Mermaidman
Diamond Member
- Sep 4, 2003
- 7,987
- 93
- 91
you know the best way to stop speeders?
get rid of the damned speed limit.
no speed limit = no speeders = no crime commited.
get rid of the damned speed limit.
no speed limit = no speeders = no crime commited.
I have never never never in my life thought that all rich people (not even self made) were smart and all poor people were dumb. I've met lots of dumb rich people. America has SOOO many opportunities to make people rich even the dumbest person here and there finds wealth.
And on the other end, some people are focused on other things that money, yet still can be intelligent without having made a lot of money. And given that a lot of rich people started out poor, yet they were still smart when they were poor, they were just in the beginning stages of success, would imply that many many poor people are/were smart.
As for the rest of your original post, I didn't quite understand the point you were getting to regarding my idea. You basically said "laws exist to make money, not people safer." On the whole, that is not true, but in certain cases, that can be VERY true. The government has a habit of trying to cash in on certain things.
Uh no, you're not doing your research. Do you have an idea how much rail systems cost?
And what if I want to go somewhere where no rail exists, like a really small town or somewhere rural? You cannot cover EVERY road with rail, the costs of that would be ENORMOUS.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Well, you are right and you are wrong. According to a bunch of studies done in England, it appears the worst driving offenders (those who get caught most frequently) are between 26 and 29. The younger crowd (18 ? 24) only accounted for 2% of citations issued. Speeding is not purely a young phenomenon, unless ?young? now also includes people in their 20s and early 30s (?Those drivers more likely to exceed the speed limit include drivers under the age of 34, those driving without passengers in the vehicle, and business travellers.?).
What you are proposing is changing the incentive structure for speeding, but I think your logic is at least partially flawed. First of all, if the bulk of speeders are between 24 and 29, you argument that they have less money to spend thus won?t speed doesn?t hold much water. These people will be professionals, earning good money. Second, raising a minimum fine punishes the poor disproportionately. 1,000 to John Smith, a guy who earns 30,000 / year will hurt him a lot more than 1,000 to Jack Bloom who makes 150,000 year. Granted, neither will be happy with their ticket, but John may be completely broke because of it while Jack will easily be able to afford it.
Further looking into WHY people speed is revealing as well. In a study conducted in England I believe in 2000 it found that the most common reason for justifying speeding is unintentional. Maybe you?re right that people would pay more attention to speeding if the tickets were higher, but the stakes in this country are already very high. Getting caught doing 15 over the limit here in MA is a $130 ticket + points on your driving record which probably translates into a thousand or more dollars paid in insurance premiums. Get eight violations in a two-year period and your license is suspended, yet people continue to violate speeding laws.
I just don?t think that increasing the fine you pay will have a big impact on drivers? tendencies and that there are more effective ways of controlling speed. As another poster said, changing the layout of roads (adding turns, bumps, narrowing) all will contribute to slowing down drivers. The addition of speed cameras will also help, as would other methods of automatic punishment (people who know they are being watched will drive slower). Of course the problem with this is that people slow down for the cameras and then speed up again. Systems like using GPS or tolls to determine speed and issue citations would be the ultimate, if not the ultimate intrusion, manner of catching speeders.
Finally, I think a lot of speeding results from people feeling pressure to drive fast ? they are late to meetings, they are late for this or for that. If you would like to attribute one ?macro? fact to speeding, I would certainly say that our society, with such an emphasis on speediness, would be to blame.
By the way, all the data I cited came from here: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/08/17977
PS ? this:
I don?t have factual evidence, but from my experience I find this to be less true than you believe. Most of my family lives in Montreal, a city which relies HEAVILY on stop signs. They are everywhere. Every intersection, merger, etc. People basically ignore them there because there are so many. Yeah, they slow down, maybe 10 mph during the day, but frequently people go through stop signs at 25 or 30 mph. At night, nobody even makes an effort to stop.
So, I think you?re correct in saying that stop signs will slow down drivers, but overusing them will simply cause people to ignore them.
But if there were a $1,000 fine for running a stop sign, people wouldn't ignore them.
