This weekend our traffic enforcement

[Raza]

Whereas under the current system, it acts as a regressive tax because it hits poor people the hardest./

Speeding tickets act as a regressive tax?

It's called equity of law.  You get fined the same as someone with much more money.  That's fair.  If it's that big of a tax, go get a better job.

[Eye of the Tiger]

No, it doesn't.  You can't punish someone for being financially successful.  It's fucking retarded.

That is why I can't agree with an income-based fine system. Otherwise, it does sound appealing.

[dazzleman]

I'd give up my license for a month or so instead of a speeding ticket (provided i get no points of course).

That's because you don't particularly need to drive.

It goes back to my point that punishment has to hurt in order to be effective.  You're clearly choosing the thing that would hurt you least.

[dazzleman]

That is why I can't agree with an income-based fine system. Otherwise, it does sound appealing.

Why do you think our tax system is designed to do?

[Raza]

That is why I can't agree with an income-based fine system. Otherwise, it does sound appealing.

It only sounds appealing because you're on the opposite end of the spectrum.  It sounds appealing the same way the estate tax sounds appealing. 

Both things fuck you for working harder and smarter than other people.

I think you should be able to buy speeding ticket exemptions.  $500 a year or so gets you out of tickets. 

[Raza]

Why do you think our tax system is designed to do?

You're assuming that he agrees with a progressive tax system. 

[Eye of the Tiger]

Why do you think our tax system is designed to do?

Taxes aren't punishment, they are revenue generation. Revenue generation can fairly be based on revenue. Punishments should primarily fit the crime, not the income of the criminal. Tickets aren't revenue generation, they're punishment... oh, wait a minute...

[dazzleman]

Taxes aren't punishment, they are revenue generation. Revenue generation can fairly be based on revenue. Punishments should primarily fit the crime, not the income of the criminal. Tickets aren't revenue generation, they're punishment... oh, wait a minute...

Yes, you've stumbled on a good point, Nick.....

[Raghavan]

That's because you don't particularly need to drive.

It goes back to my point that punishment has to hurt in order to be effective.  You're clearly choosing the thing that would hurt you least.

Well if I could afford the ticket then i'd have no problem paying it.

[Rupert]

Not too mention that every time you get a ticket, the state in question is going to delve into your financial records to establish your income.  In my mind, that's personal information, and not any of their business, especially for the task of levying a fine.  I'm sure they have ways of getting that information anyway, but I don't want to see it done for that purpose.


And yes, count me in the group of people who can't really afford speeding tickets (NACar: it hurts, I know )

I'd rather the current system, a flat fine for each offense for everybody.

That's my concern, as well.

OK, Raza, look at it like this. I'm a college student and I make $7000 per year. If I get caught speeding and I get a $150 fine, that's a major financial setback. In other words, a fairly severe punishment. But if Mr. $700k/yr gets caught and has the same $150 fine to pay, it's less than they might spend on dinner for their date and themselves. So, a pretty much inane and ineffective punishment. It's like financial success allows you to break laws. That's fair?

[Raza]

That's my concern, as well.

OK, Raza, look at it like this. I'm a college student and I make $7000 per year. If I get caught speeding and I get a $150 fine, that's a major financial setback. In other words, a fairly severe punishment. But if Mr. $700k/yr gets caught and has the same $150 fine to pay, it's less than they might spend on dinner for their date and themselves. So, a pretty much inane and ineffective punishment. It's like financial success allows you to break laws. That's fair?

You're right.  Rich people should be hanged for speeding. 

[TheIntrepid]

You're right.  Rich people should be hanged for speeding. 

You first.

[Raza]

You first.

[Rupert]

You're right.  Rich people should be hanged for speeding. 

No, but neither should poor people.

[Raza]

No, but neither should poor people.

That sounds equitable to me.

[Rupert]

So you agree, then?

[James Young]

hounddog writes:

Just because people do it does not make it right.  Sorry to include this, but the Bible is pretty clear when it comes to "Obey man's laws." . . . Unlike most, as an accident investigator and a police officer, I knew first hand the possible dangers of my speeding.

Nor does the mere existence of a law make it right, viz. slavery, women?s suffrage, and the explosion of nanny-state laws. 

