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

(+) Yeah! (+)

darkknight109 posted...

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.

Well he never specified if it was KMH or MPH. I'd say it would be too much either way.

zebatov posted...

You never hear about those.

This is true. It's impossible for all drunk drivers who have ever driven to have been in an accident. Otherwise the numbers would be far higher.

adjl posted...

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.

Drunk at home and an emergency happens could be a valid reason.

streamofthesky posted...

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.

Well speed traps only exist for the same reason cops go after a typical marijuana user instead of the drug dealers. They're easier targets.

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.

Some people use police scanners to check.
---

adjl posted...

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

How would you possibly get to a destination later if you're going faster? I thought you meant earlier at first but then that wouldn't be a con.

darkknight109 posted...

Except wildlife exists.

Why should people care about running over a rabbit?
---

Jen0125 posted...

can you name some they only need suspicion of that aren't DUI

Driving while black.
---

darkknight109 posted...

And that variance is already taken into consideration in the design of the speed limit.

That's not even remotely true, if it were then speed limits would increase as cars get better but no.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

And that variance is already taken into consideration in the design of the speed limit.

That's not even remotely true, if it were then speed limits would increase as cars get better but no.

Hey dummy. Speed limits are predicated mostly by what is around a perticular roadway. Like a school zone. Not much to to with the vehicles.
---

OneTimeBen posted...

Not much to to with the vehicles.

Wrong.

"The starting point for determining the new speed limit is the 85th Percentile Speed. The traffic engineers may then adjust that speed limit to account for other safety factors. The 85th Percentile Speed is the speed that 85 percent of vehicles do not exceed."
---