• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should be penalty for 20mph+ over limit speeding?

What should happen for the over 20mph violation example given?

  • Acknowledge the no-traffic and quality of vehicle in consideration.

    Votes: 3 5.6%
  • Severe chastizing but only written warning.

    Votes: 2 3.7%
  • A ticket, but written for under 20 over due to circumstance.

    Votes: 2 3.7%
  • Write a ticket for over 20 mph but under 100 mph

    Votes: 2 3.7%
  • Write a ticket forthe full 170 mph

    Votes: 21 38.9%
  • A huge $$ fine

    Votes: 10 18.5%
  • Permanently seize car and forfeture it.

    Votes: 3 5.6%
  • Jail time

    Votes: 3 5.6%
  • Suspend driver's license for 1 year

    Votes: 7 13.0%
  • Suspend driver's license for years.

    Votes: 1 1.9%

  • Total voters
    54
Unless they ran into him, an officer killing himself while driving chasing someone resulting in a manslaughter conviction is as much injustice as it gets. BUT Florida does have the most pro-prosecution unjust criminal laws in the USA - by far.

Once you roll on the throttle, everything that happens is on you. Good bad or indifferent.
 
Nothing. No harm no foul.

But if there is harm i would come down on them a lot harsher than most current laws, where a semi driver falls asleep, runs over a pedestrian and gets "reckless driving" charges.
Falling asleep is negligent. Pushing a car to a buck seventy is a deliberate act.
 
Falling asleep is negligent. Pushing a car to a buck seventy is a deliberate act.

I disagree. If you drive without staying awake that's deliberate and entirely optional. Pull over and get some zzz
 
I disagree. If you drive without staying awake that's deliberate and entirely optional. Pull over and get some zzz

Falling asleep at the wheel is not deliberate. And you mentioned truckers. Are you an OTR driver? No? Figures, because you havent a clue what you are talking about.
 
Falling asleep at the wheel is not deliberate. And you mentioned truckers. Are you an OTR driver? No? Figures, because you havent a clue what you are talking about.
The falling asleep is obviously not deliberate, but avoiding - or not avoiding - a situation wherein the likelyhood of falling asleep at the wheel is high....is.
 
The falling asleep is obviously not deliberate, but avoiding - or not avoiding - a situation wherein the likelyhood of falling asleep at the wheel is high....is.

No case law supports that. Short of a professional driver that doctored his log book, there is nothing about falling asleep that can be construed as deliberate. You are just adding up what ifs.
170 is clearly deliberate, clearly against all laws in every state and nothing about doing it on a public road is safe.
 
Falling asleep at the wheel is not deliberate. And you mentioned truckers. Are you an OTR driver? No? Figures, because you havent a clue what you are talking about.

Lol what does the fact i'm not a trucker have to do with someone getting 2 years max for killing someone? Oh, the poor trucker. :roll:
 
No case law supports that. Short of a professional driver that doctored his log book, there is nothing about falling asleep that can be construed as deliberate. You are just adding up what ifs.
170 is clearly deliberate, clearly against all laws in every state and nothing about doing it on a public road is safe.
You just agreed with me.
 
Lol what does the fact i'm not a trucker have to do with someone getting 2 years max for killing someone? Oh, the poor trucker. :roll:

Post your source. Who is doing two years for falling asleep and killing someone. What state, what county, what year. Or is this just some "what if".
 
He was driving too fast for conditions, not falling asleep.

"Investigators believe the driver fell asleep"

Every article i pulled up on this says so. Either way, he killed someone. He should be put away accordingly. I would also crack down on drunks who do this. The only tolerance i have is for a true accident.
 
"Investigators believe the driver fell asleep"

Every article i pulled up on this says so. Either way, he killed someone. He should be put away accordingly. I would also crack down on drunks who do this. The only tolerance i have is for a true accident.

