dont speed in canada

[Carnadero]

Why wait? They can just go to all of the local Hondakawazuki shops and confiscate all the rice rockets in sight.

[smiller]

I'm not sure which is more alarming... the blatant abuse of power and legal process that this regulation represents, or the fact that some percentage of the population actually supports it.

[Fugu]

I can not find nor have I seen anyone present data which supports this belief. The two questions which beg to be answered are:

 

1. Are the fines actually a positive revenue stream?

 

Let's not confuse revenue with profit. It is a revenue stream, no doubt. As the case goes with government entities, their entire budget is spent every year, so they get the same budget next year- hence they will never show a profit or a surplus. If they have one, it will be immediately spent.

 

They spend the money from tickets on more cops to write more tickets to pay for more cops to write more tickets to pay for more cars for more cops to write more tickets from to pay for more.....

 

see here:

 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/462.asp

 

Which is from a source that might be biased, but links to raw data from which they derived their estimate of revenue presumably by using an average ticket amount and applying that to the number of citations. They came up with over $2 billion in 2003. That's a meaningful figure.

 

Here's another one- subtitle "Car related fines plug $210 million dollar hole in budget:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-carcash_bd_12aug12,1,420951.story

 

It's partially impound and towing, but also includes traffic infractions like speeding.

 

 

2. When the fines were set, was the intent of the politicians to raise revenue or was it some other motivation?

 

I don't see what the intent of a crooked politician (redundant) has to do with the reality that police departments get ticket revenue.

 

This leads us back the question I asked you which you have not answered- do you have anything to support that cops writing more traffic tickets make the roads safer?

 

My point is that many times the people who create the accidents are not the ones involved.

 

We're back to the same place, though. This happens because people are inattentive, careless, and stupid. How does writing tickets or impounding property without due process fix this? Speed limits don't seem to make anybody any smarter, either.

 

People repeat offend all the time after losing their license and their cars for DUI. Stupid always finds a way.

 

 

Now, here's some support for your contention:

 

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/july9/traffic.html

 

Of course the big reported reduction in risk lasts for weeks after a citation and then disappears, but this is a bit of a case of scientists confirming common sense- for a little while after a ticket you drive like your mother.

 

The question is whether the same deterrent effect would be observed if cops pulled you over and gave you a stern talking to and a warning and made you late for work.

 

Most of us are adults for whom a couple bucks on a traffic ticket isn't a financial burden, so when we get a ticket and drive like grandma for a week, it's not the money. Of course nobody at the state level looks at this because they want to generate the revenue... Just think of the savings if we didn't have a traffic court full of people fighting tickets for 10 over.

 

Yeah, maybe it's a pipe dream but I haven't seen any proof that what we're doing produces anything but more of the same.

 

Here's a really interesting article (from a biased source, but containing a pretty even handed account of the facts, referencing data for your review). The article is about how traffic fatalities increased in Montana after they put speed limits in place after years of "reasonable and prudent"...

 

http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm

[Fugu]

I'm not sure which is more alarming... the blatant abuse of power and legal process that this regulation represents, or the fact that some percentage of the population actually supports it.

 

As with many people who say things like "It's acceptable if we imprison somebody wrongfully if our net also catches X number of bad guys" it seems that it's much easier to support things like this when you are not the victim of them going wrong or being abused.

[Ken H.]

Here's another link related to "street racing" in Ontario.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/06/21/ontario-threatens-to-crush-a-street-racers-car-before-it-hits-t/

 

It does seem a little heavy handed on the Ontario governments part.

Politicians say a lot of things, including Michael Bryant. His spouting offs are a long ways from being law. The word "crush" doesn't appear anywhere in the new statue.

[ghaverkamp]

Politicians say a lot of things, including Michael Bryant. His spouting offs are a long ways from being law. The word "crush" doesn't appear anywhere in the new statue.

 

So, they seize your car being worked on by someone whose lost his license, before it hits the street, and it obviously can't be put on the street. What are they likely to do with such a vehicle after forfeiture? Just because it doesn't say "crush" in the legislation doesn't mean it can't be done legally.

 

Forfeiture order

11.2 (1) In a proceeding commenced by the Attorney General, the Superior Court of Justice shall, subject to subsection (4) and except where it would clearly not be in the interests of justice, make an order forfeiting a vehicle to the Crown in right of Ontario if the court finds that the vehicle,

 

(a) was or is likely to be used to engage in vehicular unlawful activity; and

 

(b) is owned by or is in the care, control or possession of a person whose driver’s licence has been suspended under the Highway Traffic Act for vehicular unlawful activity two or more times in the preceding 10 years.

[velomoto]

Let's not confuse revenue with profit. It is a revenue stream, no doubt. As the case goes with government entities, their entire budget is spent every year, so they get the same budget next year- hence they will never show a profit or a surplus.

Sorry wrong term, meant profit by saying "positive revenue". No I was not referring to the over-all government budget. What I meant is in order to understand if there is a profit or loss associated with ticket revenue one must do a detailed study and look at ALL the costs associated with the tickets - not just the hourly rate of the LEO stated by most studies I've seen.

 

see here:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/462.asp

 

Which is from a source that might be biased, but links to raw data from which they derived their estimate of revenue presumably by using an average ticket amount and applying that to the number of citations. They came up with over $2 billion in 2003. That's a meaningful figure.

