NationStates Jolt Archive

Have you ever gotten one? Did you contest it? Did you win? Discuss.

I got one back in May, for going 66 in a 30 zone (a $360 fine and two points on the license). Now, mind you, I couldn't see the speed posted because of heavy traffic, and the speed dropped from 50 to 30 and back to 50 within less than a quarter of a mile. The cop also pulled over three cars at once, and got my license plate and zip code wrong.

And all of this didn't matter. I went to my hearing to contest it. The trooper read his report about it, the judge noticed my town name (I'm out of state), said he was from the same town, asked where I had been and why, told him I was a student teacher, and he fully waived responsibility.

Don't sweat the technicalities. You know you're guilty, and judges tend to reduce the penalty when you answer "guilty, your honor" instead of trying to worm your way out. Unless in your case that justice was nowhere near blind.

never got a speeding ticket. tho the closest I got to one was the cops behind me 'blooping' their sirens to warn me I was going a tad too fast.

I got a ticket for doing 60 in a 50 zone, about 1/4 of a mile after the limit dropped from 65 to 50. Stupid. But I didn't contest it because I'm lazy.

I don't drive. :)

You have to drive to get a speeding ticket, right?

You have to drive to get a speeding ticket, right?

Yes. but you can get a DUI without a car.

Yes. but you can get a DUI without a car.

I hope to achieve that some day.

I got two, both of them for around 15 km/h over. But since I was still on a provisional license then, that was enough to put me on a "good behaviour bond", where they'd take my license for 6 months if I got caught doing anything at all.

I didn't.

Don't sweat the technicalities. You know you're guilty, and judges tend to reduce the penalty when you answer "guilty, your honor" instead of trying to worm your way out. Unless in your case that justice was nowhere near blind.

That's not entirely true. I got a speeding ticket and it would have cost me $250 and put 4 points on my license. I plead not guilty and was offered a "failure to yield" charge with a $100 fine and 3 points on my license, which I took, even though I was truly not guilty of failing to yield. I was just driving along the highway at 2:00am.

My first speeding ticket was in my old Chevy. I was on my way home from a friends house on a road that went from twisty to open and straight. I hit the last set of turns particularly well coming out of the last turn pretty fast, so I decided to push it. Once I hit 100 mph the speedometer, which was one of those side to side types that took up most of the dash, started bouncing off the 100 mph peg. The faster I went the more it bounced. There was a 100 degree right hand turn I had to take, so feeling my oats I crossed into the left turn lane to set the turn up, nudged the rear end out just a bit to gun it up the hill. By the time I reached the top of the hill I was back up to around 80 mph and thats when a scene from Close Encounters unfolded in my review mirror.

Apparently I had passed a cop sitting still who wasn't able to catch up to me enough to clock my speed until I was on the brakes going into the turn uphill. He clocked me at 86 mph in a 35 mph zone. He thought I was running from him, I just didn't see him way back there. He was relieved enough that I pulled over that he only filled the ticket out for 65 in a 35 so I didn't lose my license.

I got another one trying to see how fast I could take this turn at Sac State, apparently the cop car could take it just as fast as I could. They made me drag out all my saxophones (I had three) and called the instrument tech to make sure I was supposed to have them-who pretended he didn't know me even though I hung out there all the time and called in all my friends he could find to enjoy my shame.

My first and only speeding ticket was given to me when I went 13mph over the speed limit on I-485 on a 65mph zone. I did go to driving school to prevent having points added to my license and having my insurance go up. Since then, I've only gone 5mph above the speed limit.

You have to drive to get a speeding ticket, right?
why dont you have some spiffy little classic car to drive around your gated community?

why dont you have some spiffy little classic car to drive around your gated community?

My dad doesn't need a gated community to drive around in his classic car. :D

Got to love the '65 Shelby Cobra (not the Mustang).

why dont you have some spiffy little classic car to drive around your gated community?

Ruffy is too important to drive himself anywhere.

Never. I always drive strategically.

My first and only speeding ticket was given to me when I went 13mph over the speed limit on I-485 on a 65mph zone. I did go to driving school to prevent having points added to my license and having my insurance go up. Since then, I've only gone 5mph above the speed limit.

This is an option I wish they had here...

Now, for me, this whole "points" thing is pretty strange, as CT doesn't have it (well, we do...but it's something of a different system). I'd love to be able to just do a drivers training course rather than having to do the whole court thing.

I got my license suspended for going 55 over the limit. >_<

I got my license suspended for going 55 over the limit. >_<

Ok, there's a story behind this, spill.

I got my license suspended for going 55 over the limit. >_<

Jesus christ. How the hell did you go 55 over?

Or wait, was it really 55 over or 20 over plus 25 for DWB?

Jesus christ. How the hell did you go 55 over?

Or wait, was it really 55 over or 20 over plus 25 for DWB?I was late for work, and since the expressway is empty at such a late hour I was going more than twice the legal limit, only thinking about getting there... and a cop clocked me. :$

I was late for work, and since the expressway is empty at such a late hour I was going more than twice the legal limit, only thinking about getting there... and a cop clocked me. :$

Ouch. If you don't mind me asking, how much was the fine plus court costs?

ouch. If You Don't Mind Me Asking, How Much Was The Fine Plus Court Costs?~$1300.

~$1300.

Good night....

Good night....What???

What???

That's alot of money.

That's alot of money.Oh... yeah, it is. It's a good thing I got an advance at work last week or I'd been in deep doo-doo.

Ruffy is too important to drive himself anywhere.
no one is so lame as to need a driver for their spiffy little classic car...

maybe his spiffy classic car is a bentley

I've gotten several. My kids used to call me Mama Leadfoot. The one I'll remember forever is the one I got in Moreno Valley, just 5 miles from my house. I was stopped on my way to work by Corporal Horton, a motorcycle cop who was noted for ticketing older women. He stopped me for doing 48 in a 45 mph zone. I found out later that he had ticketed his own mother that same day. She didn't get off either.

I've gotten several. My kids used to call me Mama Leadfoot. The one I'll remember forever is the one I got in Moreno Valley, just 5 miles from my house. I was stopped on my way to work by Corporal Horton, a motorcycle cop who was noted for ticketing older women. He stopped me for doing 48 in a 45 mph zone. I found out later that he had ticketed his own mother that same day. She didn't get off either.

now that is just harsh.



My dad is where I get the lead foot from. We were up in Vermont once, driving along the highway, when a cop stops him. Officer runs through the normal stuff, tells dad he was speeding. Dad says "Well, damn. I must have been going so fast I didn't see the sign".

We still got a ticket, though, the officer did appreciate the joke

Ruffy is too important to drive himself anywhere.

^That.

Once, when I first started driving regularly. 80 in a 55 zone. Almost 80 in a 50 zone, but I lucked out.

Why 80 you ask? I got it into my head to see what driving 88 MPH was like.

I've never sped again since.

Why 80 you ask? I got it into my head to see what driving 88 MPH was like.

I've never sped again since.
But you did help your Mum and Dad kiss on their prom night, so it's all good.

But you did help your Mum and Dad kiss on their prom night, so it's all good.
you have my favorite avatar on nsg.

Never. I always drive strategically.

Same here. If I'm going to speed its on a largely uninhabited country road.

However, I did go 110mph from Mt. Pleasant, MI to Grand Rapids, MI (normally about an hour and a half drive) once because we were late for a wedding. Going down M46 at 110mph is kinda scary at times, but luckily we made it to the wedding with about 3 minutes to spare.

Closest I've got (other than speed cameras) was being pulled over doing 142 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone. Luckily I knew the cop - his 1st week on the job! - and he let me off with a warning. TG, as that's loss of licence zone I think. Definitely a huge fine.

Nope, and that's why my insurance company loves me

I have had two.

The first I was travelling back from work, back when I worked out at the mines and since I had the company car that week I was testing its capabilities. I got caught doing 137 km/hr in a 110 km/hr zone. I was fined $186 and am not to sure how many points I lost. The stupid copper despite having my license in his hand still managed to spell my name wrong and since I had a month to pay I was pulled on the 30/01 (for you Yanks 01/30) he wrote on my ticket for me to be paid on the 30th of February, what a dumbass. I spoke to a lawyer friend of mine who went over his law instruments (or whatever it is called) on his computer and said that despite that as the name was close and even though the date was wrong they would just reissue it and I would still have to pay.

The second time I was driving back from attending a few football finals interstate and I was picked up going 110 km/hr in a 100 km/hr, about 6 weeks later I received the ticket in the mail and I promptly paid it, it was only a few days later I found out that a loophole existed in SA law that meant since I picked up the speeding ticket interstate that I did not have to pay the fine and was not responsible for it. Of course this information is now useless to me as it was only a few months ago I read that they closed this loophole.

I was doing 40 in a 30. The cop said I was doing 45. I could have argued, but in the end it wouldn't have made any difference.

These days I just get to the speed limit as fast as I possibly can :tongue:

I haven't gotten a speeding ticket before because I'm very careful not to speed.

Not one. My current car can't do over 90mph, so I'm safe in regards to speeding on highways (10mph can be talked out as speedometer/radar error, but I wasn't pulled over for that). Once, I was caught speeding on a country road with a ridiculously low limit - considering it's empty all the time - but talked my way out of it.

I have a very ticket heavy past, but at this point, I try to keep it within 10mph over the limit...I have never, not, contested a ticket...Ever...At this point I am about 70% successful (closer to 90% if reductions are factored in and not just outright dismissals)

I do have to add, that many of my most epic speeding events went un noticed by Johnny Law;)

And, when I was younger, I felt I always had at least a 50/50 chance of charming my way out of the ticket at the scene...

I never got a speeding ticket but an MP got pissy at me once for driving a Hummer too fast for his liking while I was in the Army Reserve during college.

I never got a speeding ticket but an MP got pissy at me once for driving a Hummer too fast for his liking while I was in the Army Reserve during college.

an MP?

an MP?

Military police.

I like how half the people in this thread who have admitted to being ticketed have tried to excuse it in some way.

Personally, never been ticketed. Not fast/stupid enough. That and knowing where all the Gatso's are in my local area.

I like how half the people in this thread who have admitted to being ticketed have tried to excuse it in some way.
Because speed limits are evil. Or, at the very least, they're ridiculously slow. A modern car is safer at 100mph than an old one at 50mph, yet the limit doesn't rise, and sometimes is even reduced.
People aren't speeding - it's the law that's classing reasonable, even slow speed as speeding.

It's usually possible to avoid points on your license and to minimize the effect on your insurance. Just go to your hearing, and before the proceedings begin find the officer who cited you. Explain that you realize you may have been going a tad fast, and you don't mind paying the fine, but you're concerned about the effect a ticket at excessive speed will have on your license.