Now we are just getting into thread drift. The issue is what to do with someone caught doing 170 on a public road.
They should be jailed, made to bond out, car confiscated until trial, and face a sever sentence and fine.
NO highway is safe for that kind of speed as long as the road is open to the public. Its not prepped as a track, there is no safety crew or med staff. You think you can handle one seventy? GO run the Texas Mile or hit the salt flats where you can do it safely and not endanger other drivers.
 
Now we are just getting into thread drift. The issue is what to do with someone caught doing 170 on a public road.
They should be jailed, made to bond out, car confiscated until trial, and face a sever sentence and fine.
NO highway is safe for that kind of speed as long as the road is open to the public. Its not prepped as a track, there is no safety crew or med staff. You think you can handle one seventy? GO run the Texas Mile or hit the salt flats where you can do it safely and not endanger other drivers.

I think they should get a medal if they manage to pull it off without crashing. I struggle to do this in video games even. I simply don't believe in deterring crime, merely justice after the fact. Someone driving 170 is borderline suicidal and doesn't care about legal consequence.
 
A highway patrol car on a good condition 4 lane divided highway with a 70 mph speed limit, no other cars on the highway in a remote area picks up a sole car doing 170 mph heading his way on the other side empty and flat open area 2 lanes. A new Corette ZR 1 designed to go 200 mph. When the officer pulls across the center medium, the ZR1 driver (no passenger) pulls over anticipating being stopped.

What should the officer do and what should the penalty be?

Multiple choice, public vote.
Prison sentence, a hefty fine and a life ban from owning or operating a motor vehicle of any description.

Watch the RTA stats plummet overnight. Problem solved.
 
I think speeding laws are too harsh, but 170 is ludicrous. Once you're over 120 the dynamics of driving change; you're barely in touch with the ground, and float as much as roll. At that speed, a pot hole or a small bump in the road can send you airborne. Also, although the road may be clear, at 170 you have very little steering control and very, very long stopping distance, so if there's someone over the next hill, or someone or something (like a deer) comes out of the woods onto the road, you have little power to avoid them. The potential for a deadly wreck is extremely high. Most highways are engineered to be safe at 70 or at 90, not at 170. If you want to go 170, find a track day somewhere. Doing it on public roads is not responsible.

That said, in Virginia, you get jail time for 90 MPH. I think that's too steep. I don't think you should get time until at least 100, but probably more like 120. 90 should just be a steep ticket if the roads are clear.
 
If the driver had a pilot's license, he should have gotten off with a warning.
 
I think they should get a medal if they manage to pull it off without crashing. I struggle to do this in video games even. I simply don't believe in deterring crime, merely justice after the fact. Someone driving 170 is borderline suicidal and doesn't care about legal consequence.

Not true, there are plenty of wanna be F1 heros out there with the means to do it. Just speed/adrenaline junkies. But illegal non the less, dangerous none the less.
 
I think speeding laws are too harsh, but 170 is ludicrous. Once you're over 120 the dynamics of driving change; you're barely in touch with the ground, and float as much as roll. At that speed, a pot hole or a small bump in the road can send you airborne. Also, although the road may be clear, at 170 you have very little steering control and very, very long stopping distance, so if there's someone over the next hill, or someone or something (like a deer) comes out of the woods onto the road, you have little power to avoid them. The potential for a deadly wreck is extremely high. Most highways are engineered to be safe at 70 or at 90, not at 170. If you want to go 170, find a track day somewhere. Doing it on public roads is not responsible.

That said, in Virginia, you get jail time for 90 MPH. I think that's too steep. I don't think you should get time until at least 100, but probably more like 120. 90 should just be a steep ticket if the roads are clear.
While there are plenty of cars that are stable at 170, never should it be done on a road. Take it to the track.
 
