Can traffic fines be logically unjust?

[woolfe9999]

That said, clearly reckless driving is reckless driving regardless of a speed limit law. In both of your examples people were driving too fast and reckless. And guess what? A speed limit did nothing to stop them either.

It didn't deter one person.

Therefore, it deters no one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

 

[ShawnD1]

Here's what I am thinking... please let me know if this makes sense to you or if I have broken logic.

Speeding is a victimless crime. Getting caught speeding results in a fine/punishment.
Speeding weakly correlates with increased probability of an harmful collision (victim part).
When you are caught speeding (no victim), there is no evidence to link your behavior with someone else's or your own physical harm.

It's not speed that is dangerous, but inconsistent speed that is dangerous. Suppose you come to an uncontrolled intersection and are going to make a right turn. The speed limit on the road you are turning on to is 45mph, so you know it will take maybe 4 seconds to make your turn and get up to that speed. You look left and see if you have 4 seconds of room. As long as all of the cars on the road are going the same speed (maybe you know everyone is speeding 5mph), it's not a problem. If some fuckhead is going 100mph, that's a problem. He's going too fast for the people turning to accurately guess how much space they need before a turn can safety be made.

Creating a dangerous situation is what makes it illegal.

 

[Genx87]

They most certain hare not arbitrary and continual saying so doesn't make it fact.

If that were true why will the same highway have its speed changed? Or if you cross state lines it will rise or lower? There isnt much science left in speed limits.

As for your second comment. Show me any single law that is never broken. Fnd me one example. Just one in existence. They are a deterrent, not an absolute for prevention. That deterrent works by enforcingthe law which, in this case, carries a financial penalty. Hve a look at some countries in europe. Speeding will get you a find based on your income. Some in the tens to hundreds of thousands That's a pretty weak argument to make. By that logic people still kill other people so why do we have murder laws?

But you just showed with your own examples it isnt a deterrent.

Murder laws are pretty clear. The murderer violated the murdered. When I speed who\what am I violating other than the speed limit?

And one other thing. The argument that we arrest or charge people o nwhat we believe they are going to do. So are you people in favor of not arresting potential terrorists for simply planning out an attack?

I am failing to see the correlation to speed limits. Planning to murder people is different than going above a speed limit. One has an intention of hurting somebody and violating their rights. The other(speeding) does not.

 

[Genx87]

It didn't deter one person.

Therefore, it deters no one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

I never said that. However anybody who has driven the roads knows, speed limits dont deter many people from speeding. I speed, you probably speed, momentsofsanity probably speeds. Lets be honest and admit speed limits draw a line in the sand for which allows the state to reap a financial reward under the guise of keeping us safe.

 

[CycloWizard]

The speed limit isn't arbitrary, research goes into it to determine a safe limit based on road conditions, neighbourhood and things like that. You're not allowed to go 90Km/h in a city because people may be turning into traffic, pedestrians crossing the street etc.

Edit: Beaten by several posters while typing.

False. England did a study about two years ago showing that a speed limit below 30 kmh actually led to more pedestrian-related accidents. The response around Oxford was to lower the speed limit to 20 kmh. Not only that, but everywhere around town under the 20 kmh speed limit signs, they added additional signs that say, "It's 20 for a reason!" The only reason I could come up with was that they wanted more pedestrians to get run over.

The moral of the story is that, while studies are done and traffic engineering is a very advanced science, it is rarely used to determine the speed limits or timing systems for traffic lights. We pay for this by sitting in our cars longer, sitting at more red lights, and getting worse gas mileage due to all of the accelerating/decelerating, let alone ticket fines for running lights that have artificially-shortened yellow lights and inappropriate timing as well as "speeding" while driving perfectly safe speeds.

 

[woolfe9999]

I never said that. However anybody who has driven the roads knows, speed limits dont deter many people from speeding. I speed, you probably speed, momentsofsanity probably speeds. Lets be honest and admit speed limits draw a line in the sand for which allows the state to reap a financial reward under the guise of keeping us safe.

Yup, virtually everyone speeds. It is also the case that most people drive what they consider to be a legally safe increment over the posted limit. If the limit is 55, flow of traffic is typically 65-70. If it's 65, then 75-80. Any faster and you are faster than the general flow of traffic and stick out like a sore thumb to patrol cars.

