Speeding Tickets

[Matthew N. Wright]

In Poland we have cameras like in Germany but fortunately not as many and the tickets are not as expensive.

Germany is actually rather cheap.

Germany: 30km/h too fast: 80€
Here in Switzerland, 30km/h too fast: 800sfr = 650€

The most expensive it's ever been for me was 260km/h = $120 (the ridiculous thing about tickets in Korea is they don't contribute to any strikes, so as long as you weren't drinking and pay the fines, you can keep in speeding)

[malevolent]

In Poland we have cameras like in Germany but fortunately not as many and the tickets are not as expensive.

Germany is actually rather cheap.

Germany: 30km/h too fast: 80€
Here in Switzerland, 30km/h too fast: 800sfr = 650€

 

That's tough.
Poland 30km/h over the limit: between 22.5 and 45€

[Foxpup]

I wanted to make a break for the state line (I think I've seen that in films and I'm sure you're safe if you make it but my girlfriend talked me out of it.

Fun story, but in all seriousness, if you run from the cops and cross state lines, you're risking a federal warrant instead of a local ticket, as well as cooperating authorities on the other side continuing pursuit (also unlikely but possible)

It's unlikely because it's usually completely unnecessary. Despite what you've seen in films, state police are in fact allowed to follow you across state lines and arrest you (assuming they were actively pursuing you from the start; if you're already in another state before the police are on to you, they can't do anything except get an extradition warrant).

[420]

I've been pulled a few times in the uk, but only had a ticket when caught by a speed camera. I had passengers when pulled but not when caught by the camera (those intimidating swines!)

When driving from Yosemite to Vegas a few years back I was driving at around 120mph on an empty road when I saw the speck of a car in the distance behind me. Realising they were really gunning for it, I slowed down a bit and realised it was the police.

I wanted to make a break for the state line (I think I've seen that in films and I'm sure you're safe if you make it but my girlfriend talked me out of it.

After a stern talking to, they sent me on my way with a warning that if I was caught again if be in real trouble.

man you must have a pretty face, they just keep letting you go

or my theory was correct that you're less likely to get a ticket when there's passengers with someone

The most expensive it's ever been for me was 260km/h = $120 (the ridiculous thing about tickets in Korea is they don't contribute to any strikes, so as long as you weren't drinking and pay the fines, you can keep in speeding)

hey, maximum revenue!

[Funky Al]

I've been pulled a few times in the uk, but only had a ticket when caught by a speed camera. I had passengers when pulled but not when caught by the camera (those intimidating swines!)

When driving from Yosemite to Vegas a few years back I was driving at around 120mph on an empty road when I saw the speck of a car in the distance behind me. Realising they were really gunning for it, I slowed down a bit and realised it was the police.

I wanted to make a break for the state line (I think I've seen that in films and I'm sure you're safe if you make it but my girlfriend talked me out of it.

After a stern talking to, they sent me on my way with a warning that if I was caught again if be in real trouble.

man you must have a pretty face, they just keep letting you go

Well, I'm not a bad looking chap, but certainly no heartthrob. 

I find you've you got to be apologetic, but not over the top. If it comes across as insincere you're in trouble.

Talk to them as an equal and you should be fine (well I have anyway.)

[420]

I hate how punishments are given subjectively. Laws should be applied objectively

well I have victim-less crimes being crimes anyway

[Matthew N. Wright]

I hate how punishments are given subjectively. Laws should be applied objectively

well I have victim-less crimes being crimes anyway

It is very difficult to make rules for society that protect a few. It's a hard decision to make since we have what's called "human rights". If you want to say that humans have rights, then you have to also say that you shouldn't be allowed to do things that may or may not cause said humans harm (because of their right to not be afflicted by idiot drivers). On the other hand, we have pilots' licenses and police badges that allow excessive speed to people with training-- why can't said training be given to civilians who are interested as well?

