$300 speeding ticket

[SlowwHand]

Gosh, 1. Don't let it get ya son. It ain't all that.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ming


That's right...

He's the one that asked for it by coming here and posting how he broke the law, made an error in judgement driving by not being able to figure out how to get off a highway at the proper exit, and then whines about how the cop gave him no respect and a ticket, and that the fine was excessive...

What did he expect... our sympathy...

Hmm, different ways of getting our points across I guess. He came here to vent. I'd even assume it was his first. I felt the same way after my first ticket.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Excessive can be in and of itself reckless. There comes a certain point where you will be travelling fast enough that you will not have the control over the vehicle needed to avoid an accident should something unexpected arise.

I agree. I guess I just don't aprove of the limits that have been set, and I don't agree with the manner in which the government, through its law enforcement officers, wields its power. And, of course, the whole private roads thing. We'll get into, maybe. Physical exhaustion makes me intelectually lazy. I'll go find some links.... yawn...

Where it simply a matter of your own personal safety, that would be wone thing, but it is clearly not, as you share the road with others, and it is THEIR safety that matters most.

If you'll read what I read about drunk driving, you'll see that I, again, agree. Putting anothers' life at risk is and should be against the law. I once had a gun put to my head, and he didn't murder or even rob me, but he had no right to risk my life that, so I understand.

While you make think you are capable of reasonably determining at what rate you may safely, and you may be, I don't think that's something to be entrusted to each individual to decide.

Well, the government and its cocky police people don't seem to be doing a very good job either!

I never said I thought you were nutty, I said that, without justification, your views come across as being nutty. That's not the same thing.

No fence-sitting! I'm nutty or I'm not.

That's not how those laws I mentioned are meant. They are meant to save us from OTHERS.

No they're not.

How could you NOT have laws that make it illegal to exceed the safe level of occupancy of a building or elevator?

How could you NOT do something?? By not doing it.

People are selfish, and they would cram into a place they wanted to go until it was a disaster.

The businesses that own the elevators and restaurants and the people who use them also have a selfish interest in not dying and not letting its customers die. It IS just saving us from ourselves. "You're too stupid to limit the amount of people in your restaurant. Here, let me do it for you."
Here's a quote for ya.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. " --Herbert Spencer
There is no freedom without a basic responsibilty for ourselves.

Should it be okay to have 16 people living in a studio apartment? Absolutely not. It is not only a health hazard from a disease standpoint, it's a safety hazard due to fire.

Not my problem. If you want to live like that (AND the owner of the property doesn't care), why should I?

As David Floyd and other libertarians have mentioned, a state can pass any law so long as it does not conflict with the Constitution.

Take that back! Don't group me with him! How dare you?! Read my new signature quote. It doesn't have to be written to be a right. Rights exist independent of our ability to properly name them.

Nothing in the constitution prohibits speed limits.Speed limits do not infringe on the right to travel, as they do not prohibit anyone from traveling. They protect the rights of travellers to drive down the highway in relative safety from recklessness.

Travelling is a right. And so is the manner in which you do so, outside of hurting others.

[Ming]

Originally posted by 1
Ming, I'm tired of your stupid comments. I'm not even mad anymore, if I could get you banned I would.

See.. that's the difference, I would never consider banning you for stupid comments, but your first response is BAN HIM... real mature

But alas you are the one in power, and a prime example of a double standard.

And what double standard are you talking about it...
What have I done except to show you the same lack of respect you are showing other people in this thread...

Pretty fair if you ask me.

So cram your holier than thou attitude, and don't let the door hit you in the butt as you run for cover.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
No fence-sitting! I'm nutty or I'm not.

I just blame it on the hormones when pregnant women get nutty.

[SlowwHand]

Ming has a baaaaaaaaaad attitude.
He drives like a Granny though, so you know how that is.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by NeOmega
and the local govt taking over the power company, etc... you mean regulate as a monopoly, or take over outright?

The latter. They've already created their problems with the former. But what's a politician's answer to too much regulation? More regulation!

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I just blame it on the hormones when pregnant women get nutty.

Fair enough. I do have very real problem with concentration that I've never had before. But, I did have to take my ACTs again last month, and I managed to only get one point lower than when I was in high school.

