So I got pulled over for speeding...

[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.

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.)

I'm not certain that I agree that overall risk decreases with an increase in speed.  Can you point me to an analysis that demonstrates this? I suspect you are mistaken on this point.

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.

But society has already determined the balance they want.  They elected representatives who chose a speed limit that society feels is fast enough to provide the necessary benefit, while slow enough to keep risk and pollution acceptable.

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.

While I may not support a 45 mile per hour limit, I may also not support a 55 mile an hour limit.  As such I can choose my representatives based on their stand on this issue.  If enough of society is willing to accept a 45 mile an hour limit for those benefits, then the law will change, and I'll be held to the new rules regardless of personal preference for speed limits.  They don't need to be scientifically optimal, they simply need to be acceptable by society.

[myrkul]

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.

So, all this boils down to "he disobeyed words on paper, so he should be fined"

If I wrote down words on paper that you had to give fellatio to anyone who demanded, would you do it? What if I got all your neighbors to agree that you should give fellatio to anyone who demanded it? What if I got all your neighbors to agree that you should give fellatio to anyone who demanded, or be shot?

Following rules because they are the rules is no different from following orders because they are orders.

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Robert A. Heinlein

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?

2) No, because it can be reasonably assumed that you are trying to hit a kid. In fact, it would be silly to assume otherwise. However, it cannot be assumed that a speeder is trying to have an accident by speeding. If he wanted to have an accident, it's trivial to twitch the wheel and plow into oncoming traffic, or veer the other direction and start mowing down pedestrians.

3) Well, if he's harmed people by forcing them to breathe air that is more polluted, then they should receive the compensation for that, shouldn't they? The state, in collecting the fine, is stealing from the victims, in that case.

[DannyHamilton]

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?

2) No, because it can be reasonably assumed that you are trying to hit a kid. In fact, it would be silly to assume otherwise. However, it cannot be assumed that a speeder is trying to have an accident by speeding. If he wanted to have an accident, it's trivial to twitch the wheel and plow into oncoming traffic, or veer the other direction and start mowing down pedestrians.

3) Well, if he's harmed people by forcing them to breathe air that is more polluted, then they should receive the compensation for that, shouldn't they? The state, in collecting the fine, is stealing from the victims, in that case.

2) And if the shooter was aiming at targets that he set up on the opposite side of the park and successfully hitting the targets, then it becomes acceptable?  Since it can no longer be assumed that the shooter is trying to hit a kid?

3) Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  It doesn't change the fact that the fine is intended to be a deterrent against the causing of cause harm.

[JoelKatz]

I'm not certain that I agree that overall risk decreases with an increase in speed.  Can you point me to an analysis that demonstrates this? I suspect you are mistaken on this point.

Even the NHTSA agrees that the average driver on a highway is driving over the speed limit and that your crash risk increases if you driver slower than other vehicles.

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/vol-1.html
This study suggests that your crash risk is minimized when you are going faster even than the average vehicle on the highway. (See figure 2.2) And this is all *before* you correct for higher speeds meaning less time on the road.

The newer studies are even more dramatic (because vehicles got safer), but I can't seem to find them online.

[AntiCap]

So, all this boils down to "he disobeyed words on paper, so he should be fined"

If I wrote down words on paper that you had to give fellatio to anyone who demanded, would you do it? What if I got all your neighbors to agree that you should give fellatio to anyone who demanded it? What if I got all your neighbors to agree that you should give fellatio to anyone who demanded, or be shot?

Following rules because they are the rules is no different from following orders because they are orders.

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Robert A. Heinlein

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?

2) No, because it can be reasonably assumed that you are trying to hit a kid. In fact, it would be silly to assume otherwise. However, it cannot be assumed that a speeder is trying to have an accident by speeding. If he wanted to have an accident, it's trivial to twitch the wheel and plow into oncoming traffic, or veer the other direction and start mowing down pedestrians.

3) Well, if he's harmed people by forcing them to breathe air that is more polluted, then they should receive the compensation for that, shouldn't they? The state, in collecting the fine, is stealing from the victims, in that case.

We as a society have defined an acceptable level of risk that he decided to go above, so he should be fined. Yes.

Good quote. I like that. Morally responsible. And willing to take the consequences for breaking the rules I assume.

Why can that be reasonably assumed? Hitting a kid that is? Because it would be hard to defend your "risk != harm" position otherwise?

Who's to say they're not being compensated, by enforcement officers that try to protect them from harm, just to give an example.

[DannyHamilton]

If I wrote down words on paper that you had to give fellatio to anyone who demanded, would you do it? What if I got all your neighbors to agree that you should give fellatio to anyone who demanded it? What if I got all your neighbors to agree that you should give fellatio to anyone who demanded, or be shot?

