Speed Limits - Yea or Nay?

[GhostWriter16]

Simple, if the person can't afford it, they end up in debt and have to pay it back later. Is that seriously a hard solution?

And I suppose "Fine" isn't a very good word.

My point is that the point isn't to correct a behavior, but to compensate the victim. That's really how it should be for any crime except ones where the criminal is clearly going to continue to be dangerous (Like armed robbery.)

 

[Tee Kay]

My point is that the point isn't to correct a behavior, but to compensate the victim. That's really how it should be for any crime except ones where the criminal is clearly going to continue to be dangerous (Like armed robbery.)

Or reckless driving.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Or reckless driving.

Agreed. But speeding isn't always reckless and its not something you can put a number on either.

 

[azzaman333]

Agreed. But speeding isn't always reckless and its not something you can put a number on either.

Crashing a car, as in Camikaze's example, seems pretty damn reckless to me.

 

[civver_764]

Crashing a car, as in Camikaze's example, seems pretty damn reckless to me.

Speeding =/= crashing a car.

 

[azzaman333]

Speeding =/= crashing a car.

Never said it did.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I'm in favor of getting rid of traffic laws and building environments that curb fast speeds when inappropriate. Get rid of striping, signs -- add on-street parking. Get rid of mongrel lanes that neither (1) move traffic quickly from place to place nor (2) add value. (Focus on hi-speed highways and low-speed roads, not 40 mph four-lanes, for instance.)

 

[Zelig]

Agreed. But speeding isn't always reckless and its not something you can put a number on either.

Regardless of the speed at which you drive, your probability of crashing approaches 100% in the long run.

 

[civver_764]

I'm in favor of getting rid of traffic laws and building environments that curb fast speeds when inappropriate. Get rid of striping, signs -- add on-street parking. Get rid of mongrel lanes that neither (1) move traffic quickly from place to place nor (2) add value. (Focus on hi-speed highways and low-speed roads, not 40 mph four-lanes, for instance.)

Me too. With most laws all they do is attack the symptoms rather than the actual problem.

 

[Crezth]

Me too. With most laws all they do is attack the symptoms rather than the actual problem.

Only because symptoms are usually easier to treat than problems, or because solving the problem requires working against the system in some way - which is self-defeating.

For example, laws against stealing are quite popular. But it seems to me that laws against property would get to the heart of the matter much more quickly - of course, then your elite class would be outlawing itself, and we can't have that.

 

[TomYo689]

I agree with the seperate road have like a slow road and a enter at your own risk highway

 

[Grisu]

Quite frankly, there's something perverse about the fact that the government uses lawbreaking for a profit. Either a given action has a victim, in which case any fine should go to the victim, or the action does not have a victim and then the government should ignore it.

so, drunk driving should be legal too, then?

 

[sophie]

so, drunk driving should be legal too, then?

Absolutely. And wandering down the street firing off rounds at random. As long as you aren't harming anybody, right?

 

[Synobun]

Absolutely. And wandering down the street firing off rounds at random. As long as you aren't harming anybody, right?

Duh. Otherwise, it's a nanny-state.

 

[Borachio]

I thought I might come up with some victimless crimes for humourous reasons here.

Trouble is, I can't think of anything.

 

[Camikaze]

that other person should not be left out in the dry because of person B's actions.

Simple, if the person can't afford it, they end up in debt and have to pay it back later. Is that seriously a hard solution?

Should the victim be left out in the dry because of person B's impecuniosity? The victim doesn't benefit from person B going broke (and neither does society), and won't benefit from having to rely on person B being able to afford the 'fine'. So as easy a solution as that may be, it's useless in the circumstances for all involved, and society as a whole.

That's simply a specific example of the difficulty with such a system, however. You didn't address the broader point.

And I suppose "Fine" isn't a very good word.

My point is that the point isn't to correct a behavior, but to compensate the victim. That's really how it should be for any crime except ones where the criminal is clearly going to continue to be dangerous (Like armed robbery.)

I'm assuming the first sentence in the second paragraph here is saying that the point of the punishment/fine/redress you are proposing would be to compensate, because the point of current speeding fines is clearly not. What you're basically saying is that people should be free to drive as they please, and everything can be left up to tort law. Tort law is, of course, entirely unsatisfactory for compensation, but that doesn't even touch the problem of deterrence and accident prevention.

 

[holy king]

look if you dont want to be killed by a car driving round the corner at 200mph buy a gun. no need for a nanny state.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My point is that the point isn't to correct a behavior, but to compensate the victim.

No. The point is not to correct behaviour, that's a consequence. The point is to prevent having a victim to compensate, which is done by trying to correct the behaviour.

If I drive on the same road as someone who speeds he will put me in greater danger than I chose to be subject to. In that sens speeding has many victims. Everyone who has been put in more danger than they opted for when they decided to get in the car as a result of the one who is speeding .

 

[Ayatollah So]

But if you rear end someone at 145 you are going to veer off course and likely flip your vehicle or both. Then you die. Any off-center acclereation or deceleration at that speed will prove catastrophic; it's a rare scenario where you rear end someone perfectly through both vehicles center of mass. Anything short of that is a recipe for disaster.

No fair using physics!

I, for one, do want the nanny state to protect me from others' stupidity.

In fact, trucks are so un-aerodynamic that a golf ball or light car will probably accelerate faster due to their better drag coefficients.

No way on that golf ball.

Terminal velocities: skydiver, 134 mph, golf ball, 72 mph. They didn't do automobiles, but the volume:area ratio of a truck, and thus its mass:air resistance ratio, is so large, it will easily beat that skydiver.

So a light vehicle and a heavy vehicle with the same shape will experience the same air resistance. For the heavy vehicle this force can be small compared to the gravity force

Yeah, like that. Even if the shape (and I assume you include overall size under "shape") is worse for the larger vehicle, mass scales roughly as length*height*width while drag scales roughly as height*width. Cars and trucks differ dramatically in length, more than enough, I suspect, to cancel the truck's larger drag coefficient.

 

[Borachio]

How is it that people will accept wearing a seat belt, and drink driving laws, for their own, and others', protection but not a speed limit?