Over the speed limit by 35 mph? Pay fine of $300K

exalted512

F1nut wrote: »

Why would you think the reaction time of Car A's driver would be any slower than that of Car B's driver and even it was, he's got a 5 second advantage.

Note: they both brake from the same spot.

What you're forgetting is that given the exact same reaction time, if you are travelling faster, you will cover more distance in the same amount of time as opposed to going slower.

I'm not going to pretend I know the formulas, but if you have:

100mph speed, 2 second reaction time, you will travel 0.02777777 miles before you apply the brakes

50 mph speed, 2 second reaction time, you will only travel 0.013888 miles before you apply the brakes.

So you have to make up an extra 73 feet.

Now you have to argue about reaction times.

A quick google search shows this article:
http://www.iowainjured.com/library/reaction-time-while-driving.cfm

Which says the best possible is 0.7.

Another article says accident re-constructionists use an average time of 1.5s. Shown here:
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html

Either way, 2 seconds is a long reaction time and I would not say that number to be accurate.
-Cody

wingnut4772

Any system that penalizes a person based on their wealth is socialism. Punitive measures that say to a society do not work harder, do not make more money than the rest of us or we will achieve parity. Laziness is rewarded. Society is dumbed down rather than inspired to achieve. Why bother? It's going to be taken away by those who have less anyway. A man who works 80 hours a week should give half his pay to the man who can only work 20. SOCIALISM.

Demiurge

snow wrote: »

Some states allready charge a value of automobile fee for new tags. Is that socialism also?

It's social welfare.

I'm not sure if this is where you were going, but examples of this in our society isn't exactly an argument for more of it. That assumes that such social welfare was just in the first place, which I strongly disagree with.

I have a pertinant question, though. If fines for speeding are meant to be a deterrent, why don't fines for speeding start at $2,000? Surely that would keep all of us 'poor' chumps from speeding and that's what matters, right? What, not fair to the 'poor'?

The fact of the matter is speeding tickets are meant to generate municipal revenue more than anything. The real deterrent is losing your license and if you're excessively reckless behind the wheel you will lose the privledge to drive, 'rich' or 'poor'.

Sami

Demiurge wrote: »

The fact of the matter is speeding tickets are meant to generate municipal revenue more than anything. The real deterrent is losing your license and if you're excessively reckless behind the wheel you will lose the privledge to drive, 'rich' or 'poor'.

Just for the record, I do agree with that. Instead of the huge fines, you lose your license. Drive while your license suspended, large fine (not huge). If you speed while your license is suspended, or constantly repeat the offense, then it's jail time.

The justice system in most European countries is too lax and it's creating a lot of problems.

Demiurge

Sami wrote: »

Nope, for two reasons:
1) Time is money and for rich people it's usually at higher rate per hour
2) Rich people don't get anymore time on this earth than us poor people

So we can fine people more or less based on income, but we can't threaten them with more prison time for crimes based on income? Why do you draw the line at one and not the other?

As an aside...

I've seen you offering up a vacation rental you own in another country on the forums (very cool of you, BTW), are you certain you'd qualify as 'poor' in the eyes of the government?

'Rich' and 'poor' are such funny terms as they don't mean anything until someone quantifies the difference between them...what's more is they can change whenever government decides to do so. Many here may be surprised to find out they're 'rich'.

concealer404

Demiurge wrote: »

'Rich' and 'poor' are such funny terms as they don't mean anything until someone quantifies the difference between them...what's more as they can change whenever government decides to do so. Many here may be surprised to find out they're 'rich'.

Exactly. I don't particularly want the government telling me that i'm rich. After research, seems i make more in a year by myself than a median household does in this state. So.... i'm rich? I think not. Government would say so, though.

snow

Demiurge wrote: »

So we can fine people more or less based on income, but we can't threaten them with more prison time for crimes based on income? Why do you draw the line at one and not the other?

Simply because time spent in jail or time of loss of license would be fair and equitable regardless of income but if I were to levy a $500.00 fine on a person that made 5k a year for speeding it would have a much bigger impact as far as being a effective deterrent to speeding than someone who made 5 million a year for example.