Yes and no... The info you quote uses statements such as "generating as much as $2.4 billion in revenue". In other words they really don't know how much revenue is actually generated. More specific: what % of tickets are overturned, reduced in court, or just not paid?

 

You also overlooked the statement in the linked report by NHTSA, "Seeding continues to be cited as a major factor in almost one-third (31 percent) of traffic fatalities nationally".

 

Here's another one- subtitle "Car related fines plug $210 million dollar hole in budget:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-carcash_bd_12aug12,1,420951.story

Sorry, link doesn't work for me...

 

I don't see what the intent of a crooked politician (redundant) has to do with the reality that police departments get ticket revenue.

Hmmm we're talking about two different things. My issue is with the misguided folks who believe that tickets are intended first to make money (profits, not just revenue) as opposed to being a deterrent or punishment for breaking the law. There is no question if tickets create revenue - just whether the revenue is greater than the cost to generate the revenue AND if that is the primary reason for using the tickets/fines.

 

This leads us back the question I asked you which you have not answered- do you have anything to support that cops writing more traffic tickets make the roads safer?

If the new high fines stop street racing, do you think it will be safer on the roads which had been used for racing? If you already assume fines do not affect the driving behavior of people, then why would you be interested in any facts or data to the contrary. If fines affect the behavior of drivers and make them drive more safely (as you asserted was in another of the reports you linked) then I would suggest you have already answered your own question. No???

 

Speed limits don't seem to make anybody any smarter, either.

True, but with all things being the same, if all vehicles are moving at close to the same speed then traffic is safer.

 

Of course nobody at the state level looks at this because they want to generate the revenue...

There you go again... In case you're confused it's your statement, "because they want to generate the revenue."

 

Just think of the savings if we didn't have a traffic court full of people fighting tickets for 10 over.

My contention exactly - tickets may be a money sink when one looks at ALL the costs associated with them versus the actual revenue.

 

http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm

Interesting read - especially this note buried deep in the article: "The measured vehicle speeds only changed a few miles per hour as predicted" So this was not a case of speeds dropping due to the new limits and the fatality rate doubled. Instead other "factors" changed and the fatality rate doubled. BTW, just to be accurate Montana LEO's did give out speeding tickets before the limits were posted - it was up to the LEO's discretion!

[David]

Speaking as someone who WAS an elected official (the highest in our municipality), and who the Chief of Police answered to, I can tell you that the growth of government has nothing whatsoever to do with profit. There is no such thing as profit in government, as nobody gets it. That's very similar to a non-profit, which is a misnomer. There's profit in every organization--it's only corporations who can "take it out."

 

So most of your argument is vapid, mainly because government revenue is about the growth of government. It's about cost shifting from individuals to government bodies. It doesn't matter one whit if a speeding ticket covers or more than covers the cost of enforcing, issuing, collecting, etc.

 

It's about the growth of government.

 

And by the way, I'm not against government growth per se, and I believe in a strong police force. The only problem with introducing the element of money is that it funds more government and we end up with a self-supporting behemoth that no longer works for the people exclusively but exists to perpetuate itself, too.

[Fugu]

 

If the new high fines stop street racing, do you think it will be safer on the roads which had been used for racing?

 

Big fat IF there. I'm not willing to stipulate they will.

 

The state of Oregon enacted stiff penalties for speeders exceeding 100mph. It hasn't helped.

 

If you already assume fines do not affect the driving behavior of people, then why would you be interested in any facts or data to the contrary.

 

Because I have an open mind. You have presented no facts to make me change my position.

 

If fines affect the behavior of drivers and make them drive more safely (as you asserted was in another of the reports you linked) then I would suggest you have already answered your own question. No???

 

Not really. The report does not address what makes people change their behavior- fines or being pulled over. Maybe all we have to do is pull people over and warn them from time to time. No judge, no overhead, no cashiers...

 

Oh, but no more ticket revenue...

 

True, but with all things being the same, if all vehicles are moving at close to the same speed then traffic is safer.

 

If only speed limits and saturation patrols made traffic do this you might have a point.

 

You can't tell me you've never seen the deleterious effects a marked car in the middle of the interstate at rush hour has on traffic. It moves better when it's left to find its own flow.

 

There you go again... In case you're confused it's your statement, "because they want to generate the revenue."

 

There you go again as well. Show me how tickets = safer roads. Absent any proof that they help safety, and knowing they generate revenue, I'm making the logical connection, they want the revenue to continue.

 

My contention exactly - tickets may be a money sink when one looks at ALL the costs associated with them versus the actual revenue.

 

Bureaucracy if perfectly happy growing and not generating profit. It's a money sink by design. If they generated profit people would scream. EDIT- as David has pointed out while I've been typing this and trying to work...

 

Instead other "factors" changed and the fatality rate doubled. BTW, just to be accurate Montana LEO's did give out speeding tickets before the limits were posted - it was up to the LEO's discretion!

 

They gave out more after there was a speed limit.

 

I'm not saying MT is definitive here, but it can't be ignored.

[velomoto]

If the new high fines stop street racing, do you think it will be safer on the roads which had been used for racing?

Big fat IF there. I'm not willing to stipulate they will.

My bad, I really thot there was a simple common sense idea somewhere up there: If fines stop street racing, then no racing means safer streets. Thanks for the insight.

