't go anywhere" is the same reason I say that we ought not be focusing on money as a way to enforce things.
I would hope the undercurrent here isn't about speaking up whenever potential injustice is spotted.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
So why the use of the word "unjust"? It implies people aren't being treated fairly due to a cap on how fast you can drive.