I think you mean Laura Bush, not Barbara.
Actually, there is some pretty fair evidence that traffic law enforcement does lead to fewer deaths from motor vehicle crashes.
(If the link above doesn’t work, please let me know. I can’t tell because I’m cookied-in there and always get full text.)
It requires registration to the site, but it works.
Thanks, andrew.
Here’s the abstract from a different web source.
I skimmed that article and it makes sense. If you enforce the traffic laws on the book, you will reduce the number of crashes by virtue of intimidating drivers into driving more carefully or driving less. However, this is not something I would call (many might disagree) a safety minded law. A law concerned with safety should not derive that safety through restriction on use, otherwise you’re just playing games with statistics.
For example, consider a law that makes it illegal to drive. No exceptions. That law, if enforced properly, would almost remove all motor vehicle accidents.
Otherwise, by the same logic, reducing minimum wage whilst increasing gasoline tax(which indirectly reduces the number of drivers on the road) is a traffic safety measure.
A real safety law would be a law requiring reflective street marking, or that roads with certain steep curves be a certain minimum width. A truly caring government places restrictions mostly on itself.
Ha–
A few years ago I got hit with a “man on the street” type interview asking what I would do if I won the lottery (this was back when our lottery was pretty new). I thought for a minute and said I would let my dog off the leash and drive my car the speed I like. Needless to say, the TV station did not use my answer!
A few years ago I got a great influx of cash and I did, in fact, let my dog off the leash and ignore the speed limit (along with 10,000 other motorists I might add) and I did not get caught. Now I am pinching pennies again so I’m good.
BTW I do not drive at unsafe speeds and I do not speed through school zones. Even when rich. I have had dogs that were not reliable when off-leash, but the one I let off was (i.e., cames when called, would never have bit a stranger). So none of these things were intrinsically unsafe for anyone.
Running stop signs is, in fact, dangerous. I don’t do that either.
Zombie Warning!!! 10 year old thread!!!
2015 UPDATE - Finnish millionaire gets a US$58,000 fine for driving 14 mph over the speed limit.
This seems a bit egregious.
Of course, I assume most states work like Canada, each offense can earn you one or more “demerits”. Too many demerits, you need to take a remedial driving course, eventually lose your license, need to retest. So it’s not just that speeding is a simple money equation. If you can afford the cost of retrieving your impounded car each time you are caught driving without a license, likely you can afford a chauffeur and the point is moot.
I do question if 14 over the limit is in anyway dangerous, speed limits seem to be set assume people will exceed them, I’m sure most cops would give other cops a pass on it (which means either that it is safe (so no fine is justified), or they are allowed to endanger the public (which discredits them). But the fine itself should have it’s desired ‘bite’ given the person’s resources. For a much poorer person perhaps $5.80 wold be equally appropriate.
What do you imagine speed limits are? The level where you’ll instantly lose control for no reason what so ever?
Increasing your speed from 80 km/h to over 100 km/h as this guy did (and the cops probably took a bit off for the margin of error for their measurement) increases your stopping distance by around 50 %. Instead of being able to stop when something occurs 60 m in front of your car, as you would at 80, you’re going to hit whatever it is at significant speed.
Since it’s been reopened anyway - there is a split system of traffic fines in the US. When semi-truck drivers are ticketed, they get a much higher fine. Not because they have more money, but because they’re always on the road and any mistakes they make are likely to cause more damage.
Also, for speeding, semis going faster chew up the road surface quicker. Road maintenance is expensive.
The only way to deter someone who is going to die anyway , or willing to die for the cause, is to punish their family.
Israel destroys the homes of the terrorists family…
Do not know why you would assume this unless you assume if you exceed the limit you instantly become a menace to society.
Shoot him. Then you have determined his life expectancy.
I should have written “What do you imagine speed limits should be?” instead. The false dichotomy you used to argue your case made me too irate to think clearly.
Ok, one thing is it should used to get the travelers moving together at a common speed the current system does not do that. Differential speeds presents hazards, it would seem more so then if everyone was traveling around the same speed.
It should also be fair and clear, which it is currently not, they don’t let you know by ow much you can exceed the speed limit without getting pulled over. This leads to a further differential of speeds between vehicles. This vast range seems to be because the speed limit is really too low, it should be set at a reasonable rate to narrow the difference of speeds.
Perhaps post the enforcement tolerance would be a step in the right direction. Something like ‘Speed Limit 65; Enforced over 80 mph’ so you know, so everyone knows, Set your cruse at 75 and you are good to go, no fear, no guess work, the OP gets to travel 5mph under something :), less differential of speeds will hopefully reduce accidents, and reduce passing. More people going at a stead speed will hopefully encourage others to join in. It would also be more honestly set that in this example most traffic would naturally go around 75.
You realize the average road in Finland isn’t a multi-lane, straight as a ruler, US highway and that the way to set and enforce speed limits also differs significantly, right?
I seem to remember seeing somewhere, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
The punishment is supposed to fit the crime not the criminal.
Even if the wealthy (maybe especially if the wealthy) get bigger fines, they are less likely to be convicted because they can afford ‘better’ justice.
The type of road really does not matter, the speed limit, and the enforcement tolerance in my suggestion would be according to road situation.
But no I do not know how inland sets up and enforces speed limits. I proposed a example that would help correct some of the wrongness of our US current system of how we implement speed limits and enforcement, but I am open to other systems, it was just a example.