[velomoto]

So most of your argument is vapid, mainly because government revenue is about the growth of government.

How did we get to "growth of government"??? This wasn't my point or "argument" what so ever. BTW, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China???

[David]

Velomoto

 

One more try--this time a tad slower. You keep saying it's not about the revenue because no one can demonstrate that entities are "making a profit."

 

Governments don't make a profit, my dear fellow. They fund operations.

[Boffin]

One more try--this time a tad slower. You keep saying it's not about the revenue because no one can demonstrate that entities are "making a profit."

 

Governments don't make a profit, my dear fellow. They fund operations.

 

David, I think the term 'profit' here is the cause of contention. How I read Velomoto's argument is that the costs of issuing and processing the tickets may be higher than the revenue they generate. If that were true then fewer tickets would be lower overall costs to government (assuming the infrastructure were reduced in line).

In other words, Ticketing violators only generates income to support governmental growth if the level of fines levied is higher than the costs of processing them.

 

For what its worth, I believe that the level of punishment is less important than the probability of getting caught. If any given offender thinks they have almost no chance of being caught then the punishment is irrelevant as they will not, in their minds, be getting punished.

 

Effective and thorough enforcement of existing laws would almost certainly be more effective at making the worlds roads safer. Society as a whole however, seems to be unwilling to pay the premium, both in terms of finance and personal 'inconvenience' of that level of policing.

 

Andy

[duckbubbles]

The only problem with introducing the element of money is that it funds more government and we end up with a self-supporting behemoth that no longer works for the people exclusively but exists to perpetuate itself

THAT is the truest statement is this whole argument.

 

Frank

[David]

David, I think the term 'profit' here is the cause of contention. How I read Lentmoto's argument is that the costs of issuing and processing the tickets may be higher than the revenue they generate. If that were true then fewer tickets would be lower overall costs to government (assuming the infrastructure were reduced in line).

In other words, Ticketing violators only generates income to support governmental growth if the level of fines levied is higher than the costs of processing them.

 

I understand that, Andy. But just like the government does not run with profit, the government doesn't care all that much if it runs with a deficit. That's when taxes are raised to cover "essential" services. Unfortunately, a service is deemed "essential" if a) people are crying for it or b) it's already being done, advisedly or not.

 

I'm just saying that you cannot look too closely at the cost side of government--it's more the revenue side. If governments looked at both, they would be far more efficient.

 

In our city, millions of dollars are generated from traffic fines. Recently there was a drop in that revenue, which the government had come to depend on. So what happened? Ticketing increased. Whether it made sense economically was not on anybody's agenda in government.

 

Effective and thorough enforcement of existing laws would almost certainly be more effective at making the worlds roads safer. Society as a whole however, seems to be unwilling to pay the premium, both in terms of finance and personal 'inconvenience' of that level of policing.

 

I agree with both of these statements. I think we ought to spend MORE money on driving enforcement, but I'd like to see it supported by taxes, not fines. And I'd like enforcement to go after those who are posing a greater danger but who are less efficient to catch. Things like unsafe lane changes, tailgating, unsafe loads, etc. All these will require greater court time proving and so on. I'm fine with that.

 

This over-reliance on speeding fines to control traffic safety is the result of small thinking. In modern society we usually take the easy approach. There's little analysis, disciplined thinking, or courage to make the tough decisions.

 

"Let's just pick the low-hanging 'speeder' fruit, hit them with money fines, and call it safer."

 

That's ignorant, cowardly, and it introduces money collection, which seems to always lead to corruption.

[motorman587]

Where do you get your information from?? Our department has unmarked aggressive driving cars that are funded by grants that we recieve from the state. We just won an SUV for being the number #1 traffic unit in the country and and was not because of speeding tickets.

 

I do not see "us" has being ignorant, cowardly, and just collecting money. I definitely do not see use corrupt.

 

What I saw in my travels to Alaska was this. In large city you never saw a police car. Why?? Being a cop I know that most officer are answering calls to calls, no time for traffic enforcement. In wide open country, where there is less crime, what to the cops do. Traffic enforcment.

 

You wish more enforcemnt on other violations. Have been a Traffic Homicide Investigator for the last 13 years. In most of my cases three factors are always there. Speed, alcohol and no seatbelts.

[David]

Where do you get your information from??

 

Reading, talking, observing, and being in government as an elected official to whom the Chief of Police answered.

I do not see "us" has being ignorant, cowardly, and just collecting money. I definitely do not see use corrupt.

 

The statement about ignorant and cowardly was referring to citizens (us), not officers (you). We as citizens are blessing this lazy approach.

 

You wish more enforcemnt on other violations. Have been a Traffic Homicide Investigator for the last 13 years. In most of my cases three factors are always there. Speed, alcohol and no seatbelts.

 

Well, I'm certainly no expert on this. Your experience is far superior, and I'll have to defer to you. Let me ask a question, though. Would it be fair to say that it's not pure speed, but speed combined with something else? Like speed combined with tailgating, fast lane changes, wrong lane, etc.? That's an honest question.

 

John, in spite of witnessing police brutality and dishonesty directly, I have overwhelming respect for the police force in our country. I know the boys and like 'em a lot. It's the system that needs reforming. What you guys do for what you get paid is insane.

[bakerzdosen]

Let me ask a question, though. Would it be fair to say that it's not pure speed, but speed combined with something else? Like speed combined with tailgating, fast lane changes, wrong lane, etc.? That's an honest question.