As to 1 and Ming. 1, I don't think Ming was really being that rude (except for the rows of laughing faces, maybe). Your frustration is unwarranted. It's OK, calm down.

[NeOmega]

something about misused smilies that can get people's blood boiling.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
I agree. I guess I just don't aprove of the limits that have been set

But statistics would disagree with you. It has been shown many times in real life that there is a correlation between posted speed limits and accidents, and in areas where they have decreased the speed limits, there has been a noticeable decrease in accidents. This indicates that the higher speed limits do indeed result in more accidents.

, and I don't agree with the manner in which the government, through its law enforcement officers, wields its power.

Well, I think this can only be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and isn't totally relevant to speeding laws in and of themselves. As I said before, cops abusing their authority = bad thing.

Well, the government and its cocky police people don't seem to be doing a very good job either!

Unfortunately, the reality is that there is no one else to entrust such enforcement to. I don't think that means such enforcement should cease, however.

No they're not.

Explain. Surely they are. They are not laws prohibiting private, consentual behavior that only effects the person involved. They are protecting the collective good, as well as the individuals who would be harmed by such behavior.

How could you NOT do something?? By not doing it.

Considering the other arguments in favor of such laws, I don't see this as a reasonable rationale for not having the laws.

The businesses that own the elevators and restaurants and the people who use them also have a selfish interest in not dying and not letting its customers die. It IS just saving us from ourselves.

Not quite. The fact is, there are plenty of irresponsible business owners out there. I see it all the time here in NY. They would, in a heartbeat, easily pack places to unsafe levels for short-term gain. That's where the disasters would start. It isn't protecting us from ourselves, it's protecting us from unscrupulous people who would seek to endanger others for their financial gain.

Surely you don't think a landowner should have the right to dump toxic waste into a river on his property under the notion that he wouldn't possibly want to do that, as it might be poor community relations?

Why should a factory owner not be able to employ 9-year-olds in a very dangerous plant where dismemberings are common without regard to their safety?

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. " --Herbert Spencer
There is no freedom without a basic responsibilty for ourselves.

When it comes to regulated personal behavior that only effects ourselves, I agree. But this isn't about that, this is about protecting OTHER people who might be effected by our behavior. It's a pretty quote, but quotes don't make an argument, especially since he isn't referring to a comparable situation.

Not my problem. If you want to live like that (AND the owner of the property doesn't care), why should I?

From a public health aspect, you should care a LOT. People living like that would be a magnet for diseases. What if you lived next door and found yourself exposed to cholera due to those people living in such conditions?

Take that back! Don't group me with him! How dare you?! Read my new signature quote. It doesn't have to be written to be a right. Rights exist independent of our ability to properly name them.

Yes, but it has often been said--your right to swing your fist stops at my nose. And in this regard, it is perfectly legitimate to say that excessive speed is tantamount to punching others in the nose, as it creates a hazardous situation for everyone on the road, not just the one speeding.

Travelling is a right. And so is the manner in which you do so, outside of hurting others.

And since excessive speeding has been shown time and time again to be a significant factor in accidents, hurting others is a very real possibility.

I can fire a gun at a range. I can't fire it at a crowd of people, even if I don't specifically aim for anyone and there is a chance I will miss people entirely.

[NeOmega]

GUNS: it is not exactly the potential to do harm that makes me see it as illegal. It is the robbing of my freedom. As long as that gun is pointed at me, I am at the will of the person pointing it at me.

Fact is, going 10 MPH above the speedlimit at 11:00 P.M. is putting no- one in danger.

Going 20 MPH above on a freeway at the same time is not increasing hte risks at all.

However, going the speedlimit on pack ice can be.

Of course only Montana law has ever supported me in this notion, but who else has the cahunas to tell D.C. they don't need their highway dollars?

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But statistics would disagree with you. It has been shown many times in real life that there is a correlation between posted speed limits and accidents, and in areas where they have decreased the speed limits, there has been a noticeable decrease in accidents.

Okey dokey then. You're right. Let's make the limit on freeways 25 mph. Everyone will be safe forever!

All right, all right. Speed limits. I'm tired of this. You win.

As I said before, cops abusing their authority = bad thing.

Bads laws make abuse of authority extremely easy, but since I already gave up, I'm, uh, talking about other laws.

