Forget politics and who is the local asshole who makes the laws, or where you live verse others.

I have seen many threads about speeding tickets, how to beat them or how much they are...I have no sympathy for anyone who was caught and was thinking of how speeding could become a thing of the past, or at least REALLY rare.

What if there were a nationwide law passed that the STARTING fine for speeding was $1000? In terms of enforcement the usual 5 miles over the limit buffer applies. But, anything 6+ over the limit is fined at $1000 and the fines only get higher as the speed over the limit increases.

The reality is that people are in control of what all too often becomes a "deadly weapon" when used improperly.

So, the law is in place and being enforced...forget about any other details, calling names or political bull-shit.


Here are my questions:

1. Would you still speed knowing that the fine is $1000 at the lowest level and only goes higher relative to the amount over the limit?

2. Do you think that the majority of people would obey the posted speed limits with the new laws in place?

Got to do something about getting some of these older drivers off the road. They have no sense of care. It is all, "Hey, I've been driving for 60 years, I don't need any advice from a pipsqueak!!" Today I say an old lady backing out of a parking space without looking over her shoulder almost take out a mother pushing her baby. It is an everyday thing with some of these stubborn oldsters, Get them off the road!!!!!

Um...and your answers to the questions are?

Its supposed to be about correcting driving behavior not about the revenue but we all know with governments its all about the revenue.

In theory if a person generates enough tickets their license is taken away. In the real world if you have the money you can take driving courses, get cases taken care of and charges reduced so you can keep on the road.

I wanted to add this opinion of the results of the new law -

Traffic would actually run much smoother...having everyone travel the same speed on the long expanses of roads would produce a "flow" that would be at a consistent speed and actually make traveling from A to B shorter in time - verse doing 80MPH and then 15MPH over and over, not to mention the reduced amount of accidents (which bring traffic to a stop) that are a daily occurrence.

I will admit, it would be a drastic change, but after some getting used to and people seeing the positive results (shorter TIME) on their commutes I would guess that the commute itself would be less stressful and I know it would be safer.

The few people still trying to do 80MPH would be met everyday with a steady flow at 60MPH (whatever the speed limit is on that part of the road) and have nowhere to go - no swerving in and out of lanes because all lanes would be around the same speed. Even the flow of people entering and exiting the roads would improve due to the consistent speed.

Anyway - please answer the 2 questions - I am curious what FFXU's response is...

O Js cellmate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its supposed to be about correcting driving
> behavior not about the revenue but we all know
> with governments its all about the revenue.
>


Did you read the FIRST sentence of my post?

I guess just asking people to answer a couple of questions is too much.

O Js cellmate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its supposed to be about correcting driving
> behavior not about the revenue but we all know
> with governments its all about the revenue.

I agree I don't know what this poster is thinking

The speed limits are antiquated. They have stayed the same for decades while cars, brakes and tires have greatly improved. And one safe speed does not apply to all vehicles. A sports car can safely drive faster than a dump truck.

Using tickets for revenue rather than safety is wrong. The government needs money, but we can get it through taxes. Having a cop sitting by the road giving tickets out is a wildly inefficient way of collecting money. You could lose the cop, raise taxes by whatever percentage you need to replace that revenue, and not have to pay the cop. Also, tickets are a regressive tax because they're the same regardless of how much money you have. They hit poor people the hardest and they do nothing to deter rich people who can pay them easily.

Did you know Ozzy Osbourne wanted to call the song Iron Man Iron Bloke but later changed his mind? Did you know Iron Man the song has nothing to do with Iron Man the comic book hero, in fact Iron Man in the song was an evil person.

Your idea is incredibly impractical. It wouldn't work unless people received similarly exorbitant fines for driving under the limit.

Forget the "idea" or "revenue" --- can people not pull their heads out of their asses long enough to answer 2 simple questions? Things do NOT have to be political or have some huge underlying theme - I am not asking if GOD spoke to you one day, or if the country suddenly was a dictatorship --- I know people would be mad as hell and go off the deep end if what I pose ever was to happen. But, for fucks sake lets PRETEND that he laws were in place...

If whomever would like answered the 2 questions:

1. Would you still speed knowing that the fine is $1000 at the lowest level and only goes higher relative to the amount over the limit?

2. Do you think that the majority of people would obey the posted speed limits with the new laws in place?


----------------

1. No, I would try to obey the speed limit.

2. Yes, I think that people (90%) would drive differently.


I think we would see results, even if from a small sample of people. And it may lead to some people thinking, why the fuck not? SLAM drivers with huge fines and let the smart survive, the others soon would be weeded out due to lack of funds or their licenses revoked.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2011 07:20AM by postpoppunk.

