income based penalties

Truant · Post by **Truant** » November 6, 2003, 2:32 am

if this system were to actually work as a deterrant (i think it would, at least moreso than our present one)...then speeding wouldn't be a problem, and the police force could cut back on speed trap labourers, equipment, etc. Redirect that money to other areas of possible crime prevention. Thereby making the world a better place.

What part of kyoukan's response didn't make sense?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » November 6, 2003, 2:46 am

ask any cop what their least favorite job is and 99% of them will tell you that it is speed trapping. if people stopped speeding entirely the entire law enforcement industry would throw a party. the measly hundred buck fine doesn't even come close to recouping the cost of man hours, equipment, court time and administrative duties. not to mention the absolutely retarded amount of time wasted looking for soccer moms cranking their SUVs up to 90mph instead of looking for actual crimes taking place

100% correct.

I can't speak for every burg in the states, but do you know what law enforcement gets out of a ticket in my town?

Two

Fucking

Dollars.

And that money is earmarked as training funds only by state law. Think about that next time you want to blame getting caught being stupid on a cop with a quota.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 6, 2003, 3:12 am

I don't think it would be a deterrent.

Since the thread was (I thought) about speeding tickets being more of a deterrant if they were based on a percentage of income, I fail to see how what an officer thinks about enforcement of said laws as relevant.

I'll say it again, basic speeding (i.e., not reckless driving, and breaking no other laws) is not a real problem, but rather an effective way for police to pull over basically anyone they choose, any time they choose.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » November 6, 2003, 3:25 am

Did you even read the article?

here, I'll save you the trouble and just quote the relevant part.

The figure comes into play whenever a driver is caught going at least 12 miles an hour over the posted limit (below that, the fine is a fixed amount, ranging from $63 to $110).

This is to deter gross speeding, you know, endangerment of lives and all that good shit.
You're right, it won't deter basic speeding. But since you were having an argument with yourself about that. You win...you beat yourself! woo hoo! Game Over! You win! 1 - 0.
The rest of us were talking about it's deterrance as it pertains to excessive speeding. (Well some people were making redneck comments about beating up their cars in some savant plan to escape the law, but i won't speak for them).

Yours truly,
Aladdin Sane

noel · Post by **noel** » November 6, 2003, 3:30 am

In the state of California, where I live and work, reckless driving is 25+ mph over the speed limit.

If you're going less than that you get 'exceeding the maximum speed'. That's a $200 ticket for those keeping score. Even for someone like myself with you know... a job (you've heard of that I'm sure). A $200 fine still hurts.

Now having said that... My argument wasn't that it wouldn't deter basic speeding. My argument is that it won't deter shit. My argument is also that it would be to the detriment of law enforcement if it did deter speeding. Sorry you can't grasp that.

You've clearly confused me for someone who was speaking to you. I wasn't.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 6, 2003, 3:53 am

Aranuil wrote:I don't think it would be a deterrent.

Since the thread was (I thought) about speeding tickets being more of a deterrant if they were based on a percentage of income, I fail to see how what an officer thinks about enforcement of said laws as relevant.

You brought it up. I don't exactly what you are arguing.

Besides, a cop can pull you over for anything he wants to. He can't search your vehicle without due cause though. He doesn't have to pull you over for speeding.

also, a cop can charge you for reckless driving for doing 25 over the limit but that isn't written in stone. you could take a corner too fast or accelerate too hard while staying under the limit and still get nailed for reckless driving.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 6, 2003, 4:07 am

I agree with you about reckless driving being subjective. I was trying to point out the difference between being pulled over for average freeway speeds, and actual endangerment.

As for reasons to be pulled over... in the state of California, the police officer has to have a reason to pull you over. It could be nearly anything, but there has to be a reason. He can't pull you over because he wants to if you're breaking no laws. Headlight out, taillight out, registration late, no front plate, tinted windows forward of the B pillar, etc. But there does have to be a reason in this state.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » November 6, 2003, 8:43 am

Truant wrote:if this system were to actually work as a deterrant (i think it would, at least moreso than our present one)...then speeding wouldn't be a problem, and the police force could cut back on speed trap labourers, equipment, etc. Redirect that money to other areas of possible crime prevention. Thereby making the world a better place.

What part of kyoukan's response didn't make sense?

Of course there would be no discrimination at all from ego-filled power hungry cops on pulling over that nice new lexus convertable going 2 miles over the speed limit. If you get enough speeding tickets you have to go to driving school and you can get your licence revoked anyways. If you want your points taken away you sit 4 hours in that bullshit class, which is a much bigger deterrent then the actual speeding ticket is. Honestly most wealthy people wouldnt give a second thought to that law and drive the way they would anyways

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » November 6, 2003, 12:00 pm

My argument is also that it would be to the detriment of law enforcement if it did deter speeding. Sorry you can't grasp that.

Funny, the cops back home say they would like nothing more than to see speeding reduced or disappear..

Xzion.. you're an idiot. That's all.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 6, 2003, 12:55 pm

First point: Quotas are at least largely a myth. In Pennsylvania at least, there are no quotas. If you get pulled over at the end of a month, it's because you were being a dipshit at the end of the month. Stop trying to make excuses. I'm not sure if other states have quota's or not, but at the very least, they're much less important than the various anti-police assholes make them out to be.