Explain. Surely they are. They are not laws prohibiting private, consentual behavior that only effects the person involved. They are protecting the collective good, as well as the individuals who would be harmed by such behavior.

So do you believe in laws restricting smoking in restaurants? Surely it benefits some foggy collective good, doesn't it? Or is it perhaps the case that 1) Owners of such business can and do decide what is most economically beneficial for their businesses and accomodate accordingly, and 2) People go to the places they want to go to, as individuals.

Not quite. The fact is, there are plenty of irresponsible business owners out there. I see it all the time here in NY.

Then don't go to those businesses, please. But let me decide for myself.

Surely you don't think a landowner should have the right to dump toxic waste into a river on his property under the notion that he wouldn't possibly want to do that, as it might be poor community relations?

Umm, well, I have to say that I really don't think anyone would want to devalue their property like that. I haven't thought too much about this, so, off the top of my head, I think that if none of this waste affects anyone else's property, and that's what he really really wants to do, well... OK. But I doubt that you can do that and only harm yourself, so that makes it different. But, I don't know enough, so...

Why should a factory owner not be able to employ 9-year-olds in a very dangerous plant where dismemberings are common without regard to their safety?

Children are different. If a child's parents won't protect him, someone has to, as a 9 year doesn't have the appropriate knowledge and experience to be responsible for himself. I'm not 9.

When it comes to regulated personal behavior that only effects ourselves, I agree. But this isn't about that, this is about protecting OTHER people who might be effected by our behavior.

I don't see how the laws we are discussing apply to this, so I'm really at a loss in arguing about this.

It's a pretty quote, but quotes don't make an argument,

Well, I could say it too, probably with more words and not with such wit, but I just thought I should give him his credit.

especially since he isn't referring to a comparable situation.

OK, forget it. I said it. About this situation.

From a public health aspect, you should care a LOT. People living like that would be a magnet for diseases. What if you lived next door and found yourself exposed to cholera due to those people living in such conditions?

I hope I'm informed enough to choose where I live by some sort of standard. Apartment owners have, like, leases, and you can find out what their standards are and decide where you want to live.

I can fire a gun at a range. I can't fire it at a crowd of people, even if I don't specifically aim for anyone and there is a chance I will miss people entirely.

I don't see how this applies. Firing a gun into a crowd is much more dangerous than driving 75 in a 65 on the freeway.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by NeOmega
97 in a 65 is pretty bad

Pretty Bad????????????????

Here you get a fine of at least $1500, more like $2500, probably lose your licence and you would have to go to court and be dealt with by a magistrate. You'd be a pariah in your community because the case would be publicised. If you were charged with dangerous driving, you could be jailed or get a criminal record for exceeding the speed limit by that much.

The number one cause of deaths on highways and country roads in Australia is speed and even a 5 or 10 kilometre per hour difference in speed can mean the difference between life and death, even at low speeds.

Some of you people don't understand your car is a deadly weapon if not used right and shouldn't have a licence. You are just petty criminals and a menace to the travelling public in your country. I hope the cops catch all of you and throw the book at you

[SlowwHand]

I thought Australian's were like Amish. Carriages and that, only pulled by dingos.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Pretty Bad????????????????

Here you get a fine of at least $1500, more like $2500, probably lose your licence and you would have to go to court and dealt with by a magistrate. If you were charged with dangerous driving, you could be jailed or get a criminal record for exceeding the speed limit by that much.

He was passing a truck. American law allows for up to 10 mph anyway to do this task, so realistically he was going like 22 mph too fast. Also, American roads are designed for cars to be able to go twice as fast as the posted speed limit.

The number one cause of deaths on highways and country roads in Australia is speed and even a 5 or 10 kilometre per hour difference in speed can mean the difference between life and death, even at low speeds.

5 or 10 km/h? Never. 5 mph above the spped limit will hurt no-one.

Some of you people don't understand your car is a deadly weapon if not used right and shouldn't have a licence. You are just petty criminals and a menace to the travelling public in your country. I hope the cops catch all of you and throw the book at you

Man, I swear, the only country more preachy than the United States is Australia. I've already posted my opinions on times where breaking the speed limit is perfectly safe. It is not a weapon, when no-one is around to be hit by it.
And I've gotten off a ticket or two myself..... sorry.