We do not and should not base the laws of our secular state on the bible, the koran, the torah or any other religious dogma.  Instead, our polices as codified by our laws must be based on science and reason.

The ?speeding? of which most people speak and that is the usual target of enforcement effort is hardly unsafe.  Remember the NMSL (?55?) and how roads that had been previously posted at 75 mph or even R&P (essentially unlimited) suddenly became unsafe at 56 mph?  it was a fraud then and it?s still a fraud but then our administrations act surprised when the public distrusts them. 

(. . .the general public) must understand that the laws of physics are also pretty clear when it comes to speed.  When you multiply speed times mass you get 'unsafe' very quickly regardless of what safety measures are designed into modern cars.  For instance, the damage to a car that hits a post at 5 mph is more than significantly less than if the car was going say 55mph. Included in that is the FACT that as you increase your speed, you are exponentially more likely to become injured in a that crash.

Wrong equation.  The laws of physics are not in question but hardly answer the correct question, instead being used to support an untenable argument.  When traffic safety ?experts? start quoting the laws of physics, you can bet they?re getting their ass kicked in the argument.  The real question that you (the safety cabal) must answer is whether or not the risk of injury, including the diminished likelihood of a crash in the first place, is greater at 75 mph now than it was at 50 mph in 1950-1975.  Since the probability of a crash is far less now, the speed at which the vehicles travel is irrelevant.  Remember, the laws of physics do not apply to crashes that do not occur.

In this case, mathematics and statistics do not lie.  More physical and measurable evidence of that is we have more auto related fatalities than ever before.  IF the modern measures of better roadside traffic crash reducers/barriers and the safety measures built into our cars were enough, we should see fatal and serious injury accidents fall dramatically in correlation.  They have not.

In fact, they have fallen dramatically.  You?re just using the wrong measures.  The population of drivers, vehicles and miles of roadway have increased dramatically, yet, even in absolute numbers, the number of fatalities decreased from 43,510 in 2005 to 42,462 in 2006 (latest data available).  That?s a decline of 1,028 for passenger vehicle motorists/passengers but an increase of 234 for motorcyclists.  That is a fatality rate 1.46 in 2005 and 1.42 in 2006, a decline of 2.7%.

Similarly, injuries fell absolutely from 2,446,000 in 2005 to 2,331,000 in 2006, a decline of 115,000 or 4.4%. 

Note that both rates are per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT), a standard measure of traffic activity.  (NHTSA, National Center for Statistics and Analysis).

It has been established by every single accident expert in the world that the faster you go, the more likely you are to be injured in a crash, and the more severe those injuries should be.  Those two things are absolutely [synonymous] with one another.

They are neither synonymous nor true.  First, traffic engineers have established a concept called the crash incidence curve, correlating the number of crashes to different speeds on a given roadway.  This curve looks rather like a backwards J, declining rather rapidly with moderate increases in speed, minimizing at a point, then increasing with increasing speed albeit more slowly than the initial decline.

That  point is the infamous 85th percentile, which is what makes that point useful rather than arbitrary.  Nota bene:  85th percentile is for urban and suburban roadways, the crash minimization point for interstate-grade and rural highways is the 95th percentile.  That is why traffic engineers always call for speed limits to be set at the crash minimization point.

What is not included, or eluded to, is that if you go faster the odds of you crashing go up.  But, I do believe that there is evidence to support that depending on a number of variables to include; time of day, weather, road condition (condidtion of the pavement/concrete), level of traffic on the roadway, etc.

That?s wrong.  Once again, according to NHTSA, we are driving many more miles but the evidence of failures (crashes, injuries and fatalities) keeps improving.  The reality is that we are driving faster and safer.

I think that when an officer issues a ticket for speed, most officers genuinely believe they are doing it for the greater good of society.

I have no doubt about the sincerity of the officers? motivation; my concern is the efficacy of the tools used as well as the underlying institutional motivation.  There is evidence to show that the level of enforcement does not change driver behavior and therefore has no effect on our collective traffic safety.  On a related note, we also know that changes in speed limits have no effect on either driver behavior nor on safety performance.   (?Effects of Raising and Lowering the Speed Limit on Selected Roadway Sections,? Final Report, Report No. FHwA-RD-92-084, June 1996, popularly known as the Parker Report.)

