A novel approach to speeding tickets

[Hossenfeffer]

I'd just as soon support speeder-readers that take your picture if you're going more than 5-10 over the speed limit. I should be able to reasonably assume folks will obey the posted limits. None of this "everybody else is speeding" or "I can control my car at a faster speed". I don't care if you can safely drive at 200MPH, the law's the law and, until it's changed, I'll give it my support.

Let the tide flow in the other direction. Beef up the funding to the state/highway patrol for equipment and crack down, zero tolerance. If we want a higher speed limit, we can take it through the proper channels, not simply drive faster with a general disdain for the law.

edit: For the record, I'd like to be able to go faster. Guess I'd also like to see folks realize the wisdom of a "safe" following distance. Would drastically cut down the amount of rear-enders, slamming on the breaks and make merging a hell of a lot easier. Instead, people think that sticking to the bumper in front of them will somehow get them somewhere sooner. Going to an extreme, but emergency vehicles would have a much easier time navigating a traffic jam if people would back off a bit. (Damn, feeling anal today)

 

[KingNothing]

<< 1) What's to prevent cops from calling speeding just another form or "reckless driving"? blah blah blah. >>



This from the guy that refers to I-80 as "his own personal autobahn"

 

[crypticlogin]

<< 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. :| >>


Okay, I'm going to speak against this. I "go with the flow" but if you're ever in the position to have to swerve or slam on the brakes because some guy was driving some 5-10, maybe 20mph slower than you, then you got too close. You should've spotted this guy waaaay before then and changed lanes, or whatever.

As for buying out of tickets... no, I wouldn't support that. Give someone who already exceeds "the flow" a means to speed more often or faster without consequence is just asking for trouble, driving school or no driving school. Sorry, that's not something I want to see when these people are whipping by, sporting their "I've got +20mph immunity" bumper stickers. Hey, they were safe drivers before the driving school (isn't everybody?), they must be honorary Andrettis after! :disgust:

 

[bsobel]

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

In some areas it's clearly the only reason they are in place.
Bill

 

[Dudd]

I don't understand why we have these artificially low speed limits. Over in France, I was driving out to Normandie on one of their highways, and we were easily going 85-90 mph in moderate to heavy traffic. I don't hear about France having rashes of traffic fatalities, so why can't we do it here? Insurance wouldn't work, that would be extremely prejudiced against the poor, but bumping the limit up to a strictly enforced 80 or 85 wouldn't be going too far, IMO.

 

[KingNothing]

Frankly, I'm not sure the laws should be changed because then they'd apply to everyone. You'd need to bring the training side way up along with the speed limit, which I really don't think Nebraska will ever do. Besides, considering the tight budget the state is experiencing right now, they're not going to give up a source of revenue or spend more money to do more training. Which is why I say, give them more revenue than they're likely to get and let people who have been trained how to control their car go faster.

Perhaps I should've clarified a point in my plan. If you bought the speeding insurance, it wouldn't raise the limit per se. If you had 15-over insurance and you were going 20 over, you'd get a 20-over ticket, not a 5-over ticket. The purpose of the insurance is basically to let you go fast in light/no traffic when it doesn't pose a safety risk but cops can nab you easily.

As for the drinking insurance, drunk driving causes way more accidents than speeding by itself (although drunk drivers do tend to go over the limit). But as I said before, drunk driving would cancel your speeding insurance. As for gun insurance, that is totally different. No one should be "playing with a gun" in public. That's not safe by any stretch of the imagination.

Drivers ed is not car control school. I didn't learn a thing in Driver's Ed that I didn't already know and I had already been driving for well over a year before I took it.

I'm sure people will warm to the idea of the government being able to track their cars at any given time.

 

[KingNothing]

<< Insurance wouldn't work, that would be extremely prejudiced against the poor, but bumping the limit up to a strictly enforced 80 or 85 wouldn't be going too far, IMO. >>



By that logic, people shouldn't be able to buy anything that poor people can't afford. Poor people can stick to the speed limit, it's not like they're being stopped from driving altogether.

 

[StattlichPassat]

Very interesting idea- never even crossed my mind. I certainly would jump on this, as I make at least 1 road trip a month, and several 4 hour road trips per year. My thinking is that this would be fine for you and I, but imagine what the people who couldn't afford this would think- especially if they're against people who speed already? ESPECIALLY if they watch you blow by at 90mph on the highway right past a highway patrol unit (do we get stickers on the back window or an ID card?)! Say I come flying by in a BMW (sure, in an M coupe! I like those!)...

"UGH! There goes some rich bastard again who thinks he's above everyone else!" These citizens and travelers would develop an utter hatred for people like you and I, and I don't like it when people don't like me. Kinda like that Seinfeld episode...

Anyway, I agree with the 4 points you listed as well and they all make sense. By logic, this could work for those of us who are smarter drivers. I don't see anything wrong with driving non-maniacal, 20mph above the limit in enviroments where it is completely safe to do so (rural interstate as opposed to downtown traffic). I am completely unfazed at 100mph. Could the precincts/States really just trust someone's best judgement for one of these enviroments? It could come down to a court case looking at the car's ability, driver's glasses prescription, weather, et al. I think it could get really messy. There aren't too many drivers who are competant enough, IMO, to utilize this (who would pass everything with flying colors, that is) so I don't think States would go for it. However, I would crap in my pants from excitement if something like this were made available. I'd buy an M3 and never fly again.

