A novel approach to speeding tickets

[KingNothing]

Well, maybe not totally new (I'm sure someone's thought of it before) but I'm interested in your opinions on this. Ideally, cops wouldn't give out tickets unless speeding was accompanied by reckless driving (cutting in and out of traffic, tailgating, etc). But this will never happen since speeding tickets are such a source of revenue for the state. So I've been thinking, why not let people by speeding insurance from the state? Say, $500 a year for waiving up to 15-over tickets (almost anywhere), and $1000 a year for waiving up to 30-over tickets (highway only). Residential areas are an exception, only 10-over waived there. Also require that people attend a driving school, as in a real car control school, every other year. The insurance would only cover speeding by itself--reckless driving, drunk driving, etc would still put points on your license, fine you, put you in jail, revoke your ability to buy insurance, etc. Also, if you had 15-over insurance and were caught going 20 over, you'd get a 20-over ticket. This insurance wouldn't raise the speed limit per se, just provide a buffer zone. This would be better for the following reasons:

1) More money for states. In Nebraska, a 10-over ticket costs $50. I sped thousands of times before I got my first and only ticket. Clearly the state was missing out on some serious revenue.
2) More money for people in the long run. Speeding tickets increase your insurance, cost you time by having to appear in court, and if you get enough points, losing your driving license costs you in a variety of ways. Radar detectors are also not necessary to buy.
3) Less anxiety when driving. Instead of having to concentrate on keeping your speed at an artificially low limit, you can move with traffic, or go faster in the left lane if it safe to do so without constantly watching out for a cop car.
4) Better drivers on the road. If insurance of this type were offered, I think lots of people would jump on it. All these people would attend car control school, and would probably become better drivers for it. I'd rather have these people speeding on the road than your average moron.

Opinions?

Edited to include a few additional points.

There is now a poll where you can vote on this topic.

 

[johnjohn320]

15 tickets in one year? WTF?

 

[pyonir]

do you honestly think that people that attend a car control school make safer or better drivers???

habits are already engrained. they aren't going to learn anything new or change driving habits.

 

[KingNothing]

I think there's a reason that Germany has no speed limits on the autobahn but requires you to go through a rigorous process (including much education) to get your driver's license. I think America should do that too, but I find that about as likely as the idea of cops not giving out tickets except for reckless driving.

Edit: I didn't mean 15 tickets in one year, I meant up to 15 mph over the limit.

 

[pyonir]

there is a lot more traffic on most american highways than on the autobahn....

 

[KingNothing]

And speeding when there's that much traffic would probably fall under the category of "reckless driving". Cops don't usually nab you in heavy traffic, though. They can't merge into it easily from the side of the road. Cops catch you in light traffic, when going faster isn't a safety concern, but it's easier for them to radar you and get onto the road to pull you over.

 

[Cyberian]

<< 15 tickets in one year? WTF? >>


I think he meant 15MPH over the speed limit.



<< do you honestly think that people that attend a car control school make safer or better drivers???

habits are already engrained. they aren't going to learn anything new or change driving habits. >>

I'd have to disagree with you there.
I think almost everyone would benefit from courses like Bob Bondurant and Skip Barber offer.
I know that I learn at least one or two new things every time I take the National Safety Council Defensive Driving Course, and that's only classroom instruction.

 

[pyonir]

<<

<< 15 tickets in one year? WTF? >>


I think he meant 15MPH over the speed limit.



<< do you honestly think that people that attend a car control school make safer or better drivers???

habits are already engrained. they aren't going to learn anything new or change driving habits. >>

I'd have to disagree with you there.
I think almost everyone would benefit from courses like Bob Bondurant and Skip Barber offer.
I know that I learn at least one or two new things every time I take the National Safety Council Defensive Driving Course, and that's only classroom instruction. >>


of course it would benefit people that want to learn. i'm saying most of the people in the class are only going to be there to drive fast. you don't learn if you don't want to learn. learn enough to pass the class...pass and you go back to the way you were before the class. you were taught in driver's ed to drive with hands at 10 and 2. do you still? see what i'm saying?