I think speeding laws are too harsh, but 170 is ludicrous. Once you're over 120 the dynamics of driving change; you're barely in touch with the ground, and float as much as roll. At that speed, a pot hole or a small bump in the road can send you airborne. Also, although the road may be clear, at 170 you have very little steering control and very, very long stopping distance, so if there's someone over the next hill, or someone or something (like a deer) comes out of the woods onto the road, you have little power to avoid them. The potential for a deadly wreck is extremely high. Most highways are engineered to be safe at 70 or at 90, not at 170. If you want to go 170, find a track day somewhere. Doing it on public roads is not responsible.

That said, in Virginia, you get jail time for 90 MPH. I think that's too steep. I don't think you should get time until at least 100, but probably more like 120. 90 should just be a steep ticket if the roads are clear.
You obviously have never driven a car designed to go that fast.

I had my '77 Firebird in Germany. It had all the TA body parts on it. My daily drive was from Gaertringen to Vaihingen. I would normally cruise a nice safe, and with the faster traffic, at about 130 MPH... Daily...

Anyway, one day, I curbed the air dam and removed it for repairs. That is when the car started to float. The car was useless at high speeds until I put the air dam back on. It had a very solid feel on the road, with the air dam.
 
I gather by your retirement comment that you are basically an old guy sitting at home raging...
OK so far.

I have good reason to rage- against my own generation for the damn poor results of the part we played in raising and educating generations XYZ, most of whom turned out too stupid to chew gum and walk at the same time.



...against people who drive fast. Nothing new about people driving fast.
Not OK.

OP concerns the exceptional case of driving speeds 100 mph over the limit. Think you got it now, Junior?



Anyone driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is more dangerous than someone driving 170 on an open flat road at 170 in a new ZR1. Doing 170 in a ZR1 is safer than was someone doing 100 in a 1952 Oldsmobile Rocket 88. So is running a redlight or going 10 over in a school zone. By your standards, at least 50,000,000 people should have be convicted of felony traffic violations as the first offense.
I am not going to go along with you on DUI being more dangerous than driving 100 over the limit. I guess I need to explain why because you sure as hell aren't the kind of person who can figure it out for himself.

In order to compare the hazards of DUI and driving 100mph over the speed limit it is necessary to imagine equal infraction rates and environments- in other words for every person driving home drunk at 30 in a 30 from the neighborhood bar there is one person driving home sober at 130. Please don't try to tell me you would feel safer with the sober guy doing 130.

Nor is there any reason to prefer the DUI under perfect conditions. Braking distance at 70mph is about 234 feet, and at 170mph is about 1381 feet (see link: Stopping (Braking) Distance Calculator ). After adding reaction time even a 70mph DUI might be able to stop before hitting an obstacle 1000 feet away, but it would be physically impossible for a cold sober 170mph driver to do so.

As for the DUI issue in general, I am all for increased penalties, possibly including 1st offence felony charges for people who are way over the limit. It might not be necessary to go that far, though. I understand that the Scandinavian (there's a word for you to look up!) countries have nearly cured their DUI problems with severe penalties which usually stop short of felony equivalent. One thing the US needs to get over is the aversion against even considering adopting policy of other countries. If something has been shown to work elsewhere we should try it ourselves, and that definitely includes anti-DUI legislation.



There are a lot of old folks around here (Florida) and the list of things they really don't like and bitch about that younger people do is endless.
Old folks everywhere have an endless list of legitimate bitches about the nitwit, clueless hordes of generation XYZers who still need help tying their shoelaces.



They can go berserk if someone's grass gets to tall. Bitchy old people who want everyone who does anything they don't do put in prison.
For most offenses I would prefer mandatory remedial schooling before prison. As in you go back and really study, and really learn all that stuff you missed while you were texting, listening to music, playing video games, picking your nose, and feeling yourself off in class.
 
The person who committed the offense should have their licensed to void so they have to get another one ( have them spend 5 hours at the DMV ) That will teach em :cool:
 
The person who committed the offense should have their licensed to void so they have to get another one ( have them spend 5 hours at the DMV ) That will teach em :cool:

5 hours only to be told their insurance card was out of date. Come back tomorrow.
 
Back
Top Bottom