Ask the officer if you can settle on, say, five mph over the limit. They will almost always agree, because: a) the fines are usually very similar, and the portion of the fines that go to the local police department are identical; b) their arrest/prosecution record depends on numbers more than specific charges; and c) it will save you both the trouble of having to argue it out in front of the judge--when your case comes up, the officer will just say, "We've reached an agreement," you confirm, and off you go.

I got a ticket for doing 60 in a 50 zone, about 1/4 of a mile after the limit dropped from 65 to 50. Stupid.Stupid how? 1/4 of a mile is more than enough room to slow down.

Because speed limits are evil. Or, at the very least, they're ridiculously slow. A modern car is safer at 100mph than an old one at 50mph, yet the limit doesn't rise, and sometimes is even reduced.Two things:

1) A modern car may be safer at 100mph than an old car at 50mph for the driver, but I have yet to see any evidence that it's anything but deadly for someone he hits who happens to be at a slower speed, e.g. when merging.

2) Who said anything about safety, anyway? Speed limits reduce gas consumption, contributing to another public good: cheaper gas prices. You get decent marginal cost in gas consumption up to about 65 mph. Faster than that, and the marginal cost increases dramatically.

I get better gas mileage at 75-85 than I do 55-65

1) A modern car may be safer at 100mph than an old car at 50mph for the driver, but I have yet to see any evidence that it's anything but deadly for someone he hits who happens to be at a slower speed, e.g. when merging.
Well, for instance, P911 has not only front airbags, but also side airbags and head protection airbags, forming a complete cocoon isolating the driver and the passenger from the structure. The structure itself is reinforced, built of high-strength materials, including in the doors, and can safely withstand strong side impacts and rollovers with no direct damage to the occupants even without the cage.

Then there's the active safety. A modern car, like Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution or Nissan Skyline, can easily take the most difficult turns on the dirtiest and wettest roads, at speeds where old cars would lose any control even on dry tarmac. Active differentials which electronically maintain perfect grip in all cases, four wheel drive, four wheel steering, antilock brakes, active yaw control, electronically controlled suspension. And all the other features that keep the car in control. You have to be medically retarded or severely drunk to lose control of a modern car at anything less than 120-140 mph. To crash, you have to either be asleep/drunk/drugged or intend to crash, and in both of these cases legal speed limits are irrelevant.


2) Who said anything about safety, anyway? Speed limits reduce gas consumption,
Not always, and not really. For one, different cars have different optimal speeds. And "reducing gas consumption" isn't enough reason. People happen to be in a serious hurry sometimes, you know? When spending a bit more gas doesn't matter. Introducing blanket speed limits to reduce gas consumption is like installing thin wires to reduce electricity consumption.

And cars get more aerodynamic every the year, with the optimal speed constantly increasing.
I'm not sure what Maraque drives, but still it's probably not the very fastest car, and some others are best at even higher speeds.

Because speed limits are evil. Or, at the very least, they're ridiculously slow. A modern car is safer at 100mph than an old one at 50mph, yet the limit doesn't rise, and sometimes is even reduced.
People aren't speeding - it's the law that's classing reasonable, even slow speed as speeding.
Safer for who? The driver or the pedestrian he hits at 100mph?

The difference between 70mph (the highest speed limit in Britain) and 55mph (approximately the speed at which maximum fuel efficiency is achieved in most cars) is only really significant on journeys of over 100 miles. And if you do 55, you can just tag along behind HGVs to achieve even better efficiency.

I hope to achieve that some day.

You could do this... (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080624/jsp/foreign/story_9454696.jsp)

Safer for who? The driver or the pedestrian he hits at 100mph? The pedestrian won't survive 50mph either. It makes little difference. But pedestrians rarely cross the highways.


And if you do 55, you can just tag along behind HGVs to achieve even better efficiency. If you want efficiency, buy Volkswagen Lupo or even a microcar. There you'll get it.
If we still allow people to buy less efficient cars, there's no reason to restrict speed in favor of lower consumption. A Celica at 120 mph is much more efficient than a Hummer at 40.


The difference between 70mph (the highest speed limit in Britain) and 55mph (approximately the speed at which maximum fuel efficiency is achieved in most cars) is only really significant on journeys of over 100 miles.
People do drive more than a couple miles sometimes, you know. My current car is not for roads, but when I buy the new one, in '09 or '10, I'm planning to go on a sort of Grand Tour around the entire country and the nearby countries. See the sights, talk with people, expand my views, that sort of thing. It's not 100 miles, not 1,000, and maybe not even 10,000.

I get better gas mileage at 75-85 than I do 55-65Do you have a magic car that defies the laws of physics? Neat!!

I can't drive. But I'm the kind of person who worries so much about accidents, taking risks, or suddenly forgetting which pedal is which, that I'd be driving at about 30mph maximum even on the motorway. So I'm unlikely to ever get a ticket for dangerous driving. Perhaps more likely to get beaten up by a bunch of angry road-users who were in a rush to get somewhere in the same decade that they set off.

The pedestrian won't survive 50mph either. It makes little difference. But pedestrians rarely cross the highways.
Now we both know that wasn't the point I was making, but what the hey.


If you want efficiency, buy Volkswagen Lupo or even a microcar. There you'll get it.
If we still allow people to buy less efficient cars, there's no reason to restrict speed in favor of lower consumption. A Celica at 120 mph is much more efficient than a Hummer at 40.
But if you have a less efficient car and want maximum efficiency...


People do drive more than a couple miles sometimes, you know. My current car is not for roads, but when I buy the new one, in '09 or '10, I'm planning to go on a sort of Grand Tour around the entire country and the nearby countries. See the sights, talk with people, expand my views, that sort of thing. It's not 100 miles, not 1,000, and maybe not even 10,000.
I'm not saying they don't, but I'd bet that more than 95% of car journeys are under 100 miles. I'd feel my money was reasonably safe if we said 10 miles.

And on that Grand Tour I'm sure you'll want to do 100mph rather than 50, just so you can take in more scenery.

Have you ever gotten one? Did you contest it? Did you win? Discuss.One, 60 (or so) in a 45 zone. Trying to pass two people who'd been hogging the road.
Going downhill, passing the last person and flipping 'em off, which the cop saw (at the bottom of the hill).
Pointed out i had a clean record, he came back to tell me i probably wouldn't get any points taken off, and wouldn't really need the class to do it.
Turns out, with my record, there was a built-up credit that nullified the points being taken off.
A couple bucks, but the timing was awesome, since i had THE DAY PREVIOUS gotten my driving record for my current job. :)
Still not on my record.

No, but given my age and gender (26, male) it's only a matter of time.

Closest I came was last November. I was going to the bank after a late-night fencing class / club meeting, so it was probably around 10 PM, I was on the main road. Speed limit's 40 mph / 65 km/h in that area, I was going closer to 60 mph / 95 km/h. The sirens come up on me and I'm like SHIT SHIT SHIT!!! and pull over in the gas station a block from the bank. Cop asks me the standard questions, where are you going, where are you coming from, did you know what the speed limit is, that line. I told her no when she asked if I knew the limit and said I didn't realise I was going that fast. She didn't have a radar gun, just guessed my speed as "at least 50." I got off with a warning.

I think I probably lucked out that she had no radar gun and would have had no evidence if she'd chosen to ticket me.

No tickets, because I don't speed. I'm quite happy with going the speed limit.

But if you have a less efficient car and want maximum efficiency...
Then you can drive slowly - no one's stopping you from that.
Enforcing a blanket speed limit to save on fuel is ridiculous. There will always be someone whose car is wasteful at any speed. If we want to save on fuel, we should take measures to discourage tarmac kids from buying SUV for showoff, but not to ban driving at the speeds modern roads and cars are designed for.


I'm not saying they don't, but I'd bet that more than 95% of car journeys are under 100 miles. I'd feel my money was reasonably safe if we said 10 miles.
In UK, but in US it's generally over 10 miles, and often totals at 30 miles a day or more.
For those living in the Suburbias of large cities, of course.


And on that Grand Tour I'm sure you'll want to do 100mph rather than 50, just so you can take in more scenery.
Well, you're right, I really don't want to be kept down to 50 mph in a car that can easily go past 200. I at least want to be able to do the safe 100-120 mph on the highway - like it's legal in Germany - and occasionally, on empty roads, legally go further.
I understand the safety concerns, but I'd be ready to take an advanced safety test to prove I can handle the car at high speed. And I do slow down when there are other people I could potentially harm, I know when I can go fast and when not.
But no. Blanked speed limits without any reason.

Well, for instance, P911 has not only front airbags, but also side airbags and head protection airbags, forming a complete cocoon isolating the driver and the passenger from the structure. The structure itself is reinforced, built of high-strength materials, including in the doors, and can safely withstand strong side impacts and rollovers with no direct damage to the occupants even without the cage.

Then there's the active safety. A modern car, like Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution or Nissan Skyline, can easily take the most difficult turns on the dirtiest and wettest roads, at speeds where old cars would lose any control even on dry tarmac. Active differentials which electronically maintain perfect grip in all cases, four wheel drive, four wheel steering, antilock brakes, active yaw control, electronically controlled suspension. And all the other features that keep the car in control. You have to be medically retarded or severely drunk to lose control of a modern car at anything less than 120-140 mph. To crash, you have to either be asleep/drunk/drugged or intend to crash, and in both of these cases legal speed limits are irrelevant.
.
First, you are kidding yourself about losing control of modern cars 'at anything less than 120-140 mph.' You can live that little illusion if you like, but no one with sense or who has been at those speeds will believe you. ("Oh I totally drive at those speeds and I-blah blah blah" No. Just no. I started racing cars when I was 5 years old, come from a racing family, been around it most of my life. Pedal your snake oil somewhere else).

Second, that's all good and fine for the guy in the brand new 'P911'....no, I just can't, that's the stupidest fucking way to say that cars name...the Porsche 911..I'm an adult, I can use my words...not so great for for the guy in the '86 Tercell trying to get to one of his two jobs, or the mom in her '90 Caravan trying to get her kids home safely before some jackass doing a buck twenty pretending they're Micheal fucking Delaney telling himself "t eh Porsche Stability Management is like a magic bubble that makes it impossible for me to hit anyone and instantly improves my reaction time and judgment!!"

My dad doesn't need a gated community to drive around in his classic car. :D

Got to love the '65 Shelby Cobra (not the Mustang).

A real one or replica? If it's a real one, is it a 289 or 427? If it's a replica, what kit is it?

First, you are kidding yourself about losing control of modern cars 'at anything less than 120-140 mph.' You can live that little illusion if you like, but no one with sense or who has been at those speeds will believe you.
Of course they won't. They know for themselves that modern cars are controllable up to these speeds. Not on any road, not in any weather, not always easily, but still controllable.