REGARDS SNOW

Demiurge

snow wrote: »

Simply because time spent in jail or time of loss of license would be fair and equitable regardless of income but if I were to levy a $500.00 fine on a person that made 5k a year for speeding it would have a much bigger impact as far as being a effective deterrent to speeding than someone who made 5 million a year for example.

REGARDS SNOW

Traffic fines aren't meant to be a deterrent. If they were, they'd start higher to begin with. Even still, I wouldn't argue a 'rich' guy should have to pay anymore than a 'poor' guy.

The real deterrent is losing your driving privledges. If speeding is such a problem, the parameters by which someone could lose their license ought to be more rigid.

Regardless, the Constitution stipulates in the United States that we are all equal in the eyes of the law.

I understand the argument you're all making, but in this country such arguments don't (shouldn't) matter. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country where a person can be fined $12.5 million dollars for going 16 mph over the speed limit, such as Anssi Vanjoki of Nokia in Finland.

snow

wingnut4772 wrote: »

Any system that penalizes a person based on their wealth is socialism. Punitive measures that say to a society do not work harder, do not make more money than the rest of us or we will achieve parity. Laziness is rewarded. Society is dumbed down rather than inspired to achieve. Why bother? It's going to be taken away by those who have less anyway. A man who works 80 hours a week should give half his pay to the man who can only work 20. SOCIALISM.

I agree somewhat with this in theory but I think the reason behind levying a larger fine to someone who makes more money is probally two fold one being that the goverment is getting more money this way and the impact as far as being an effective deterrent to speeding is equalized this way. If you made 50k a year and was fined 50k you would be a hurting unit if you made 50 million a year and was fined 50k you could shrug it off, the impact used as a deterrent wouldndt be the same.

Now if the guy making 50 mill a year had to pay 5 thousand for a gallon of milk at the store versus 5 dollars for the guy who made 50k a year then yes no doubt it would be socialism and why bother trying to succeed?

REGARDS SNOW

wingnut4772

thuffman03 wrote: »

This is an example of Socialism. He is being punished for being rich.

I am not saying that he should not have some punishment by breaking the law and being a repeat offender. A more fitting punishment would be suspending his license to drive.

snow wrote: »

I agree somewhat with this in theory but I think the reason behind levying a larger fine to someone who makes more money is probally two fold one being that the goverment is getting more money this way and the impact as far as being an effective deterrent to speeding is equalized this way. If you made 50k a year and was fined 50k you would be a hurting unit if you made 50 million a year and was fined 50k you could shrug it off, the impact used as a deterrent wouldndt be the same.

Now if the guy making 50 mill a year had to pay 5 thousand for a gallon of milk at the store versus 5 dollars for the guy who made 50k a year then yes no doubt it would be socialism and why bother trying to succeed?

REGARDS SNOW

It's a slippery slope.

snow

Demiurge wrote: »

Traffic fines aren't meant to be a deterrent. If they were, they'd start higher to begin with. Even still, I wouldn't argue a 'rich' guy should have to pay anymore than a 'poor' guy.

The real deterrent is losing your driving privledges. If speeding is such a problem, the parameters by which someone could lose their license ought to be more rigid.

Regardless, the Constitution stipulates in the United States that we are all equal in the eyes of the law.

I understand the argument you're all making, but in this country such arguments don't (shouldn't) matter. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country where a person can be fined $12.5 million dollars for going 16 mph over the speed limit, such as Anssi Vanjoki of Nokia in Finland.

My personal belief is that the punishment should be the same for all regardless of income, but reality is that even in this country the rich do not as a rule suffer the same consquences as poor people or sports figures celebritys do irregardless of what the Constitution states. I would be impacted less as a rich person in any country if my car and driving priveleges were taken away, as a wealthy person I simply buy another car and hire a driver, as a poor person I walk or take a cab or bus.



REGARDS SNOW

wingnut4772

The real punishment, the deterrent, for criminal offenses is time.

snow

wingnut4772 wrote: »

The real punishment, the deterrent, for criminal offenses is time.

Ding Ding we have a winner!!!!



REGARDS SNOW

nooshinjohn

snow wrote: »

Some states allready charge a value of automobile fee for new tags. Is that socialism also?