Second: I have definitely been pulled over for being on the road late at night before. I was obeying the speed limit and all traffic laws at 2:30 AM, and a cop pulled me over and grilled me on where i was going, why i was out so late, whether i was drunk, and so on. I'm not sure if that was technically legal on his part, but I'm sure he could think of some justification for it.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » November 6, 2003, 1:22 pm

xzion, shut up...unless you can suddenly form rational thoughts.

Aranuil, ok I follow you now...you think it will have zero impact on any sort of speeding whatsoever. I'm just curious why you think that.

Kyou, I'm glad I wasn't that only one that wasn't sure what he was arguing for.

P.S. The other morning, I spotted an H2 in traffic with a cover over it's spare tire, depicting a US flag blowing in the wind, with the words "Let's Roll" written underneath. Classic.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 6, 2003, 1:53 pm

The equations start with a motorist's net monthly income. The figure comes into play whenever a driver is caught going at least 12 miles an hour over the posted limit (below that, the fine is a fixed amount, ranging from $63 to $110).

I have quoted this again for the retards who have no reading skills. If you need help understanding this portion, please PM Xuoqua and have your access removed to post on these boards.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » November 6, 2003, 3:06 pm

Aranuil,

Why do you think a reduction in speeding would be bad for law enforcement? Makes no sense.

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » November 6, 2003, 3:15 pm

masteen wrote:
Fallanthas wrote:The old celtic cultures used a similar concept, geld I think is the word for it. It was used to refer both to the support a landsman owed his lord and the penalties for certain crimes. Both were based on either the income of the freeholder in question or the status of the person the crime was committed against.
Main Entry: 1geld
Pronunciation: 'geld
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse gelda; akin to Old English gelde sterile
Date: 14th century
1 : CASTRATE
2 : to deprive of a natural or essential part <sick of workingmen being gelded of their natural expression -- Atlantic>

I would think this is rather excessive punishment for speeding. Losing the boys because you drive fast would be a hell of a deterrent though.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 6, 2003, 3:48 pm

Fall,

A couple years back, I went to traffic school put on by the CHP. The guy who was running the class was an actual CHP officer. During the course of his 8 hour presentation, he made the statement that the CHP was well aware of and not bothered by the fact that the vast majority of California drivers on the freeway exceeded the speed limit. I'm talking 1+ mph. His reasoning was that it allowed them to pull over almost anyone at any time. Perhaps this is unique to California since here they actually have to have a reason to pull you over, but that was the statement he made.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » November 6, 2003, 4:19 pm

Ok, gotcha.

Trust me, it's no problem at all to find a reason to stop a motorist, as Chidoro outlined above. Reducing speeders wouldn't hurt a traffic officer in the least in that department.

'sides, the article (and your own post above) makes it pretty clear that this isn't something done to the 1+ MPH over folks.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 6, 2003, 4:44 pm

Aranuil wrote:As for reasons to be pulled over... in the state of California, the police officer has to have a reason to pull you over. It could be nearly anything, but there has to be a reason. He can't pull you over because he wants to if you're breaking no laws. Headlight out, taillight out, registration late, no front plate, tinted windows forward of the B pillar, etc. But there does have to be a reason in this state.

Last time I was in california with my husband (before we were married), we were pulled over 2 times in two days. Once in LA county and once in Carmel. We weren't speeding and there was nothing wrong with the car we were driving. Both times the cops looked over at me in the passenger seat and asked me if everything was ok. It was kind of embarrasing. Anyway, cops don't need a reason to pull you over. They just need a reason to search your car.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 6, 2003, 4:56 pm

I was at a teenage spot with a white chick once, along with 5 or 6 other cars. Cops came, gave everyone a once over, then got to my car, made me get out, explain why I was there, asked the girl if she was ok, checked my license etc and ran my plates. And after all that, he made us and only us leave. It's not California, but then again, I do live in the south *REBEL YELL!*

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 6, 2003, 5:14 pm

Xzion wrote:shit my dad would have had lots of fun in finland when i was 16

fucking terrible
and of course cops wouldnt be biased to pulling over that nice new lexus convertable over there at all...going half a mile over the speed limit
several thousand fo a speeding ticket? come the fuck on...but the rich have more money, why not just fuck them over, stupid greedy basterds deserve it right?, all that money would go towards Bush_war_03 anyways

If you decided to put a fine in, say administered by a panel of Aranuil, Kyou and Pils, to fine people VV's for posting retarded threads.. do you think the "rich" people w/ a million VV's would care about a 100VV fine? Or would you just be silencing the "poor" people..

This is not an "eat the rich" argument, it's about deterrent value, and a $100 fine to, say, David Letterman, isn't going to amount to jack shit. The only part of the law that keeps the rich within "sane" speeds are the licence revoccation and jail time.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 6, 2003, 5:32 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:I was at a teenage spot with a white chick once, along with 5 or 6 other cars. Cops came, gave everyone a once over, then got to my car, made me get out, explain why I was there, asked the girl if she was ok, checked my license etc and ran my plates. And after all that, he made us and only us leave. It's not California, but then again, I do live in the south *REBEL YELL!*

But, was she 12?

Seriously, that sucks.. but not every officer is Dudley Doright and not every one is the Bad Lieutenant.. Ara's example of a single cop that uses speeding as an excuse to pull over cute chicks and stare down their tops not withstanding, it doesn't make it "policy"

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » November 6, 2003, 7:19 pm

Hmm, this wouldn't work in the US. Maybe in Canada though.