I would choose not to reside in such a community.  There are a variety of communities with a variety of speed limits.  Find a community with a speed limit you can accept and live there, or work within your community to change the local speed limit law.  But if you choose to live in the community, you choose to be held to the laws that community has put in place.  Additionally, forcing me to commit such an act does not protect others from harm, and arguable could be considered as causing harm to me.  This would be the opposite of the laws being discussed where forcing a me to drive at a safe speed decreases the risk of harm to others and myself. Nobody said anything about shooting speeders.

Following rules because they are the rules is no different from following orders because they are orders.

True, but failing to follow orders has consequences as well.  You can choose to refuse orders, but in doing so you choose to have those consequences imposed upon you.

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Robert A. Heinlein

Heinlein was a fiction writer.  He said a lot of stuff, most of it fictional. That doesn't make him someone whose words I would choose to live by.

[Coreadrin_47]

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.

All crimes require a victim to be an actual crime.  Find me one, in this instance.

[DannyHamilton]

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/vol-1.html
This study suggests that your crash risk is minimized when you are going faster even than the average vehicle on the highway. (See figure 2.2) And this is all *before* you correct for higher speeds meaning less time on the road.

The figure indicates that your crash risk is minimized when you are going slightly faster than the average speed of the highway. According to the figure, more than 10 mph over the average speed and your crash risk increases above that of maintaining the average speed. Furthermore, the figure does not take into consideration the increase in damage, injury, or fatality at the higher speed when a collision does occur. Beyond that the figure also doesn't adjust for the fact that impaired drivers tend to drive slower, meaning that the figure is skewed since impaired drivers while slower are significantly more likely to be involved in a collision.  If the graph were adjusted for this bias, it is likely that the minimized risk would be at the average speed.

[AntiCap]

All crimes require a victim to be an actual crime.  Find me one, in this instance.

What's an actual crime? Crimes that have a single victim? You can't think of a few things that you're not allowed to do because it's bad for the general public?

[DannyHamilton]

All crimes require a victim to be an actual crime.  Find me one, in this instance.

Please refer to my previous post regarding a shooter shooting through a park full of children, but not hitting any of them.  You would not consider this a crime?

[Coreadrin_47]

All crimes require a victim to be an actual crime.  Find me one, in this instance.

Please refer to my previous post regarding a shooter shooting through a park full of children, but not hitting any of them.  You would not consider this a crime?

This is the same, how?

[DannyHamilton]

All crimes require a victim to be an actual crime.  Find me one, in this instance.

Please refer to my previous post regarding a shooter shooting through a park full of children, but not hitting any of them.  You would not consider this a crime?

This is the same, how?

You state that there must be a victim to be an actual crime.  I'm asking your opinion.  If a shooter is shooting through a park full of children, but not hitting any of them either:

A) There is no victim, therefore you do not consider this a crime.

or

B) This is a crime, and you can identify a victim in this action.

[Coreadrin_47]

All crimes require a victim to be an actual crime.  Find me one, in this instance.

Please refer to my previous post regarding a shooter shooting through a park full of children, but not hitting any of them.  You would not consider this a crime?

This is the same, how?

You state that there must be a victim to be an actual crime.  I'm asking your opinion.  If a shooter is shooting through a park full of children, but not hitting any of them either:

A) There is no victim, therefore you do not consider this a crime.

or

B) This is a crime, and you can identify a victim in this action.

Is the park public property or private property?

[DannyHamilton]

All crimes require a victim to be an actual crime.  Find me one, in this instance.

Please refer to my previous post regarding a shooter shooting through a park full of children, but not hitting any of them.  You would not consider this a crime?

This is the same, how?

You state that there must be a victim to be an actual crime.  I'm asking your opinion.  If a shooter is shooting through a park full of children, but not hitting any of them either:

A) There is no victim, therefore you do not consider this a crime.

or

B) This is a crime, and you can identify a victim in this action.

Is the park public property or private property?

What part of "refer to my previous post" confuses you?

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.

I assumed that when I stated "into a public park" that it would be clear that I meant that the park is public property?

[Coreadrin_47]

Well, then you are dealing with moral hazard before anything else.

Let me put my position another way.  If I build a road and people have the choice of whether or not to pay me to use it, if I decide to impose a speed limit of 90mph on it, am I right to do this?  What if I decide to impose no speed limit?  Am I also right to do this?

[DannyHamilton]

Well, then you are dealing with moral hazard before anything else.

Let me put my position another way.  If I build a road and people have the choice of whether or not to pay me to use it, if I decide to impose a speed limit of 90mph on it, am I right to do this?  What if I decide to impose no speed limit?  Am I also right to do this?

You aren't answering the question, and your new example has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  The discussion involves an individual choosing to exceed a publicly determined speed limit on a public road.  If you build a private road you can do whatever you want with it as far as I'm concerned.  Speed limit 1 mph, speed limit 250 mph.  Death penalty to those that exceed your speed limit.  As long as the rules, consequences, and costs are clearly known ahead of time by anyone choosing to use your road, I really don't care.

But you are stating that a speeder on a public road is not commiting a crime, since there is no victim.  I'm asking you to defend your position.  You state that the shooter example is a moral hazard.  That may be true, but do you consider this a crime?