If a dumb Supra Mk.4 can turn where it's steered at that speed, then a proper car (not Muscle or J-Muscle) can easily.


some jackass doing a buck twenty pretending they're Micheal fucking Delaney telling himself "t eh Porsche Stability Management is like a magic bubble that makes it impossible for me to hit anyone and instantly improves my reaction time and judgment!!"
Porsche's computer tech isn't very modern, compared to, say, Nissan. But still, what modern technology achieves is making the cars to go where the driver steers them. Which greatly drops the risk of crashing compared to old cars.
Of course this doesn't eliminate the idiots, but it still is a reason to increase the speed limit over time as passive amd active safety progress.

This is an option I wish they had here...

Now, for me, this whole "points" thing is pretty strange, as CT doesn't have it (well, we do...but it's something of a different system). I'd love to be able to just do a drivers training course rather than having to do the whole court thing.

I hear that! :(

My first ticket was 70mph in a 50mph zone (just over a year after I got my license). I paid it, and my mom didn't find out for years (I'm not sure if my dad ever found out about that one). My second one, was 80mph in a 65mph zone. That one, I contested. The penalty was reduced from $239 to $150, in exchange for pleading guilty in front of the judge (that one was BS, though, as when I went around the corner and saw the cop, I glanced at my speedometer, and it said 75). My last one was 45mph in a 30mph zone. It was legit (unfortunately), as the cop was sitting almost under the sign that dropped the speed limit from 40 to 30. I paid it, and my right foot has been behaving since.

BTW, I've been driving since 1991,.

Of course they won't. They know for themselves that modern cars are controllable up to these speeds. Not on any road, not in any weather, not always easily, but still controllable.

If a dumb Supra Mk.4 can turn where it's steered at that speed, then a proper car (not Muscle or J-Muscle) can easily.
At 100mph, those cars are 'curving' at best. Even the 911 GT3 RS does the slalom at 75mph. In perfect conditions. On a test course. With a professional driver. So, yeah, you're bravado is made of fail.



Porsche's computer tech isn't very modern, compared to, say, Nissan. But still, what modern technology achieves is making the cars to go where the driver steers them. Which greatly drops the risk of crashing compared to old cars.
Of course this doesn't eliminate the idiots, but it still is a reason to increase the speed limit over time as passive amd active safety progress.
Great, so you're buying everyone sports cars (regardless of how inappropriate they are for most people) and paying for the performance driving classes everyone now has to take, or are we waiting for Oprah to do it?

You want to go play with your car, attend a track day. The road is for travel, for everyone, not for your irresponsible nonsense.

At 100mph, those cars are 'curving' at best. Even the 911 GT3 RS does the slalom at 75mph. In perfect conditions. On a test course. With a professional driver. So, yeah, you're bravado is made of fail.
How many slaloms have you seen on US highways? The turns there, in the rare instances when they occur, are so wide that any car can take them at any reasonable speed.



Great, so you're buying everyone sports cars (regardless of how inappropriate they are for most people) and paying for the performance driving classes everyone now has to take, or are we waiting for Oprah to do it?
No, people who are slow keep driving their vans at 50 mph, and those with good cars and verified skills drive their cars at reasonable speeds. That simple.


You want to go play with your car, attend a track day. The road is for travel, for everyone, not for your irresponsible nonsense.
Yes, and travel should occur at reasonable speeds, not slowpoke crawling at 50 mph for vague and irrelevant reasons.

How many slaloms have you seen on US highways? The turns there, in the rare instances when they occur, are so wide that any car can take them at any reasonable speed.
If that's the only kind of turn you think you're going to make you do not belong behind the wheel of a car, any car.




No, people who are slow keep driving their vans at 50 mph, and those with good cars and verified skills drive their cars at reasonable speeds. That simple.
Simple in its sheer stupidity. Trying to convey how unsafe it is to have people zipping in between large trucks and slower cars an over twice their speed to someone who doesn't understand the implication of a slalom test almost seems like I have to explain that A is for Apple.

I know, I know, blahblahblahGermany...talk to someone in Germany. They'll strain themselves to tell you that while still fast, it ain't all that fast, and the rare moments where you get to punch it are short and a hassle to everyone else. Not to mention that they don't have the same traffic density the US does (and as they approach our density, they have started to reconsider the Autobahn) and an entirely different driving culture (for instance, no passing on the right).



Yes, and travel should occur at reasonable speeds, not slowpoke crawling at 50 mph for vague and irrelevant reasons.
Even overland trucks are allowed 55, and that's because that's what they're tires are rated for. Even with the boogey man of the return of the 'dreaded' national 55 speed limit, all they really asked for was a study to demonstrate if it would decrease consumption. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. But it's an 'overall' thing, on average, not just in your special car. Speed limits in part are so that everyone is going roughly the same speed instead of becoming obstacles because Mr.Gottahaveit needs to get where he's going 4 minutes faster and is going to travel over twice the speed of everyone else-passing moving objects at 70 mph relative speed but since their car can take sweeping turns that fast it's all okay for some reason.

If that's the only kind of turn you think you're going to make you do not belong behind the wheel of a car, any car.
I know.
But modern cars can change lanes at 100mph as well.


I know, I know, blahblahblahGermany...talk to someone in Germany. They'll strain themselves to tell you that while still fast, it ain't all that fast, and the rare moments where you get to punch it are short and a hassle to everyone else.
I know they're not all driving at top speed. But it's legal, and its legality doesn't result in road chaos.

Which puts a big dent into the speed limit proponents' ideas.


Not to mention that they don't have the same traffic density the US does (and as they approach our density, they have started to reconsider the Autobahn) and an entirely different driving culture (for instance, no passing on the right).
A problem for US to fix?


Even overland trucks are allowed 55, and that's because that's what they're tires are rated for.
So we all must go under 55 because it's (and I agree, reasonable) the trucks' limit?

There are stationary objects on the road in any case - the center, the edges, the caravans.

I know.
But modern cars can change lanes at 100mph as well.
Given enough space. Which of course at 100mph shrinks rapidly.

Really. Don't drive fast. You are not prepared. It appears you are still alive by luck only.



I know they're not all driving at top speed. But it's legal, and its legality doesn't result in road chaos.

Which puts a big dent into the speed limit proponents' ideas.
Except that they're having enough problems with it that they are starting to reconsider it...



A problem for US to fix?
Sure, we could live in a dream world. I like dream worlds, too-where there is a pervasive public transportation system and a centralized population and most people don't need cars and the open roads are only for enthusiasts. And in the winter kids can ride sleighs pulled by unicorns to school...



So we all must go under 55 because it's (and I agree, reasonable) truck limit?
The speed limit here is 65mph. 70 on long open stretches. If the speed limit is under 55 mph it's generally because it's in an area that has a lot of cross or merging traffic, the road is narrower or more curvy, the density is higher or there is pedestrian or 'local' traffic access that will be traveling less than the transit speeds.

Here in the UK the speed limit on country roads unless specified is like 60mph or something. The road near my house there are two unlit near-90 degree bends where you can't see if anyone is coming the other way. This is why I'm in favour of speed cameras. I don't want someone going off the road near my house, being killed and then being close enough to my house to haunt us.

Given enough space. Which of course at 100mph shrinks rapidly.
Really. Don't drive fast. You are not prepared. It appears you are still alive by luck only.
I've said it above, my current owned car can't physically accelerate far above 90 mph - the limiter might mess with it even in the 6th gear.
But I've driven a faster car quite a lot, and despite being just a simplistic RWD (Supra Mk.4), it does take turns at above 100mph. That leads me to consider the possibility that not every car has to keep down to turtle speed.


Sure, we could live in a dream world. I like dream worlds, too-where there is a pervasive public transportation system and a centralized population and most people don't need cars and the open roads are only for enthusiasts.
I see. Well, if you see cars as an evil, then of course everything drops into place.


The speed limit here is 65mph. 70 on long open stretches.
And that's too low, since it's less than 40% the top speed of a typical modern car, and since modern cars can handle well at much higher speeds than 70 mph.

Do you have a magic car that defies the laws of physics? Neat!!Because every car is the same, right? No. It's pure ignorance to think so.

Speed limits are a function first and foremost of the road itself. In an average driving situation, exceeding the speed limit will dramatically increase the risk of losing control. The results of this are pretty obvious.

That being said, if people want to drive faster they need to realize that the only way such a thing is safely possible is if roads are upgraded. For every highly skilled driver with a vehicle capable of managing such speeds, there are a dozen dumbass teenagers who will try the same thing in their shitty Dodge Neon, or, even worse, people with actual high performance vehicles that lack any real knowledge of how to drive them properly.

I really don't care about the existence of the speed limit except as a tool to protect people. If you want a higher limit, it's going to cost money to make sure those who can't handle those speeds under existing conditions don't end up endangering and killing innocent people, including yourself.

I've said it above, my current owned car can't physically accelerate to 90 mph or above - it will be above the limiter in the 6th gear.
But I've driven a faster car quite a lot, and despite being just a simplistic RWD (Supra Mk.4), it does take turns at above 100mph. That leads me to consider the possibility that not every car has to keep down to turtle speed.
So your basis for this fantasy you've concocted is that you once took a turn in a Supra at 100mph?

Okay, I know where we're at.

A is for Apple...



I see. Well, if you see cars as an evil, then of course everything drops into place.
Yep, wanting the roadways open for enthusiasts free of commuters-yep, that's seeing cars as evil. You do not have the tools for this discussion. Please TG Neu Leonstien to tag you out of this debate. At least he knows what he's talking about, is more realistic about what's possible, and more upfront with his Dr. Doom rationalizations.



And that's too low, since it's less than 40% the top speed of a typical modern car, and since modern cars can handle well at much higher speeds than 70 mph.
And that's the hands down stupidest way to set the speed limit, and ignores the variety of cars and conditions that have to share the road. Especially since to you "modern car" refers to high end sports cars. Ignores things like the Acura TSX that tops out at 130, the Audi A5 Quattro that also tops out at 130, the Chevy Malibu that tops out at 118, the Civic Si that tips at 129, the Fit that tops at 120, the Kia Rondo that hits the limiter at 122, the Lexus GS 350 or 600h that peg at 130, the Miata that stops gaining at 130, the Mini Cooper cops out at 126, the Mitsubishi Galant that bows at 131 or Lancer GTS that clips 125, or the Saab 9-3 bowing at 130, the Saturn Aura making 115, the Smart at a mere 90, the Subaru Impreza 2.5i knocking 120, the 101mph Prius, or just about every VW tapping 130. etc, etc. All in road test conditions. And again, these are top speeds. All modern cars with current test results.

You know, cars most people drive.

Are we done with this fantasy yet?

I got one ticket, argued it, and won. The speed limit sign posting that the speed limit dropped from 45 to 30 was missing from the pole. I took pictures, showed them to a judge, and he dismissed.