REGARDS SNOW

Yes it is. This trend started in the Socialist Republic of California. They have illegals with drivers licenses and no insurance driving 1977 smogsmobiles driving 30k miles a year with no insuranse paying 25 bucks a year for plates, while the guy that owns a new Porsche can pay over 5k per year just to register it, whether he drives it or not.

concealer404

^It gets better than that. In our grand state, if they feel like you underpaid for your car, they will attempt to charge you based on what they feel the car is worth. I've had some fun shutting down THAT particular escapade on multiple occasions.

"You say you paid $600 for this car?"
"Yes, that's what's on the title."
"Alright, well here's the tax and fees we're going to charge you."
"Oh, really? When did we enact a 25% tax in this state?"
"We didn't, we're going off of value of the car."
"I didn't pay that for the car, you don't get to change the tax rate, here's a notarized bill of sale, suck my nuts."

The last part wasn't really there, but man, i wish it was.

bobman1235

concealer, a lot of states do that now. I dealt with the same thing in MA; taxes are based on Blue Book values, not what you paid. Supposedly it's so people can't use the "buy a car from a friend for a dollar" way of circumventing taxes.

Anything to squeeze another dime out of law-abiding citizens.

nooshinjohn

It seems in all matters such as this we find a governrment operating outside it's constitutional constraints, and a citizenry that could care less

Demiurge

snow wrote: »

My personal belief is that the punishment should be the same for all regardless of income, but reality is that even in this country the rich do not as a rule suffer the same consquences as poor people or sports figures celebritys do irregardless of what the Constitution states. I would be impacted less as a rich person in any country if my car and driving priveleges were taken away, as a wealthy person I simply buy another car and hire a driver, as a poor person I walk or take a cab or bus.



REGARDS SNOW

Yeah...and?

Why is this a problem for you?

Wealthy people can afford to eat better food than me and more of it. I say good for them. I remember when I could pretty much only afford ramen noodles and other less than spectacular fare. I used that situation to improve my station in life. I'm not wealthy, but I'm certainly comfortable with the life I have made for myself. Aside from disability, which isn't a valid excuse for most, there's no reason others can't do the same.

Fines are not a deterrent or they'd start higher. I'm sorry that it's harder for some to afford a $200 speeding ticket, but it's not my fault. Perhaps they should make choices in their lives to make $200 easier to part with.

madmax

I'm amazed, we have combined socialism, sport cars, and yes, even math in the same thread about speeding. Awesomeness!

hearingimpared

Demiurge wrote: »

Yeah...and?

Why is this a problem for you?

Wealthy people can afford to eat better food than me and more of it. I say good for them. I remember when I could pretty much only afford ramen noodles and other less than spectacular fare. I used that situation to improve my station in life. I'm not wealthy, but I'm certainly comfortable with the life I have made for myself. Aside from disability, which isn't a valid excuse for most, there's no reason others can't do the same.

Fines are not a deterrent or they'd start higher. I'm sorry that it's harder for some to afford a $200 speeding ticket, but it's not my fault. Perhaps they should make choices in their lives to make $200 easier to part with.

I agree with everything you've said Demi but I don't know or understand what you mean by the above. Could you elaborate please?

tonyb

Darla- couldn't agree more. Actually surprised by your response.
Sami- it is very cool of you to offer up the vacation pad, but you may be considered rich my friend and because of that,you will be relieved of some of that wealth.

Demi- good points, and the noodles comment made me laugh. I have several nieces and nephews in college, the wife and I are pretty much the only ones who take the time, do the 4 hour drive and go visit. We always take them shopping when we arive,load them up on noodles and some foods they simply can't afford so it's a treat. I remember walking into one of my nephews apt. that he shared with 4 other guys, A chalk board caught my eye that read..."we eat on thursdays". I must have spent 200 bucks on those kids at the grocery store. Sorry for the side track,just the mention of noodles gets me goin'.:) Carry on.

F1nut

concealer404 wrote: »

Jesse... his calculations are correct, much as i don't agree with the 2 second reaction time.

