So I got pulled over for speeding...

[Electricbees]

This morning, I was pulled over on my routine drive to work. I know exactly how the damn lights look before they come flash the reds and blues, so I knew I was fucked waaaay before they even pulled me over.

So the cop walks up and says, "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
I say: "Uhhhhhhhh.... Speeding, yeah?"
: You were going 79 in a 55 zone. You do realize that's pretty damn fast, yeah?
;;Yeah, I know. Pretty bad. Here's my license and registration
: You know, we lost you for a good 5 miles back there. Ran the radar and started following, but we had no idea where you went after you passed 36th Ave... Unlucky that we caught up to you.
;;... Yep.


5 minutes elapse, get ticket, drive away. Take off shoes in anger and finish working.
Realize, I don't give a shit. Tickets are chump change. Fuck the Police.

Drink some chocolate milk, tell story on bitcointalk.org, go back to work.
I am a fucking dumbass boss.

Moral of story: Police will catch you speeding, but when someone steals your bike/car/house/wife/bitcoins, they aint gonna do shit. I think.

[1714156563]

1714156563

[1714156563]

1714156563

[1714156563]

1714156563

[myrkul]

Moral of story: Police will catch you speeding, but when someone steals your bike/car/house/wife/bitcoins, they aint gonna do shit. I think.

Finding your bike doesn't get them revenue.

[Electricbees]

Moral of story: Police will catch you speeding, but when someone steals your bike/car/house/wife/bitcoins, they aint gonna do shit. I think.

Finding your bike doesn't get them revenue.

Exactly, unfortunately. Contrariwise, if I have to go buy a new bike, I pay taxes which eventually, a tiny bit, get funneled to them.

So what EVERY cop should do to get raises, it FUCK everyone's stuff up, AND charge them for every tiny law infraction possible. Also, steal people's bikes/cars/houses/wives/bitcoins.

[myrkul]

So what EVERY cop should do to get raises, it FUCK everyone's stuff up, AND charge them for every tiny law infraction possible. Also, steal people's bikes/cars/houses/wives/bitcoins.

Yeah, that's basically what they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

[Electricbees]

... So if I become a cop and fuck people's shit up, I'll get nice things?

[AntiCap]

Fuck the Police.

Drink some chocolate milk, tell story on bitcointalk.org, go back to work.
I am a fucking dumbass boss.

Moral of story: Police will catch you speeding, but when someone steals your bike/car/house/wife/bitcoins, they aint gonna do shit. I think.

So you are mad at the police for doing their job? Wasn't it you who were in the wrong here? How about not speeding thus freeing up resources for the police to go look for your "bike/car/house/wife/bitcoins" instead?

I too have been nicked for speeding but I didn't have to whine about it. You did wrong. Deal with it. Do right next time.

[myrkul]

Fuck the Police.

Drink some chocolate milk, tell story on bitcointalk.org, go back to work.
I am a fucking dumbass boss.

Moral of story: Police will catch you speeding, but when someone steals your bike/car/house/wife/bitcoins, they aint gonna do shit. I think.

So you are mad at the police for doing their job? Wasn't it you who were in the wrong here? How about not speeding thus freeing up resources for the police to go look for your "bike/car/house/wife/bitcoins" instead?

I too have been nicked for speeding but I didn't have to whine about it. You did wrong. Deal with it. Do right next time.

Who did he harm?

[AntiCap]

Fuck the Police.

Drink some chocolate milk, tell story on bitcointalk.org, go back to work.
I am a fucking dumbass boss.

Moral of story: Police will catch you speeding, but when someone steals your bike/car/house/wife/bitcoins, they aint gonna do shit. I think.

So you are mad at the police for doing their job? Wasn't it you who were in the wrong here? How about not speeding thus freeing up resources for the police to go look for your "bike/car/house/wife/bitcoins" instead?

I too have been nicked for speeding but I didn't have to whine about it. You did wrong. Deal with it. Do right next time.

Who did he harm?

Depends on how you look at it. He took up resources that could better be spent on solving or preventing other crimes.  And the consequences of a collision gets worse with increased velocity, so while nothing happened today, the police acted in the public interest to prevent that. Or you could argue that increased speed leads to more pollution which harms the environment and thus everybody.

Either way he didn't follow the rules that were setup and got punished for it. Rightfully so.

[myrkul]

Who did he harm?

Depends on how you look at it. He took up resources that could better be spent on solving or preventing other crimes. 

Nope. Cop did that. Didn't have to chase him, could have stopped when he lost him.

And the consequences of a collision gets worse with increased velocity, so while nothing happened today, the police acted in the public interest to prevent that.