 

[Squisher]

Your right to flail your arms about madly ends at the end of my nose. I don't care what some insurance company gives you authorization to do. Your increasing my risk is an infingement on my inalienble right to "life".

 

[KingNothing]

Actually, I do when I drive fast through a curvy section of roads. You have better control over the car that way . I was actually taught in driving school to hold at the 4 and 8 position, with the instructor saying that it offered better control. I disagree, but on the interstate with the cruise control on I leave my hands there so I can leave my arms on the armrests.

 

[pyonir]

<< Actually, I do when I drive fast through a curvy section of roads. You have better control over the car that way . I was actually taught in driving school to hold at the 4 and 8 position, with the instructor saying that it offered better control. I disagree, but on the interstate with the cruise control on I leave my hands there so I can leave my arms on the armrests. >>


i wasn't just talking about the hand position.........

 

[KingNothing]

Speeding by itself, in light traffic, isn't a threat to your "inalienable right to life".

 

[mithrandir2001]

<< Your right to flail your arms about madly ends at the end of my nose. I don't care what some insurance company gives you authorization to do. Your increasing my risk is an infingement on my inalienble right to "life". >>


Every minute of life is rife with risk. Simply walking out your front door every morning incurs more risk than hiding in bed all day.

Can't drive 55. (Or 65, for that matter.)

 

[KingNothing]

Neither was I...

I took the information I was presented in driving school and did something with it. Sure, some people are going to be in the class just to pass it. With or without the class, they'll still speed and drive the same as they did before. Eventually they'll be caught for reckless driving.

 

[pyonir]

<< Neither was I...

I took the information I was presented in driving school and did something with it. Sure, some people are going to be in the class just to pass it. With or without the class, they'll still speed and drive the same as they did before. Eventually they'll be caught for reckless driving. >>


or kill someone else before that happens.

 

[KingNothing]

Which they'd do regardless of a class, or insurance.

 

[pyonir]

it's a lot easier to kill someone at a higher speed. if you have the privilage of driving at a higher rate of speed, then you are going to do it more. thus you have a better chance of killing someone if an idiot gets that privilage.

 

[Squisher]

<<Every minute of life is rife with risk. Simply walking out your front door every morning incurs more risk than hiding in bed all day.

Can't drive 55. (Or 65, for that matter.) >>





<<....Your increasing my risk.....>>

It doesn't work like that, I can increse my risk of my own free will, you however cannot.

 

[Kadarin]

Interesting idea, but my worry is that too many people will get the mentality of "I can drive however fast I want, I've got speeding ticket insurance". We'll see more teenagers in 300+hp Camaros driving recklessly (like I used to).

 

[KingNothing]

The insurance doesn't let you drive however fast you want. It just provides a buffer zone to prevent useless tickets. Kids with 300HP Camaros are likely going to be going more than 15 over the limit if they're gonna be driving recklessly. Perhaps I should edit my original post to 30-over on the highway only.

BTW, awesome sig.

 

[mithrandir2001]

<< <<Every minute of life is rife with risk. Simply walking out your front door every morning incurs more risk than hiding in bed all day.

Can't drive 55. (Or 65, for that matter.) >>

<<....Your increasing my risk.....>>

It doesn't work like that, I can increse my risk of my own free will, you however cannot. >>

Slow drivers - who refuse to drive over the speed limit - increase MY risk because they drive 10, 15, or 20mph below the normal flow of traffic. They are the equivalent of a wrench thrown in a finely spining gear mechanism and they increase everyone's risk on the road. Go with the flow.

 

[N8Magic]

<<

<< <<Every minute of life is rife with risk. Simply walking out your front door every morning incurs more risk than hiding in bed all day.

