Terrific! Use your background to quantify how much risks are increased when I drive 56 in a 55.

If an officer sits at the side of the road to clock and ticket those who drive at 56, he is doing it primarily to protect the interest of those on the road, not to advance his or his employers gains, right?

 

[QUOTE=smurf2k,Jun 28 2007, 02:45 PM]Terrific!

 

Magician,

With that slipper-slope logic you have, you must be scared to death about governments collecting tax. I mean, if they start collecting 30%, soon it'll be 40, then 50, then pretty soon... we all work and get rationed food, water, and gasoline by the government, because they are collecting 100%. I think they should collect no taxes whatsoever. We'll abolish all government, military, and social services so we don't need to worry about that.

Or, dear god... if one beer is okay, soon comes two, then three... then soon you're dead of alcohol poisoning. We better ban alcohol.

Oh, oh... or... if you eat one clearly unheathly fast food meal, soon you'll think a second is okay, then a third... pretty soon they're forklifting you out of your house.

Come on. Logic CAN be used to determine "acceptable" amounts of risk. Just because you participate in a risky activity by some small measure doesn't mean that you'll soon be participating in the worst case example.

 

I believe that was my point.

I was developing an argument against smurf2k's contention that if you don't deserve a ticket at 55 you cannot possibly deserve one at 56. Clearly, one has to set a limit somewhere.

Yes, that was, in fact, my point.

 

If I understand magician's argument, the speed limit is there for the sake of safety, not for revenue generation.

I happen to disagree on this premise, but I shall continue nonetheless.

The fallacy in this argument is that the speed limit designed for the sake of safety is only pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Consider this, do you believe that traveling at the speed limit that a giant Ford Excursion or broken-down Geo Metro will have the the same stopping capability or accident avoidance capability as my S2000? Therefore, should not my vehicle that is more capable be granted the ability to drive faster?

Just a point to consider.

 

entrapment?

 

"Only a sith deal in absolutes."

Posted speeds should be 'suggested' speeds, not limits applied in a boolean matter.
(In certain weather and/or traffic conditions issuing tickets at under 55 is acceptable).

-Limits, such as those in described cases (Wilber, for one), are there primarily to generate revenue
-Speed "traps" do exist widely by officers who spend their time acting against the spirit of the law

Classifying those who drive 1mph over the posted limit as law breakers shows a mindless, facile train of thought

Clearly, one has to be rational sometime.

 

"Should be"? According to what standard? What, exactly, is a "suggested speed"? How is the "suggestion" applied; i.e., enforced?

In short, it's easy to say that something should be done; it's a lot more difficult to implement it in a reasonable manner.

California's Basic Speed Law covers this. I cannot speak to laws in other states. (California also allows that speeds above the posted limit can be legal.)

As I wrote earlier, thwart the buggers: slow down.

Without a clear idea of what you mean by a speed "trap" it's impossible to prove or disprove this. In California, for example, there is a legal definition of a "speed trap"; speeds traps (as defined in the California Motor Vehicle Code) are illegal.

Actually, it shows an understanding of the definition of "law breaker", assuming that the posted limit is the legal limit. It isn't a judgment of right or wrong, simply a statement of fact.

In fact, it's better to be rational most of the time, if not all the time.

My argument is - has always been - that the line has to be drawn somewhere. Some jurisdictions choose to draw it at the posted speed limit. Some at the prima facie limit. Some at something moderately above the posted limit. You may argue that the line is drawn improperly, but you cannot (rationally) argue against this basic fact: no matter where the line is drawn, a difference of 1 mph can be the difference between being ticketed and not being ticketed.

1. If you don't want to be ticketed for speeding, don't speed.

2. If you choose to speed, do so with the understanding that you may get ticketed.

3. If you believe that the speed laws are unfair, work to change them.

4. If working to change them is too much trouble, see 2., above.

 

heh i think we have pissing matches about speed limits atleast once a week on the boards now

 

Wow, thats a lot of words up there ^ ^.

Maybe when I get doen with war and peace, I will read this post.