And you're in Canada, and your other study is the UK. It's very different. Americans have very different habits than you guys and the Brits.
[/quote] But if there were a $1,000 fine for running a stop sign, people wouldn't ignore them. [/quote]
$1,000 fine for running a stop sign??? and you want one for every intersection??? who's gonna monitor all these intersections?
$1,000 fine for running a stop sign??? and you want one for every intersection??? who's gonna monitor all these intersections?
That's the whole idea! They don't have to monitor as much. People will follow them because they're scared of getting the $1,000 fine.
Ask anyone who's ever driven with no insurance, or without a license. They drive slower and more carefully because of the financial risks. My idea works. Fact.
Your poll options are the same thing. I agree people would still speed because they want to and I also believe that less people would speed.
Says who it doesn't fit? "Fitting the crime" is relative. There is not exactly definition of what fits the crime.
My definition of what "fits" a crime is a punishment that is noticable enough that it has an impact on people's behavior. If you have a 50 cent fine for speed, everyone would speed. But a $50k fine, no one would speed.
As of right now, these $100 speeding tickets are obviously not stopping people. They don't scare people enough into not speed. There sure don't scare me! I speed all the time.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
hmm well if they impose a $1k fine for speeding and running stop signs that would bring in a lot more money.
but you are wrong that it would reduced the number of cops. in fact they would be more. not to mention more stories of abuse and speeed traps etc.
while it may reduce speeding it will cause more problems then it solves. not to mention it would take more time away from the police doing something more important then catching someone doing 5mph over the speed limit.
but you are wrong that it would reduced the number of cops. in fact they would be more. not to mention more stories of abuse and speeed traps etc.
while it may reduce speeding it will cause more problems then it solves. not to mention it would take more time away from the police doing something more important then catching someone doing 5mph over the speed limit.
What a stupid idea. You sound like the guy who drives 42MPH in the left lane of a 3 lane 50MPH zone 'because it's your right'. :roll: What's your agenda on speeding about anyway? Safety? Pfft! Someone going 5-10 over in a 45MPH zone or 10-15 over in a 65MPH divided highway isn't even dangerous.
You want driving to be safer? Then ticket people for things that are actually causing dangerous situations instead of speeders to generate revenue. Crack down on the people who run lights, change lanes without signaling, cut across multiple lanes so they don't miss their turn/exit, drive fast in neighborhoods and/or parking lots, etc, etc, etc. Oh, and ticket every single person who gets caught talking on their cell phone and commits even the slightest driving infraction - including careless driving and impeding the flow of traffic!
You want driving to be safer? Then ticket people for things that are actually causing dangerous situations instead of speeders to generate revenue. Crack down on the people who run lights, change lanes without signaling, cut across multiple lanes so they don't miss their turn/exit, drive fast in neighborhoods and/or parking lots, etc, etc, etc. Oh, and ticket every single person who gets caught talking on their cell phone and commits even the slightest driving infraction - including careless driving and impeding the flow of traffic!
ultimatebob
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2001
- 25,134
- 2,450
- 126
People who own expensive cars in high insurance risk areas (New York/New Jersey/etc) can already see their insurance go up more than $1,000 a year if they get a speeding ticket. Does it stop them from speeding? Hell no.
So what about red light cameras? I'm freaking careful around those things. I know which intersections have them and I will NEVER run a yellow at those places even if it looks decently safe that I will pass the line. So I don't see how slapping a $1000 fine won't cause any change at all. IT WILL REDUCE SPEEDING.
Yes people will speed, but it will crack down on speeding...
I have a friend who has this opinion and it is absolute bull$hite. The fact is if everyone drove under the speed limit with a huge gap between them and the next car traffic would be a nightmare and we'd need more roads. Your argument is idiotic.
You would likely have a riot on your hands the day such a law was passed. So your idea of less crime would go out the window on day 1.
So if we all drove 5mph slower, they'd have to build more roads? Riiight. Yeah I'm the one with the idiotic argument. :roll:
I don't understand why cops focus on speed in the first place. Everybody does it and those that say they don't are lying. Looking for speeders is a waste of time for cops and the people they pull over.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter