Poll of the Day > Goddamn the cost for traffic violations has gotten completely out of control

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
OneTimeBen 07/11/18 6:51:13 AM #103:	Sounds like the driving age should be raised. Or treated more like a privilege like in most Europien countries. Where it costs over a grand US to even obtain a drivers license. And a tip. Most interactions with police go well if you arent a punk bech. --- Still waters run deep. C-walk. IntelDarkWeb <cite>OneTimeBen posted [p:904872186] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote>Sounds like the driving age should be raised. Or treated more like a privilege like in most Europien countries. Where it costs over a grand US to even obtain a drivers license. And a tip. Most interactions with police go well if you arent a punk bech.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/11/18 10:03:30 AM #104:	zebatov posted... Try fighting bulls* legislation instead of asking "How high?" Or just don't drink and drive. It really doesn't matter how many manage to make it home safely. Most idiots who unambiguously qualify for Dangerous Driving charges make it home safely, because the majority of the people on the road are competent enough drivers to mitigate their idiocy provided nothing else is going wrong. That doesn't mean they aren't driving dangerously, it just means they got lucky enough to avoid situations to which they would have been unable to react safely. Statistically, people who drive like that have a much higher risk of getting into serious crashes. Almost every single one of them would be happy to tell you that they're a special snowflake who's the exception to that because nothing too bad has ever happened to them and they're good at driving like that, but that's not a reason to accept their recklessness. Same with alcohol. Alcohol impairs reflexes and judgement, both of which are vitally important for driving. That's an undeniable fact. That you don't notice that impairment doesn't mean it isn't happening, nor that you aren't at a much higher risk of causing a collision. That you are less impaired than some others might be at the same BAC also doesn't mean you aren't impaired at all. Being impaired puts you at a higher risk of crashing, and that's never a good thing. If you can avoid it, you should, and mandating that by law is perfectly reasonable. Quite simply, if you're drinking, don't drive. If you're driving, don't drink. You never need to drink, even if it would be fun to do so. If you do feel the need to drink, consider voluntarily giving up your license until you deal with your alcoholism. Incidentally, the fact that towing and impound fees compound as rapidly as they do if you are unable to afford any one of them is part of the spiral of debt alluded to earlier that means lower-income people suffer unduly for any traffic violations they may commit. That is indeed a problem, which is only going to be fixed if fines start taking the offender's financial means into account somehow. As bad as that is, though, the only way you're going to lose a license for DUI's is if you're a repeat offender, and DUI offenders stop deserving any sort of sympathy after the first offense. Once can be a mistake, and should be treated as a wake-up call. Twice is wanton disregard for everyone else on the road. Don't drink and drive. Just don't. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:904878050] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>Try fighting bulls* legislation instead of asking "How high?"</quote> Or just don't drink and drive. It really doesn't matter how many manage to make it home safely. Most idiots who unambiguously qualify for Dangerous Driving charges make it home safely, because the majority of the people on the road are competent enough drivers to mitigate their idiocy provided nothing else is going wrong. That doesn't mean they aren't driving dangerously, it just means they got lucky enough to avoid situations to which they would have been unable to react safely. Statistically, people who drive like that have a much higher risk of getting into serious crashes. Almost every single one of them would be happy to tell you that they're a special snowflake who's the exception to that because nothing too bad has ever happened to them and they're good at driving like that, but that's not a reason to accept their recklessness. Same with alcohol. Alcohol impairs reflexes and judgement, both of which are vitally important for driving. That's an undeniable fact. That you don't notice that impairment doesn't mean it isn't happening, nor that you aren't at a much higher risk of causing a collision. That you are less impaired than some others might be at the same BAC also doesn't mean you aren't impaired at all. Being impaired puts you at a higher risk of crashing, and that's never a good thing. If you can avoid it, you should, and mandating that by law is perfectly reasonable. Quite simply, if you're drinking, don't drive. If you're driving, don't drink. You never need to drink, even if it would be fun to do so. If you do feel the need to drink, consider voluntarily giving up your license until you deal with your alcoholism. Incidentally, the fact that towing and impound fees compound as rapidly as they do if you are unable to afford any one of them is part of the spiral of debt alluded to earlier that means lower-income people suffer unduly for any traffic violations they may commit. That is indeed a problem, which is only going to be fixed if fines start taking the offender's financial means into account somehow. As bad as that is, though, the only way you're going to lose a license for DUI's is if you're a repeat offender, and DUI offenders stop deserving any sort of sympathy after the first offense. Once can be a mistake, and should be treated as a wake-up call. Twice is wanton disregard for everyone else on the road. Don't drink and drive. Just don't.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 07/11/18 12:23:11 PM #105:	adjl posted... As bad as that is, though, the only way you're going to lose a license for DUI's is if you're a repeat offender, and DUI offenders stop deserving any sort of sympathy after the first offense. Once can be a mistake, and should be treated as a wake-up call. Twice is wanton disregard for everyone else on the road. Don't drink and drive. Just don't. I can't say for sure, but it seems like it might be different for where he's from. At least, from the way he explained it... It's seems like shit could go wrong fast after only once. But maybe that's just from how I'm reading it... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:904885011] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>As bad as that is, though, the only way you're going to lose a license for DUI's is if you're a repeat offender, and DUI offenders stop deserving any sort of sympathy after the first offense. Once can be a mistake, and should be treated as a wake-up call. Twice is wanton disregard for everyone else on the road. Don't drink and drive. Just don't.</quote> I can't say for sure, but it seems like it might be different for where he's from. At least, from the way he explained it... It's seems like shit could go wrong fast after only once. But maybe that's just from how I'm reading it...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
zebatov 07/11/18 4:12:09 PM #106:	Jen0125 posted... zebatov posted... Try fighting bullshit legislation instead of asking "How high?" or try not trying to justify your shitty behavior by not drinking and driving. See my first response. LinkPizza posted... I can't say for sure, but it seems like it might be different for where he's from. At least, from the way he explained it... It's seems like shit could go wrong fast after only once. But maybe that's just from how I'm reading it... You read it correctly. @adjl If the statistics don't matter, why do they show the negative ones as if they're worse than the positive ones in commercials? Fear-mongering at its finest. What I'm wondering is where the province is going to get all its money from once vehicles drive themselves and there are no more speeding tickets or impaired fines. There's no way I'm owning a vehicle that drives itself and being held accountable for any issues that may occur. And I won't be paying insurance. --- lolmodhagomi <cite>zebatov posted [p:904898155] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jen0125 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>Try fighting bullshit legislation instead of asking "How high?" </quote> or try not trying to justify your shitty behavior by not drinking and driving.</quote> See my first response. <cite>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>I can't say for sure, but it seems like it might be different for where he's from. At least, from the way he explained it... It's seems like shit could go wrong fast after only once. But maybe that's just from how I'm reading it...</quote> You read it correctly. @adjl If the statistics don't matter, why do they show the negative ones as if they're worse than the positive ones in commercials? Fear-mongering at its finest. What I'm wondering is where the province is going to get all its money from once vehicles drive themselves and there are no more speeding tickets or impaired fines. There's no way I'm owning a vehicle that drives itself and being held accountable for any issues that may occur. And I won't be paying insurance.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Metalsonic66 07/11/18 6:04:31 PM #107:	adjl posted... the only way you're going to lose a license for DUI's is if you're a repeat offender It may vary from state to state or county to county. I actually just got my first DUI and my license was suspended, but I can get it back if I take a DUI class within 120 days, and in the meantime I was able to get a limited permit for work and stuff. --- PSN/Steam ID: Metalsonic_69 Big bombs go kabang. <cite>Metalsonic66 posted [p:904904939] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>the only way you're going to lose a license for DUI's is if you're a repeat offender</quote> It may vary from state to state or county to county. I actually just got my first DUI and my license was suspended, but I can get it back if I take a DUI class within 120 days, and in the meantime I was able to get a limited permit for work and stuff.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 07/11/18 6:05:44 PM #108:	zebatov posted... See my first response. i don't need to. making a "i have a higher tolerance" argument doesn't matter. don't drink and drive. it's not hard to get an uber, lyft or taxi. i don't have sympathy for you. --- https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2 "I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429 <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:904905013] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>See my first response. </quote> i don't need to. making a "i have a higher tolerance" argument doesn't matter. don't drink and drive. it's not hard to get an uber, lyft or taxi. i don't have sympathy for you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 07/11/18 6:17:56 PM #109:	OhhhJa posted... A buddy of mine had a speeding ticket for like 21 over and it was 600 plus. MPH or KMH? If it was kilometres, that's a little excessive. If it was miles, that's completely reasonable. Don't drive like an idiot, yo. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:904905685] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A buddy of mine had a speeding ticket for like 21 over and it was 600 plus.</quote> MPH or KMH? If it was kilometres, that's a little excessive. If it was miles, that's completely reasonable. Don't drive like an idiot, yo.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 07/11/18 6:38:37 PM #110:	OhhhJa posted... You obviously are completely oblivious to blatant revenue gathering. It does happen in a lot of places. It sure does. And they're still not forcing you to speed. I like to call speeding tickets "idiot taxes", because in order to be hit by one you have to wilfully ignore the instructions helpfully posted for you on the side of the road that tell you how fast you can go to avoid one. And I'm thankful for them because it means I don't have to pay as much on my own taxes as a result. Do cops abuse the system by making it a cash-grab instead of targeting areas by how dangerous they are? Yes. Is that bullshit? Absolutely and it should stop. Should we make tickets variable based on income like adjl suggested and as is done in some parts of Europe? You betcha. Still not hard to avoid, though. Don't speed, don't get a ticket. Easy. zebatov posted... Again, people who can handle their shiz shouldn't be bothered. Nobody can "handle it". This has been verified by scientific experiments over and over and over again. Some people believe they can and those people are wrong. I live in BC and I am 100% in support of their drunk driving laws. Again, if you don't like it, don't drink and drive, which you shouldn't be doing anyways because holy shit, don't drink and drive. Seriously, given how many people have killed themselves (or, far more importantly, other people) while driving drunk, at this point you'd have to be a self-centred raging asshole to ignore history and do the same. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:904906751] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>You obviously are completely oblivious to blatant revenue gathering. It does happen in a lot of places. </quote> It sure does. And they're still not forcing you to speed. I like to call speeding tickets "idiot taxes", because in order to be hit by one you have to wilfully ignore the instructions helpfully posted for you on the side of the road that tell you how fast you can go to avoid one. And I'm thankful for them because it means I don't have to pay as much on my own taxes as a result. Do cops abuse the system by making it a cash-grab instead of targeting areas by how dangerous they are? Yes. Is that bullshit? Absolutely and it should stop. Should we make tickets variable based on income like adjl suggested and as is done in some parts of Europe? You betcha. Still not hard to avoid, though. Don't speed, don't get a ticket. Easy. <cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>Again, people who can handle their shiz shouldn't be bothered.</quote> Nobody can "handle it". This has been verified by scientific experiments over and over and over again. Some people believe they can and those people are wrong. I live in BC and I am 100% in support of their drunk driving laws. Again, if you don't like it, don't drink and drive, which you shouldn't be doing anyways because holy shit, don't drink and drive. Seriously, given how many people have killed themselves (or, far more importantly, other people) while driving drunk, at this point you'd have to be a self-centred raging asshole to ignore history and do the same.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Rasmoh 07/11/18 8:55:22 PM #111:	darkknight109 posted... I like to call speeding tickets "idiot taxes" I like this term because it's so true, especially when you factor in that speeding is almost always a useless thing to do. Unless you are speeding at an insane level or driving a pretty long distance, speeding almost always only saves minuscule amounts of time and can be completely negated by something like a red light or emergency vehicle. --- Miami Dolphins \| Portland Trailblazers \| San Francisco Giants I won't say a thing, because the one who knows best is you. <cite>Rasmoh posted [p:904913867] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>I like to call speeding tickets "idiot taxes"</quote> I like this term because it's so true, especially when you factor in that speeding is almost always a useless thing to do. Unless you are speeding at an insane level or driving a pretty long distance, speeding almost always only saves minuscule amounts of time and can be completely negated by something like a red light or emergency vehicle.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
zebatov 07/11/18 9:31:18 PM #112:	Jen0125 posted... zebatov posted... See my first response. i don't need to. making a "i have a higher tolerance" argument doesn't matter. don't drink and drive. it's not hard to get an uber, lyft or taxi. i don't have sympathy for you. Why would anyone? And actually yeah two of those don't exist where I am. darkknight109 posted... OhhhJa posted... A buddy of mine had a speeding ticket for like 21 over and it was 600 plus. MPH or KMH? If it was kilometres, that's a little excessive. If it was miles, that's completely reasonable. Don't drive like an idiot, yo. I think you have that backwards. 21 km over is less than 21 miles. darkknight109 posted... Nobody can "handle it". This has been verified by scientific experiments over and over and over again. Some people believe they can and those people are wrong. I live in BC and I am 100% in support of their drunk driving laws. Again, if you don't like it, don't drink and drive, which you shouldn't be doing anyways because holy shit, don't drink and drive. Seriously, given how many people have killed themselves (or, far more importantly, other people) while driving drunk, at this point you'd have to be a self-centred raging asshole to ignore history and do the same. Yeah, it can happen. But again, taking into account how many people do and make it home safe, very rarely by comparison. It's an extra unnecessary risk, sure, but I can think of at least one reason it might be understandable. --- lolmodhagomi <cite>zebatov posted [p:904915833] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jen0125 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>See my first response. </quote> i don't need to. making a "i have a higher tolerance" argument doesn't matter. don't drink and drive. it's not hard to get an uber, lyft or taxi. i don't have sympathy for you.</quote> Why would anyone? And actually yeah two of those don't exist where I am. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A buddy of mine had a speeding ticket for like 21 over and it was 600 plus.</quote> MPH or KMH? If it was kilometres, that's a little excessive. If it was miles, that's completely reasonable. Don't drive like an idiot, yo.</quote> I think you have that backwards. 21 km over is less than 21 miles. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Nobody can "handle it". This has been verified by scientific experiments over and over and over again. Some people believe they can and those people are wrong. I live in BC and I am 100% in support of their drunk driving laws. Again, if you don't like it, don't drink and drive, which you shouldn't be doing anyways because holy shit, don't drink and drive. Seriously, given how many people have killed themselves (or, far more importantly, other people) while driving drunk, at this point you'd have to be a self-centred raging asshole to ignore history and do the same.</quote> Yeah, it can happen. But again, taking into account how many people do and make it home safe, very rarely by comparison. It's an extra unnecessary risk, sure, but I can think of at least one reason it might be understandable.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 07/11/18 9:42:36 PM #114:	zebatov posted... I think you have that backwards. 21 km over is less than 21 miles. He was saying the fine was excessive if it was in kilometers. Which I generally agree with, if it was in km. --- "I properly understand when a woman wants my dick and I can do whatever I want to them, and then do it." OmegaTomHank <cite>Cacciato posted [p:904916459] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>I think you have that backwards. 21 km over is less than 21 miles.</quote> He was saying the fine was excessive if it was in kilometers. Which I generally agree with, if it was in km.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
skermac 07/11/18 9:59:40 PM #115:	Higher fines is supposed to make people obey driving laws, make them higher but I guess its not much of a deterrent --- To the edge of the universe and back, endure and survive <cite>skermac posted [p:904917398] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote>Higher fines is supposed to make people obey driving laws, make them higher but I guess its not much of a deterrent</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 07/11/18 10:09:05 PM #116:	zebatov posted... And actually yeah two of those don't exist where I am. So take a taxi???? --- https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2 "I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429 <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:904917922] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>And actually yeah two of those don't exist where I am.</quote> So take a taxi????</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PuddingBoy 07/11/18 10:20:24 PM #117:	Jen0125 posted... zebatov posted... And actually yeah two of those don't exist where I am. So take a taxi???? Or fuck, just call a sober friend or family member that likes you at least a little bit to not want you to endanger the lives of others? --- 3DS Friend Code: 3308-5843-0863 Town: Virginia <cite>PuddingBoy posted [p:904918566] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jen0125 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>And actually yeah two of those don't exist where I am.</quote> So take a taxi????</quote> Or fuck, just call a sober friend or family member that likes you at least a little bit to not want you to endanger the lives of others?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/11/18 10:24:03 PM #118:	zebatov posted... but I can think of at least one reason it might be understandable. Short of "this person is going to die if I don't drive them to the hospital right now and I am the most sober person here," there's no justification for drinking and driving. Even that can be really questionable, because you're potentially endangering other people by choosing to drive instead of getting an ambulance, and being inebriated and emotional is going to make it pretty hard to properly assess those risks. It's probably still better to just learn first aid and employ that while waiting for an ambulance instead. zebatov posted... If the statistics don't matter, why do they show the negative ones as if they're worse than the positive ones in commercials? Fear-mongering at its finest. What "positive statistics"? Do drunk drivers spend more time volunteering at puppy orphanages or something? There is no statistical upside to drinking and driving. Absolutely none. The commercials focus on the potential terrible outcomes because it's exactly those terrible outcomes that you're risking by getting behind the wheel, and they need to drive home the gravity of the risks you're choosing to take. Don't drink and drive. It's extremely simple. Just don't. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:904918794] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>but I can think of at least one reason it might be understandable.</quote> Short of "this person is going to die if I don't drive them to the hospital right now and I am the most sober person here," there's no justification for drinking and driving. Even that can be really questionable, because you're potentially endangering other people by choosing to drive instead of getting an ambulance, and being inebriated and emotional is going to make it pretty hard to properly assess those risks. It's probably still better to just learn first aid and employ that while waiting for an ambulance instead. <cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>If the statistics don't matter, why do they show the negative ones as if they're worse than the positive ones in commercials? Fear-mongering at its finest.</quote> What "positive statistics"? Do drunk drivers spend more time volunteering at puppy orphanages or something? There is no statistical upside to drinking and driving. Absolutely none. The commercials focus on the potential terrible outcomes because it's exactly those terrible outcomes that you're risking by getting behind the wheel, and they need to drive home the gravity of the risks you're choosing to take. Don't drink and drive. It's extremely simple. Just don't.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 07/11/18 11:00:37 PM #119:	I really wanted to keep arguing against the idea that speed limits are actually set at the speeds the roads are driven on, and how disturbing the deferential attitude of "being legal = being morally right" is, but cripes.... It was already queasy enough arguing on the same side as OhhhJa, and now the topic's devolved into some guy arguing that drinking and driving isn't so bad. I'm out. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:904920681] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote>I really wanted to keep arguing against the idea that speed limits are actually set at the speeds the roads are driven on, and how disturbing the deferential attitude of "being legal = being morally right" is, but cripes.... It was already queasy enough arguing on the same side as OhhhJa, and now the topic's devolved into some guy arguing that drinking and driving isn't so bad. I'm out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 07/11/18 11:06:00 PM #120:	zebatov posted... I think you have that backwards. 21 km over is less than 21 miles. I was talking about the fines. A $600 fine for going 21 km over is a bit much, but if you're going 21 miles over that's about what I'd expect it to be. zebatov posted... But again, taking into account how many people do and make it home safe, very rarely by comparison. And 99.99% of the time when you drive you could go without a seatbelt and not suffer any harm. That still doesn't mean not wearing a seatbelt is a good idea (as evinced by the thousands of people who die each year in survivable crashes because they weren't buckled in). Seriously, this isn't hard. Don't drink and drive. Call a cab, call an uber, call a friend, have a designated driver, arrange to stay over, whatever. If you don't have a way to get home with a sober driver, then don't drink to excess. There are zero situations I can think of where you are required to get drunk and are then forced to drive somewhere. One (or more frequently both) are always voluntary actions. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:904920956] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>I think you have that backwards. 21 km over is less than 21 miles.</quote> I was talking about the fines. A $600 fine for going 21 km over is a bit much, but if you're going 21 miles over that's about what I'd expect it to be. <cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>But again, taking into account how many people do and make it home safe, very rarely by comparison.</quote> And 99.99% of the time when you drive you could go without a seatbelt and not suffer any harm. That still doesn't mean not wearing a seatbelt is a good idea (as evinced by the thousands of people who die each year in survivable crashes because they weren't buckled in). Seriously, this isn't hard. Don't drink and drive. Call a cab, call an uber, call a friend, have a designated driver, arrange to stay over, whatever. If you don't have a way to get home with a sober driver, then don't drink to excess. There are zero situations I can think of where you are required to get drunk and are then forced to drive somewhere. One (or more frequently both) are always voluntary actions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#121	Post #121 was unavailable or deleted.
zebatov 07/11/18 11:07:54 PM #122:	Cacciato posted... zebatov posted... I think you have that backwards. 21 km over is less than 21 miles. He was saying the fine was excessive if it was in kilometers. Which I generally agree with, if it was in km. Got it. skermac posted... Higher fines is supposed to make people obey driving laws, make them higher but I guess its not much of a deterrent This is what the point system is for. If you put someone out on the street and they get desperate to support their family, who knows what they'll do. Jen0125 posted... zebatov posted... And actually yeah two of those don't exist where I am. So take a taxi???? Honestly I can even walk. The whole city is about six kilometers from lake to lake. Did I say any of this happened to me? Out of curiosity. PuddingBoy posted... Or fuck, just call a sober friend or family member that likes you at least a little bit to not want you to endanger the lives of others? Understandable, in a bustling city. Small towns where nobody goes outside past 9 or 10 aren't really in any extra danger. --- lolmodhagomi <cite>zebatov posted [p:904921047] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>Cacciato posted...</cite> <quote><cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>I think you have that backwards. 21 km over is less than 21 miles.</quote> He was saying the fine was excessive if it was in kilometers. Which I generally agree with, if it was in km.</quote> Got it. <cite>skermac posted...</cite> <quote>Higher fines is supposed to make people obey driving laws, make them higher but I guess its not much of a deterrent</quote> This is what the point system is for. If you put someone out on the street and they get desperate to support their family, who knows what they'll do. <cite>Jen0125 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>And actually yeah two of those don't exist where I am.</quote> So take a taxi????</quote> Honestly I can even walk. The whole city is about six kilometers from lake to lake. Did I say any of this happened to me? Out of curiosity. <cite>PuddingBoy posted...</cite> <quote>Or fuck, just call a sober friend or family member that likes you at least a little bit to not want you to endanger the lives of others?</quote> Understandable, in a bustling city. Small towns where nobody goes outside past 9 or 10 aren't really in any extra danger.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
zebatov 07/11/18 11:17:37 PM #123:	adjl posted... zebatov posted... but I can think of at least one reason it might be understandable. Short of "this person is going to die if I don't drive them to the hospital right now and I am the most sober person here," there's no justification for drinking and driving. Even that can be really questionable, because you're potentially endangering other people by choosing to drive instead of getting an ambulance, and being inebriated and emotional is going to make it pretty hard to properly assess those risks. It's probably still better to just learn first aid and employ that while waiting for an ambulance instead. zebatov posted... If the statistics don't matter, why do they show the negative ones as if they're worse than the positive ones in commercials? Fear-mongering at its finest. What "positive statistics"? Do drunk drivers spend more time volunteering at puppy orphanages or something? There is no statistical upside to drinking and driving. Absolutely none. The commercials focus on the potential terrible outcomes because it's exactly those terrible outcomes that you're risking by getting behind the wheel, and they need to drive home the gravity of the risks you're choosing to take. Don't drink and drive. It's extremely simple. Just don't. I was thinking more if you were being attacked by someone and waiting for the police isn't an option. Positive being the ones that make it home safe. Ie, almost all of them. You never hear about those. Only the bad that cause accidents or get caught, when they otherwise would have been fine. There are much worse things to worry about in most cities. --- lolmodhagomi <cite>zebatov posted [p:904921497] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>but I can think of at least one reason it might be understandable.</quote> Short of "this person is going to die if I don't drive them to the hospital right now and I am the most sober person here," there's no justification for drinking and driving. Even that can be really questionable, because you're potentially endangering other people by choosing to drive instead of getting an ambulance, and being inebriated and emotional is going to make it pretty hard to properly assess those risks. It's probably still better to just learn first aid and employ that while waiting for an ambulance instead. <cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>If the statistics don't matter, why do they show the negative ones as if they're worse than the positive ones in commercials? Fear-mongering at its finest.</quote> What "positive statistics"? Do drunk drivers spend more time volunteering at puppy orphanages or something? There is no statistical upside to drinking and driving. Absolutely none. The commercials focus on the potential terrible outcomes because it's exactly those terrible outcomes that you're risking by getting behind the wheel, and they need to drive home the gravity of the risks you're choosing to take. Don't drink and drive. It's extremely simple. Just don't.</quote> I was thinking more if you were being attacked by someone and waiting for the police isn't an option. Positive being the ones that make it home safe. Ie, almost all of them. You never hear about those. Only the bad that cause accidents or get caught, when they otherwise would have been fine. There are much worse things to worry about in most cities.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/11/18 11:31:51 PM #124:	streamofthesky posted... how disturbing the deferential attitude of "being legal = being morally right" is, Basing morality on the laws is indeed extremely flawed logic (classic example: Those hiding jews in WWII Germany were breaking the law, those massacring them were following it), but that's not really what's being done here. I don't think anyone would claim that traveling at the posted speed limit is inherently immoral (presuming that everyone does it so you don't end up with somebody at a deviant speed). It's a well-established fact that speed is a factor in many serious collisions, and the severity of a collision is very strongly correlated to the speed of the cars involved. It's also a well-established fact that traveling at the speed limit really isn't as inconvenient as people like to think it is (in most trips, you're looking at saving a minute or two at most by speeding as much as is reasonably possible the whole way). Do speed limits need to be as low as they are? In many cases, not really. But it really isn't going to hurt anyone if everyone follows them. Therefore, everyone should follow them. The best way to get back at municipalities for egregious speed fines is to not speed so they don't get their fines; they only do it because it works. Swallow your pride and it stops being a problem. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:904922199] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>how disturbing the deferential attitude of "being legal = being morally right" is,</quote> Basing morality on the laws is indeed extremely flawed logic (classic example: Those hiding jews in WWII Germany were breaking the law, those massacring them were following it), but that's not really what's being done here. I don't think anyone would claim that traveling at the posted speed limit is inherently immoral (presuming that everyone does it so you don't end up with somebody at a deviant speed). It's a well-established fact that speed is a factor in many serious collisions, and the severity of a collision is very strongly correlated to the speed of the cars involved. It's also a well-established fact that traveling at the speed limit really isn't as inconvenient as people like to think it is (in most trips, you're looking at saving a minute or two at most by speeding as much as is reasonably possible the whole way). Do speed limits need to be as low as they are? In many cases, not really. But it really isn't going to hurt anyone if everyone follows them. Therefore, everyone should follow them. The best way to get back at municipalities for egregious speed fines is to not speed so they don't get their fines; they only do it because it works. Swallow your pride and it stops being a problem.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/11/18 11:50:15 PM #125:	zebatov posted... I was thinking more if you were being attacked by someone and waiting for the police isn't an option. So you're drunk, somebody starts attacking you, and you are somehow able to get into your car and drive away? Even pretending for a moment that that situation isn't absurdly contrived, there are better ways to deal with that than driving any significant distance. Namely, using said car to run over your attacker and eliminate the threat, locking the car to keep the attacker out (if they aren't determined enough to start breaking windows), or driving only a short distance away and calling police to minimize the amount of time spent driving while drunk. zebatov posted... Positive being the ones that make it home safe. Ie, almost all of them. That's not a consequence of drinking and driving, though. Those people didn't make it home because they drank first, they made it home in spite of incurring that significant risk factor. Does driving drunk even one time mean you're going to drive into an orphanage and kill all of their puppies? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it isn't a significant risk factor that is completely avoidable. So avoid it. If you're driving, don't drink. If you're drinking, don't drive. If you choose to disregard this very simple solution to the problem, expect to be punished for needlessly endangering yourself and others. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:904923075] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>I was thinking more if you were being attacked by someone and waiting for the police isn't an option.</quote> So you're drunk, somebody starts attacking you, and you are somehow able to get into your car and drive away? Even pretending for a moment that that situation isn't absurdly contrived, there are better ways to deal with that than driving any significant distance. Namely, using said car to run over your attacker and eliminate the threat, locking the car to keep the attacker out (if they aren't determined enough to start breaking windows), or driving only a short distance away and calling police to minimize the amount of time spent driving while drunk. <cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>Positive being the ones that make it home safe. Ie, almost all of them.</quote> That's not a consequence of drinking and driving, though. Those people didn't make it home because they drank first, they made it home in spite of incurring that significant risk factor. Does driving drunk even one time mean you're going to drive into an orphanage and kill all of their puppies? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it isn't a significant risk factor that is completely avoidable. So avoid it. If you're driving, don't drink. If you're drinking, don't drive. If you choose to disregard this very simple solution to the problem, expect to be punished for needlessly endangering yourself and others.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 07/12/18 12:14:13 AM #126:	adjl posted... streamofthesky posted... how disturbing the deferential attitude of "being legal = being morally right" is, Basing morality on the laws is indeed extremely flawed logic (classic example: Those hiding jews in WWII Germany were breaking the law, those massacring them were following it), but that's not really what's being done here. I don't think anyone would claim that traveling at the posted speed limit is inherently immoral (presuming that everyone does it so you don't end up with somebody at a deviant speed). Not the impression I was getting. Trying to argue the speed limits are intentionally kept low as an easy way to score fines when desired, and the responses seemed to be an awful lot of, "it's the law," as if that makes it right. No shit it's the law, I know that. The law is wrong. For example: adjl posted... Teeth posted... they're so high in an attempt to dissuade anyone from fucking doing illegal shit again Also that. If these violations still occur on a regular basis, then the fines are failing to discourage them and could probably actually stand to be higher (though again, scaled to be proportional to income so you don't get the disproportionate impact). Don't like how high fines are getting? Then stop being part of the problem, and encourage everyone you know to do the same. That said, more consistent enforcement would help a lot more with that than higher fines would. The biggest reason people get so uppity about tickets is that they're typically being ticketed for something they do all the time without getting caught (especially in the case of speeding), and that they know thousands of other people are doing without getting caught. Hitting most violators with a moderate fine would yield better compliance than hitting a tiny minority of violators with an extreme one. The problem with that is that better enforcement means spending more money on cops (and the ensuing "wah police state waaah" from entitled speeders), likely without a commensurate increase in ticket revenue. That means jacking up fines, though less effective, is the more cost-effective option. You and Teeth are arguing from the perspective that the fines are just, and when presented with the obvious fact that they aren't because 99.9% of people do the same "crime" and are not punished for it, instead of saying, "maybe this shouldn't be a crime" your solution is to designate way more people as law-breakers. In any case, my original complaint was only partly about how grossly unjust speed traps are, and at least as much about the massive amount of the fine being excessive. Yeah, "it's the law." Because the people who made the law like being able to skim money off innocent people as the budget requires. And no, it's not about pride. I've never gotten a speeding ticket my whole life, but that's due to a combination of luck and avoiding driving as much as possible...because it's inevitably going to happen the more miles you drive. Getting a speeding ticket isn't remotely common enough to make it logical to permanently change one's driving habits (and piss off everyone else on the road who's still driving at a normal speed), and it never will be. But the anxiety definitely has an effect. I'm always checking for cops in likely hiding spots, it's stressful, and the distraction of a cop camped out is way more likely to get me into an accident than my driving speed. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:904924107] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>how disturbing the deferential attitude of "being legal = being morally right" is,</quote> Basing morality on the laws is indeed extremely flawed logic (classic example: Those hiding jews in WWII Germany were breaking the law, those massacring them were following it), but that's not really what's being done here. I don't think anyone would claim that traveling at the posted speed limit is inherently immoral (presuming that everyone does it so you don't end up with somebody at a deviant speed).</quote> Not the impression I was getting. Trying to argue the speed limits are intentionally kept low as an easy way to score fines when desired, and the responses seemed to be an awful lot of, "it's the law," as if that makes it right. No shit it's the law, I know that. The law is wrong. For example: <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Teeth posted...</cite> <quote>they're so high in an attempt to dissuade anyone from fucking doing illegal shit again</quote> Also that. If these violations still occur on a regular basis, then the fines are failing to discourage them and could probably actually stand to be higher (though again, scaled to be proportional to income so you don't get the disproportionate impact). Don't like how high fines are getting? Then stop being part of the problem, and encourage everyone you know to do the same. That said, more consistent enforcement would help a lot more with that than higher fines would. The biggest reason people get so uppity about tickets is that they're typically being ticketed for something they do all the time without getting caught (especially in the case of speeding), and that they know thousands of other people are doing without getting caught. Hitting most violators with a moderate fine would yield better compliance than hitting a tiny minority of violators with an extreme one. The problem with that is that better enforcement means spending more money on cops (and the ensuing "wah police state waaah" from entitled speeders), likely without a commensurate increase in ticket revenue. That means jacking up fines, though less effective, is the more cost-effective option.</quote> You and Teeth are arguing from the perspective that the fines are just, and when presented with the obvious fact that they aren't because 99.9% of people do the same "crime" and are not punished for it, instead of saying, "maybe this shouldn't be a crime" your solution is to designate way more people as law-breakers. In any case, my original complaint was only partly about how grossly unjust speed traps are, and at least as much about the massive amount of the fine being excessive. Yeah, "it's the law." Because the people who made the law like being able to skim money off innocent people as the budget requires. And no, it's not about pride. I've never gotten a speeding ticket my whole life, but that's due to a combination of luck and avoiding driving as much as possible...because it's inevitably going to happen the more miles you drive. Getting a speeding ticket isn't remotely common enough to make it logical to permanently change one's driving habits (and piss off everyone else on the road who's still driving at a normal speed), and it never will be. But the anxiety definitely has an effect. I'm always checking for cops in likely hiding spots, it's stressful, and the distraction of a cop camped out is way more likely to get me into an accident than my driving speed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 07/12/18 12:28:08 AM #127:	streamofthesky posted... I've never gotten a speeding ticket my whole life, but that's due to a combination of luck and avoiding driving as much as possible...because it's inevitably going to happen the more miles you drive. I've never got a speeding ticket in my life and I've put over a quarter million collective kilometres on my vehicles. Saying "it's inevitable" is not just wrong, but laughably so. It's posted right on the side of the road what you need to do to not get a ticket: don't let the little number on your dial go above the big number on the sign and you're golden. This is not nearly as difficult as you're making it out to be. streamofthesky posted... But the anxiety definitely has an effect. I'm always checking for cops in likely hiding spots, it's stressful, and the distraction of a cop camped out is way more likely to get me into an accident than my driving speed. Have you tried not speeding? Because that works pretty well for me. I don't need to worry about watching out for cops when I'm not doing anything for them to pull me over. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:904924677] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>I've never gotten a speeding ticket my whole life, but that's due to a combination of luck and avoiding driving as much as possible...because it's inevitably going to happen the more miles you drive.</quote> I've never got a speeding ticket in my life and I've put over a quarter million collective kilometres on my vehicles. Saying "it's inevitable" is not just wrong, but laughably so. It's posted right on the side of the road what you need to do to not get a ticket: don't let the little number on your dial go above the big number on the sign and you're golden. This is not nearly as difficult as you're making it out to be. <cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>But the anxiety definitely has an effect. I'm always checking for cops in likely hiding spots, it's stressful, and the distraction of a cop camped out is way more likely to get me into an accident than my driving speed. </quote> Have you tried not speeding? Because that works pretty well for me. I don't need to worry about watching out for cops when I'm not doing anything for them to pull me over.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PuddingBoy 07/12/18 12:38:49 AM #128:	lmao besides the fact that we have someone advocating for drunk driving in here, now we have someone who literally tries to not drive and has minimal experience on the road saying you should be able to drive as fast as you want because the law is wrong. He then goes on to say that the idea of a speeding ticket isn't' enough to cause change in their driving habits but then cites that looking out for cops while speeding is stressful. Yeah, no shit? You're literally changing your habits right there because you're afraid of getting caught. Imagine what it must be like to drive reasonable speeds and not be afraid of getting pulled over lol. Don't drive like a dipshit and you'll fare a lot better with that, yeah? --- 3DS Friend Code: 3308-5843-0863 Town: Virginia <cite>PuddingBoy posted [p:904925064] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote>lmao besides the fact that we have someone advocating for drunk driving in here, now we have someone who literally tries to not drive and has minimal experience on the road saying you should be able to drive as fast as you want because the law is wrong. He then goes on to say that the idea of a speeding ticket isn't' enough to cause change in their driving habits but then cites that looking out for cops while speeding is stressful. Yeah, no shit? You're literally changing your habits right there because you're afraid of getting caught. Imagine what it must be like to drive reasonable speeds and not be afraid of getting pulled over lol. Don't drive like a dipshit and you'll fare a lot better with that, yeah?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 07/12/18 12:40:44 AM #129:	darkknight109 posted... streamofthesky posted... I've never gotten a speeding ticket my whole life, but that's due to a combination of luck and avoiding driving as much as possible...because it's inevitably going to happen the more miles you drive. I've never got a speeding ticket in my life and I've put over a quarter million collective kilometres on my vehicles. Saying "it's inevitable" is not just wrong, but laughably so. It's posted right on the side of the road what you need to do to not get a ticket: don't let the little number on your dial go above the big number on the sign and you're golden. This is not nearly as difficult as you're making it out to be. streamofthesky posted... But the anxiety definitely has an effect. I'm always checking for cops in likely hiding spots, it's stressful, and the distraction of a cop camped out is way more likely to get me into an accident than my driving speed. Have you tried not speeding? Because that works pretty well for me. I don't need to worry about watching out for cops when I'm not doing anything for them to pull me over. There's countless stupid infractions they can pull you over for, and they just need a "suspicion" you might be in violation of them. Even when I'm going the speed limit I'm watching out for cops, and if one's behind me I try to find somewhere to turn off the road for a bit to get the cop off my ass as soon as I can. The nice cops will just illegally pass me really early on (I don't even get upset about them blatantly breaking the law, it's saving me a lot of stress), but some are content to just tail gate for miles. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:904925134] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>I've never gotten a speeding ticket my whole life, but that's due to a combination of luck and avoiding driving as much as possible...because it's inevitably going to happen the more miles you drive.</quote> I've never got a speeding ticket in my life and I've put over a quarter million collective kilometres on my vehicles. Saying "it's inevitable" is not just wrong, but laughably so. It's posted right on the side of the road what you need to do to not get a ticket: don't let the little number on your dial go above the big number on the sign and you're golden. This is not nearly as difficult as you're making it out to be. <cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>But the anxiety definitely has an effect. I'm always checking for cops in likely hiding spots, it's stressful, and the distraction of a cop camped out is way more likely to get me into an accident than my driving speed. </quote> Have you tried not speeding? Because that works pretty well for me. I don't need to worry about watching out for cops when I'm not doing anything for them to pull me over.</quote> There's countless stupid infractions they can pull you over for, and they just need a "suspicion" you might be in violation of them. Even when I'm going the speed limit I'm watching out for cops, and if one's behind me I try to find somewhere to turn off the road for a bit to get the cop off my ass as soon as I can. The nice cops will just illegally pass me really early on (I don't even get upset about them blatantly breaking the law, it's saving me a lot of stress), but some are content to just tail gate for miles.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 07/12/18 12:43:57 AM #130:	streamofthesky posted... There's countless stupid infractions they can pull you over for, and they just need a "suspicion" you might be in violation of them. can you name some they only need suspicion of that aren't DUI --- https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2 "I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429 <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:904925240] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>There's countless stupid infractions they can pull you over for, and they just need a "suspicion" you might be in violation of them. </quote> can you name some they only need suspicion of that aren't DUI</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 07/12/18 1:07:15 AM #131:	PuddingBoy posted... lmao besides the fact that we have someone advocating for drunk driving in here, now we have someone who literally tries to not drive and has minimal experience on the road saying you should be able to drive as fast as you want because the law is wrong. He then goes on to say that the idea of a speeding ticket isn't' enough to cause change in their driving habits but then cites that looking out for cops while speeding is stressful. Yeah, no shit? You're literally changing your habits right there because you're afraid of getting caught. Imagine what it must be like to drive reasonable speeds and not be afraid of getting pulled over lol. Don't drive like a dipshit and you'll fare a lot better with that, yeah? I can make arguments without ad hominem attacks. It's really easy when I have valid arguments to make. Don't post like that and you'll fare a lot better with that, yeah? I drive the same speed the vast majority of drivers do. And I said I try to drive as little as possible. I still have to drive for work, travel, etc... and have driven over 100,000 miles at least. But you're just going to make assumptions, misread anything I post, and slander me every chance you can anyway. Jen0125 posted... streamofthesky posted... There's countless stupid infractions they can pull you over for, and they just need a "suspicion" you might be in violation of them. can you name some they only need suspicion of that aren't DUI I don't keep a list of this stuff. I found this from a search: https://www.sellcell.com/blog/top-10-reasons-police-will-pull-you-over-while-driving/ Questionable Activities If you are driving around, there could be many things going on in your car which to an outsider may look much different. Smoking a cigarette may look like a joint of marijuana, drinking a bottled soda may look like a beer. Asking your kid to get something out of the backseat may look like your allowing your child to romp all over the vehicle without wearing a seatbelt. Point being, there are a number of things to be self-aware of, and though you will certainly feel its not fair you were pulled over, from the police officers perspective, it was a vastly different story. This two part video series is pretty good, the primary subject is about talking to police and the importance of the 5th Amendment, but among the issues the lawyer mentions is the insane amount of crimes on the books that people unknowingly might be violating any given day. Watch 5:18 - 7:15 (or the whole video, it's good overall): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik" data-time=" Also relevant, in the 2nd part of the video series, an experienced police officer gives his view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE" data-time=" As he says himself at 1:52 in the video, And if you drive 55 on the interstate where it's 55, the only thing you're gonna do is meet the person behind you, because they're gonna rear end you and you're gonna get run over, ok? Which is a bit of hyperbole, but still...the point stands, and that's coming from a cop. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:904926084] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>PuddingBoy posted...</cite> <quote>lmao besides the fact that we have someone advocating for drunk driving in here, now we have someone who literally tries to not drive and has minimal experience on the road saying you should be able to drive as fast as you want because the law is wrong. He then goes on to say that the idea of a speeding ticket isn't' enough to cause change in their driving habits but then cites that looking out for cops while speeding is stressful. Yeah, no shit? You're literally changing your habits right there because you're afraid of getting caught. Imagine what it must be like to drive reasonable speeds and not be afraid of getting pulled over lol. Don't drive like a dipshit and you'll fare a lot better with that, yeah?</quote> I can make arguments without ad hominem attacks. It's really easy when I have valid arguments to make. Don't post like that and you'll fare a lot better with that, yeah? I drive the same speed the vast majority of drivers do. And I said I try to drive as little as possible. I still have to drive for work, travel, etc... and have driven over 100,000 miles at least. But you're just going to make assumptions, misread anything I post, and slander me every chance you can anyway. <cite>Jen0125 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>There's countless stupid infractions they can pull you over for, and they just need a "suspicion" you might be in violation of them. </quote> can you name some they only need suspicion of that aren't DUI</quote> I don't keep a list of this stuff. I found this from a search: https://www.sellcell.com/blog/top-10-reasons-police-will-pull-you-over-while-driving/ <quote>Questionable Activities If you are driving around, there could be many things going on in your car which to an outsider may look much different. Smoking a cigarette may look like a joint of marijuana, drinking a bottled soda may look like a beer. Asking your kid to get something out of the backseat may look like your allowing your child to romp all over the vehicle without wearing a seatbelt. Point being, there are a number of things to be self-aware of, and though you will certainly feel its not fair you were pulled over, from the police officers perspective, it was a vastly different story.</quote> This two part video series is pretty good, the primary subject is about talking to police and the importance of the 5th Amendment, but among the issues the lawyer mentions is the insane amount of crimes on the books that people unknowingly might be violating any given day. Watch 5:18 - 7:15 (or the whole video, it's good overall): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik" data-time=" Also relevant, in the 2nd part of the video series, an experienced police officer gives his view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE" data-time=" As he says himself at 1:52 in the video, <quote>And if you drive 55 on the interstate where it's 55, the only thing you're gonna do is meet the person behind you, because they're gonna rear end you and you're gonna get run over, ok?</quote> Which is a bit of hyperbole, but still...the point stands, and that's coming from a cop.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 07/12/18 1:11:34 AM #132:	streamofthesky posted... I don't keep a list of this stuff. I found this from a search: https://www.sellcell.com/blog/top-10-reasons-police-will-pull-you-over-while-driving/ none of those are because of suspicion though. those are all things they would visually see. "Questionable activities" could potentially have police discretion for suspicion but that doesn't really validate your argument because you said there were countless infractions they could pull you over for with just suspicion. why would you make that argument if you don't know any? what the fuck is that video you want me to watch? i have no clue what point you're trying to make. --- https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2 "I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429 <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:904926221] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>I don't keep a list of this stuff. I found this from a search: https://www.sellcell.com/blog/top-10-reasons-police-will-pull-you-over-while-driving/ </quote> none of those are because of suspicion though. those are all things they would visually see. "Questionable activities" could potentially have police discretion for suspicion but that doesn't really validate your argument because you said there were countless infractions they could pull you over for with just suspicion. why would you make that argument if you don't know any? what the fuck is that video you want me to watch? i have no clue what point you're trying to make.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/12/18 1:23:36 AM #133:	streamofthesky posted... Not the impression I was getting. Is anyone saying that it's morally wrong to travel no faster than the posted speed limit? Morality can only be called legalistic if you don't consider the act's morality beyond the laws that govern it. To return to the Nazi Germany example, you can say that following the law would be immoral because following the law results in the death of many (morally) innocent people. Ergo, deferring to "it's the law therefore it's right" is actually morally wrong. Is heeding the speed limit immoral? Well, let's look at the pros and cons: Pros: -Reduced risk of serious accidents (provided everyone heeds it) -Reduced severity of accidents Cons: -Reach destination 5-10% later (presuming the alternative is a non-egregious amount of speeding) -Increased risk of serious accidents if you're the only one heeding it One of those cons ceases to exist if everyone heeds the speed limit (any law should consider the hypothetical ideal of perfect compliance in determining how important enforcement is), and the other is pretty negligible for the vast majority of trips (3-6 minutes per hour of travel at the speed in question). Ergo, you can't really say that following the speed limit is immoral. That's not saying "it's the law it's therefore moral," it's assessing the behaviour that the law promotes and finding it to be generally beneficial, and therefore accepting the law. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:904926630] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>Not the impression I was getting. </quote> Is anyone saying that it's morally wrong to travel no faster than the posted speed limit? Morality can only be called legalistic if you don't consider the act's morality beyond the laws that govern it. To return to the Nazi Germany example, you can say that following the law would be immoral because following the law results in the death of many (morally) innocent people. Ergo, deferring to "it's the law therefore it's right" is actually morally wrong. Is heeding the speed limit immoral? Well, let's look at the pros and cons: Pros: -Reduced risk of serious accidents (provided everyone heeds it) -Reduced severity of accidents Cons: -Reach destination 5-10% later (presuming the alternative is a non-egregious amount of speeding) -Increased risk of serious accidents if you're the only one heeding it One of those cons ceases to exist if everyone heeds the speed limit (any law should consider the hypothetical ideal of perfect compliance in determining how important enforcement is), and the other is pretty negligible for the vast majority of trips (3-6 minutes per hour of travel at the speed in question). Ergo, you can't really say that following the speed limit is immoral. That's not saying "it's the law it's therefore moral," it's assessing the behaviour that the law promotes and finding it to be generally beneficial, and therefore accepting the law.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 07/12/18 1:28:14 AM #134:	Jen0125 posted... streamofthesky posted... I don't keep a list of this stuff. I found this from a search: https://www.sellcell.com/blog/top-10-reasons-police-will-pull-you-over-while-driving/ none of those are because of suspicion though. those are all things they would visually see. "Questionable activities" could potentially have police discretion for suspicion but that doesn't really validate your argument because you said there were countless infractions they could pull you over for with just suspicion. why would you make that argument if you don't know any? what the fuck is that video you want me to watch? i have no clue what point you're trying to make. Questionable activities is inherently down to police discretion and what innocent actions you might be taking could look like to the police officer viewing from his car. In the video he mentions the size of criminal statutes and how potentially you could be breaking some obscure law without even realizing it nor intending to be. The point was, it's naive to think you're "doing nothing wrong, so you'll be ok" if only you'd drive that speed limit. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:904926774] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jen0125 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>I don't keep a list of this stuff. I found this from a search: https://www.sellcell.com/blog/top-10-reasons-police-will-pull-you-over-while-driving/ </quote> none of those are because of suspicion though. those are all things they would visually see. "Questionable activities" could potentially have police discretion for suspicion but that doesn't really validate your argument because you said there were countless infractions they could pull you over for with just suspicion. why would you make that argument if you don't know any? what the fuck is that video you want me to watch? i have no clue what point you're trying to make.</quote> Questionable activities is inherently down to police discretion and what innocent actions you might be taking could look like to the police officer viewing from his car. In the video he mentions the size of criminal statutes and how potentially you could be breaking some obscure law without even realizing it nor intending to be. The point was, it's naive to think you're "doing nothing wrong, so you'll be ok" if only you'd drive that speed limit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Golden Road 07/12/18 1:29:16 AM #135:	PuddingBoy posted... Imagine what it must be like to drive reasonable speeds and not be afraid of getting pulled over lol. Don't drive like a dipshit and you'll fare a lot better with that, yeah? If you care more about the law than safety, then drive the speed limit. If you care more about driving safely, you drive the speed everyone else is driving, whether that's above or below the speed limit. Near me are two similar highways that intersect. One has a speed limit of 45, the other 30. I have no idea why the speed limits are so drastically different for similar roads, but most people drive around 40 on both of them (most similar streets here are 35). Speed limits are often kinda' arbitrary, which is really obvious when you find those rare streets where almost everyone drives below the limit. A lot of traffic laws are about safety, like driving drunk, and traffic lights, and do a genuine service in keeping people safe. Speed limits often aren't about safety, though. --- Who's your favorite character from "Bend It Like Beckham"? And you can't say Beckham. <cite>Golden Road posted [p:904926808] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>PuddingBoy posted...</cite> <quote>Imagine what it must be like to drive reasonable speeds and not be afraid of getting pulled over lol. Don't drive like a dipshit and you'll fare a lot better with that, yeah?</quote> If you care more about the law than safety, then drive the speed limit. If you care more about driving safely, you drive the speed everyone else is driving, whether that's above or below the speed limit. Near me are two similar highways that intersect. One has a speed limit of 45, the other 30. I have no idea why the speed limits are so drastically different for similar roads, but most people drive around 40 on both of them (most similar streets here are 35). Speed limits are often kinda' arbitrary, which is really obvious when you find those rare streets where almost everyone drives below the limit. A lot of traffic laws are about safety, like driving drunk, and traffic lights, and do a genuine service in keeping people safe. Speed limits often aren't about safety, though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Golden Road 07/12/18 1:31:37 AM #136:	adjl posted... Is heeding the speed limit immoral? Well, let's look at the pros and cons: Pros: -Reduced risk of serious accidents (provided everyone heeds it) Provided everyone heeds it is the important part of that sentence. If they don't--which is often--then driving the speed limit increases that risk. --- Who's your favorite character from "Bend It Like Beckham"? And you can't say Beckham. <cite>Golden Road posted [p:904926887] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Is heeding the speed limit immoral? Well, let's look at the pros and cons: Pros: -Reduced risk of serious accidents (provided everyone heeds it)</quote> Provided everyone heeds it is the important part of that sentence. If they don't--which is often--then driving the speed limit increases that risk.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 07/12/18 1:37:18 AM #137:	adjl posted... streamofthesky posted... Not the impression I was getting. Is anyone saying that it's morally wrong to travel no faster than the posted speed limit? Morality can only be called legalistic if you don't consider the act's morality beyond the laws that govern it. To return to the Nazi Germany example, you can say that following the law would be immoral because following the law results in the death of many (morally) innocent people. Ergo, deferring to "it's the law therefore it's right" is actually morally wrong. Is heeding the speed limit immoral? Well, let's look at the pros and cons: Pros: -Reduced risk of serious accidents (provided everyone heeds it) -Reduced severity of accidents Cons: -Reach destination 5-10% later (presuming the alternative is a non-egregious amount of speeding) -Increased risk of serious accidents if you're the only one heeding it One of those cons ceases to exist if everyone heeds the speed limit (any law should consider the hypothetical ideal of perfect compliance in determining how important enforcement is), and the other is pretty negligible for the vast majority of trips (3-6 minutes per hour of travel at the speed in question). Ergo, you can't really say that following the speed limit is immoral. That's not saying "it's the law it's therefore moral," it's assessing the behaviour that the law promotes and finding it to be generally beneficial, and therefore accepting the law. Again, your entire premise is built on the notion that the present speed limits are reasonable. Yes, if everyone drove slower it would be safer. Not just the speed limit, even lower. Any reduction in speed will make collisions have less momentum being stopped. But it's going too far to slow everyone down to 10 mph or whatever. It's going to naturally hit some sort of balance point between what's safest and what's fastest, where the speed is still overall safe and the speed is still reasonable. That's the speed people naturally drive, and it's consistently above the listed speed limits. Governments know this, but won't raise the limits, because keeping them artificially low means they have a dependable source of extra income whenever they need it. That is what I'm saying is immoral. No, it's not as bad as literal nazi germany. I'm not the one who Godwin'd this, that was you. Just because it's less bad than the abduction, property theft, enslavement, torture, and murder of millions of people doesn't mean there's no value in addressing it. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:904927076] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>Not the impression I was getting. </quote> Is anyone saying that it's morally wrong to travel no faster than the posted speed limit? Morality can only be called legalistic if you don't consider the act's morality beyond the laws that govern it. To return to the Nazi Germany example, you can say that following the law would be immoral because following the law results in the death of many (morally) innocent people. Ergo, deferring to "it's the law therefore it's right" is actually morally wrong. Is heeding the speed limit immoral? Well, let's look at the pros and cons: Pros: -Reduced risk of serious accidents (provided everyone heeds it) -Reduced severity of accidents Cons: -Reach destination 5-10% later (presuming the alternative is a non-egregious amount of speeding) -Increased risk of serious accidents if you're the only one heeding it One of those cons ceases to exist if everyone heeds the speed limit (any law should consider the hypothetical ideal of perfect compliance in determining how important enforcement is), and the other is pretty negligible for the vast majority of trips (3-6 minutes per hour of travel at the speed in question). Ergo, you can't really say that following the speed limit is immoral. That's not saying "it's the law it's therefore moral," it's assessing the behaviour that the law promotes and finding it to be generally beneficial, and therefore accepting the law.</quote> Again, your entire premise is built on the notion that the present speed limits are reasonable. Yes, if everyone drove slower it would be safer. Not just the speed limit, even lower. Any reduction in speed will make collisions have less momentum being stopped. But it's going too far to slow everyone down to 10 mph or whatever. It's going to naturally hit some sort of balance point between what's safest and what's fastest, where the speed is still overall safe and the speed is still reasonable. That's the speed people naturally drive, and it's consistently above the listed speed limits. Governments know this, but won't raise the limits, because keeping them artificially low means they have a dependable source of extra income whenever they need it. That is what I'm saying is immoral. No, it's not as bad as literal nazi germany. I'm not the one who Godwin'd this, that was you. Just because it's less bad than the abduction, property theft, enslavement, torture, and murder of millions of people doesn't mean there's no value in addressing it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 07/12/18 1:40:02 AM #138:	streamofthesky posted... Questionable activities is inherently down to police discretion and what innocent actions you might be taking could look like to the police officer viewing from his car. In the video he mentions the size of criminal statutes and how potentially you could be breaking some obscure law without even realizing it nor intending to be. The point was, it's naive to think you're "doing nothing wrong, so you'll be ok" if only you'd drive that speed limit. If the law is obscure enough chances are the police don't even know it. That argument is pretty dumb. So because there are old or obscure laws on the books you should be allowed to break established well known ones? That's a nonsense argument. A police officer can only use discretion for established things such as if they think you're drinking and driving, possibly doing drugs and driving, not wearing a seatbelt, etc. They can't just pull you over for literally any reason whatsoever. I mean they could but what's the point? They're wasting their time as well and they can't ticket you for anything so why would they? --- https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2 "I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429 <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:904927156] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote> Questionable activities is inherently down to police discretion and what innocent actions you might be taking could look like to the police officer viewing from his car. In the video he mentions the size of criminal statutes and how potentially you could be breaking some obscure law without even realizing it nor intending to be. The point was, it's naive to think you're "doing nothing wrong, so you'll be ok" if only you'd drive that speed limit. </quote> If the law is obscure enough chances are the police don't even know it. That argument is pretty dumb. So because there are old or obscure laws on the books you should be allowed to break established well known ones? That's a nonsense argument. A police officer can only use discretion for established things such as if they think you're drinking and driving, possibly doing drugs and driving, not wearing a seatbelt, etc. They can't just pull you over for literally any reason whatsoever. I mean they could but what's the point? They're wasting their time as well and they can't ticket you for anything so why would they?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PuddingBoy 07/12/18 1:41:36 AM #139:	streamofthesky posted... PuddingBoy posted... lmao besides the fact that we have someone advocating for drunk driving in here, now we have someone who literally tries to not drive and has minimal experience on the road saying you should be able to drive as fast as you want because the law is wrong. He then goes on to say that the idea of a speeding ticket isn't' enough to cause change in their driving habits but then cites that looking out for cops while speeding is stressful. Yeah, no shit? You're literally changing your habits right there because you're afraid of getting caught. Imagine what it must be like to drive reasonable speeds and not be afraid of getting pulled over lol. Don't drive like a dipshit and you'll fare a lot better with that, yeah? I can make arguments without ad hominem attacks. It's really easy when I have valid arguments to make. Don't post like that and you'll fare a lot better with that, yeah? I drive the same speed the vast majority of drivers do. And I said I try to drive as little as possible. I still have to drive for work, travel, etc... and have driven over 100,000 miles at least. But you're just going to make assumptions, misread anything I post, and slander me every chance you can anyway. I mean, i don't really give a shit about you so I'm not "slandering you every chance I get" but posts like this make me think you have a very limited worldview and that I shouldn't take what you say seriously. You literally say you live in fear of getting pulled over by the police. Normal people who don't commit traffic violations don't live like that and that's just the truth. Golden Road posted... PuddingBoy posted... Imagine what it must be like to drive reasonable speeds and not be afraid of getting pulled over lol. Don't drive like a dipshit and you'll fare a lot better with that, yeah? If you care more about the law than safety, then drive the speed limit. If you care more about driving safely, you drive the speed everyone else is driving, whether that's above or below the speed limit. Near me are two similar highways that intersect. One has a speed limit of 45, the other 30. I have no idea why the speed limits are so drastically different for similar roads, but most people drive around 40 on both of them (most similar streets here are 35). Speed limits are often kinda' arbitrary, which is really obvious when you find those rare streets where almost everyone drives below the limit. A lot of traffic laws are about safety, like driving drunk, and traffic lights, and do a genuine service in keeping people safe. Speed limits often aren't about safety, though. When I'm speaking about this, I assume the majority of the people around you are all being safe drivers by following the speed limit or not disrupting the flow of traffic. I've never seen a single car in a pack of vehicles going 80 in a 65 zone get pulled over for speeding since that speed is what those in traffic have dictated to be okay. But if you're the one person blowing past everyone when they're all doing close to the normal limit, then you can get fucked for being a poor driver. --- 3DS Friend Code: 3308-5843-0863 Town: Virginia <cite>PuddingBoy posted [p:904927213] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PuddingBoy posted...</cite> <quote>lmao besides the fact that we have someone advocating for drunk driving in here, now we have someone who literally tries to not drive and has minimal experience on the road saying you should be able to drive as fast as you want because the law is wrong. He then goes on to say that the idea of a speeding ticket isn't' enough to cause change in their driving habits but then cites that looking out for cops while speeding is stressful. Yeah, no shit? You're literally changing your habits right there because you're afraid of getting caught. Imagine what it must be like to drive reasonable speeds and not be afraid of getting pulled over lol. Don't drive like a dipshit and you'll fare a lot better with that, yeah?</quote> I can make arguments without ad hominem attacks. It's really easy when I have valid arguments to make. Don't post like that and you'll fare a lot better with that, yeah? I drive the same speed the vast majority of drivers do. And I said I try to drive as little as possible. I still have to drive for work, travel, etc... and have driven over 100,000 miles at least. But you're just going to make assumptions, misread anything I post, and slander me every chance you can anyway.</quote> I mean, i don't really give a shit about you so I'm not "slandering you every chance I get" but posts like this make me think you have a very limited worldview and that I shouldn't take what you say seriously. You literally say you live in fear of getting pulled over by the police. Normal people who don't commit traffic violations don't live like that and that's just the truth. <cite>Golden Road posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PuddingBoy posted...</cite> <quote>Imagine what it must be like to drive reasonable speeds and not be afraid of getting pulled over lol. Don't drive like a dipshit and you'll fare a lot better with that, yeah?</quote> If you care more about the law than safety, then drive the speed limit. If you care more about driving safely, you drive the speed everyone else is driving, whether that's above or below the speed limit. Near me are two similar highways that intersect. One has a speed limit of 45, the other 30. I have no idea why the speed limits are so drastically different for similar roads, but most people drive around 40 on both of them (most similar streets here are 35). Speed limits are often kinda' arbitrary, which is really obvious when you find those rare streets where almost everyone drives below the limit. A lot of traffic laws are about safety, like driving drunk, and traffic lights, and do a genuine service in keeping people safe. Speed limits often aren't about safety, though.</quote> When I'm speaking about this, I assume the majority of the people around you are all being safe drivers by following the speed limit or not disrupting the flow of traffic. I've never seen a single car in a pack of vehicles going 80 in a 65 zone get pulled over for speeding since that speed is what those in traffic have dictated to be okay. But if you're the one person blowing past everyone when they're all doing close to the normal limit, then you can get fucked for being a poor driver.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 07/12/18 1:57:56 AM #140:	PuddingBoy posted... You literally say you live in fear of getting pulled over by the police. Normal people who don't commit traffic violations don't live like that and that's just the truth. Ah, the Puritan argument! "If you're not doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to hide." Any interaction w/ a police officer that's pulled you over is going to be stressful. It's unlikely for the interaction to go sour and I definitely would be polite to the officer, but there's always a chance one could be the next Philando Castile, or at least getting roughed up. Kind of a crap shoot if you're unlucky enough to be pulled over by a bad cop vs. a good cop. PuddingBoy posted... When I'm speaking about this, I assume the majority of the people around you are all being safe drivers by following the speed limit or not disrupting the flow of traffic. I've never seen a single car in a pack of vehicles going 80 in a 65 zone get pulled over for speeding since that speed is what those in traffic have dictated to be okay. But if you're the one person blowing past everyone when they're all doing close to the normal limit, then you can get fucked for being a poor driver. I said in my very first post I drive the speed of the rest of the traffic and it's usually like 15 mph or so over the speed limit on a highway. Someone going way faster than the speed limit should get ticketed. I've argued the whole time the limits are too low, not for going fucking 100 mph in a 65 mph zone... <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:904927445] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>PuddingBoy posted...</cite> <quote>You literally say you live in fear of getting pulled over by the police. Normal people who don't commit traffic violations don't live like that and that's just the truth.</quote> Ah, the Puritan argument! "If you're not doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to hide." Any interaction w/ a police officer that's pulled you over is going to be stressful. It's unlikely for the interaction to go sour and I definitely would be polite to the officer, but there's always a chance one could be the next Philando Castile, or at least getting roughed up. Kind of a crap shoot if you're unlucky enough to be pulled over by a bad cop vs. a good cop. <cite>PuddingBoy posted...</cite> <quote>When I'm speaking about this, I assume the majority of the people around you are all being safe drivers by following the speed limit or not disrupting the flow of traffic. I've never seen a single car in a pack of vehicles going 80 in a 65 zone get pulled over for speeding since that speed is what those in traffic have dictated to be okay. But if you're the one person blowing past everyone when they're all doing close to the normal limit, then you can get fucked for being a poor driver.</quote> I said in my very first post I drive the speed of the rest of the traffic and it's usually like 15 mph or so over the speed limit on a highway. Someone going way faster than the speed limit should get ticketed. I've argued the whole time the limits are too low, not for going fucking 100 mph in a 65 mph zone...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 07/12/18 2:02:17 AM #141:	i don't get stressed when i get pulled over by the police. i'm either going to get a ticket or i'm not. then again, i haven't been pulled over for speeding in 10 years. the last time i got pulled over for was for having a headlight and tail light out. i didn't know i had both out, i only knew about the tail light. since i was honest and told the cop i knew i had a tail light out he told me about the headlight and gave me a written warning and let me go on with my night. --- https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2 "I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429 <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:904927502] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote>i don't get stressed when i get pulled over by the police. i'm either going to get a ticket or i'm not. then again, i haven't been pulled over for speeding in 10 years. the last time i got pulled over for was for having a headlight and tail light out. i didn't know i had both out, i only knew about the tail light. since i was honest and told the cop i knew i had a tail light out he told me about the headlight and gave me a written warning and let me go on with my night.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 07/12/18 2:02:36 AM #142:	So you dont agree that the most dangerous drivers on the road are the ones driving significantly different than the speed limit? @stream --- "I properly understand when a woman wants my dick and I can do whatever I want to them, and then do it." OmegaTomHank <cite>Cacciato posted [p:904927511] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote>So you dont agree that the most dangerous drivers on the road are the ones driving significantly different than the speed limit? @stream</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 07/12/18 2:06:47 AM #143:	Cacciato posted... So you dont agree that the most dangerous drivers on the road are the ones driving significantly different than the speed limit? @stream When most of the cars are driving "significantly different" than the speed limit (what amount of difference is "significant" by your standard?), then no. I don't think the majority of the cars on the road are the most dangerous drivers. Perhaps you're just more of a pessimist than me. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:904927597] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>Cacciato posted...</cite> <quote>So you dont agree that the most dangerous drivers on the road are the ones driving significantly different than the speed limit? @stream</quote> When most of the cars are driving "significantly different" than the speed limit (what amount of difference is "significant" by your standard?), then no. I don't think the majority of the cars on the road are the most dangerous drivers. Perhaps you're just more of a pessimist than me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Rad_Chad 07/12/18 2:41:01 AM #144:	dont break the law. fucking impossible to figure out because nobody tells you though --- Sup, brah?! <cite>Rad_Chad posted [p:904928527] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote>dont break the law. fucking impossible to figure out because nobody tells you though</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 07/12/18 3:53:19 AM #145:	Speeding is only an issue with traffic. --- Scloud posted... Its like he wants two things at the same time. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:904930158] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote>Speeding is only an issue with traffic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TsC_PoLiTiKz 07/12/18 4:19:02 AM #146:	I was shocked to find out you'll get your license suspended and get a fine for driving without insurance. Straight-up a tax on being poor. --- Now Playing: Fortnite (XONE); Star Wars Battlefront II (XONE); Animal Crossing: New Leaf (3DS) [FC: 3884 0809 2271] <cite>TsC_PoLiTiKz posted [p:904930659] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote>I was shocked to find out you'll get your license suspended and get a fine for driving without insurance. Straight-up a tax on being poor.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 07/12/18 4:37:06 AM #147:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Speeding is only an issue with traffic. Holy fucking shit. What an incredibly deep and thoughtful statement. Thank you for blessing us with such an intuitive discovery. --- "I properly understand when a woman wants my dick and I can do whatever I want to them, and then do it." OmegaTomHank <cite>Cacciato posted [p:904931021] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Speeding is only an issue with traffic.</quote> Holy fucking shit. What an incredibly deep and thoughtful statement. Thank you for blessing us with such an intuitive discovery.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 07/12/18 5:24:32 AM #148:	Cacciato posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... Speeding is only an issue with traffic. Holy fucking shit. What an incredibly deep and thoughtful statement. Thank you for blessing us with such an intuitive discovery. So a catch-all speed limit isn't appropriate. If you're caught speeding on an empty road then it shouldn't be an offense. --- Scloud posted... Its like he wants two things at the same time. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:904931954] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>Cacciato posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Speeding is only an issue with traffic.</quote> Holy fucking shit. What an incredibly deep and thoughtful statement. Thank you for blessing us with such an intuitive discovery.</quote> So a catch-all speed limit isn't appropriate. If you're caught speeding on an empty road then it shouldn't be an offense.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 07/12/18 9:09:49 AM #149:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Cacciato posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... Speeding is only an issue with traffic. Holy fucking shit. What an incredibly deep and thoughtful statement. Thank you for blessing us with such an intuitive discovery. So a catch-all speed limit isn't appropriate. If you're caught speeding on an empty road then it shouldn't be an offense. Except wildlife exists. As does weather. As do pedestrians (yes, even in remote rural areas - I grew up in a rural area and I can't even count the number of times I was driving home and nearly hit some drunk campers out for a midnight stroll). The entire point of a speed limit is to allow you sufficient time to react and stop your vehicle if something unexpected appears on the road ahead of you and I can't think of a single road where that would not be a pertinent concern. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:904937169] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Cacciato posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Speeding is only an issue with traffic.</quote> Holy fucking shit. What an incredibly deep and thoughtful statement. Thank you for blessing us with such an intuitive discovery.</quote> So a catch-all speed limit isn't appropriate. If you're caught speeding on an empty road then it shouldn't be an offense.</quote> Except wildlife exists. As does weather. As do pedestrians (yes, even in remote rural areas - I grew up in a rural area and I can't even count the number of times I was driving home and nearly hit some drunk campers out for a midnight stroll). The entire point of a speed limit is to allow you sufficient time to react and stop your vehicle if something unexpected appears on the road ahead of you and I can't think of a single road where that would not be a pertinent concern.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 07/12/18 9:25:55 AM #150:	darkknight109 posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... Cacciato posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... Speeding is only an issue with traffic. Holy fucking shit. What an incredibly deep and thoughtful statement. Thank you for blessing us with such an intuitive discovery. So a catch-all speed limit isn't appropriate. If you're caught speeding on an empty road then it shouldn't be an offense. Except wildlife exists. As does weather. As do pedestrians (yes, even in remote rural areas - I grew up in a rural area and I can't even count the number of times I was driving home and nearly hit some drunk campers out for a midnight stroll). The entire point of a speed limit is to allow you sufficient time to react and stop your vehicle if something unexpected appears on the road ahead of you and I can't think of a single road where that would not be a pertinent concern. Animals are perfectly capable of jumping out in front of your car within your braking zone regardless of what speed you're travelling at, as are people. They are responsible for their own lives when they maneuver in front of a speeding car without due care. Beyond that, you can rule out weather and any other environmental factor with the charge of reckless driving. If you go around a blind corner at speed you are being reckless, if you drive down a clear stretch at speed you are not. As long as you make sure you are in complete control with good awareness then speed isn't an issue. --- Scloud posted... Its like he wants two things at the same time. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:904937809] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Cacciato posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Speeding is only an issue with traffic.</quote> Holy fucking shit. What an incredibly deep and thoughtful statement. Thank you for blessing us with such an intuitive discovery.</quote> So a catch-all speed limit isn't appropriate. If you're caught speeding on an empty road then it shouldn't be an offense.</quote> Except wildlife exists. As does weather. As do pedestrians (yes, even in remote rural areas - I grew up in a rural area and I can't even count the number of times I was driving home and nearly hit some drunk campers out for a midnight stroll). The entire point of a speed limit is to allow you sufficient time to react and stop your vehicle if something unexpected appears on the road ahead of you and I can't think of a single road where that would not be a pertinent concern.</quote> Animals are perfectly capable of jumping out in front of your car within your braking zone regardless of what speed you're travelling at, as are people. They are responsible for their own lives when they maneuver in front of a speeding car without due care. Beyond that, you can rule out weather and any other environmental factor with the charge of reckless driving. If you go around a blind corner at speed you are being reckless, if you drive down a clear stretch at speed you are not. As long as you make sure you are in complete control with good awareness then speed isn't an issue.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 07/12/18 10:05:21 AM #151:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Animals are perfectly capable of jumping out in front of your car within your braking zone regardless of what speed you're travelling at, as are people. Yes, but there is a considerable difference in terms of what will happen to both you and the person/creature you hit depending on what speed you are travelling (and the effect is exponential, given that for every kmh faster you drive, you are simultaneously reducing the time you have to react and increasing the amount of time it will take to bring your car to a halt). And in terms of responsibility, remember that the cardinal rule of the road is "All parties are responsible for preventing accidents." Even if someone is not supposed to be in the middle of the road, it is up to you to do everything in your power to avoid hitting them, which includes driving at a reasonable rate of speed (aka under the speed limit). --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:904939501] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Animals are perfectly capable of jumping out in front of your car within your braking zone regardless of what speed you're travelling at, as are people.</quote> Yes, but there is a considerable difference in terms of what will happen to both you and the person/creature you hit depending on what speed you are travelling (and the effect is exponential, given that for every kmh faster you drive, you are simultaneously reducing the time you have to react and increasing the amount of time it will take to bring your car to a halt). And in terms of responsibility, remember that the cardinal rule of the road is "All parties are responsible for preventing accidents." Even if someone is not supposed to be in the middle of the road, it is up to you to do everything in your power to avoid hitting them, which includes driving at a reasonable rate of speed (aka under the speed limit).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 07/12/18 11:03:10 AM #152:	darkknight109 posted... which includes driving at a reasonable rate of speed (aka under the speed limit). The speed limit is not inherently reasonable as all cars vary. For example, a sports car is typically lighter with larger brakes and tyres, thus it can both avoid and stop in a much smaller space/time. If you want to take your "all parties are responsible" line to its logical conclusion, no car should be driven at a speed where a collision can bruise a pedestrian or scuff the car. Speed limits and penalties aren't helpful, reckless driving is what should be enforced. And to kill the responsibility line, you are responsible for your crashes even when you weren't at fault, you take responsibility by paying for crashes/insurance, it doesn't mandate you drive sensibly, only that you take responsibility for the results. --- Scloud posted... Its like he wants two things at the same time. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:904942360] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>which includes driving at a reasonable rate of speed (aka under the speed limit).</quote> The speed limit is not inherently reasonable as all cars vary. For example, a sports car is typically lighter with larger brakes and tyres, thus it can both avoid and stop in a much smaller space/time. If you want to take your "all parties are responsible" line to its logical conclusion, no car should be driven at a speed where a collision can bruise a pedestrian or scuff the car. Speed limits and penalties aren't helpful, reckless driving is what should be enforced. And to kill the responsibility line, you are responsible for your crashes even when you weren't at fault, you take responsibility by paying for crashes/insurance, it doesn't mandate you drive sensibly, only that you take responsibility for the results.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 07/12/18 11:48:45 AM #153:	Kyuubi4269 posted... The speed limit is not inherently reasonable as all cars vary. And that variance is already taken into consideration in the design of the speed limit. In essence, the speed limit is the maximum speed you're supposed to be going under ideal circumstances. If there are other factors that would impact your ability to stop - bad road conditions, poor visibility, worn out brakes on your vehicle - you are supposed to drive slower than the speed limit. Hell, in theory cops can ticket you for dangerous driving even if you're going less than the speed limit if the conditions mean that travelling at the speed limit is unsafe (in practice, that particular law is seldom enforced, but it is on the books in most Western countries). Kyuubi4269 posted... If you want to take your "all parties are responsible" line to its logical conclusion, no car should be driven at a speed where a collision can bruise a pedestrian or scuff the car. That, again, is the idea. A speed limit is supposed to be the maximum speed where, if an obstacle were to appear on the road ahead, you would have sufficient time to stop without making contact with the obstacle. Kyuubi4269 posted... Speed limits and penalties aren't helpful, reckless driving is what should be enforced. The problem with "reckless driving" is that it's an entirely subjective charge, and that makes it widely open to interpretation, causing headaches on all sides. Drivers don't like it, because a cop having a bad day can accuse you of driving recklessly even though you weren't breaking any specific laws; similarly, cops don't like it because it's far easier to challenge in court, since it's relying primarily on the officer's own judgement. Hence why, in most nations I'm familiar with, reckless driving is only filed in the most extreme cases (e.g. driving >50km over the speed limit, instances where a collision occurred or the driver lost control of their vehicle, etc.) where there is almost no argument that the driver was being unsafe. Speed limits are much nicer that way, because they are a quantitative metric that is easily verified. Saying, "you took that corner too fast, so I'm charging you with reckless driving" is a pretty flimsy argument; saying, "the speed limit's 50 and you were doing 70" is much clearer. Kyuubi4269 posted... And to kill the responsibility line, you are responsible for your crashes even when you weren't at fault, you take responsibility by paying for crashes/insurance, it doesn't mandate you drive sensibly, only that you take responsibility for the results. Yes, paying for crashes/insurance doesn't mandate that you drive sensibly; that's why we have laws, including speed limit laws. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:904944757] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>The speed limit is not inherently reasonable as all cars vary. </quote> And that variance is already taken into consideration in the design of the speed limit. In essence, the speed limit is the maximum speed you're supposed to be going under ideal circumstances. If there are other factors that would impact your ability to stop - bad road conditions, poor visibility, worn out brakes on your vehicle - you are supposed to drive slower than the speed limit. Hell, in theory cops can ticket you for dangerous driving even if you're going less than the speed limit if the conditions mean that travelling at the speed limit is unsafe (in practice, that particular law is seldom enforced, but it is on the books in most Western countries). <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>If you want to take your "all parties are responsible" line to its logical conclusion, no car should be driven at a speed where a collision can bruise a pedestrian or scuff the car. </quote> That, again, is the idea. A speed limit is supposed to be the maximum speed where, if an obstacle were to appear on the road ahead, you would have sufficient time to stop without making contact with the obstacle. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Speed limits and penalties aren't helpful, reckless driving is what should be enforced. </quote> The problem with "reckless driving" is that it's an entirely subjective charge, and that makes it widely open to interpretation, causing headaches on all sides. Drivers don't like it, because a cop having a bad day can accuse you of driving recklessly even though you weren't breaking any specific laws; similarly, cops don't like it because it's far easier to challenge in court, since it's relying primarily on the officer's own judgement. Hence why, in most nations I'm familiar with, reckless driving is only filed in the most extreme cases (e.g. driving >50km over the speed limit, instances where a collision occurred or the driver lost control of their vehicle, etc.) where there is almost no argument that the driver was being unsafe. Speed limits are much nicer that way, because they are a quantitative metric that is easily verified. Saying, "you took that corner too fast, so I'm charging you with reckless driving" is a pretty flimsy argument; saying, "the speed limit's 50 and you were doing 70" is much clearer. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>And to kill the responsibility line, you are responsible for your crashes even when you weren't at fault, you take responsibility by paying for crashes/insurance, it doesn't mandate you drive sensibly, only that you take responsibility for the results.</quote> Yes, paying for crashes/insurance doesn't mandate that you drive sensibly; that's why we have laws, including speed limit laws.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Poll of the Day > Goddamn the cost for traffic violations has gotten completely out of control (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Goddamn the cost for traffic violations has gotten completely out of control