Nope. That's an increased risk of harming someone, and it was his decision to take that risk. Risk ≠ harm, though. So, fail on that, too.

Or you could argue that increased speed leads to more pollution which harms the environment and thus everybody.

Nope. Any increased pollution is a result of increased consumption of gas. The cost of the pollution that is caused by burning the gas is already factored into the cost of gas.

Either way he didn't follow the rules that were setup and got punished for it. Rightfully so.

Nope, still not harm. That's no different from jaywalking or letting your grass grow too tall.

[AntiCap]

Who did he harm?

Depends on how you look at it. He took up resources that could better be spent on solving or preventing other crimes. 

Nope. Cop did that. Didn't have to chase him, could have stopped when he lost him.

And the consequences of a collision gets worse with increased velocity, so while nothing happened today, the police acted in the public interest to prevent that.

Nope. That's an increased risk of harming someone, and it was his decision to take that risk. Risk ≠ harm, though. So, fail on that, too.

Or you could argue that increased speed leads to more pollution which harms the environment and thus everybody.

Nope. Any increased pollution is a result of increased consumption of gas. The cost of the pollution that is caused by burning the gas is already factored into the cost of gas.

Either way he didn't follow the rules that were setup and got punished for it. Rightfully so.

Nope, still not harm. That's no different from jaywalking or letting your grass grow too tall.

1) You're not serious? If people weren't speeding cops could do other things. Now they have to watch over people who can't follow the rules. That cop would could have been put to better use than to catch speeders. Helping somebody's granny over a street or something.

2) That's his risk to take when he's on the race track. Not on a public road. The harm he has potential to do increases, and he has no right to take that decision for everybody else on the road.

3) More fuel burned, more pollution. WTF does cost have to do with anything? People nearby breathe in more pollution, that's harm. And if you agree with +90% of the climate scientists you also contribute to global warming, admittedly not by much though. Still harmful to the environment.

4) Nope, not harm. I agree with that. Didn't say it was though. Just that there are rules and you either follow them or accept the consequences.

[myrkul]

1) You're not serious? If people weren't speeding cops could do other things. Now they have to watch over people who can't follow the rules. That cop would could have been put to better use than to catch speeders. Helping somebody's granny over a street or something.

2) That's his risk to take when he's on the race track. Not on a public road. The harm he has potential to do increases, and he has no right to take that decision for everybody else on the road.

3) More fuel burned, more pollution. WTF does cost have to do with anything? People nearby breathe in more pollution, that's harm. And if you agree with +90% of the climate scientists you also contribute to global warming, admittedly not by much though. Still harmful to the environment.

4) Nope, not harm. I agree with that. Didn't say it was though. Just that there are rules and you either follow them or accept the consequences.

1) If cops didn't chase speeders, they could do something else.
2) Still not actually harming anyone. Should you be arrested because you might throw a brick through a window?
3) You're defending a Speeding ticket (Charging him a fine) by saying that goes to defray costs caused by increased pollution. That cost is already factored into the price of the gasoline.
4) No harm, no foul. He didn't hurt anyone, so why are you defending the extortionists in blue?

[Charlie Prime]

If people weren't speeding cops could do other things. Now they have to watch over people who can't follow the rules.

Hahaha.

State worship much?

And you add the Climate Grift to a speeding thread. 

Wow.

[JoelKatz]

1) You're not serious? If people weren't speeding cops could do other things. Now they have to watch over people who can't follow the rules. That cop would could have been put to better use than to catch speeders. Helping somebody's granny over a street or something.

He doesn't choose the cop's priorities.

2) That's his risk to take when he's on the race track. Not on a public road. The harm he has potential to do increases, and he has no right to take that decision for everybody else on the road.

Actually, that's not true. The expected severity of an accident goes up but the chance of an accident goes down. This is primarily because the faster you go, the less time you are on the road and accident risk correlates much more strongly with time on the road than it does with speed. In most realistic scenarios, he poses less risk to others because he's not on the road for as long. (Obviously, this isn't true if he was going so fast he wasn't in control.)

3) More fuel burned, more pollution. WTF does cost have to do with anything? People nearby breathe in more pollution, that's harm. And if you agree with +90% of the climate scientists you also contribute to global warming, admittedly not by much though. Still harmful to the environment.

Right, but to figure out if that's a *net* harm you have to balance it against the net gain to society of his speeding. If you don't see why this is so, imagine if everyone drove at 10 miles per hour and think about what effect that would have on the economy.