I really don't understand what the real problem with speed limits are. 65mph is plenty fast to get to a destination provided that the person plans ahead and has reasonable time management skills. Besides, the only reason one would really need to go faster than that has already been accounted for (ambulances, fire trucks, and other emergency vehicles are allowed to exceed speed limits, but other vehicles have to move to the side of the road for them to do so safely). Unless what a driver is doing or where that driver is going is so important that it ranks up there with medical vehicles, respecting the speed limit should not be a serious problem or inconvieniece.

To go faster than most other vehicles is very dangerous, which is why there are speed minimums on freeways (speed limit 65mph, minimum 45mph with slow vehicles keeping right), because you would have to weave around slower vehicles, making potentially risky lane changes. Going 75mph while on a road rated for maximum 55mph would not only endanger the driver that was going fast, because the road may not be suited for such speeds (sharp turns, potholes, poor road maintenence, etc), but would endanger other drivers that were going slower, since faster drivers would need to pass (not always a safe experience).

I've seen many times where a fast driver has veered into my lane, cutting me off after passing, because they misjudged when passing or were just careless. It has gotten so bad, that I not only slow down by releasing the gas when someone moves to pass my vehicle, I also make sure to cover the brake in the event that the passing driver switches lanes unsafely. I've been forced to brake suddenly on more than one occasion do to unsafe passing by other vehicles.

Speeding, because a person is late to work, soccer practice, or what have you is just a bad idea. Is risking the safety of yourself and others worth getting to where you need to go a little sooner? It is much better and very easy these days to pick up a phone and call ahead, telling your boss that you're going to be late than it is to explain to him/her why you got into a collision or were pulled over for speeding. The time saved by going faster isn't worth the added risks involved and speeding for fun is simply reckless. There are safer ways for someone to get their jollies without endangering others. That's why we have computer games with amazing graphics!

Another thing to take into account is the unexpected! Slower speeds provide more reaction time! If little Jonny loses his ball and wonders out into the street to get it, will you notice in time to stop if you're speeding? Will your brakes stop you in time? Will you be able to swerve safely without losing control or rolling over? These are things that need to be considered. Out here in the country, deer are the main risk. Hitting a deer at 55mph will hurt, at 75mph your vehicle will be completely totalled unless it is well protected. Going too fast will most likely result in not seeing the deer leap onto the road until it is too late. I've avoided many deer by driving slower and being able to stop quickly, because I wasn't going fast. At 65, swerving to miss a deer is almost suicide as many people simply can't maintain control and either roll over or hit the ditch, tree, electric pole, etc.

Please reconsider why you go fast, be it time saving, fun, or just your own personal preverence. We all share the road and must drive slower in order to keep the road a safe place for everyone.

I got one ticket, argued it, and won. The speed limit sign posting that the speed limit dropped from 45 to 30 was missing from the pole. I took pictures, showed them to a judge, and he dismissed.

But the real question was, how much were your lawyer's fees, compared to the fine?


:D

But you did help your Mum and Dad kiss on their prom night, so it's all good.
That'd be kind of hard since my dad would've had to take a three year old to the prom. :p

Idea: keep speed limits, but use conditions on the road and the car in question as mitigating circumstances that reduce punishment.

So instead of both getting the same punishment for going X over the speed limit, the guy in the GT3 on a beautiful day gets off easier than the guy in the 20-year old Ural truck in the hail storm.

Idea: keep speed limits, but use conditions on the road and the car in question as mitigating circumstances that reduce punishment.

So instead of both getting the same punishment for going X over the speed limit, the guy in the GT3 on a beautiful day gets off easier than the guy in the 20-year old Ural truck in the hail storm.

Actually I like the German system of adjusting the fine to income so that rich people aren't able to essentially buy speeding indulgences and poor people aren't crippled for a minor infraction. If you argue your tickets, and depending on the mood of the cop, adjustments are made. Not always the way you want them. It certainly shouldn't be based on what you think your ability is but on how much danger you put others in.

Because speed limits are evil. Or, at the very least, they're ridiculously slow. A modern car is safer at 100mph than an old one at 50mph, yet the limit doesn't rise, and sometimes is even reduced.
People aren't speeding - it's the law that's classing reasonable, even slow speed as speeding.
very true. What would be better (though almost impossible to enforce) would be a range of speed limits dependent on the conditions. 100km/hr in wet conditions is way more dangerous than 120km/hr in brilliant sunshine. Yet it's the latter who would be ticketed. Absurd!
Being able to raise and lower the max speed limit due to weather conditions would be much better. Heavy rain? 80km/hr max. Sunny? 120km/hr. Anything in between 100km/hr.

very true. What would be better (though almost impossible to enforce) would be a range of speed limits dependent on the conditions. 100km/hr in wet conditions is way more dangerous than 120km/hr in brilliant sunshine. Yet it's the latter who would be ticketed. Absurd!
Being able to raise and lower the max speed limit due to weather conditions would be much better. Heavy rain? 80km/hr max. Sunny? 120km/hr. Anything in between 100km/hr.

Actually, if you go back to your drivers ed, something like that exists. Essentially, the speed limit is the limit in good conditions. You can be ticketed for traveling at unsafe speeds in hazardous conditions such as low visibility fog or heavy rain, plus there's the average speed law where you can get ticketed for traveling notably faster than the cars around you.

My brother got a ticket about 6 months ago - i think it was $210.00 and 3 demerit points (you lose your license at 12) for doing 104 kph in a 100 zone.

But our system is getting completely rediculous, the maximum leeway is 3kph or 10%, whichever is lower, the speed limits on roads is dropping all over the place... The freeway near me is down to 80kph, side roads are 50, school zones and shopping zones (so fairly major roads, some of which are dual carraigeway with slip and feeder lanes) are down to 40 - 60 kph (from 60 - 80) and they are now suggesting dropping other roads to 30kph.

Oh and if you are caught doing more than 25 kph over (might be 30, not sure) you enter something called the "anti-hoon legislation", where for a first offense they impound the vehicle for 48 hours, regardless of whether the driver is the owner, second offense is 1 week impound and third offense is confiscate i believe.

All this is mostly done by mobile and fixed speed cameras, so the cops dont need to actually pull you over. They are also introducing trip-distance cameras with a 5% leeway to most freeways around the city :(, so if your average speed between cameras is more than say 106 in a 100 zone you get ticketed.

the only moving violation i was ever issued was an illegal lane chainge. (and that on a road where the only other car for miles, litteraly, absolutely litterally miles, unfortunately turned out to be a cop, and i HAD had a damd good reason for doing so)

i think the REAL answer is that people shouldn't be forced to depend for their mobility on the private passenger automobile and their own skill in driving it.

and for god's sake, what the hell is up with licensing liquor to be sold by the glass in places where the only way to get there and back is by driving, and how in the hell can anyone expect there NOT to be drunk drivers on the road when it is?

Actually I like the German system of adjusting the fine to income so that rich people aren't able to essentially buy speeding indulgences and poor people aren't crippled for a minor infraction.
Basing fines on anything but the estimated cost of an accident times the probability of the accident is arbitrarily bullshitting people. As such, it can't possibly matter what the income of the perpetrator is.

It certainly shouldn't be based on what you think your ability is but on how much danger you put others in.
It's not about what you or I think. It's about the fact that the probability of an accident occuring in the GT3 is lower for a given amount over the limit than that of the truck, which should be reflected in the fines given.

Because every car is the same, right? No. It's pure ignorance to think so.No, but that cubed number representing wind drag climbs really fast, and the laws of physics being what they are... well, if you can find a car that's more efficient at 80 than at 60, show me the numbers.

No, but that cubed number representing wind drag climbs really fast, and the laws of physics being what they are... well, if you can find a car that's more efficient at 80 than at 60, show me the numbers.

Stock cars, maybe? Though those usually aren't street legal...

So your basis for this fantasy you've concocted is that you once took a turn in a Supra at 100mph?
Not once. And what "fantasy", that highway driving can be safe at 100mph?
It is. If the speed limit is 100mph, that doesn't mean everyone and everywhere has to do 99. A straight half-empty road is safe at any speed. An overcrowded city street isn't - but no one is talking about removing limits in the city.


Yep, wanting the roadways open for enthusiasts free of commuters-yep, that's seeing cars as evil.
Well, you see, roads aren't always crowded. There are roads that sometimes are pretty much like that - without significant traffic. And the blanket speed limit applies to them.


And that's the hands down stupidest way to set the speed limit, and ignores the variety of cars and conditions that have to share the road.
Because the limits are maximum ones, not minimum ones. If the speed limit was 300mph, that doesn't mean everyone on the roads will start doing 300mph. The official speed limit applies to the best conditions. As mentioned, under different conditions it's lower.


Ignores things like the Acura TSX that tops out at 130, the Audi A5 Quattro that also tops out at 130, the Chevy Malibu that tops out at 118, the Civic Si that tips at 129, the Fit that tops at 120, the Kia Rondo that hits the limiter at 122, the Lexus GS 350 or 600h that peg at 130, the Miata that stops gaining at 130, the Mini Cooper cops out at 126, the Mitsubishi Galant that bows at 131 or Lancer GTS that clips 125, or the Saab 9-3 bowing at 130, the Saturn Aura making 115, the Smart at a mere 90, the Subaru Impreza 2.5i knocking 120, the 101mph Prius, or just about every VW tapping 130. etc, etc. All in road test conditions. And again, these are top speeds. All modern cars with current test results.
So we've figured out that even the slower of modern cars all can go over 110, and the typical range for maximum speed is 120-130. Which means all of them can handle a 90-100mph highway.
Smart is a city car, and city limits are far lower.

Basing fines on anything but the estimated cost of an accident times the probability of the accident is arbitrarily bullshitting people. As such, it can't possibly matter what the income of the perpetrator is.
Except the fine is also supposed to work as a deterent, not just a 'pay for the accident you may have caused.' I know you're really into this whole Dr. Doom thing, but the deterence to speeding decreases greatly the more money you have to make the problem go away. That's essentially indulgences. This then makes rich people more dangerous because they are not swayed to obey the laws everyone else has to. There you go, they're paying for their increased risk.


It's not about what you or I think. It's about the fact that the probability of an accident occuring in the GT3 is lower for a given amount over the limit than that of the truck, which should be reflected in the fines given.
Well, first you'd have to demonstrate that probability. And I didn't say anything about what I think, but what in fact happens with the human beings enforcing those laws since not everyone subscribes to your ledger sheet mentality to risk and ethics.

Idea: keep speed limits, but use conditions on the road and the car in question as mitigating circumstances that reduce punishment.

So instead of both getting the same punishment for going X over the speed limit, the guy in the GT3 on a beautiful day gets off easier than the guy in the 20-year old Ural truck in the hail storm.

That is a good idea, after all the speed limit states that this is how far you should go provided the onditions allow, and yes someone going fast in a well built car on a clear day on very good roads should get fined less than a person going over the speed limit in a 20 year old bomb in the fog.