If you take out the 2 second reaction time, they will both stop in the same distance, but not in the same time, referring back to your original Car A traveling 100mph can stop in 5 seconds, Car B traveling 50 can stop from there in 10 seconds.

But it's the reaction time that makes the difference. A full 2 seconds is the reaction time of a slug that shouldn't be behind the wheel, but you could really throw any number in there as an example.

Crap, looks like I am wrong. Sorry Sami.

Demiurge

hearingimpared wrote: »

I agree with everything you've said Demi but I don't know or understand what you mean by the above. Could you elaborate please?

Sure! Most people aren't disabled and are of sound body/mind to get off their **** and change their situation. In addition, you have people who claim to be disabled that aren't. It's a slap in the face to people who truly are burdened with things beyond their control and rely on good people to help them out.

tonyb

Demiurge wrote: »

Sure! Most people aren't disabled and are of sound body/mind to get off their **** and change their situation. In addition, you have people who claim to be disabled that aren't. It's a slap in the face to people who truly are burdened with things beyond their control and rely on good people to help them out.

Ding Ding !!

hearingimpared

Demiurge wrote: »

Sure! Most people aren't disabled and are of sound body/mind to get off their **** and change their situation. In addition, you have people who claim to be disabled that aren't. It's a slap in the face to people who truly are burdened with things beyond their control and rely on good people to help them out.

I am disabled and you are correct people who aren't disabled and claim to be and are somehow able to beat the gauntlet that the Social Security Administration puts one through IMO should be jailed.

Demiurge

tonyb wrote: »

Demi- good points, and the noodles comment made me laugh. I have several nieces and nephews in college, the wife and I are pretty much the only ones who take the time, do the 4 hour drive and go visit. We always take them shopping when we arive,load them up on noodles and some foods they simply can't afford so it's a treat. I remember walking into one of my nephews apt. that he shared with 4 other guys, A chalk board caught my eye that read..."we eat on thursdays". I must have spent 200 bucks on those kids at the grocery store. Sorry for the side track,just the mention of noodles gets me goin'.:) Carry on.

Cheap beer and ramen noodles! Doing that is cool of you guys. I'm sure they really appreciate it.

concealer404

bobman1235 wrote: »

concealer, a lot of states do that now. I dealt with the same thing in MA; taxes are based on Blue Book values, not what you paid. Supposedly it's so people can't use the "buy a car from a friend for a dollar" way of circumventing taxes.

Anything to squeeze another dime out of law-abiding citizens.

Exactly. Maybe the friend gave you the car in exchange for some work... You still pay full taxes on the car? Someone already bought the car once, you got your taxes, now gtfo.

Ah well, they haven't managed to stick me with it yet.

concealer404

madmax wrote: »

I'm amazed, we have combined socialism, sport cars, and yes, even math in the same thread about speeding. Awesomeness!

And noodles. Don't forget the noodles!

tonyb

concealer404 wrote: »

And noodles. Don't forget the noodles!

LOL!! Never forget the noodles. May I add, we've kept it civil too,so far.

Sami

Demiurge wrote: »

I understand the argument you're all making, but in this country such arguments don't (shouldn't) matter. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country where a person can be fined $12.5 million dollars for going 16 mph over the speed limit, such as Anssi Vanjoki of Nokia in Finland.

Anssi is actually a former "co-worker" of mine and I was born and raised in Finland. His fines for speeding were 120k (exchange rate at the time) and they were based on his previous years income which was 12.5 million. A $150 fine for speeding for him would be pocket change but $120k would make him think twice and that's the purpose of the law when they designed it. It still would not put him in financial stress as much as $150 for a person making minimum wage and struggling to put food on the table for his family (and that doesn't make him automatically a lazy person not willing to work hard).

I personally would prefer jail time for repeat offenders but the way laws are in Europe, they can't even control drunk drivers. Luckily drunk drivers are not as rampant as here in the US but at least here the penalties are harsh when one gets caught. In Finland drunk driver gets off with a slap on the wrists even for vehicular manslaughter. Maximum penalty for murder is life in prison in which they are automatically eligible for parole in 15 years or 6 if you're a first timer. Now that is screwed up, not the traffic fines for rich people.