[Coreadrin_47]

Well, then you are dealing with moral hazard before anything else.

Let me put my position another way.  If I build a road and people have the choice of whether or not to pay me to use it, if I decide to impose a speed limit of 90mph on it, am I right to do this?  What if I decide to impose no speed limit?  Am I also right to do this?

You aren't answering the question, and your new example has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  The discussion involves an individual choosing to exceed a publicly determined speed limit on a public road.  If you build a private road you can do whatever you want with it as far as I'm concerned.  Speed limit 1 mph, speed limit 250 mph.  Death penalty to those that exceed your speed limit.  As long as the rules, consequences, and costs are clearly known ahead of time by anyone choosing to use your road, I really don't care.

But you are stating that a speeder on a public road is not commiting a crime, since there is no victim.  I'm asking you to defend your position.  You state that the shooter example is a moral hazard.  That may be true, but do you consider this a crime?

A crime must have a victim.  You can't say "society" is a victim - prove it!  The burden of proof must always rest on the accuser.  I can easily produce ten people who would say "I was not harmed in any way by this gentleman's speeding" just as easily as you could produce ten that say "society has been hurt by this fellow who didn't actually hurt any individual human being!".  What do you have to go on at that point?  Consensus?  Where does that lead?

The moral hazard exists in the fact that I have a gun pointed at my face that says I must pay for these things whether I use them or not, and then another gun pointed at my face saying that, if I do decide to use them, I must use them in this specific way, even though nobody actually owns them, and that if I don't conform my behavior to these things over which I have no say, and nobody has a demonstrable moral right to attempt to impose in the first place, it is a "crime".

[DannyHamilton]

A crime must have a victim.  You can't say "society" is a victim - prove it!  The burden of proof must always rest on the accuser.  I can easily produce ten people who would say "I was not harmed in any way by this gentleman's speeding" just as easily as you could produce ten that say "society has been hurt by this fellow who didn't actually hurt any individual human being!".  What do you have to go on at that point?  Consensus?  Where does that lead?

The moral hazard exists in the fact that I have a gun pointed at my face that says I must pay for these things whether I use them or not, and then another gun pointed at my face saying that, if I do decide to use them, I must use them in this specific way, even though nobody actually owns them, and that if I don't conform my behavior to these things over which I have no say, and nobody has a demonstrable moral right to attempt to impose in the first place, it is a "crime".

WTF?  I'm having a difficult time finding any meaning in your last "sentence".  I think you are saying that the act of creating a law against the actions of the shooter is the crime, but I'm really not certain. Lets try this one more time.  Simple question, requesting simple yes/no answer:

There are many children playing in a public park designed for children. A shooter sets up targets at one side of the park, then proceeds to the opposite side of the park and begins shooting his high powered rifle through the park at the targets.  Up until the moment where he accidentally shoots a child, in your personal opinion, is this shooter committing a crime?

[BitBlitz]

This study suggests that your crash risk is minimized when you are going faster even than the average vehicle on the highway. (See figure 2.2) And this is all *before* you correct for higher speeds meaning less time on the road.

So you 'discovered' that there are fewer collisions per mile on freeways vs. roads.  What's you Point?

[Electricbees]

Lot of mad Juniors in this thread... Both for and against the idea of speeding tickets.

Here's a little about me;

I speed. A lot. I have always driven fast, my siblings also have, my parents as well. Always always always fast.

Number of accidents in the family as a direct result of speeding? Zero.
Number of accidents in the family as a result of our own shitty driving? Zero.

We've all been hit several times by idiots texting, old people, faulty road markings (This one was me, they repainted the street after I got hit.) and someone falling asleep at the wheel.

Here are some other facts some of you should consider before taking a stance here.

While I myself am a very defensive driver, and have the cognitive capabilites* to drive 80 on a deserted highway at night, some people don't. In fact, I would venture that a sizable population percentage of americans should not even have a license.

This is why laws like this are in place. Because if you take an average, this is what it takes to keep morons and old people from destroying everyone in their path.

Now me? I think I should be exempt from the limits, because I can handle my driving. (Cry foul, but come watch me drive before you tell me I'm just as shitty as anyone else.) BUT! There is no way to make an exception here, so instead taking it up with courts and representatives, I bitch to friends/family/forum.

My stance is such that we need these laws, but there are people out there who not only can get away, but should be allowed to get away with breaking laws such as speeding.

I pay every ticket, I never take it to court. I know I broke the rules, and accept my punishment.

(Fun tidbit for you all. If I had a ticket for every Stop-sign/Stop-light I have blazed through at 20+MPH, I would have approximately 14,000 instances of infraction. I drive for my job, and I know the neighborhoods I work in down to who's up at what time, who drives to work when, and even when/where the police patrol on their given patrol nights. Number of times anyone has even got close to being hurt by my actions? Zero. I can break the law in such a way that is smart and takes others into account. Keep in mind that this IS possible for people to do.)