[420]

I hate how punishments are given subjectively. Laws should be applied objectively

well I have victim-less crimes being crimes anyway

It is very difficult to make rules for society that protect a few. It's a hard decision to make since we have what's called "human rights". If you want to say that humans have rights, then you have to also say that you shouldn't be allowed to do things that may or may not cause said humans harm (because of their right to not be afflicted by idiot drivers). On the other hand, we have pilots' licenses and police badges that allow excessive speed to people with training-- why can't said training be given to civilians who are interested as well?

protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

it is not our right to deter random inconvenient events that affect your 'pursuit of happiness' for example your money being stolen, or your house burning down. The state (police) are there to punish crimes not prevent crimes, that's been said many times by judges who interpret the law

there needs to be a threshold of immediate danger.

shooting a full clip at someone 10ft away (by an unskilled gunman or something shooting randomly) could have 40% chance of hitting someone and 15% chance of killing them.

speeding on a highway has maybe 1% chance of an accident. with like 0.3% of an accident involving someone else. 0.05% involving serious injury or death of someone

I'm sure I've done it over 100 times. and 0 accidents under my belt

[Matthew N. Wright]

I'm sure I've done it over 100 times. and 0 accidents under my belt

You're the exception. Welcome to the club. Unfortunately, laws aren't made for the exceptions. What I'm saying is there should be exception licenses. You dig?

It's like the argument from drunks who say "I driiiive better whehhn intoxicated *hiccup*". Should they be allowed the "right" and not "punished" or "restricted"?

[420]

I'm sure I've done it over 100 times. and 0 accidents under my belt

You're the exception. Welcome to the club. Unfortunately, laws aren't made for the exceptions. What I'm saying is there should be exception licenses. You dig?

It's like the argument from drunks who say "I driiiive better whehhn intoxicated *hiccup*". Should they be allowed the "right" and not "punished" or "restricted"?

I'll dig.

punishment should be for a crime; as in, when you harm someone else.

DUI laws don't prevent drunk driving, just reduce it

speeding laws don't prevent speeding, just reduce it ever slightly. much less than drunk driving laws

[Matthew N. Wright]

I'm sure I've done it over 100 times. and 0 accidents under my belt

You're the exception. Welcome to the club. Unfortunately, laws aren't made for the exceptions. What I'm saying is there should be exception licenses. You dig?

It's like the argument from drunks who say "I driiiive better whehhn intoxicated *hiccup*". Should they be allowed the "right" and not "punished" or "restricted"?

I'll dig.

punishment should be for a crime; as in, when you harm someone else.

DUI laws don't prevent drunk driving, just reduce it

speeding laws don't prevent speeding, just reduce it ever slightly. much less than drunk driving laws

I agree with you that technology would help much of the world's needless laws become life policies instead, such as a car that only starts with a breathalyzer, but then you'd have idiots on the other side of the spectrum barking about their rights to drive drunk.

[malevolent]

I agree with you that technology would help much of the world's needless laws become life policies instead, such as a car that only starts with a breathalyzer,

No problem, as long as you are the one that covers the extra cost of the breathalyzer and it's my company that gets appropriate government certification/licensing/whatever-crap-they-come-up-with-to-regulate-it and becomes a breathalyzer monopoly.

but then you'd have idiots on the other side of the spectrum barking about their rights to drive drunk.

The owner of the road should be the only entity to decide whether drunk drivers should be allowed to use it.

[wdmw]

I agree with you that technology would help much of the world's needless laws become life policies instead, such as a car that only starts with a breathalyzer, but then you'd have idiots on the other side of the spectrum barking about their rights to drive drunk.

It doesn't seem that you are actually agreeing with him.  Cars that only start with a breathalyzer would be the opposite of what I understand that he is saying.

punishment should be for a crime; as in, when you harm someone else.

This means no 'drunk driving' laws.  You can drive drunk, but if you cause a collision and hurt someone, you are liable.

[420]

whoa whoa

but who should own the roads?

yeah, and we need facial recognition. or else people will just have their friend breathe into the breathalizer, or find another way to fool the machine like with an air compressor

punishment should be for a crime; as in, when you harm someone else.

This means no 'drunk driving' laws.  You can drive drunk, but if you cause a collision and hurt someone, you are liable.

exactly. I don't believe the state should decide 'what is drunk' let alone what is safe.

Murder is illegal, manslaughter is illega, destruction of property. things that actually harm people.

Drunk driving laws purpose are supposed to be to stop these things which are already illegal.

Cops can help better ways than violating our fourth amendment rights. Hang outside bars and see who gets drunk walking to their car. or convince its the bars responsibility.

for house parties, no one would know. people drive drunk, and make it safe or cause accidents. no police were in the middle. we would have to have a nanny state of cops on every block seeing everyone who comes/goes or car breathalizers (which people could hack etc....)