Can't drive 55. (Or 65, for that matter.) >>

<<....Your increasing my risk.....>>

It doesn't work like that, I can increse my risk of my own free will, you however cannot. >>

Slow drivers - who refuse to drive over the speed limit - increase MY risk because they drive 10, 15, or 20mph below the normal flow of traffic. They are the equivalent of a wrench thrown in a finely spining gear mechanism and they increase everyone's risk on the road. Go with the flow. >>



Agreed.

I believe slow drivers actually CAUSE more accidents than speeders by forcing people "going with the flow" to swerve, pass on the right or slam on the brakes. :|

 

[xirtam]

1) What's to prevent cops from calling speeding just another form or "reckless driving"? Who decides what constitutes reckless -- you, the insurance company, or the cop? Screw the insurance... loophole number one for the state.

2) You're just trying to pay for a crime before you commit it. That's pretty lame. That's like me turning myself into jail for five years as an innocent man just in case I decide to go out and kill someone later. But hey, you've got five years of insurance that I'm not going to kill anyone.

3) In Nebraska, as you well know, steps are being taken to ensure the proper training of drivers before they are allowed to get their licenses. Such as "Driver's ed" a.k.a. car control school. While it's true that you can still get a signed affidavit from the parent, I really don't think that buying insurance so that you don't have to worry about controlling your speed is going to produce better drivers than just sending them to the school before they're allowed to get their license.

4) Concentrating on keeping your speed at an artificially low limit is nothing like the intentional 15-30 mph speeding you're talking about.

5) Ultimately, all you're doing is allowing speeders with the cash to increase the speed limit. They know that they're 30-over ticket is going to be waived, so the 75 mph speed limit is now 105. Trucks are still going to be doing about 50 on certain stretches of the same road. You know what we're approaching? A poorly regulated autobahn. I've seen pileups on the autobahn. Not cool.

6) Where's the insurance going to stop, and how are people going to agree on "acceptable" limits? Should I buy drinking insurance so that I can waive MIP's? How about gun insurance so that I'm covered if I'm playing with a weapon in public and it "accidentally" goes off and shoots someone in the arm?

Laws are in place for protection. Are they circumvented? Sure. Does the failure to adequately enforce the rules make it hard to follow them sometimes? You bet. Does this mean we should just look for more and easier ways to circumvent the rules? I say no.

My advice: stop whining about the one time you got pulled over for speeding and be grateful that those unfair policemen missed the opportunity the thousands of other times you broke the law.

Perhaps instead of insurance, we could equip cars with computers that would constantly broadcast signals to the law enforcement agencies whenever the car exceeded the speed limit by a factor of X. That way, you'd just get a ticket mailed to your house, and it would prevent people from speeding to the extent that they feel they have to swerve or slam on the brakes in order to avoid a collision with someone who is going to slow. Cops could then just home in on the signal and get the people who are causing the hazardous conditions -- regardless of whether it's a high- or low-traffic situation.

Traffic tickets provide revenue, but that's not the reason they're in place.

 

[srvblues00]

<<
Slow drivers - who refuse to drive over the speed limit - increase MY risk because they drive 10, 15, or 20mph below the normal flow of traffic. They are the equivalent of a wrench thrown in a finely spining gear mechanism and they increase everyone's risk on the road. Go with the flow. >>



Cha ching!!! God I hate old slow people.. or just slow people for that matter. Course, don't we all, no need to get into this rant again.

 

[Lucky]

<<

<< <<Every minute of life is rife with risk. Simply walking out your front door every morning incurs more risk than hiding in bed all day.

Can't drive 55. (Or 65, for that matter.) >>

<<....Your increasing my risk.....>>

It doesn't work like that, I can increse my risk of my own free will, you however cannot. >>

Slow drivers - who refuse to drive over the speed limit - increase MY risk because they drive 10, 15, or 20mph below the normal flow of traffic. They are the equivalent of a wrench thrown in a finely spining gear mechanism and they increase everyone's risk on the road. Go with the flow. >>






DAMM RIGHT. Good post.