Would you support a national 45 mile per hour speed limit? I mean, look at all the benefits it should have -- less risk, less fuel burned, all things you seem to think are good. If you think speed limits are set to some kind of scientifically optimal value, I have a bridge to sell you.

[drrussellshane]

Thank you to myrkul for saving me some posting in this thread.

Also, good input from JoelKatz, as is typical.

[AntiCap]

1) If cops didn't chase speeders, they could do something else.
2) Still not actually harming anyone. Should you be arrested because you might throw a brick through a window?
3) You're defending a Speeding ticket (Charging him a fine) by saying that goes to defray costs caused by increased pollution. That cost is already factored into the price of the gasoline.
4) No harm, no foul. He didn't hurt anyone, so why are you defending the extortionists in blue?

1) Yes, but cops are put there to enforce the rules. If people followed the rules they would have find other things to do.
2) If you're carrying a brick in a no-brick zone, yes.
3) No, I'm defending charging him a fine because he broke the rules.
4) Because there is no extortionist in blue here. There is a rule enforcer and someone who broke the rules, well aware that there was consequences.

[DannyHamilton]

2) That's his risk to take when he's on the race track. Not on a public road. The harm he has potential to do increases, and he has no right to take that decision for everybody else on the road.

3) More fuel burned, more pollution. WTF does cost have to do with anything? People nearby breathe in more pollution, that's harm. And if you agree with +90% of the climate scientists you also contribute to global warming, admittedly not by much though. Still harmful to the environment.

2) Still not actually harming anyone. Should you be arrested because you might throw a brick through a window?
3) You're defending a Speeding ticket (Charging him a fine) by saying that goes to defray costs caused by increased pollution. That cost is already factored into the price of the gasoline.

2) So if I have this straight, someone can fire their rifle into a public park full of children repeatedly, and as long as they don't actually hit any child they should be allowed to continue?  Sure there is a risk that they could hit a child, but risk is not harm.

3) I don't think he was saying that the fine defrays costs of increased pollution. I think he was saying that increased pollution is a harm that is caused by speeding, and that the fine is intended to be a deterrent.  For a deterrent to be successful it must be significantly higher than the associated costs. This would be the difference between a fee and a fine, wouldn't it?

[cbeast]

... So if I become a cop and fuck people's shit up, I'll get nice things?

The $24k a year cops around my area build big new homes in gated communities.

[AntiCap]

1) You're not serious? If people weren't speeding cops could do other things. Now they have to watch over people who can't follow the rules. That cop would could have been put to better use than to catch speeders. Helping somebody's granny over a street or something.

He doesn't choose the cop's priorities.

2) That's his risk to take when he's on the race track. Not on a public road. The harm he has potential to do increases, and he has no right to take that decision for everybody else on the road.

Actually, that's not true. The expected severity of an accident goes up but the chance of an accident goes down. This is primarily because the faster you go, the less time you are on the road and accident risk correlates much more strongly with time on the road than it does with speed. In most realistic scenarios, he poses less risk to others because he's not on the road for as long. (Obviously, this isn't true if he was going so fast he wasn't in control.)

3) More fuel burned, more pollution. WTF does cost have to do with anything? People nearby breathe in more pollution, that's harm. And if you agree with +90% of the climate scientists you also contribute to global warming, admittedly not by much though. Still harmful to the environment.

Right, but to figure out if that's a *net* harm you have to balance it against the net gain to society of his speeding. If you don't see why this is so, imagine if everyone drove at 10 miles per hour and think about what effect that would have on the economy.

Would you support a national 45 mile per hour speed limit? I mean, look at all the benefits it should have -- less risk, less fuel burned, all things you seem to think are good. If you think speed limits are set to some kind of scientifically optimal value, I have a bridge to sell you.

1) No, the cops rulebook does that.
2) I've read that too. What would make the least amount of harm in your opinion if you compare any number of fender-benders to fatalities or serious injuries? I don't know about you, but I'd rather come home late with a bumped car, than not at all, or handicapped.
3) I was asked where the harm was. More pollution is harmful, at least to the people nearby. The people who get sick probably doesn't care if there's a *net* harm or not. They're still harmed.
4) I don't think there's a scientifically optimal value to the speed limits. They're still rules to be followed.

[swissmate]

Well 79 in a 55 is fucking fast. I'ts not like driving 60 in 55.

If I would se you driving I would think that you are a douche speeding that much.

No mean to insult. But I don't like people driving recklessly.

[JoelKatz]

But I don't like people driving recklessly.

Nobody does. But this was about speeding, not driving recklessly. If police observe people driving recklessly, they should charge them with that too.