The problem is, you can always say that in the US. It's speed combined with poor driver training (as compared to Germany and much of Western Europe.)

 

 

High speeds simply amplify bad habits or reveal bad skills. I have no doubt that even though I've driven around 150mph numerous times while driving across Germany without incident, if you stick me in a Nascar race without proper training, I'd wreck.

[russell_bynum]

Let me ask a question, though. Would it be fair to say that it's not pure speed, but speed combined with something else? Like speed combined with tailgating, fast lane changes, wrong lane, etc.? That's an honest question.

The problem is, you can always say that in the US. It's speed combined with poor driver training (as compared to Germany and much of Western Europe.)

 

 

High speeds simply amplify bad habits or reveal bad skills. I have no doubt that even though I've driven around 150mph numerous times while driving across Germany without incident, if you stick me in a Nascar race without proper training, I'd wreck.

 

Right. That's what David said...Speed combined with something else.

 

I would include "Pathetic skill level" in the "something else" category.

[RonStewart]

I would include "Pathetic skill level" in the "something else" category.

Okay. No argument there. Now, what should politicians do about that? Practically - not theoretically.

 

We are saying that speed plus ineptitude is dangerous. It probably follows (and I believe that it does) that reducing the speed will reduce the danger. Practically, the easy (possible? politically possible? affordable?) thing to do is enforce speed limits. I have a hard time imagining how we could reduce the ineptitude. Any better ideas?

 

I wonder how well the German comparison holds. In my few rides on the Autobahn, I found that most traffic was doing about 130 km/h, which is just a bit faster than the 120 km/h that people drive around here on similar roads. Yeah, some people would blast by at 160, but not too many. It is pretty expensive to operate at that speed. Anyway, I have no idea how auto-dependent Germany is, but I would bet that the average American or Canadian travels two are three times as far in cars as the average German in any given year. So politically, it is much easier to have tougher licensing standards in Germany, where people have less dependence on cars.

[russell_bynum]

Okay. No argument there. Now, what should politicians do about that? Practically - not theoretically.

 

Nothing. They can't do anything because the first politician to stand up and tell people to take responsibility for their own actions is going to be out of a job. People don't want to hear that.

 

We are saying that speed plus ineptitude is dangerous. It probably follows (and I believe that it does) that reducing the speed will reduce the danger. Practically, the easy (possible? politically possible? affordable?) thing to do is enforce speed limits.

 

What if, when you make people go slower, they just increase their ineptitude more by increasing distractions (short term) and reducing their skill level even more (long term)?

 

There's no denying the fact that cars and roads have become safer over the last 30 years. Speed limits haven't changed all that much (there are a few exceptions of course). What's happened with the accident rate as cars have become "better"?

[RonStewart]

There's no denying the fact that cars and roads have become safer over the last 30 years. Speed limits haven't changed all that much (there are a few exceptions of course).

I can't deny it, but I suspect that it is not true. There are a LOT more vehicles on roads that have not been significantly upgraded. That makes them more dangerous.

 

What's happened with the accident rate as cars have become "better"?

I don't know. If you do, please tell me.

[russell_bynum]

I can't deny it, but I suspect that it is not true. There are a LOT more vehicles on roads that have not been significantly upgraded. That makes them more dangerous.

 

That's not been my impression at all.

 

I think you'd have trouble finding many cars in the parking lot at my work that didn't have at least 2 air bags.

 

I'm very much the oddball with my 1985 car. There's a few in the lot that are older, but most of those are classics and no normal daily drivers.

 

I don't have any data on that, of course...but I don't see very many pre-airbag, pre-abs, etc cars out there on my commute.

 

 

I don't know. If you do, please tell me.

 

I don't know either. I have a hunch (I think there have been more accidents per vehicle mile.) but I don't know.

[RonStewart]

Russell, we are both falling into the trap of careless language. I think that more cars on the road means more accidents per driving mile. You think that the safety features like air bags mean less severe injury per accident. We will probably agree that ABS on more cars means fewer accidents per driving mile. It gets complicated and off-topic pretty quickly.

 

Personally, I would like to see speed limits raised a bit and enforcement and penalties raised a bunch. I once got a ticket for 130 km/h in a 110 zone. If it was so dangerous, why did the Mountie jump in front of my minivan to halt me? That road should have a 130 km/h limit.

 

Given reasonable limits, I would like to see automatic 30-day driving prohibition for 60% over.

[russell_bynum]

We will probably agree that ABS on more cars means fewer accidents per driving mile.

 

Actually, I was going to say the opposite. Not because ABS makes cars more dangerous, but because it makes drivers more complacent.

 

Personally, I would like to see speed limits raised a bit and enforcement and penalties raised a bunch.

 

I don't have a problem with that. Set reasonable limits (vs. what we have today where a long straight flat road with great visibility in the middle of nowhere has a 55mph limit) then punish people who violate those limits.

[velomoto]

David, thank you for typing slower - that and your use of sarcasm certain adds to the discussion. That said, I did speak with a good friend who has been on a city council for a couple of years and he is as perplexed (as I) with your inability to grasp the concept of "profit". He indicated that his city council ALWAYS looks at a program to see if it will be a net positive cash flow (aka "profit") or produce a deficit.

 

Andy, thank you for helping with the explanation.

 

Additionally, question the validity of your statement that "that the growth of government has nothing whatsoever to do with profit." If a program is running a deficit, then the city/state government must fund or cut the program by either redirecting funds or raising taxes. If one assumes that all governments can and will raise taxes whenever and however, this is wrong. Perhaps in your city this is true, but certainly this is not the case here in Fort Collins where tax increases always seem to be placed on the general ballot - most tax measures are voted down leaving the city with hard choices.

[velomoto]

I would include "Pathetic skill level" in the "something else" category.

Okay. No argument there. Now, what should politicians do about that? Practically - not theoretically.

Ron, excellent point. We all but give out licenses in the US of A.

 

Practical solution: how about a REAL drivers test which actually requires studying and practice? Based on what I've read in a number of places, Germany's system continually comes up as a positive place to start looking.

[David]

David, thank you for typing slower - that and your use of sarcasm certain adds to the discussion.

 

Glad to be of assistance. But apparently I'm still typing too quickly. Someone else who does, perhaps, understand what I'm saying should probably step in and say this another way so that you understand what I'm saying. I don't care if you agree--I'm more interested in getting my point across, which isn't happening.

[Agent_Orange]

[Dave McReynolds]

Someone else who does, perhaps, understand what I'm saying should probably step in and say this another way so that you understand what I'm saying. I don't care if you agree--I'm more interested in getting my point across, which isn't happening.

 

Don't know if I totally understand the points either of you are trying to make, or if my own thoughts will clarify or muddy the situation, but here goes:

 

Governmental bodies certainly care about preserving their revenue sources, and have an understanding that if the revenue sources do not cover expenditures, eventually something will have to be cut. "Eventually" is a longer time frame depending on the level of government. "Eventually" comes sooner for city governments than for state governments than for the federal government.

 

However, what is cut usually has no bearing on the related revenue sources. For example, homicide investigators produce little or no revenue, but will probably not be cut when revenues are less than expenditures. Game wardens, who produce revenue in excess of their cost either directly through fines or indirectly through hunting license fees, may be cut. Services that are not considered socially or politically important, and also do not produce revenues in excess of their cost, such as libraries and rest stops along highways, are obviously prime candidates to be cut, but the decision to cut them is always based more on the expected political heat than related revenues. Popular facilities that pay for themselves, such as boat launch ramps or airport parking, will not be cut, but no real effort is made to account for "profits," even to the extent of setting up separate funds to identify all direct and indirect revenues and costs. And much needed repairs/upgrades may be deferred in such facilities even though they produce enough direct revenue to pay for them. Unless specifically earmarked, excess revenues from such operations are just part of the general fund that pays for everything else.

 

Compare this with a business, where efforts are made to measure profits by product line, and generally unprofitable product lines are cut. There are exceptions to this. For example, in the past, room rates and meals were kept low in Las Vegas in the belief that it brought in the gamblers. However, this was carefully monitored and constantly questioned every year to see if this reasoning was valid. In recent years, this reasoning has been determined not to be valid anymore, so room rates and restaurant charges were adjusted upwards so they would carry themselves. But the big difference is, whether they knowingly decided to make a profit on rooms and meals or not, it was always a matter of great concern to them and they were always careful to measure whatever amount of profit they may have gained or lost as a result of their decision.

 

To summarize, decisions about what services or products to offer in a business will always be based on expected profits. Decisions about what products or services to offer by a governmental body will be based on political considerations. Revenues are only important to the extent they are sufficient to fund governmental operations, or to the extent additional revenues may enable additional programs, which may or may not be related to the source of the revenues.

[Ken H.]

[someone else who does, perhaps, understand what I'm saying should probably step in and say this another way so that you understand what I'm saying. I don't care if you agree--I'm more interested in getting my point across, which isn't happening.

"Profit" is created in an organization for the purpose of monetarily enriching the owners of the organization. Governments don't do or have that. They take in revenue for the purpose of providing a service. No owners exist to be monetarily enriched through the direct or indirect distribution of a profit.

[codougd]

I made a concerted effort to stay out of this discussion but this is getting a little silly.

 

Point 1: The confiscation law in Canada is pretty clearly overreach and outrageous

Point 2: Yes, there are such things as speed traps. Ask me how I know.

Point 3: Most municipalities and states enforce traffic laws for the right reason: to keep the idiots on the road alive.

 

Some years back the state of Colorado, where I live, raised the fines for speeding. As I recall (and I could be wrong about the details), from about 5 over to about 15 over, the fine per mph-over-the-limit doubled. Above that the scale got real non-linear.

 

The start day for the new fines was widely publicized. Then for the first month or so, folks with run of the mill tickets (up to about 15 over as I recall) got warnings with a clear indication of how much the citation could have cost.

 

Sure enough, when the real tickets started being issued, the whining and crying began. A local tv station here in Colorado Springs sent the News Babe with the Action Cam to the courthouse in Pueblo where a line of folks was waiting to contest their tickets and get court dates. The News Babe, to her great credit, asked some very pertinent questions of the folks in line.

 

News Babe: How many of you have tickets for 5 over? Hold up your hands. (No hands)

N.B.: 10 over? (1 person)

N.B,: 15 over? (a smattering of hands)

N.B.: More than 15 over? (lots of hands)

 

So, I say, pay your fine and shut up. If you are going 20+ mph over the limit you ARE speeding and, what's more, you KNOW you are speeding.