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your idea is incredibly impractical. It wouldn't
> work unless people received similarly exorbitant
> fines for driving under the limit.

Fine - equal for under the limit, like that is a huge problem? "Impractical"? - NO

A huge change to the "norm" YES - and why not? Why does anyone have to allow others to risk their lives on the roads?

And so much more would happen - if people were financially SLAMMED for speeding - IMO so few people would speed that the usual bitching of "Why don't the police do some real work instead of just handing out tickets?", well now they will be able to focus more on "real work". After maybe 2 tickets, lets say fines of $1000 and $2500, most people, I think, would stop driving like idiots.

I personally do not fall into one category - very liberal on some things and very conservative on others - I would have NO problem if the Nation / State took the police out of the equation completely (just for speeding) and installed cameras all over, the technology is there, and just let the cameras literally spit out thousand of tickets until people wised up and obeyed the laws.

I know - "It would cost MILLIONS to put cameras all over" - fuck it, I say billions and cover the majority of the roads...within a few months the revenue would pay for itself a few times over and people would stop seeding. Yes, I am advocating a "police state via cameras" on our roads. No man hours of pulling people over, just click' and ticket goes to car owner - do not let someone else drive your car if you are worried they may speed - like a gun, you are responsible for it at all times (unless stolen of course).

Also, the rich getting away easier would not happen - yes they could absorb more of the fines, but just as strict would be the number of ticket before you lose your license putting everyone on equal ground. And no lawyers could do anything about it...it is too simple --- Car #768237562987 was speeding at XXXtime on XXXroad and it equals $1300 fine + X# of points - at XX# of points license is gone for one year. Period. Yes there would be times, like XX# of points in a certain time period and points drop off with time also...etc...

Can anyone honestly say they would keep their same driving habits, if bad, when these laws started being enforced?

I equate this whole idea to being one huge SLAP DOWN and the country saying that YOU WILL OBEY THE LAW at least on the roads. There is enough death caused daily on the roads of this country to warrant such a drastic measure.

Oh yeah, fuck all the "We will vote out whomever agrees to these laws" - for this scenario it has been agreed by every branch of government from POTUS down to your local PTA - it is a done deal.

postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I equate this whole idea to being one huge SLAP
> DOWN and the country saying that YOU WILL OBEY THE
> LAW at least on the roads. There is enough death
> caused daily on the roads of this country to
> warrant such a drastic measure.
>
You're a fucking idiot. The number of road fatalities due to speed alone is minor. Shit, if you want to make a real difference in road safety, make drunk driving a "one strike and you're out" offense. Minimum 10 year license revocation, $10,000 fine or higher. How many stories have you seen where some schmuck caused a bad accident and it turns out they had multiple DWI's on their record?

Sounds like Vince is back.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

ShitForBrains Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> postpoppunk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > I equate this whole idea to being one huge SLAP
> > DOWN and the country saying that YOU WILL OBEY
> THE
> > LAW at least on the roads. There is enough
> death
> > caused daily on the roads of this country to
> > warrant such a drastic measure.
> >
> You're a fucking idiot. The number of road
> fatalities due to speed alone is minor. Shit, if
> you want to make a real difference in road safety,
> make drunk driving a "one strike and you're out"
> offense. Minimum 10 year license revocation,
> $10,000 fine or higher. How many stories have you
> seen where some schmuck caused a bad accident and
> it turns out they had multiple DWI's on their
> record?

Agreed....I was starting smaller with just speeding. I would support the "one strike you are out" in terms of DWIs. Thanks for the "idiot" thrown in there...

I wanted to keep it simple - as you can see, the responses are already of political nature and revenue bullshit. If I were to try and include DWIs and other traffic violations, I think it would be too large for people to understand...so, I figured just keep it simple = speeding.

Plus, your idea is a good one - it takes my idea and applies it to another thing that could be FORCED upon the public with huge financial losses / and the taking away driving privileges. Kind of the tone I was looking for, people coming up with similar ideas that stop, or dramatically reduce, illegal behavior that endangers lives.

We are on the same path, I just started on page 1 - you skipped ahead to page 12, which is very cool, just maybe next time lose the "fucking idiot" part. Your choice...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2011 01:02PM by postpoppunk.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds like Vince is back.


This is the second time I have been called "Vince"...

This post is the conservative side of me, I am way way "out of the box" in my general outlook on life + have a very open and liberal flavor to the majority of my thinking.

I have read some of your stuff WTL, you advocate "out of the box" thinking...as we both agreed about people posting pics on the internet are fair game regardless of social status.

I have been accused of being "eesh" also...I have not been here long enough to know "Vince" or "eesh", but I have a feeling that being compared to them is not a good thing.