I think the best thing to do still is buy a Valentine One, mind the overpasses, and maintain a keen eye fore, aft, and on the mirrors.

 

[StattlichPassat]

<< 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. >>



AGREED. I really wish the U.S. would impose MUCH HIGHER standards of one being able to EARN their drivers license, like Germany's. It's a cakewalk even for a squirrel here right now.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

<< There aren't too many drivers who are competant enough, IMO, to utilize this >>

Plus, who actually considers themselves an incompetant driver? It's in our nature (or culture at least) to blame the other guy when we ourselves may be at fault.

 

[StattlichPassat]

<< 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. >>



This is why it's easy to go 90mph and not get caught on the freeways in most urban cities (Dallas for sure- lots of personal experience on 635, L.A., etc), as long as there is a steady, well-moving stream of uncongested fast moving traffice... talking about before and after rush hour here...

 

[StattlichPassat]

<<

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. >>



WORD. Don't you love a stream of people in front of you suddenly getting out of the left lane and then swearving back? You come up upon the area of disturbance only to find a 1987 Buick LeSabre with a fading blue paint job and shot rear suspension going 20mph under and some old man behind the wheel hunched forward and squinting as hard as he can through those BluBlockers.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

<<

<< 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. >>


WORD. Don't you love a stream of people in front of you suddenly getting out of the left lane and then swearving back? You come up upon the area of disturbance only to find a 1987 Buick LeSabre with a fading blue paint job and shot rear suspension going 20mph under and some old man behind the wheel hunched forward and squinting as hard as he can through those BluBlockers. >>

Heh, quite the image. There is a difference from someone going 20mph under the speed limit and someone going 20mph slower than the wolfpack

Damn Buick LeSabres!

 

[StattlichPassat]

<<
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. >>



Most people speed at least 1mph over the limit. Most people are not murderers- poor analogy.



<<
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. >>



Please. Like anybody will let THAT get signed into law...

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



Agreed, but most speeding citations issued are completely irrelevant in terms of in-dangering the public or self. Most ARE just revenue boosters. I got ticketed for going 90mph in a 70mph zone on a COMPLETELY BARREN, NOBODY AROUND, safe two lane road- logic makes me ask, why? There should be no reason why there should be a cop hiding in the bushes out there- it shouldn't be his business unless there was at least a few more cars on the road. They really should have a 'No Lifeguard- swim at your own risk' type of law instead of guiding everyone around by the hand telling them what is and isn't good for them... and get back to town to worry about REAL crimes. I'm a smart driver- the most I could have hurt was a grasshopper who jumped too soon. Nobody should be worrying about me. Anyway, like the first post says; think of all the additional income that could come about from a plan like his! But nevertheless, I still have about as many uncertainties as you do about his idea (different ones). The whole plan would just get too messy.

 

[StattlichPassat]

<< Plus, who actually considers themselves an incompetant driver? It's in our nature (or culture at least) to blame the other guy when we ourselves may be at fault. >>



Good point! I'm certainly no Mario Andretti, but I really think I'm a little more nimble than most.



<< Heh, quite the image. There is a difference from someone going 20mph under the speed limit and someone going 20mph slower than the wolfpack

Damn Buick LeSabres! >>



Heh, yes I should have been a little more descriptive- and why do these geezers buy a car with a 250hp+ V8 and never use it? I think 120hp 4-banger full size sedans would sell in spades to this demographic, since they obviously have no clue what a V8 is or is supposed to do (at least hurl you down the road at the speed limit). These people just need to be offered beige Geos with lots of chrome trim and wire wheels.

 

[element]

lol@ the BMW M coupe in your sig KingNothing, looks like the vehicle in the ambiguously gay duo skits on SNL.

 

[KingNothing]

<<

<< Plus, who actually considers themselves an incompetant driver? It's in our nature (or culture at least) to blame the other guy when we ourselves may be at fault. >>

Good point! I'm certainly no Mario Andretti, but I really think I'm a little more nimble than most.

<< Heh, quite the image. There is a difference from someone going 20mph under the speed limit and someone going 20mph slower than the wolfpack Damn Buick LeSabres! >>

Heh, yes I should have been a little more descriptive- and why do these geezers buy a car with a 250hp+ V8 and never use it? I think 120hp 4-banger full size sedans would sell in spades to this demographic, since they obviously have no clue what a V8 is or is supposed to do (at least hurl you down the road at the speed limit). These people just need to be offered beige Geos with lots of chrome trim and wire wheels. >>



Hey, I drive a (teal) Geo! 115 HP, 115 lb-ft (in the LSi model, w00t), and I can take it up to 100 (4300 RPM) on the highway fairly easily. I think my top speed is something like 120 MPH, but I haven't gone up that fast for fear that 1) something will go flying away from something else at a high rate of speed 2) something evil will happen to my tires (which came with the car). Last time I went 100 on the interstate, I flew by a white taurus with "Nebraska Department of Transportation" printed on it.