 

And, BTW, the idea of having real skill-based testing for drivers' licenses is great. But, it's not going to happen until folks get over their reflex reaction to government asking us for money. Nothing is free. Bitch about the long lines at the DMV if you want, but if you want to identify the culprit and you are one of those folks who rant about taxes, look in the mirror. You have met the enemy and it is you.

 

Anyway, my $0.03 worth (inflation).

[onmyrt]

Couldn't agree more

+1

[h2000fb]

So, if you are charged $9300 for going 31mph over the speed limit on a deserted highway and hurt no one, I have to ask:

- How much do they fine a drunk driver?

- On the 4 drunk driving charge - is there a manditory $10,000 fine?

- Does a fine for road rage cost $9300?

- If someone is going 40mph on a 70mph road, how much are they fined?

- If some pulls out in front of me, I have the right of way, and we are involved in a severe or fatal accident, how much are they fined?

- If someone HAS AIDS, and HAS SEX with someone w/o telling them of the AIDs problem, how much do they fine them?

- If someone pulls a knife on someone....

 

Anyway, you get point. The point is, it will not be set in stone, with no recourse, no negotiation, at anywhere near as high as $9300. Is this equity? My problem is the inequity of punishments from these sorry feel good, liberal bleeding heart liberal judges and politicians.

[codougd]

So, if you are charged $9300 for going 31mph over the speed limit on a deserted highway and hurt no one, I have to ask:

- How much do they fine a drunk driver?

- On the 4 drunk driving charge - is there a manditory $10,000 fine?

- Does a fine for road rage cost $9300?

- If someone is going 40mph on a 70mph road, how much are they fined?

- If some pulls out in front of me, I have the right of way, and we are involved in a severe or fatal accident, how much are they fined?

- If someone HAS AIDS, and HAS SEX with someone w/o telling them of the AIDs problem, how much do they fine them?

- If someone pulls a knife on someone....

 

Anyway, you get point. The point is, it will not be set in stone, with no recourse, no negotiation, at anywhere near as high as $9300. Is this equity? My problem is the inequity of punishments from these sorry feel good, liberal bleeding heart liberal judges and politicians.

Whoa, dude. I clearly stated that confiscating the guys bike was way over the line. However, a number of posters in this thread seem to think that since they "aren't hurting anyone" when they break the law, it's ok and if they get caught that somehow the cops are just out for money. That is total c$#p.

 

I know personal responsibility is a quaint notion these days. But, the law is the law. If you break it, pay your fine and move on.

 

If you don't like the law, fix it the all American way: go buy a legislator

[onmyrt]

Couldn't agree more

+2

[Fugu]

But, the law is the law. If you break it, pay your fine and move on.

Exctly - because all laws are just and reasonable or else they wouldn't be laws, right?

 

It is our responsibility to break laws that are unjust, not just go along. This country was founded on, and improved by that very idea.

 

 

 

As for your comment that anybody who bitches about taxes being too high is the problem- when the government cuts all the ridiculous waste from programs funded with my tax dollars I'll grant you your point.

 

People would likely complain about paying taxes regardless of the efficiency of government or the lack thereof, but at this particular point in time your argument is rendered baseless by the squandering of billions and billions of tax dollars.

[codougd]

But, the law is the law. If you break it, pay your fine and move on.

Exctly - because all laws are just and reasonable or else they wouldn't be laws, right?

 

It is our responsibility to break laws that are unjust, not just go along. This country was founded on, and improved by that very idea.

 

 

 

As for your comment that anybody who bitches about taxes being too high is the problem- when the government cuts all the ridiculous waste from programs funded with my tax dollars I'll grant you your point.

 

People would likely complain about paying taxes regardless of the efficiency of government or the lack thereof, but at this particular point in time your argument is rendered baseless by the squandering of billions and billions of tax dollars.

 

"It is our responsibility to break laws that are unjust, not just go along. This country was founded on, and improved by that very idea."

 

OK. Go ahead. But what exactly is unjust about a speed limit? If you choose to speed on the same road that I am riding/driving on, you potentially put me and my family at risk. I don't see this in the same light as tossing the tea in Boston harbor. And, BTW, when you are apprehended, you have no moral or ethical claim to get out of the punishment. Break the law if you choose, but as the saying goes, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

 

"As for your comment that anybody who bitches about taxes being too high is the problem- when the government cuts all the ridiculous waste from programs funded with my tax dollars I'll grant you your point."

 

Let me be more clear. Most folks just bitch about taxes. They never do anything about it other than vote down bond requests. How many "citizens" show up at the school board meetings to try to influence how their property taxes are spent? How many show up at city council meetings or town hall meetings or the myriad meetings that various government agencies hold for public comment? Wait, I know the answer: almost none. How do I know? I DO show up. And I am usually one of a literal handful.

 

When is the last time you wrote to your elected officials? Do you even vote? Perhaps you are one of the few who do.

 

"but at this particular point in time your argument is rendered baseless by the squandering of billions and billions of tax dollars."

 

I don't think so. First, government can and does work. Here in Colorado Springs, in response to very valid complaints, changes were made to the El Paso county motor vehicle offices. Money was spent to hire some additional clerks, improve the computer systems and move to better locations. As a result, what used to be an hours long ordeal is now actually pleasant. When I went to register my new R1200RT, I was in and out in 15 minutes.