FYI

Fuel Economy at Higher Speeds (http://www.metrompg.com/zoom_image.htm?H=437&W=640&ZoomFile=gcc-autobild1.gif&Caption=(%3Ca%20href%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greencarcongress.com%2F2006%2F05%2Ffuel_consumptio.html%2 2%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3ESource%3C%2Fa%3E)&title=GCC%20AutoBild%20graph)

Not once. And what "fantasy", that highway driving can be safe at 100mph?
It is. If the speed limit is 100mph, that doesn't mean everyone and everywhere has to do 99. A straight half-empty road is safe at any speed. An overcrowded city street isn't - but no one is talking about removing limits in the city.
Seriously, you should let NL handle this from here out. This is so mindboggling untrue and unrealistic that one has to conclude you get your understanding of car handling by making vrooming noises with your Hot Wheels.



Well, you see, roads aren't always crowded. There are roads that sometimes are pretty much like that - without significant traffic. And the blanket speed limit applies to them.
Because there are a number of conditions that can contribute to error that don't all sit in other cars. Not to mention your mind-numbingly ridiculous conclusion that cars can pass each other at relative speeds up to an beyond current speed limits safely.



Because the limits are maximum ones, not minimum ones. If the speed limit was 300mph, that doesn't mean everyone on the roads will start doing 300mph. The official speed limit applies to the best conditions. As mentioned, under different conditions it's lower.
Actually (and really, if you're going to have these kinds of discussions, this is the kind of thing that you should fucking know) speed limits actually contain speed minimums on highways. This is why your scooter is not allowed on the freeway. Because, and lean in really close, because this is fucking important, it's crazy dangerous to have that big a speed differential between the cars sharing a road way.



So we've figured out that even the slower of modern cars all can go over 110, and the typical range for maximum speed is 120-130. Which means all of them can handle a 90-100mph highway.
Smart is a city car, and city limits are far lower.
So we've gone from "modern cars are only going 40% of their potential OMG!" to people's commuter cars should be running at close to their top speed? And the Smart (not to mention, apparently, your car) should be relegated to 'scooter' status? Also, the cube trucks that I have to drive for work now and then, I'm on surface streets because you'd think it'd be smashing to do a buck on the freeway? Oh, and the added thrill of passing 18 wheeler trucks at twice their speed?


You are going to kill someone, straight up. You have no understanding of car dynamics and one day when you're out there pretending that your Michael Delaney you will find out that stability management doesn't suddenly give you a magic reaction time nor act as a slot in the road and you will pile into someone and more than likely kill them because you are irresponsible and arrogant. It's sad.

That is a good idea, after all the speed limit states that this is how far you should go provided the onditions allow, and yes someone going fast in a well built car on a clear day on very good roads should get fined less than a person going over the speed limit in a 20 year old bomb in the fog.Do we have numbers on this? I'm not entirely convinced that a better built, better handling car makes that significant a difference in the probability of an accident... at the very least, not in good conditions.

Controlling for conditions, my suspicion is that most accidents occur due to the unexpected--and at any high speed, the dominant factor in determining the likelihood of an accident is, then, human reaction time... which for practical purposes we can take to be a constant.

The faster you go, the less time you have to react. Yes, better brakes and handling will make a difference. My question is, how much of a difference? And that's an empirical question.

Do we know?

First, you are kidding yourself about losing control of modern cars 'at anything less than 120-140 mph.' You can live that little illusion if you like, but no one with sense or who has been at those speeds will believe you.

First of all no name have you actually driven a top quality car at these speeds?

I hope so, cause then you would know that if you are driving a better quality car (the one I drove was a BMW525i) I only reached about 185kmph which is about 115mph but the car was fairly stable yes it was starting to wobble a bit and you had to become a bit more rigorous when driving but it was fairly safe, I knew I was able to control it at this speed, while driving I saw a Porsche (don't ask me what model) blitz past me it came up behind me from nowhere and was off just as fast. Not all cars could handle these speeds I was driving a VZ Commodore and I got it up to about 140kmph (87mph) and it was starting to wobble bad and it was a lot harder to control at these lower speed.

I think Speed limits in open roads are ridiculous, drivers should be allowed to drive as fast as they want provided the conditions allow.

What pisses me off the most is when some loony goes and crashes a car when he was travelling 140kmph into a treew and kills himself and people bitch and moan and say that the current speed limit which is 110kmph should be lowered so people don't crash and sometimes it is. Well no, he was going well above the speed limit already so that makes no difference.

I haven't gotten a speeding ticket before because I'm very careful not to get caught.

Fixed. :D

Do we have numbers on this? I'm not entirely convinced that a better built, better handling car makes that significant a difference in the probability of an accident... at the very least, not in good conditions.

Controlling for conditions, my suspicion is that most accidents occur due to the unexpected--and at any high speed, the dominant factor in determining the likelihood of an accident is, then, human reaction time... which for practical purposes we can take to be a constant.

The faster you go, the less time you have to react. Yes, better brakes and handling will make a difference. My question is, how much of a difference? And that's an empirical question.

Do we know?


Well I don't know if there are numbers on it but I will give you a 20 year old bomb and a 430 Scuderia and you can tell me the difference it makes in your handling capabilities.

First of all no name have you actually driven a top quality car at these speeds?

I hope so, cause then you would know that if you are driving a better quality car (the one I drove was a BMW525i) I only reached about 185kmph which is about 115mph but the car was fairly stable yes it was starting to wobble a bit and you had to become a bit more rigorous when driving but it was fairly safe, I knew I was able to control it at this speed, while driving I saw a Porsche (don't ask me what model) blitz past me it came up behind me from nowhere and was off just as fast. Not all cars could handle these speeds I was driving a VZ Commodore and I got it up to about 140kmph (87mph) and it was starting to wobble bad and it was a lot harder to control at these lower speed.

I think Speed limits in open roads are ridiculous, drivers should be allowed to drive as fast as they want provided the conditions allow.

What pisses me off the most is when some loony goes and crashes a car when he was travelling 140kmph into a treew and kills himself and people bitch and moan and say that the current speed limit which is 110kmph should be lowered so people don't crash and sometimes it is. Well no, he was going well above the speed limit already so that makes no difference.
Well, once again, I started racing when I was 5 years old, come from a racing family and have been around fast cars most of my life. I have driven BMWs, Audis, Mustangs, and Porsches, including the one I owned, among others. And I have driven cars in track conditions past their limit.

EDIT: I should add that in that Chevy in the first post I made doing 120 mph (est) was solid as a rock. That didn't make what I did magically safe.

What I don't like is when some dolt gets full of himself, lets the car give him too much confidence, and forgets that other people are using the roadways properly as a commuter path and not their own personal speedway and slam into someone or tree their expensive car and then tar all of those who appreciate performance because they had their head up their ass.

Well I don't know if there are numbers on it but I will give you a 20 year old bomb and a 430 Scuderia and you can tell me the difference it makes in your handling capabilities.

You know there was a competition on Spike called Bull Run where, among others, a Lamborghini Murcilago was pitted against a F150. All the guy in the Lambo had to do was a light slalom. He ended up spinning the Lambo at least three times trying to make his way down the track. Because managing that kind of power is not just a matter of putting your right foot down, and a mid engine car, while being the best layout for handling, is also the touchiest and most unforgiving. The F150 had no problems.

These cars do not magically make you a super driver, and the higher the power of the car, the more skill you need to control that and the more control over the conditions to operate it safely. This is why so many Ferraris and Lambos end up as shattered parts on the side of the road.

Well, once again, I started racing when I was 5 years old, come from a racing family and have been around fast cars most of my life. I have driven BMWs, Audis, Mustangs, and Porsches, including the one I owned, among others. And I have driven cars in track conditions past their limit.

EDIT: I should add that in that Chevy in the first post I made doing 120 mph (est) was solid as a rock. That didn't make what I did magically safe.

Sorry I misread your post I thought you were bagging out people who would say something like that (I have been driving since I was 5) and then say so I can drive cars fast because I know all about it. But interesting, you are someone I would like to talk to about your driving life and career.

What I don't like is when some dolt gets full of himself, lets the car give him too much confidence, and forgets that other people are using the roadways properly as a commuter path and not their own personal speedway and slam into someone or tree their expensive car and then tar all of those who appreciate performance because they had their head up their ass.

Well I would agree with you, as I say I will take a car to its capabilities and mine (because I know other people including yourself could take it further). Driving a better car doesn't mean that you are automatically safe you still need to pay attention to the car, other people around you, the road and the rest of the environment. But if the car has better handling you are able to go quicker (not faster) while still ensuring that you are controlling and driving in a safe manner.

Because there are a number of conditions that can contribute to error that don't all sit in other cars. Not to mention your mind-numbingly ridiculous conclusion that cars can pass each other at relative speeds up to an beyond current speed limits safely.
Passing at a high relative speed can happen at 60 mph just as it can at 100. Speed limits don't prevent it (except where there's also the minimum one).


So we've gone from "modern cars are only going 40% of their potential OMG!" to people's commuter cars should be running at close to their top speed? And the Smart (not to mention, apparently, your car) should be relegated to 'scooter' status?
90mph isn't close to the top speed of most modern cars (no, a SUV). As you've said, normally cars do 120-130.
Plus, if the state speed limit is 100, it doesn't mean traffic everywhere should be doing 100. If the road is filled with cars and drivers which prefer 50, they'll be doing 50. Like it happens on Autobahns, the traffic self-regulates its speed. People can do it without having the law tell them at what speed to move.


Also, the cube trucks that I have to drive for work now and then, I'm on surface streets because you'd think it'd be smashing to do a buck on the freeway? Oh, and the added thrill of passing 18 wheeler trucks at twice their speed?
This "thrill" would probably qualify as careless driving. Regardless of speed limits. Or, at the very least, your speed would not be considered "reasonable and prudent" given the traffic conditions.

Sorry I misread your post I thought you were bagging out people who would say something like that (I have been driving since I was 5) and then say so I can drive cars fast because I know all about it. But interesting, you are someone I would like to talk to about your driving life and career.



Well I would agree with you, as I say I will take a car to its capabilities and mine (because I know other people including yourself could take it further). Driving a better car doesn't mean that you are automatically safe you still need to pay attention to the car, other people around you, the road and the rest of the environment. But if the car has better handling you are able to go quicker (not faster) while still ensuring that you are controlling and driving in a safe manner.
I don't want to overstate my abilities-there are faster drivers than me on this forum and in my family. I did not make it into professional ranks despite my family. When I drove the Chevy and the Porsche (which was a basket case) the way I did I was young and arrogant enough to believe it made a difference. I was lucky enough not to have seriously hurt anyone before I grew up and realized that tracks exist for a reason. (I actually had to dump the sports car because I was going to lose my license and bought a car that I couldn't possibly get in trouble in, and I love that one like no other).

