Brittish magazine Top Gear is going to pay the fines for speeding up to 5 km/h for their subscribers.
good or bad? I say awesome. Let's not pretend it's about safety.
Printable View
Brittish magazine Top Gear is going to pay the fines for speeding up to 5 km/h for their subscribers.
good or bad? I say awesome. Let's not pretend it's about safety.
How about its just a publicity stunt .Quote:
I say awesome. Let's not pretend it's about safety.
You are allowed a 10% discrepancy in Britain due to cars speedometers innaccuracy, so if you take their usual minimum speed liit for urban areas add the 10% and top gear pays no fines for anyone whatsoever .:shrug:
Of course it is, but if it's all about the money you open new markets, that's the beauty of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
People speed because they do not understand basic physics. The main thing which determines how much damage will be done in a crash is the kinetic energy of the vehicle, not its momentum. Since kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity it increases dramatically with increasing speed. Thus a car going at 100mph actually has twice as much energy as a car going at 70, even though to the driver it may not feel that much faster. Not to mention obviously the chance of crashing increases with velocity as reaction time is shorter and stopping distances are longer. Of course the other reason people speed is that they overestimate their driving abilities, which almost all drivers do without fail.
So I take your point in that speeding fines are ultimately a tax on the stupid, which is always a morally iffy concept. I would argue a mandatory 6 month ban would be more appropriate and effective.
Bah. How about they simply become law-abiding citizens instead?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It never fails to irratate me - the biggest law-and-order proponents are also the least responsible citizens when it comes to cars and speeding. The whole 'they should go after real criminals instead' attitude. :whip:
Furthermore, I am vehemently opposed to insurance policies for criminal offenses. You brake the law, you pay. Wots next? Heineken paying the fines for drunk drivers who only surpass the legal limit with .5 promille?
Then the fines become even more silly, if they want money they should get a job like everybody else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
They have got a job, and are doing a good one too with catching all those criminal drivers. If people were to drive responsibly, all those pesky fines would vanish like snow before the summer's sun. And this would help to free up the police forces to finally go catch some real criminals instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
"Help the police catch criminal foreigners - drive responsibly!" :smash:
More like speed and feed :laugh4:
Can't speak for Europe, but in the US more than a few of us feel that current speed limits are way, way too low, and if anything are just there to provide revenue for the local government in the form of speeding tickets. The first is an opinion, the second is a verified fact in many instances where officials have come out and admitted to it. IMO ticketing for anything under 11 over is nonsense.
Beyond that, in general my response to "they should just abide the law" is bollocks, they need to fix the damn laws which have A> not kept up with technology and B> most of which were put in place to try and force people to slow down to conserve gasoline. 55-70 most everywhere is miserably slow, people around here generally do 70-80 on the interstate and local highways (55-70 zones). Hell back in Indiana, people would do 85-90 on some of the big open stretches, which in my estimation is just about perfect. So instead of pulling over your average Joe who is doing 5-10 over just like everyone else is, why not look out for the :daisy:holes in their BMWs driving 20+ over, swerving in lanes and cutting people off, whilst yakking on the cellphones.
:balloon2:
Personally not too bothered about speeding on motorways. More concerned about it in urban areas - losing someone to a speeding motorist has made me think lower limits there, and stricter enforcement, wouldn't be such a bad idea.
You don't think the speed limit is high enough, lobby for it to be increased. If you don't like a law you can't just flagrantly break it while it's still in place. But since most people tend to consistently overestimate their driving skills I'd suggest that letting them set their own speed limit is a terrible idea.
Fact is, if you resent the authorities raising money from speeding tickets, just don't speed and they won't get any money at all.