 

And, one thing I am confused about in your reply. Is it your argument that because government is wasteful rules and laws can and/or should be ignored?

 

IMHO, most of the folks who blow past me on the road at 20 or 30 over are not principled scofflaws but inconsiderate jerks who speed because they want to and to hell with the rest of us.

 

Anyway, we will probably have to agree to disagree.

[ghaverkamp]

However, a number of posters in this thread seem to think that since they "aren't hurting anyone" when they break the law, it's ok and if they get caught that somehow the cops are just out for money. That is total c$#p.

 

I know personal responsibility is a quaint notion these days. But, the law is the law. If you break it, pay your fine and move on.

 

Whereas some posters in this thread seem unable to distinguish between discussing the rationales behind arbitrary laws and disclaiming responsibility for violating laws or regulations. I don't believe anyone has written that the cops are just out for the money; I doubt anyone here believes the cops are seeing commissions from tickets. (This is entirely different from red light cameras, which are generally privately operated, and the operators do receive a cut of every ticket, which makes their operation suspect.)

 

It has nothing to do with personal responsibility. This has been a discussion about a ridiculous, feel-good law. It has not been a discussion about how someone got a ticket and shouldn't have to pay it.

 

How do I know? I DO show up. And I am usually one of a literal handful.

 

Really? Literally a handful of people? Big hands or little people?

 

IMHO, most of the folks who blow past me on the road at 20 or 30 over are not principled scofflaws but inconsiderate jerks who speed because they want to and to hell with the rest of us.

 

Is it because they are violating a law you hold near and dear, like some well thought out speed limit? Or is it just because they're doing something differently from the way you're doing it that makes the person an inconsiderate jerk?

 

Finally...

[/i]There are ten kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don't. [/i]

 

It's "10 kinds of people" not "ten kinds of people."

[smiller]

It's "10 kinds of people" not "ten kinds of people."

Apparently there are only 10 kinds of people who get the joke.

[codougd]

However, a number of posters in this thread seem to think that since they "aren't hurting anyone" when they break the law, it's ok and if they get caught that somehow the cops are just out for money. That is total c$#p.

 

I know personal responsibility is a quaint notion these days. But, the law is the law. If you break it, pay your fine and move on.

 

Whereas some posters in this thread seem unable to distinguish between discussing the rationales behind arbitrary laws and disclaiming responsibility for violating laws or regulations. I don't believe anyone has written that the cops are just out for the money; I doubt anyone here believes the cops are seeing commissions from tickets. (This is entirely different from red light cameras, which are generally privately operated, and the operators do receive a cut of every ticket, which makes their operation suspect.)

 

It has nothing to do with personal responsibility. This has been a discussion about a ridiculous, feel-good law. It has not been a discussion about how someone got a ticket and shouldn't have to pay it.

 

How do I know? I DO show up. And I am usually one of a literal handful.

 

Really? Literally a handful of people? Big hands or little people?

 

IMHO, most of the folks who blow past me on the road at 20 or 30 over are not principled scofflaws but inconsiderate jerks who speed because they want to and to hell with the rest of us.

 

Is it because they are violating a law you hold near and dear, like some well thought out speed limit? Or is it just because they're doing something differently from the way you're doing it that makes the person an inconsiderate jerk?

 

Finally...

[/i]There are ten kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don't. [/i]

 

It's "10 kinds of people" not "ten kinds of people."

 

1. I should have been clearer. The opinion that speed laws are merely revenue generating is, IMHO, inaccurate. Conceding the existence of true speed traps and the existence of some posted speed limits that seem to have no connection with conditions or reality, speed limits are intended to keep folks alive. I did not mean to imply that individual police officers get a cut and thus have an economic motive to issue tickets.

 

2. I'll ignore the sarcasm in the comment about my lack of symmetry in the sentence regarding the sparse attendance at public meetings.

 

3. re: your last comment, "Is it because they are violating a law you hold near and dear, like some well thought out speed limit? Or is it just because they're doing something differently from the way you're doing it that makes the person an inconsiderate jerk?" My problem with folks driving that much above the speed of the rest of the traffic is that they are endangering me and others. That fits my definition of inconsiderate jerk. And, it is not that I hold the law "near and dear", it is just that it IS the law and I choose to obey it.

 

And, BTW, 10 and ten are both acceptable usage in the context of my personal signature message. If you don't get the boolean joke, that's ok.

[Fugu]

what exactly is unjust about a speed limit?

 

It infringes on my pursuit of happiness, that happiness derived from screaming across wide open spaces at high velocity when you and your grandkids are not around to endanger.

 

 

If you choose to speed on the same road that I am riding/driving on, you potentially put me and my family at risk.

You are the only one I see talking about very elevated speeds in traffic.

 

 

 

I don't see this in the same light as tossing the tea in Boston harbor.

 

It's not. That was a protest. I just don't respect or follow some laws I think are unjust/ stupid/ unnecessary as I see fit, when that's not endangering others.

 

When is the last time you wrote to your elected officials? Do you even vote?

Last month and I take voting very seriously, not to validate this question from you that is nothing but a thinly veiled insult.

 

 

government can and does work. Here in Colorado Springs, in response to very valid complaints, changes were made to the El Paso county motor vehicle offices.

 

The DMV is your shining example of government efficiency?