I liked driving a sports car. I liked carving mountain and country roads (I always kind of felt that top speeding was lame, anyone with a right foot kind of thing-even that run in the Chevy was only because I had set up a group of turns really well and was riding the momentum, and in a big ol' Chevy, that was an accomplishment). I like that I could punch holes if I needed to. But I also knew enough about driving that I knew I couldn't be going twice as fast as everyone else and hope that the car will magically make it okay.

Passing at a high relative speed can happen at 60 mph just as it can at 100. Speed limits don't prevent it (except where there's also the minimum one).



90mph isn't close to the top speed of most modern cars (no, a SUV). As you've said, normally cars do 120-130.
Plus, if the state speed limit is 100, it doesn't mean traffic everywhere should be doing 100. If the road is filled with cars and drivers which prefer 50, they'll be doing 50. Like it happens on Autobahns, the traffic self-regulates its speed. People can do it without having the law tell them at what speed to move.



This "thrill" would probably qualify as careless driving. Regardless of speed limits. Or, at the very least, your speed would not be considered "reasonable and prudent" given the traffic conditions.
I can't do this with you anymore. You actually erased the part of the post that actually defeats this whole argument. You are not equipped for this discussion. I've indulged your wanderings for too long. This is absolutely ridiculous.

I can't do this with you anymore. You actually erased the part of the post that actually defeats this whole argument. You meant this one? Sorry, I thought the critical point was in other parts.
Because, and lean in really close, because this is fucking important, it's crazy dangerous to have that big a speed differential between the cars sharing a road way.
Agreed.
But the danger depends not only on the relative speed, but also on the number of cars.
Roads aren't always full. If there are two cars on a wide road, it's safe at any speed difference. If the road is filled with cars, then even a 20mph difference can be too much.

So speed limits should depend on conditions, including traffic conditions, and not just an arbitrary decision that no one ever needs to go over 80.
And drivers should be punished for when they actually create a dangerous situation by fast overtaking, not just for the speed.
I've seen roads where everybody is speeding, the whole traffic is over the limit - it would be dangerous rather to obey the rules.

Fixed. :D

No, seriously, I even go 15 mph when the speed limit is 15 mph. It's a school zone, and people speed in it and go into lanes they aren't allowed to to get past me, and that's stupid. Speeding in a school zone is really bad, especially when kids are walking around...and if you get caught going twice the speed limit in a school zone, that's pretty bad...

No, seriously, I even go 15 mph when the speed limit is 15 mph. It's a school zone, and people speed in it and go into lanes they aren't allowed to to get past me, and that's stupid. Speeding in a school zone is really bad, especially when kids are walking around...and if you get caught going twice the speed limit in a school zone, that's pretty bad...So basically you're the type of driver I want to run off the road and slap with a smelly fish. :p

So basically you're the type of driver I want to run off the road and slap with a smelly fish. :p

A lot of people have been ticketed at the school zones around here. I'm not risking getting a huge ticket.

As for roads that aren't a school zone, they usually have enough lanes that me going the speed limit shouldn't bother anyone. 45 or 50 mph is fast enough, I don't need to go faster.

No, seriously, I even go 15 mph when the speed limit is 15 mph. It's a school zone, and people speed in it and go into lanes they aren't allowed to to get past me, and that's stupid. Speeding in a school zone is really bad, especially when kids are walking around...and if you get caught going twice the speed limit in a school zone, that's pretty bad...

Yeah, I'm sure you do mate, I was just messing with you. Speeding around kids is pretty bad, especially when you see lids just run across the road all the time, I don't mind speeding out on the open road if the conditions are good enough for me to do, not crazy but maybe 10-15 km/hr over the limit.

Honestly, I've been caught speeding once-in Warrenville, IL, I was ticketed for being radar tagged at 51mph versus the speed limit of 50mph. My lawyer did it pro bono as long as he got the ticket. It's still framed in his office.

A lot of people have been ticketed at the school zones around here. I'm not risking getting a huge ticket.

As for roads that aren't a school zone, they usually have enough lanes that me going the speed limit shouldn't bother anyone. 45 or 50 mph is fast enough, I don't need to go faster.

We need to get you on the track. There's nothing like slingshotting around a corner at 140+ mph.

Honestly, I've been caught speeding once-in Warrenville, IL, I was ticketed for being radar tagged at 51mph versus the speed limit of 50mph. My lawyer did it pro bono as long as he got the ticket. It's still framed in his office.

Did you even need a lawyer? One mph difference can be explained by speedometer error.

Did you even need a lawyer? One mph difference can be explained by speedometer error.

I don't know where Ordo is from, but in the EU a speedometer has to adjusted to show the car doing a higher speed than it actually is, sometimes by up to 15%, so any error would only show higher speeds, not lower ones.

I never got a speeding ticket. I got a warning once. I was driving a friend's car home from a road trip a couple hours after a light rain and lost control of the vehicle on a highway ramp even though I was doing about 30(well under the ramp's speed limit). I actually regained control for about a split second but lost it again when I tried to avoid hitting a jersey barrier. Suffice to say, the car spun around and hit a guardrail. The police officer issued a warning for 'driving too fast for condition' but no ticket. The best part is that I didn't have to pay for the guardrail because somebody already hit it an hour before I did. :D

Have you ever gotten one? Did you contest it? Did you win? Discuss.

I got one back in May, for going 66 in a 30 zone (a $360 fine and two points on the license). Now, mind you, I couldn't see the speed posted because of heavy traffic, and the speed dropped from 50 to 30 and back to 50 within less than a quarter of a mile. The cop also pulled over three cars at once, and got my license plate and zip code wrong.

And all of this didn't matter. I went to my hearing to contest it. The trooper read his report about it, the judge noticed my town name (I'm out of state), said he was from the same town, asked where I had been and why, told him I was a student teacher, and he fully waived responsibility.
I almost got one. I was in uniform and the cop saw my wings. He asked what I flew, I told him and he said if I could land on an aircraft carrier, I could probably drive my car 10 mph over the speed limit, too. I told him that I appreciated the vote of confidence.

I didn't say that I thought speeding tickets were just a funding source for local governments and were an unnecessary intrusion unless the speeding violation was accompanied by wreckless driving.

I also neglected to tell him that I was a bombardier/navigator and not a pilot...

I almost got one. I was in uniform and the cop saw my wings. He asked what I flew, I told him and he said if I could land on an aircraft carrier, I could probably drive my car 10 mph over the speed limit, too. I told him that I appreciated the vote of confidence.

I didn't say that I thought speeding tickets were just a funding source for local governments and were an unnecessary intrusion unless the speeding violation was accompanied by wreckless driving.

I also neglected to tell him that I was a bombardier/navigator and not a pilot...

So you're pretty good at throwing empty beer cans from a moving car at the unwary pedestrian...

So you're pretty good at throwing empty beer cans from a moving car at the unwary pedestrian...

It's all about timing and vectors... Standby, Standby, MARK!

But the real question was, how much were your lawyer's fees, compared to the fine?


:D

MY lawyer's fees? None. I'm capable of managing myself in traffic court...

MY lawyer's fees? None. I'm capable of managing myself in traffic court...

From an article:

There is the old adage in criminal trials that describes a person who represents himself at trial: "He has a fool for a client."

Accordingly, attorneys maintain that they should handle all legal matters for their clients and that clients should not attempt to discharge legal matters on their own, no matter how simple. However, attorneys often do not heed their own advice. They will at times attempt to handle their own personal legal matters, which can result in some of the same problems confronted by non-professionals.

From an article:

We know Arty's special. He's told us so...

I didn't say that I thought speeding tickets were just a funding source for local governments and were an unnecessary intrusion unless the speeding violation was accompanied by wreckless driving.


Speeding tickets are not a revenue source for most local governments. last year, traffic tickets made up less than one percent of my towns total budget. Some smaller towns do rely on speeding tickets, but they make up the small majority of local governments.

Also, to anyone who says that speed limits are unnecessary, you've obviously never seen the devastation that a 30MPH collision can result in.

From an article:

how very pithy. And it's also as a general rule, good advice. however what your "article" fails to take into consideration is that when the maximum possible penalty, by law, for your infraction, is less than what it would cost you to hire independent legal counsel, then you really have nothing to lose, and you're pretty damned stupid to hire a lawyer over the matter.

15 miles per hour excess at 5 dollars for every mile over the limit creates a maximum possible penalty of $75 dollars. The matter took about an hour out of my time. I'm not exactly sure where you think you can find a lawyer for less than $75 an hour, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to hire him.

Your "article" have anything to say about that?

And in fact, I'm willing to bet any lawyer worth his MPRE score wouldn't even take the case, for, as I said, charging a client more for your services then he could possibly lose is a pretty shaky ethical problem.

We know Arty's special. He's told us so...

I question your own mental competence if you think paying a minimum of $150 to fight a $75 ticket is common sense.

how very pithy. And it's also as a general rule, good advice. however what your "article" fails to take into consideration is that when the maximum possible penalty, by law, for your infraction, is less than what it would cost you to hire independent legal counsel, then you really have nothing to lose, and you're pretty damned stupid to hire a lawyer over the matter.

15 miles per hour excess at 5 dollars for every mile over the limit creates a maximum possible penalty of $75 dollars. The matter took about an hour out of my time. I'm not exactly sure where you think you can find a lawyer for less than $75 an hour, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to hire him.

Your "article" have anything to say about that?

And in fact, I'm willing to bet any lawyer worth his MPRE score wouldn't even take the case, for, as I said, charging a client more for your services then he could possibly lose is a pretty shaky ethical problem.

99% of plaintiff's lawyers I've met are the most unethical people I've ever met - and I've met people who have killed people for sport by flaying them alive.

Interesting note: I've observed traffic court, and the moment the judge notices that someone has a lawyer, it's suddenly "not guilty". Pretty obvious pattern all morning. It's as good as the policeman who saw the violation not showing to testify.

Most don't charge very much just to show up. They don't even have to say much or do anything other than stand there.

99% of plaintiff's lawyers I've met are the most unethical people I've ever met - and I've met people who have killed people for sport by flaying them alive.

Interesting note: I've observed traffic court, and the moment the judge notices that someone has a lawyer, it's suddenly "not guilty". Pretty obvious pattern all morning. It's as good as the policeman who saw the violation not showing to testify.

Most don't charge very much just to show up. They don't even have to say much or do anything other than stand there.

I'm very happy for you that you feel your knowledge about the practices of my profession are superior to mine, however, you will not, I hope, take offense at the fact that when it comes to legal advice, you're not the first stop on my list.

Rolling squid;13937241']Speeding tickets are not a revenue source for most local governments. last year, traffic tickets made up less than one percent of my towns total budget. Some smaller towns do rely on speeding tickets, but they make up the small majority of local governments.

Also, to anyone who says that speed limits are unnecessary, you've obviously never seen the devastation that a 30MPH collision can result in.

And those small towns are the ones that really give speed traps and tickets the unfavorable reputations that they have..

If a 30MPH collision is bad, then we should never let anyone drive 75 MPH on the highways. Of course, that's not reasonable, so what should be done is for the LEO to be given the discretion to give speeding tickets only when aggravating factors like reckless driving, too fast for conditions, etc are also present. Driving fast, in and of itself, is not unsafe.

I question your own mental competence if you think paying a minimum of $150 to fight a $75 ticket is common sense.

Right back at you, pal. In every state where I've lived, the equation is a fine plus points equals increased insurance rates. Now, if you don't mind paying more for insurance than for a lawyer, I guess you have more money than you know how to spend.

Right back at you, pal. In every state where I've lived, the equation is a fine plus points equals increased insurance rates. Now, if you don't mind paying more for insurance than for a lawyer, I guess you have more money than you know how to spend.

That's a brilliant observation, except for one teeny, TINY little problem. And that problem is § 2335 of New York State insurance code. A speeding ticket for going 15mph or less in excess of the speed limit is not reported to insurance. I was ticketed at going exactly 45 in a 30. Now, we've already established you may have some trouble with math, so I'll help you out. 45 - 30 = 15. 15 miles per hour over the limit, no increased insurance rate

But do pretend you know the law better than I do. It gives off that aura of a special kind of jackass. One that is, unfortunately for you, not very bright.

I'm very happy for you that you feel your knowledge about the practices of my profession are superior to mine, however, you will not, I hope, take offense at the fact that when it comes to legal advice, you're not the first stop on my list.

I'm seriously hoping that you're a toxic tort plaintiff's lawyer.

That's a brilliant observation, except for one teeny, TINY little problem. And that problem is § 2335 of New York State insurance code. A speeding ticket for going 15mph or less in excess of the speed limit is not reported to insurance. I was ticketed at going exactly 45 in a 30. Now, we've already established you may have some trouble with math, so I'll help you out. 45 - 30 = 15.

But do pretend you know the law better than I do. It gives off that aura of a special kind of jackass. One that is, unfortunately for you, not very bright.

Never claimed to live in New York...

From an article:
There is the old adage in criminal trials that describes a person who represents himself at trial: "He has a fool for a client."
Accordingly, attorneys maintain that they should handle all legal matters for their clients and that clients should not attempt to discharge legal matters on their own, no matter how simple. However, attorneys often do not heed their own advice. They will at times attempt to handle their own personal legal matters, which can result in some of the same problems confronted by non-professionals.

It's a sad reflection on our society that the law got so ridiculously complicated and above human understanding that even a professional studying it all his life can't learn it enough to defend himself. So how possibly can a regular person be expected to obey the law, if he couldn't learn it even if he spent his life on it? Only by luck.

Isn't that why US has the highest prison population in the world, not only absolutely, but even in percentage? Higher than any of the dictatorships we so much despise.

Is anyone still going to say "US is not a police state"? Then he'd better have a damn good reason, because facts tell that US is the strictest of the police states in the world, and by a wide margin; six times more than in Europe.

Interestingly, in 1980s there were 5 times fewer incarcerated people in US.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/US_incarceration_timeline-clean.gif/300px-US_incarceration_timeline-clean.gif


What has become of once "Land of the free"....

Never claimed to live in New York...

no, but you did, indirectly, claim that I didn't know what I was doing. No reason you should know NY insurance law. I sure as hell didn't until I looked it up. But I was at least smart enough to look it up first before deciding to not hire a lawyer.

I might not be a traffic attorney, but I know enough about law to figure out when I need one. I checked the law on insurance, I checked the maximum penalty, I did my research, then made a choice.

Although my reply to you was a bit more pissy than it should have been, so I apologize for that. However I do take offense at the implication that I'm not good in my profession because I, after doing all relevant research, spending the time to look it up, decided that maybe paying $75 was better than definitely paying at least $150. And, in fact, it's a choice I"m very willing to bet YOU would have made had the situation been the same. DK's little "article" notwithstanding.

IIsn't that why US has the highest prison population in the world, not only absolutely, but even in percentage? Higher than any of the dictatorships we so much despise.

No, it's because of mandatory sentencing and three-strikes laws.

It tends to keep people in for a lot longer than we used to. So the prison population grows.

It doesn't mean we're a police state - it means that even with laws saying, "if you do this, you'll definitely and absolutely get twenty years in prison" there are still people stupid enough to go and rob the local convenience store - and then they get 20 years.

Say it with me: "Armed Robbery Is Illegal"

It's not that hard, and it doesn't take a lawyer to figure that much out when deciding whether or not to demand cash at gunpoint from a convenience store clerk.

99% of plaintiff's lawyers I've met are the most unethical people I've ever metOnly plaintiff's lawyers? Interesting.

I'll defend the profession as a whole, and certainly I've known a great many ethical lawyers. On the other hand, I have to concede that my dissertation adviser was more or less run out of her teaching position at UPenn's law school after a newspaper opinion piece pointed out that her students rarely remain professional lawyers for long, or quickly flee the most "prestigious" positions... because, after learning from her, they can't stomach the ethical contradictions. She was too "good" for UPenn.

- and I've met people who have killed people for sport by flaying them alive.So you work in corrections, then? Or psychiatry? I'm curious.

Interesting note: I've observed traffic court, and the moment the judge notices that someone has a lawyer, it's suddenly "not guilty". Pretty obvious pattern all morning.Anecdotal, especially since your description pertains to the limited sample of, as you say, "all morning."

I do research on, among other things, courts. And while defendants with a lawyer statistically stand a better chance of winning than those without, for traffic offenses the trend is hardly so overwhelming. In fact, MOST defendants (with or without a lawyer) LOSE when they go to trial--one of the major reasons that 90% of what happens in the law is plea-bargaining of one sort or another.

Most don't charge very much just to show up. They don't even have to say much or do anything other than stand there.Even if that were true (which it's not), for most traffic violations it's just a "bad bet," as Neo Art has said. In all probability the lawyer will charge more than the cost of paying the fine. Unless you're facing more serious consequences like a lost license, it's just irrational to pay for representation. And if you are facing serious consequences, your lawyer's aim will rarely be to "get you off" so much as to minimize the consequences through a plea deal or mitigating arguments.

Right back at you, pal. In every state where I've lived, the equation is a fine plus points equals increased insurance rates. Now, if you don't mind paying more for insurance than for a lawyer, I guess you have more money than you know how to spend.Or you could take my earlier advice: plead the case down yourself. Unless you did something to piss off the cop prosecuting the case, you can do for yourself exactly what a lawyer would do for you--namely, plead down to a charge with no points attached. Hence, no insurance increase.

For the anecdotal side of things, I've done it four times.

It doesn't mean we're a police state - it means that even with laws saying, "if you do this, you'll definitely and absolutely get twenty years in prison" there are still people stupid enough to go and rob the local convenience store - and then they get 20 years.
Not really.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Ncsucr2.gif

Violent crime has decreased over the years, not increased.
Yet prison population has increased 5-fold.


It's not that hard, and it doesn't take a lawyer to figure that much out when deciding whether or not to demand cash at gunpoint from a convenience store clerk.
Again, it's not the reason. Robberies stand for only 3% of total crime, murders for 0.1%. Even with all the accounting for long sentences, they represent only a small fraction of the prisoners.
Most prisoners are sentenced for non-violent crimes, and often get sentenced for "strict liability offenses" (ones where intent isn't needed) or because they didn't know what they did was illegal.

Not really.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Ncsucr2.gif

Violent crime has decreased over the years, not increased.
Yet prison population has increased 5-fold.



Again, it's not the reason. Robberies stand for only 3% of total crime, murders for 0.1%. Even with all the accounting for long sentences, they represent only a small fraction of the prisoners.
Most prisoners are sentenced for non-violent crimes, and often get sentenced for "strict liability offenses" (ones where intent isn't needed) or because they didn't know what they did was illegal.

Maybe you're not reading what I post.

Mandatory sentencing.

If you're caught with drugs three times, that's a mandatory long sentence.

Violent crime has dropped because many non-violent offenders often graduate to more violent crime - and since we're locking them up early for 20 years on a drug possession charge, they're not out on the street to commit any more crimes of any sort.

Everyone knows that drug possession is illegal. None of these are "rocket science law cases".

I question your own mental competence if you think paying a minimum of $150 to fight a $75 ticket is common sense.

For some Neo A... it's not the cost but the principle.

For some Neo A... it's not the cost but the principle.

Well good for them. I'm far too pragmatic for being worried about "principle" for a speeding ticket.

Maybe you're not reading what I post.

Mandatory sentencing.

If you're caught with drugs three times, that's a mandatory long sentence.

Violent crime has dropped because many non-violent offenders often graduate to more violent crime - and since we're locking them up early for 20 years on a drug possession charge, they're not out on the street to commit any more crimes of any sort.

Everyone knows that drug possession is illegal. None of these are "rocket science law cases".Ah, but correlation does not imply causation. And in this case, there are very good reasons to find the "longer sentences" and "more imprisonment" explanation of decreasing crime rates unconvincing.

Not least among these is that, excluding murder, countries similar to the United States (e.g. the United Kingdom) have similar crime rates and have seen a similar decline without resort to prison sentences comparable to those in the U.S. (The higher murder rate in the United States is attributed to the prevalence of guns--which are simply, on the whole, more deadly than the weapons readily available in comparable countries. Hence crimes that would result in injury elsewhere are more likely to result in death in the U.S.)

Ah, but correlation does not imply causation. And in this case, there are very good reasons to find the "longer sentences" and "more imprisonment" explanation of decreasing crime rates unconvincing.

Not least among these is that, excluding murder, countries similar to the United States (e.g. the United Kingdom) have similar crime rates and have seen a similar decline without resort to prison sentences comparable to those in the U.S. (The higher murder rate in the United States is attributed to the prevalence of guns--which are simply, on the whole, more deadly than the weapons readily available in comparable countries. Hence crimes that would result in injury elsewhere are more likely to result in death in the U.S.)

So where's your support for your argument that somehow, these people are in prison charged with arcane and secret laws that not even a lawyer could understand? And that this alone is the reason for the incarceration rate?

I think you're clutching at straws.

Well good for them. I'm far too pragmatic for being worried about "principle" for a speeding ticket.

*nods* yep, I haven't had a speeding ticket, but I had lots of Parking Tickets... mostly while waiting to pick up my sister from work... :mad:
and I just pay the damn thing.

but for some, fighting "the man" is worth any cost. :rolleyes:

Violent crime has dropped because many non-violent offenders often graduate to more violent crime - and since we're locking them up early for 20 years on a drug possession charge, they're not out on the street to commit any more crimes of any sort.
Yeah, sure. Every shoplifter, embezzler, MIP or weed smoker eventually graduates into a violent robber.
These are often different kinds of people, who don't have the guts for robbery anyway.
BTW, the violent crime rate is also dropping in other countries without draconian punitive systems.