EDIT: I was also accused of being another FFXU user - I will have to find the thread and keep track of all the people I supposedly am for the future.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2011 01:11PM by postpoppunk.

You think this is a conservative idea? No self-respecting conservative would advocate such a thing. Neocon, maybe. But their intellectual heritage is Trotskyite, not Burkean.

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You think this is a conservative idea? No
> self-respecting conservative would advocate such a
> thing. Neocon, maybe. But their intellectual
> heritage is Trotskyite, not Burkean.

Um...I do not know what "Trotskyite" or "Burkean" mean...so, I went with opposite of relaxed laws. Hmm...give me a substitute word _____________ , I hate labels, but using a word like "conservative" automatically calls to the political use of the term.

A true conservative would never advocate the intrusive, authoritarian police state measures you're advocating. But such is the state of education and political discourse in this country that people automatically associate "law and order" and "tough on 'crime'" with conservatism.

Your idea is nanny state liberalism at its finest. Not conservative in the slightest.

I was more in the lines of #8, while you were in the mindset of #9...

8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.

There are no political themes to my use of the word, so I will leave it as is and hope the confusion does not continue.

Well said.

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A true conservative would never advocate the
> intrusive, authoritarian police state measures
> you're advocating. But such is the state of
> education and political discourse in this country
> that people automatically associate "law and
> order" and "tough on 'crime'" with conservatism.
>
> Your idea is nanny state liberalism at its finest.
> Not conservative in the slightest.

... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well said.
>
> Ut videam Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A true conservative would never advocate the
> > intrusive, authoritarian...


But incorrect, sorry - please refer to #8 two posts above...there are NO political references in the way I used the word conservative.

Then you should have clarified it as apolitical. You do not have the privilege of reinterpreting your post ex-post-facto.

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You think this is a conservative idea? No
> self-respecting conservative would advocate such a
> thing. Neocon, maybe. But their intellectual
> heritage is Trotskyite, not Burkean.

... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then you should have clarified it as apolitical.
> You do not have the privilege of reinterpreting
> your post ex-post-facto.



I did in the first sentence of the first post...

"Forget politics...

But thanks for playing along.

It is political now, if anything, I pronounce it as such. Deal with it.

postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Then you should have clarified it as
> apolitical.
> > You do not have the privilege of reinterpreting
> > your post ex-post-facto.
>
>
>
> I did in the first sentence of the first post...
>
> "Forget politics...
>
> But thanks for playing along.

Deal with what...your misinterpretation? No thanks.

I am done with you for now, run along.

Request denied.

postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Deal with what...your misinterpretation? No
> thanks.
>
> I am done with you for now, run along.

I know postpoppunk's idea is bad because he writes like a crazy person, with the excessive capitalization. But just a mild nut, not a fullbore Timecube type schizo.

If "excessive capitalization" is Wrong, I do not want to be Right.

EDIT: My "capitalization" is just fine...and you had me worried, you silly goose.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2011 11:41PM by postpoppunk.

NO and NO. I'm sorry but I can't drive that slow if they make the speed limit on the interstates 80-90mph then maybe. Around the city 35 is a good speed I can live with that. What the need to do is get rid of most of the traffic lights. Do we really need a traffic light every 50 yards. I grew up in Fx county you could drive from FX city to Leesburg in 25min at 4pm. You can't even get out of the city in 25min at 4pm.

I have no problem with the idea of strict enforcement of speed limits. If we are talking about truly uniform enforcement of those rules. One problem with enforcement today is that it really is haphazzard, so that being caught is more a matter of bad luck than it is of particularly bad driving. I don't think your idea of draconian fines is the way to go. You say that it will hit the rich and poor equally but it really won't. Richer people could afford to pay the occassionally higher fine and still keep their license. Poor cannot, and revoking drivers licenses will in many instances simply result in more unlicensed and uninsured drivers on the road.

If you really want to hit people where it hurts when it comes to speeding, mandatory community service would be the way to go. Rich folk won't like it because it is demeaning, both in the work that they will need to do and in the people that they will be forced to do it with, plus it will be incredibly inconvenient having to give up work or free time in order to meet the obligation. For poor people it would be more affordable, removing the financial incentive to become part of the 'automotive underground', but they will still suffer that same loss of free or work time.

Putting up speed cameras would be one way to address the speeding issue, although it is better at catching the cars that are speeding rather than the drivers. However if you think that the use will be limited to speeding, then you are in dream land. It won't be long before those cameras are running 24/7 and are accessed for other law enforcement purposes. Soon afterwards private enterprise will be clamoring for access to that information in order to create marketing databases, and cash strapped governments will undoubtedly sell that information in order to raise revenue.