 

[ShawnD1]

Yup, virtually everyone speeds. It is also the case that most people drive what they consider to be a legally safe increment over the posted limit. If the limit is 55, flow of traffic is typically 65-70. If it's 65, then 75-80. Any faster and you are faster than the general flow of traffic and stick out like a sore thumb to patrol cars.

That's amazing you guys can get away with speeding like that. Here, they camp on the side of the road with photo radar. ANY car going more than about 5mph over the speed limit gets a ticket. It doesn't even matter if that's the speed everyone else is going. They will take a picture every 2 seconds if that's what it takes.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Ethics is moral philosophy.

Somebody knows how to use Google. Good work, Sherlock, you cracked the case. :thumbsup:

Logic is certainly a tool used to study ethics.

Cool story bro. Too bad it has nothing to do with the point I made.

Ethical facts are not approrpiately described as "logically wrong" or "logically right" (or in this case, "logically unjust"). An ethical fact might logically follow from another ethical premise or set of ethical premises, but to claim such a fact is "logically ethical" is to commit a category error. In other words, logical facts describe what is true or false; ethical facts describe what is right or wrong.

For example:

1.) If Infohawk posts again in this thread, then he has committed a mortal sin and it would be justified to ban him from the forum forever.
2.) Infohawk posts again in this thread.
3.) He has committed a mortal sin and it would be justified to ban him from the forum forever.

(3) is logically true. It follows from the premises according to modus ponens. Does this make it "logically good/right/just"? I'll leave that as an exercise for you.

(I guess you didn't think that was really the end of the thread.)

You guessed wrong.

 

[superccs]

OK so I through up a poll which hopefully includes 3 main lines of thought.

The one good idea was the ability to judge windows to merge or join traffic, but this has nothing to do with victim-less speeding tickets. This is making an argument for having recommended speeds. The speeder that crashes in to the merging car will be given a speeding ticket for driving like an 4$$hat in intersection, but not if he is just speeding across western Texas.

 

[Howard]

Speeding is victimless? The other day a friend of mine was driving down a highway. She signaled and prepared to turn left into a driveway. Behind her some jack off was driving about twice the posted speed limit when he came over the crest of the little hill and she was right there beginning her turn. Now there was a sign warning of hidden driveways so motorists would take caution approaching the area as cars may be stopped to turn.

Both cars were destroyed and my friend will be lucky to live a normal life again because the victimless speeding meant there was no time for this asshat to stop.

Speeding != reckless driving.

I'm sorry, emotional anecdotes do nothing for me. Your friend was hurt because the driver was negligent and breaking most of the rules of the road, not because he was speeding.

 

[LumbergTech]

Speeding != reckless driving.

I'm sorry, emotional anecdotes do nothing for me. Your friend was hurt because the driver was negligent and breaking most of the rules of the road, not because he was speeding.

good thing people like you dont get your way....you can be a beligerent piece of shit on the forum all you want youll still get fined if you get caught

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Can anything be logically unjust?

 

[Howard]

good thing people like you dont get your way....you can be a beligerent piece of shit on the forum all you want youll still get fined if you get caught

Sorry, I can't understand posts without a point to make.

 

[Infohawk]

Speeding != reckless driving.

I'm sorry, emotional anecdotes do nothing for me. Your friend was hurt because the driver was negligent and breaking most of the rules of the road, not because he was speeding.

At low enough speeds you can do anything and it won't cause much damage. Speed is a causal element of fatal accidents.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Can anything be logically unjust?

No, I pretty much covered this in my posts. Saying something is "logically unjust" is like saying it is "mathematically unjust," which doesn't make sense. Furiously rectangular. Aggressively invisible. Warmly small. I'm sure you get the idea.

 

[Howard]

At low enough speeds you can do anything and it won't cause much damage. Speed is a causal element of fatal accidents.

True, many fatal accidents are fatal because of the amount of kinetic energy involved.

And my point is, the speeding that produces fatal accidents from non-fatal accidents is not just speeding, it's something else entirely. Speeding can be very safe (though it angers the traffic Nazis to admit).