As a general rule they do. The fact that other people are breaking the law doesn't make it OK for you to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
All well and good. Now let me introduce you to a little something we call 'reality'. 99.9999% of politicians know that speeding tickets are a great source of non-tax income, which looks good for them because they can keep taxes low and rely on the police to supplement city/county funds through speeding ticket quotas, which supposedly don't exist nudge nudge wink wink. Further, to a (wo)man, they will always poo-poo attempts by the average citizen or interest group to lobby for increased speed limits, because everyone just knows that all people who speed are also convicted child-murdering sheep-raping communists that hate freedom, and such-and-such half baked 'study' proves it. The only place I've ever heard of that did something reasonable with traffic laws like this was Montana where they did away with speed limits on the interstates during daylight hours, but if memory serves I think they repealed that and reinstated them. Can't be arsed to check anyway, so I may be wrong. Bottom line, getting certain traffic laws changed just isn't going to happen. I've written to the mayor of my old hometown on this subject with a small check for campaign funding, and all I ever got back was a nice canned response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry
As a general rule, they are looking at their radar guns while sitting under the overpass. And you are partially correct that just because others break the law doesn't mean I can/should. There is some legal precedent for "going with the flow of traffic" even if it is above the speed limit, but it doesn't always work. At any rate, it's my own form of civil disobedience to laws which I generally find idiotic, and I have been and am willing to deal with the penalties. Seem to average a speeding ticket about once every 2-3 years, and I've successfully fought off the last two in court. /shrugQuote:
As a general rule they do. The fact that other people are breaking the law doesn't make it OK for you to do so.
Also, please take my response here under the pretense of being part tongue in cheek, part serious. :bow:
:balloon2:
Well if civil disobedience were legal it wouldn't really be disobedience.
If that's your reason for speeding then you can hardly complain when you get tickets. If anything you should regard them as trophies.
Although the question remains, why not really screw the corrupt traffic cops over by cutting them off at the source and not speeding? Imagine how much it'll annoy the greedy politicians when their nice little non-tax revenue stream dries up because people aren't speeding enough.
Hah. We're now implementing speed cameras in the US. They take a picture of your car if it hits over 11mph (gee, not too arbitrary) and you get your ticket in the mail. It's a complete joke of a revenue generator since it's basically a tax that treats a doctor who makes 6k a month the same as a lawnmower you makes 1k.
And let's not even get started on the insane crap they've tried to pull on us in Virginia over the last few years...
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1818.asp
A few years back a bunch of college students tested the system. The all lined up on an interstate and drove exactly the speed limit. Traffic was backed up for miles and they all ended up with tickets... for going the speed limit!
Here, if you're going 55 on the interstate - the speed limit - you are at a severe risk of being rear ended. I typically do 80 just to keep pace with traffic. I won't lie, I've occassionally used the fast lane to get somewhere and gone much faster...
True that! I totally agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
But... the 50 € fine I got for driving 6 km/h too fast on an empty highway, on the 31st of December 2006 still makes my blood boil. That was absurd.
Or, in other words : just wait until you get your 1st ridiculous fine because your wife spent too much time in the bathroom and when you finally manage to actually leave the house, after ten minutes she realises that she has forgotten the tomatoes and you have to drive back home to pick them up and then have to drive faster then usual because you lost 20 minutes. Gah, gah, gah!
Hah! Never! :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
I don't have a car. I don't even have a driver's license. So if they want to fine me for anything they'll need to physically apprehend me. And no police car can beat me on a bike in a city. As for coppers on bikes - bunch of overweight snails will never catch up with va-va-voom Louis. :slomo:
The problem here are out ridiculously accurate clocks, we should go back to meeting at dawn or at noon etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Oh, I don't know, my favoured solution would be capital..... :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry
But eugenics aside, I find the whole motoring offence penalty system overly lenient. I mean you can KILL someone, and only get a couple of years. You can get away with murder if you do it with a car.
Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege - that's what "licence" means. If you want to be in the club, you follow the rules, simple as.
I wouldn't agree with this as a universal statement, but there are certainly places where it is true. Here in Utah, a number of our state highways have a normal speed limit of 65 mph, but when they pass through the little towns along the way they suddenly drop to 45, 35, or 25. The local cops sit out of sight near the speed limit sign and then nail anybody passing by who didn't see it or hasn't slowed down in time, focusing mainly on out-of-towners passing through who won't be able to make it to the local court and dispute the ticket. Many of our small towns generate the majority of their revenue this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Ajax
No kidding. They had a nice thing going, they caught us speeding occasionally, wrote tickets, we paid, everybody was happy. Then they got greedy and went too far. Well done by the state court to overturn it. After the outcry it caused, if the legislators try it again they will be out of a job. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
We have a bunch of them over here. And they're working perfectly. Take the Vålerenga tunnel in Oslo(at least I think that's the one), for example. After it was built, it had a huge amount of traffic deaths. Then they installed the camera, and the numbers went WAY down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
I just wished they'd install one here in the Strømsåstunnel, I've meet way too many idiots doing 150 km/t an hour there. And the speed limit is 80, btw...