Poll of the Day > Man pays 240,000 for a 2019 MCLAREN 600LT and it gets IMPOUNDED in 10 MINUTES!

(+) Yeah! (+)

A 39 y/o Driver in West Vancouver, Canada had his brand spanking new McLaren Supercar that he bought for $240,000 US Smackers IMPOUNDED just 10 MINUTES after he bought it at a car dealership as police busted him for SPEEDING!!

A Traffic patrol spotted the 2019 McLaren 600LT speeding on the Highway as the high end vehicle clocked more than 99 miles per her in a 56 mph zone

The driver said he had just left a car dealership to buy this car as it retails nearly double in canadian dollars.

A Policeman said "The driver had mentioned this vehicle was new to them and they had been driving it for no more than 10 minutes prior to it being stopped"

The car was towed and impounded for 7 days but police have no sympathy for those who speed as it is a danger to everyone around them

He was issued a $369 violation ticket a the fact drew ire from twitter

One person tweeted" I find it ridiculous that a driver fined 38 for excessive speeding after spending 240,000 on the car is going to be scared or deterred or consider their offence seriously" Another suggested fines should be based on income and that 368 will do nothing.

The man is allowed to drive his supercar again but if he's caught again, his penalty will increase

Does this look like a "nice car" to you?.

The Car -





Twitter -






---

> Fines should be based on income.

Should prison sentences be relative your age against average life expectancy? Relative sentencing is inherently prejudicial.

He got caught speeding. Big deal? He got a ticket.
---

Seems like a waste of money if you're not going to go at least double the speed limit.
---

I won't lie and say I wouldn't drive that around happily, but it's a bit gaudy for my taste. I'd definitely buy something else with that money.
---

we've become soft on crime his car should be sold at auction and the proceeds turned over to the government to pay down the debt

He probably wasn't even in 3rd gear when he got pulled over.
---

Grendel posted...

> Fines should be based on income.

Should prison sentences be relative your age against average life expectancy? Relative sentencing is inherently prejudicial.

Prison sentences serve to isolate a criminal from society for society's protection. How long the person's expected to live doesn't change that, so making prison sentences relative to life expectancy would be silly.

Fines, on the other hand, serve to deter people from committing minor crimes by providing a deterrent. When a fine is a flat number, though, that means the poor end up unreasonably crippled by it, while the rich laugh it off and go right back to committing exactly the same offences. That means a flat fine doesn't do its job properly. Base it on income, and it can properly act as the same degree of deterrent for everyone. Unfortunately, that also means you'd never see a speed trap outside of a gated community again because that'd be where all the money is, so that's a bit too simplistic a solution.

Keebs05 posted...

Seems like a waste of money if you're not going to go at least double the speed limit.

Which nobody should be doing, so I'd say it's just a waste of money across the board. Really, commercially available cars shouldn't even be capable of going much faster than the highest speed limit in an area (i.e. 75-80 mph for the US). Lift that cap for things like race cars and emergency vehicles, of course, but there's no reason it should even be possible for a regular driver to go faster than that.

How the fuck do you get impounded for speeding? That's something you get a ticket for.

_AdjI_ posted...

Prison sentences serve to isolate a criminal from society for society's protection. How long the person's expected to live doesn't change that, so making prison sentences relative to life expectancy would be silly.

Fines, on the other hand, serve to deter people from committing minor crimes by providing a deterrent. When a fine is a flat number, though, that means the poor end up unreasonably crippled by it, while the rich laugh it off and go right back to committing exactly the same offences. That means a flat fine doesn't do its job properly. Base it on income, and it can properly act as the same degree of deterrent for everyone. Unfortunately, that also means you'd never see a speed trap outside of a gated community again because that'd be where all the money is, so that's a bit too simplistic a solution.

Considering that young people are a greater risk than old people, it makes more sense to at least factor in life expectancy particularly when older offenders -- who grow too infirm to pose a threat -- cost far more to keep in prison.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

Which nobody should be doing, so I'd say it's just a waste of money across the board. Really, commercially available cars shouldn't even be capable of going much faster than the highest speed limit in an area (i.e. 75-80 mph for the US). Lift that cap for things like race cars and emergency vehicles, of course, but there's no reason it should even be possible for a regular driver to go faster than that.

To be fair, most roads are laid out to allow driving way above posted speed limits given modern steering and braking systems. Many speed limits were made when cars were 3 times heavier with no power steering or brakes, and there was no such thing as traction control, etc. Keeping some limits as low as they are for the one guy that still drives a Ford Model A or a '48 Packard just seems like it's more about revenue generation than safety.
---

I remember talking about basing fines on income. Personally, I dont agree with it...

As for the car, its nice, I guess. Not something I would drive personally. Like Kind said, its a little gaudy, I guess... Or something like that...
---

Taily_Po posted...

How the f*** do you get impounded for speeding? That's something you get a ticket for.

By speeding particularly egregiously. It varies by jurisdiction, but you can also see license suspensions and much harsher fines than $369.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

To be fair, most roads are laid out to allow driving way above posted speed limits given modern steering and braking systems. Many speed limits were made when cars were 3 times heavier with no power steering or brakes, and there was no such thing as traction control, etc.

Modern steering and braking systems don't change how long it takes humans to react, which is a major factor in the increased danger posed by speeding. Those speed limits were also made when traffic density on highways was substantially lower than it is now, meaning many of those roads simply aren't big enough for everyone on them to maintain a safe following distance if the speed limit were to be significantly increased. I don't doubt that speed limits could be increased, if only to match the speed the traffic actually does without issue (which is generally 10-15 km/h over the limit, that I've seen), but I don't think there's that much room to increase them without safety issues.

Regardless of what the actual limit is, though, there's still no reason that ordinary drivers should be able to buy cars that can significantly exceed that limit.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Keeping some limits as low as they are for the one guy that still drives a Ford Model A or a '48 Packard just seems like it's more about revenue generation than safety.

For me, that impression is based more on the lack of consistent enforcement than on the limits themselves. The vast majority of people that speed don't get tickets. If anti-speeding laws were genuinely all about safety, changing that would be a high priority. As it stands, though, it's quite profitable to just ticket the occasional person, which is enough to keep a revenue stream going but not enough to actually change society's attitudes toward speeding.

Taily_Po posted...

How the fuck do you get impounded for speeding? That's something you get a ticket for.

I'm not sure about British Columbia but in Ontario, if you get caught going 50 kph over the limit, you can get charged with stunt driving which means a roadside seizure of the vehicle.
---

> more than 99 miles per her in a 56 mph zone
---

should've taken his license
---

Lokarin posted...

> more than 99 miles per her in a 56 mph zone

Converted over to kilometers, that's almost 60 over.
---

Keebs05 posted...

Lokarin posted...

> more than 99 miles per her in a 56 mph zone

Converted over to kilometers, that's almost 60 over.

I mostly meant that "miles per her" is one of the main reasons to get a fancy car.
---

Ah, gotcha


---

Keep in mind if someone continually gets caught speeding they can suspend the license at a certain point especially if its excessive speeding that is deemed dangerous.