And, no, long sentences aren't the only reason for high prison population. Even not counting that the terms are longer, US also sentences more people every year than any other nation (including those we call oppressive), both total and per capita.

Yeah, sure. Every shoplifter, embezzler, MIP or weed smoker eventually graduates into a violent robber.
These are often different kinds of people, who don't have the guts for robbery anyway.

Many do, which is why the overall violence rate has gone down.

And, no, long sentences aren't the only reason for high prison population. Even not counting that the terms are longer, US also sentences more people every year than any other nation (including those we call oppressive), both total and per capita.

My argument is more likely than yours, since you've shown no arcane and widely misunderstood laws that most of these people have been convicted of violating.

So where's your support for your argument that somehow, these people are in prison charged with arcane and secret laws that not even a lawyer could understand?Umm... WHAT???

And that this alone is the reason for the incarceration rate?The reason for the incarceration rate is the fact that our society inflicts extraordinarily long sentences in the faithful but unsupported belief that this prevents crime.

Umm... WHAT???

The reason for the incarceration rate is the fact that our society inflicts extraordinarily long sentences in the faithful but unsupported belief that this prevents crime.

Sorry, mixed you up with Vault 10's argument.

The long sentences have had a major effect on violence rates. More so than any anti-gun law, for instance.

The long sentences have had a major effect on violence rates.Because you say so?

More so than any anti-gun law, for instance.This is true for the overall rate, certainly--there are just as many violent crimes under strong gun control policies as otherwise. The only difference is that far fewer of these involve murder.

Many do, which is why the overall violence rate has gone down.
The violent crime rate is also dropping in other countries, without such draconian punitive systems.

There are also some surprising factors involved.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/ban-on-leaded-petrol-has-cut-crime-rates-around-the-world-398151.html

My argument is more likely than yours, since you've shown no arcane and widely misunderstood laws that most of these people have been convicted of violating.
I'll look for some cases.

Oh, here's a famous one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton

I also clicked a few random threads on ExpertLaw.
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54227
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51961
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52323
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54851
A lot more interesting stuff there, I got carried away reading.

Because you say so?

This is true for the overall rate, certainly--there are just as many violent crimes under strong gun control policies as otherwise. The only difference is that far fewer of these involve murder.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon
violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%.

This, despite an increase in the number of firearms owned from 200 million to 300 million guns.

This, despite going from 3 states where concealed carry is legal to over 40 states where it is legal (they must give you the permit if you're not a felon).

The violence rate (overall as well as firearm related) plummeted.

It's not the gun laws. So we must be doing something else that's right.

It's not the gun laws. So we must be doing something else that's right.*sigh* I'm not going to teach an entire course in social science methodology here, but time-sequence statistics such as those you cite are practically worthless without extensive efforts to account for the effects of other variables.

One way to get around this problem is to compare similar cases to test our hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: Reductions in the rate of violent crime are due in large part to increased incarceration rates and longer sentences.

If Hypothesis 1 is correct, we should find that similar cases with comparable values on the dependent variable (violent crime rate) should have comparable values on the independent variable (incarceration rates). But they don't.

Hypothesis 2: Gun control policies reduce murders.

If Hypothesis 2 is correct, our prediction is that similar cases with differing murder rates should turn out to have differing gun control policies, with strong gun control correlating to low murder rates. We find that this is true. Hypothesis supported by evidence.

Many do, which is why the overall violence rate has gone down.

Prove it.

I speed only on long trips. Since I've only driven about 5 hours at a stretch twice that doesn't come up often. Speeding on the short trip from my home to office wouldn't significantly alter the total trip time and would hassle me if I got pulled over.

Would the Equal Protection Clause prevent laws from fining rich people more than poor people for identical traffic violations?
"no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I would assume so.

Would the Equal Protection Clause prevent laws from fining rich people more than poor people for identical traffic violations?
"no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I would assume so.

There are a zillion things in the US that would prevent it (not the least of which, the law does way more to protect the rich). That doesn't mean I can't think it's a good idea, just that I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

Would the Equal Protection Clause prevent laws from fining rich people more than poor people for identical traffic violations?
"no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I would assume so.

The equal protection clause is....a tad more complicated than simply "you can't do to me what you don't do to him". There's the whole issue of "suspect" classifications, and the various balancing tests.

Would the Equal Protection Clause prevent laws from fining rich people more than poor people for identical traffic violations?
"no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Not a suspect class... seems reasonable enough...

I would assume so.Precedent would suggest otherwise... but there's no guarantee the courts hold to precedent.

i don't get tickets just warnings. god I love being able to show my old military ID. best warning I got was for going 70 in a 25.

I have never gotten a speeding ticket, despite the fact that I do speed. Usually only 5-10 miles over, so even if a cop spotted me they probably wouldn't care.

Except the fine is also supposed to work as a deterent, not just a 'pay for the accident you may have caused.'
Well, how does the law try to deter other crimes from being committed? Not by punishing things that may eventually lead to a crime, but the crime itself. If deterring people is what you're after, make vehicular homicide broader - if you run someone over in an avoidable accident, you go to jail for a long time.

Well, first you'd have to demonstrate that probability. And I didn't say anything about what I think, but what in fact happens with the human beings enforcing those laws since not everyone subscribes to your ledger sheet mentality to risk and ethics.
And precisely because not everyone subscribes to the same ethics the government has to subscribe to something that is open and clear to understand for everyone. Rather than law carrying with it all sorts of ideas about ethics and morality that we don't in fact vote on, but are written into it by politicians and their own personal ideas, the law should be as neutral as it could possibly be - it's not supposed to decide who is a good or a bad person, but simply make sure that we don't have to fear for our lives and livelihoods when we deal with others.

Overall, I've had 2 tickets in a few years.

Which is surprising, because when I go to work I normally blast up the 79 Offramp at about 130.

Well, how does the law try to deter other crimes from being committed? Not by punishing things that may eventually lead to a crime, but the crime itself. If deterring people is what you're after, make vehicular homicide broader - if you run someone over in an avoidable accident, you go to jail for a long time.
Good news, that already happens more or less.


And precisely because not everyone subscribes to the same ethics the government has to subscribe to something that is open and clear to understand for everyone. Rather than law carrying with it all sorts of ideas about ethics and morality that we don't in fact vote on, but are written into it by politicians and their own personal ideas, the law should be as neutral as it could possibly be - it's not supposed to decide who is a good or a bad person, but simply make sure that we don't have to fear for our lives and livelihoods when we deal with others.
The idea wasn't to charge more to rich people because they were bad, but because someone with money to burn is less likely to be concerned about a minor fine and more likely to ignore its possibility, thus operate in a manner that would make others fear for their lives and livelyhoods.

The idea wasn't to charge more to rich people because they were bad, but because someone with money to burn is less likely to be concerned about a minor fine and more likely to ignore its possibility, thus operate in a manner that would make others fear for their lives and livelyhoods.
You're forgetting about the point system. In most countries and places, tickets not just get you a fine to pay, but accumulate to eventually take away your license. And it takes just a few minor speeding incidents in a year.

Well, how does the law try to deter other crimes from being committed? Not by punishing things that may eventually lead to a crime, but the crime itself.Umm, ever hear of workplace safety? Regulations for transporting hazardous materials?

We don't (and we shouldn't, I think) wait for mercury spills to assess fines for improper handling. There is a very large body of laws that do NOT only punish (as you seem to think) the actual "crime" defined as material harm to others--rather they criminalize behaviors that are likely to result in harm to others. Indeed, without doing a charge-by-charge count, I'd go so far as to estimate that there are far more laws of this kind than there are laws punishing specific harms.

You're forgetting about the point system. In most countries and places, tickets not just get you a fine to pay, but accumulate to eventually take away your license. And it takes just a few minor speeding incidents in a year.

No I'm not.

MY lawyer's fees? None. I'm capable of managing myself in traffic court...

Apparently, I didn't word the joke correctly. I figured you represented yourself, and from other posts, I know you're a lawyer.

:(

No I'm not.
Then how does it matter what you pay in fines, if the main punishment is in the points and loss of license anyway?

Then how does it matter what you pay in fines, if the main punishment is in the points and loss of license anyway?

It's not.

It's not.
Could you elaborate on why?


I can elaborate on my position.
The fines are usually about the cost of a tank of fuel.
Taking the license away for a year means, among other things, that for a year all the depreciation of your vehicle, still necessary basic maintenance, paying out the insurance and taxes for it, is all wasted. It's worse even financially.

Well good for them. I'm far too pragmatic for being worried about "principle" for a speeding ticket.

Wait a minute Neo, this may not be about fighting the man.

If a police officer came and gave you a speeding ticket right now, despite the fact that you won't even driving at the time, would not you fight it even if it means costing more than just paying the fine?

If a police officer came and gave you a speeding ticket right now, despite the fact that you won't even driving at the time, would not you fight it even if it means costing more than just paying the fine?Answering for myself... probably. Though it depends on a number of factors:

1) What is the charge--more importantly, what is the penalty in the event I fight and lose?
2) What is the probability I will win?

As described, I should very probably win as all the evidence is on my side--unless the court system is horribly corrupt, I should suppose that there is no reason not to fight. Of course, in that case it's not particularly clear why I need a lawyer--at most, I should be able to consult (for free) with my lawyer friends to establish the best course for my defense.

Let's suppose arguendo a more interesting case: I'm innocent of the charge, completely and truly... but the evidence is not so crystal clear. There is some substantial probability that in fighting the ticket, I will lose.

Now my decision rests more entirely on the answer to question 1: what penalty do I face if I lose?

If the answer is "a modest fine and points," I might fight on principle.

On the other hand, if the answer is "loss of license and possible jail time," I might very well go for the plea bargain--even knowing I'm innocent.

Innocent defendants plead guilty all the time for exactly this reason: even an innocent defendant cannot know in advance that they will not be convicted. Usually they would not be on trial in the first place if there were not at least some reasonable evidence against them.

The idealist might want to say that one should stand up for principle regardless--even that one has a duty to do so. But how much should we ask of a person on the basis of principle? At what point is the cost too high? If he/she must choose between a plea deal that guarantees no jail time, or turns a possible felony conviction into a misdemeanor that won't ruin their career... why not take the deal?

My evil scofflaw record:

I got home late from work, parked in front of the mailboxes because the genius who designed this apartment complex didn't allow for nearly enough parking, and was to sore the next day to go to work thanks to my back injury flaring up. Got a $15 ticket.

I like to annoy people by setting my cruise control at exactly the speed limit :D