I would guess, just a guess at that,  that on average in the Detroit area for one day, most districts or jursdictions receive 20+ calls about bad driving on the freeways.  Whatever the number really is, it is evidence that those calling for an elimination of speed restrictions are in the vast minority.

It tells us no such thing.  All it says is that some people call 911; it does not address their motivation.  What may be reported as ?bad driving? is more likely frustration or revenge against another driver.  Remember the George Carlin rule:  If a driver is going slower than you, he is a moron, and if he is going faster than you, he is a fool.  Either situation could result in a cell call.

Also, keep in mind that every time a driver exceeds the posted limit, he is expressing his disagreement with the law.

[J86]

Speeding tickets act as a regressive tax?

It's called equity of law.  You get fined the same as someone with much more money.  That's fair.  If it's that big of a tax, go get a better job.

Fair?  So, the rich can afford to speed, the poor can't.  This is what you are describing as fair.  Go get a better job is just a tad simplistic, but you know that.

[Raza]

Fair?  So, the rich can afford to speed, the poor can't.  This is what you are describing as fair.  Go get a better job is just a tad simplistic, but you know that.

Yes.

[J86]

wow

[Raza]

wow

It's not right for the law to treat people differently because of what they have or what they are.  It's like saying we should give harsher punishments to black people than white. 

[Rupert]

Well, you're arguing for harsher punishments for poorer people than rich people, effectively.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Well, you're arguing for harsher punishments for poorer people than rich people, effectively.

A McDonald's Double Cheeseburger is still $1.00 no matter how rich or poor you are.

[dazzleman]

A McDonald's Double Cheeseburger is still $1.00 no matter how rich or poor you are.

Most expenses in life are 'regressive.'  The electric company doesn't care about your income when they determine your electric rates.  Ditto for the phone company, food prices, etc.

Financially, things are not equal and never will be.  The cost of trying to make them equal has been proven to be widespread poverty.

While on the subject of punishment and its dispirite effects on different people, think of a more serious case -- a murder conviction.  An older person will effectively serve a lesser sentence for that, since he has fewer years to live.  At the same time, when an older person goes to prison, that prison time will take up a larger percentage of his remaining life than it does for a younger person.  There are many different ways to look at this issue, and it's clear that there will be inequalities whatever the system is.

As far as speeding goes, for many people, a more effective punishment than taking a person's money is taking a person's time.  After 3 tickets in my state, you have to attend an all-day re-training class.  To me, that is more onerous than the fine they'd come up with. 

[Raza]

Well, you're arguing for harsher punishments for poorer people than rich people, effectively.

I'm arguing for the same punishment for the rich and for the poor.  You're arguing for punishing people for becoming successful.  Hate to pull the "anti-American" card, but really....

"Rich people are evil and you should take as much from them as possible"?

[Rupert]

A McDonald's Double Cheeseburger is still $1.00 no matter how rich or poor you are.

If you don't buy McDonald's, you don't go to jail. If you don't pay a fine, you do.

Look, I'm just arguing the point for the sake of it here...

[Rupert]

I'm arguing for the same punishment for the rich and for the poor.  You're arguing for punishing people for becoming successful.  Hate to pull the "anti-American" card, but really....

"Rich people are evil and you should take as much from them as possible"?

You should be poor sometime.

And, ya know, there are plenty of times when I am anti-American, so shove that comment up yer butt.

[Raza]

You should be poor sometime.

And, ya know, there are plenty of times when I am anti-American, so shove that comment up yer butt.

I think I'll pass on the poor option. 

It sucks.  Not having money sucks.  Money buys a lot of things.  Comfort, luxury, happiness.  But to punish someone for working hard and moving away from poverty is ridiculous.  That's why I don't even like the progressive tax system we have in place now. 

Punishing people for making money is a goddamn horrible thing to do. 

[Rupert]

What's worse is punishing people for not having money.

[Raza]

What's worse is punishing people for not having money.

If you punish them more for not having money, that's wrong.

I find it interesting that you think it's okay to punish someone for being successful, but it's wrong to treat people the same.