In the end I think too much money is going to law enforcement that we can't even tell how much bad things it is preventing. but we can easily tell how it gets in regular citizens ways. And their resources aren't used in other places

I think people who cause accidents are treated too leniently

[Matthew N. Wright]

whoa whoa

but who should own the roads?

As it's always been, the people who paid for them. And the people who paid for them are the citizens, who elected officials to make rules in their name to make society safer. In otherwords, everything is working exactly as we (apparently) want. If you want to change that, start by voting people into office/power that plan to dismantle the government one generation at a time.

[420]

whoa whoa

but who should own the roads?

As it's always been, the people who paid for them. And the people who paid for them are the citizens, who elected officials to make rules in their name to make society safer. In otherwords, everything is working exactly as we (apparently) want. If you want to change that, start by voting people into office/power that plan to dismantle the government one generation at a time.

if someone owns all the roads around you does that mean they can tell you you're not allowed to leave your little area inside? because you'd have to cross their property. or else fly on a helicopter

[Matthew N. Wright]

whoa whoa

but who should own the roads?

As it's always been, the people who paid for them. And the people who paid for them are the citizens, who elected officials to make rules in their name to make society safer. In otherwords, everything is working exactly as we (apparently) want. If you want to change that, start by voting people into office/power that plan to dismantle the government one generation at a time.

if someone owns all the roads around you does that mean they can tell you you're not allowed to leave your little area inside? because you'd have to cross their property. or else fly on a helicopter

As with the ancients who lived next to volcanoes, it's fight or flight. Pay attention to what's happening around you and where you live and be ready to leave in order to survive. When a bunch of gang members start blocking exits to a building, I will look for the few exits left open and use one. If they try to stop me when I'm leaving, fuck them. If they try to stop me while I continue to walk in and out of the building because I feel I have a "right to excercise my rights", fuck me. Pick and choose your battles gentlemen.

[420]

I'm just talking about in the legal sense.

you dont' think laws should be in place regarding right to travel, restricting movement, etc.?

[Matthew N. Wright]

I'm just talking about in the legal sense.

you dont' think laws should be in place regarding right to travel, restricting movement, etc.?

We're arguing different points from the exact same side it feels like. I'm not a libertard 420, I'm a rational thinker who understands flawed systems are in place due to flawed people and no matter what you do to change it, it will also be flawed, but that refreshing the systems with new updates ideas is essential and thus I follow all schools of thought I learn of, including libertarianism. The people here arguing that laws shouldn't exist, don't tread on me, blah blah blah are just more extremist/cultist/anarchist/libertarians who have never had their face punched in before by a total stranger and don't understand why some common sense measures in life are good.

I agree that speeding laws are flawed and dumb, but removing them doesn't solve anything. Education and training solves everything. In a decentralization obsessed community like ours (who ironically still uses a centralized and propaganda ridden forum), it behooves me why anyone would not understand that majority wins. Always. No one gives a shit about your rights, your abilities or your fairy dreams, because you're the minority. Try understanding the majority instead of fighting everything around you. Or do like I do and move to a country you can do what you want in.

[420]

I'm just talking about in the legal sense.

you dont' think laws should be in place regarding right to travel, restricting movement, etc.?

We're arguing different points from the exact same side it feels like. I'm not a libertard 420, I'm a rational thinker who understands flawed systems are in place due to flawed people and no matter what you do to change it, it will also be flawed, but that refreshing the systems with new updates ideas is essential and thus I follow all schools of thought I learn of, including libertarianism. The people here arguing that laws shouldn't exist, don't tread on me, blah blah blah are just more extremist/cultist/anarchist/libertarians who have never had their face punched in before by a total stranger and don't understand why some common sense measures in life are good.

I agree that speeding laws are flawed and dumb, but removing them doesn't solve anything. Education and training solves everything. In a decentralization obsessed community like ours (who ironically still uses a centralized and propaganda ridden forum), it behooves me why anyone would not understand that majority wins. Always. No one gives a shit about your rights, your abilities or your fairy dreams, because you're the minority. Try understanding the majority instead of fighting everything around you. Or do like I do and move to a country you can do what you want in.

I legitimately wanted your opinion on the particular laws that I mentioned in regards to peronsl movement.

I too think government definitely lacks in educating and providing information and instead uses too much force which doesn't change people's beliefs and only changes their behavior through intimidation