 

I spent 3 hours waiting to take an open book multiple choice "test" so a clerk could take my OR driver's license, take a new picture of me, and issue me a UT license with a picture on it that looks just like the digital picture on the UT concealed handgun license issued to me less than 6 months prior... Oh, that just reeks of efficiency, doesn't it?

 

Is it your argument that because government is wasteful rules and laws can and/or should be ignored?

 

You can't point to a single thing I've said to support this statement. You brought up taxes, which led to this sidebar about inefficiency.

 

IMHO, most of the folks who blow past me on the road at 20 or 30 over are not principled scofflaws but inconsiderate jerks who speed because they want to and to hell with the rest of us.

 

So you like to pour walkways first and then try to force people to follow them instead of putting walkways where people walk.

 

Fine. Just stay in your lane and everybody's happy.

[Fugu]

Conceding the existence of true speed traps and the existence of some posted speed limits that seem to have no connection with conditions or reality, speed limits are intended to keep folks alive.

 

The intent is not relevant. The current fact is that they generate revenue, and as such, decisions to do things like "saturation patrols" and to create special divisions focused on writing high volumes of tickets on certain roads at certain times are inherently suspect.

 

It has been shown to be true that private companies getting a cut of traffic camera ticket revenue have tweaked their systems to write more tickets using questionable means. Government agencies funded in part by the same revenues are not above the same shady tactics.

[ghaverkamp]

1. I should have been clearer. The opinion that speed laws are merely revenue generating is, IMHO, inaccurate. Conceding the existence of true speed traps and the existence of some posted speed limits that seem to have no connection with conditions or reality, speed limits are intended to keep folks alive. I did not mean to imply that individual police officers get a cut and thus have an economic motive to issue tickets.

 

Laws requiring and enforcing safe driving (such as basic speed laws) may be about promoting safety. Absolute, arbitrary speed limit laws are in place because they're objective, easy to enforce, and easier and cheaper to prosecute. Speed laws are about the perception of safety, not actual safety. They use speed as a proxy for "unsafe."

 

My problem with folks driving that much above the speed of the rest of the traffic is that they are endangering me and others. That fits my definition of inconsiderate jerk. And, it is not that I hold the law "near and dear", it is just that it IS the law and I choose to obey it.

 

Of course, you wrote nothing of people going 20-30 MPH faster than other traffic. You wrote about people going 20-30 MPH over the speed limit. With considerable traffic, 20-30 over the flow of traffic may be wildly unsafe. However, you seem to hold speed limits as some meaningful measure of safe.

 

And, BTW, 10 and ten are both acceptable usage in the context of my personal signature message. If you don't get the boolean joke, that's ok.

 

I got the joke I thought you were trying to tell. If you don't understand my criticism, then I'm not so sure you get it.

[Agent_Orange]

[dmk]

And, BTW, 10 and ten are both acceptable usage in the context of my personal signature message. If you don't get the boolean joke, that's ok.

 

I got the joke I thought you were trying to tell. If you don't understand my criticism, then I'm not so sure you get it.

 

Well, he said it's a "boolean" joke.

[velomoto]

If you choose to speed on the same road that I am riding/driving on, you potentially put me and my family at risk.

You are the only one I see talking about very elevated speeds in traffic.

FYI, it is not uncommon to be passed in traffic by people going 20++ mph over the limit. Based on what has been written in other recent BMWST threads this is NOT unique to Colorado.

 

I just don't respect or follow some laws I think are unjust/ stupid/ unnecessary as I see fit, when that's not endangering others.

This is exactly what I teach my kids... "Children, laws that you don't like are only for the little people"

[Fugu]

FYI, it is not uncommon to be passed in traffic by people going 20++ mph over the limit.

 

Never said it was uncommon. I'm talking about how stupid it is for a 65mph speed limit to be enforced in the middle of nowhere and you two are saying it's necessary for safety in traffic. Apples and oranges.

 

Do you obey every speed limit even when there's nobody else around in the middle of nowhere?

 

Do you obey every traffic law when you are on your pedal bike?

 

BTW, you find that proof correlating traffic law enforcement with increased safety yet?

 

This is exactly what I teach my kids... "Children, laws that you don't like are only for the little people"

 

Your children don't have the judgement of an adult (I'm not sure you do, either). I really hope you are not raising them to believe that laws = right with no exceptions.

[codougd]

OK, time to reel this in.

 

First, if anything I have said has been taken as dismissive or insulting, that was not my intent.

 

Looking back over the posts, yes, I appear to be alone in talking about speeding in traffic. That said, the fact that, as you note, "it is not uncommon" to be passed in traffic by folks going 20 or 30 over does not make it safe or right. We'll have to disagree on this one.

 

We will really have to disagree with your statement about simply disregarding laws you think are "unjust/stupid/unnecessary". I think the measure of a person's character is whether or not they obey the law when no one is looking.

 

In all my posts I have meant no offense. But, I do disagree with anyone who thinks it is OK to just pick and choose the laws they will obey.

 

Ride safe.

[russell_bynum]

FYI, it is not uncommon to be passed in traffic by people going 20++ mph over the limit.

 

This happened to me several times yesterday.

 

Some maniac passed me at probably 95mph (speed limit was 70mph).

 

I was going 90 at the time, as was the rest of the traffic around me.

 

Scared the hell out of me.