View Poll Results: What should happen for the over 20mph violation example given?

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • Acknowledge the no-traffic and quality of vehicle in consideration.

    6 8.82%
  • Severe chastizing but only written warning.

    4 5.88%
  • A ticket, but written for under 20 over due to circumstance.

    2 2.94%
  • Write a ticket for over 20 mph but under 100 mph

    3 4.41%
  • Write a ticket forthe full 170 mph

    22 32.35%
  • A huge $$ fine

    15 22.06%
  • Permanently seize car and forfeture it.

    3 4.41%
  • Jail time

    3 4.41%
  • Suspend driver's license for 1 year

    7 10.29%
  • Suspend driver's license for years.

    3 4.41%
Page 30 of 44 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 438

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

  1. #291
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,453

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    That 195 HP was the advertised SAE net power. Not actual.
    If you have ever driven one, you got the sound of the sucking gas, but not much movement.

    I am sure it didn't have much more than the 195 to the wheels.

  2. #292
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,248

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    If you have ever driven one, you got the sound of the sucking gas, but not much movement.

    I am sure it didn't have much more than the 195 to the wheels.
    They had the torque needed to accelerate that 5000+ lb car pretty OK, and geared to go fast.

    The engine had more than 195 HP. Probably around 280 HP.

  3. #293
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    An older car is body on frame, as far as I am concerned.

    The '88 Mustang was new fangled crap.
    Mustangs have never been body on frame. In fact most mid size fords were not.
    Mustangs were actually rebodied Falcons.
    GM was a proponant of the body on frame from mid size cars and up. 1962 Chevy II was I believe the first unibody style car for GM and that carried through untill the mid 70s.
    Monte Carlos were all full frame from 1970 until 1988.

  4. #294
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    If you have ever driven one, you got the sound of the sucking gas, but not much movement.

    I am sure it didn't have much more than the 195 to the wheels.
    Advertised HP and actual HP was always different back then. 1969 a Z28 was listed as having 290hp. Actual dyno numbers were closer to 400hp with just a 302cu engine.

  5. #295
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

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

    Farm Truck. Kinda dumb, but damn fast. Farm Truck

  6. #296
    Educator
    USViking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greensboro NC USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,111

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

    I do not promise to go any further with this exchange, which is becoming drawn out, tedious and redundant.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    Too big for the crime that was mentioned. There was a small possibility that a accident could have happened not a probability or a reasonable possibility.
    (“Probability” may range from 0%-100% or, in statistics notation, 0-1. “Possibility” is colloquially equivalent to “Probability.”)

    There certainly IS a reasonable possibility of having a wreck even under ideal conditions at 170mph, except maybe for a professional race car driver. Speaking of professionals, a professional marksman could fire any number of rounds near a crowded school bus stop with a probability of near 0 of hitting anybody if he wanted to just scare people. By the logic you advocate above, charging him with a felony would be inappropriate.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    Given that this only applies to roads that are strait and which has little traffic at night, we likely do not know how many are doing this. And you answer my point that the prisons are full by doubling down if they make a big difference.
    My point is that appropriate sentencing must be imposed regardless of the size of the prison population, especially for more serious crimes such as reckless endangerment. How the people and the three branches of government decide to cope with overcrowding is a different issue.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    NO, I could only assume from your post that the sentence was one year and not just the time served to probation.
    My exact words were: “Spend at least a year in jail.” “Spend” is not a synonym of “be sentenced to” and since few felons serve out the full terms of their sentences it is reasonable to assume that when a felon spends a year in jail he normally would have received a much longer original sentence.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    There must be limits to how far the law goes or the Court system is just another band of thieves and extortionists. If you had your way there would not be a rule of law but a reign of laws.
    The issue is not that there must be limits, the issue is where to draw the line on them. In some cases the line is now drawn too broad, and should be narrowed. In other cases the line is drawn too narrow, and should be expanded. A 170mph driver should not be entitled to own any vehicles, and confiscating all vehicles he does own would be an appropriate part of retribution, so the limiting line on vehicle confiscation should if necessary be expanded.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    NO, the LAW dictates by statute that people who are repeat offenders are liable for increased punishment. Those who violate court orders or break other laws like driving without a license would be a separate charge unless the court order by statute dictates an increased time to serve with the probation period orby statue if the law has conditions that if a DWOL occurs it is treated differently.
    Fine, the law dictates. I was only trying to figure out what you were trying to get across with this comment: And the law cannot assume that if the accused/convicted would violate any suspension on his license.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    His used to be the way when referring to an indefinite gender which was changed recently say about 20 years ago. It just slipped out.
    I was not objecting to use of the masculine pronoun, I was wondering whether the car in question belonged to the violator, or to the friend who was driving him around. If the violator is driven by a friend in a friend's car, that is fine, but it is business as usual, and I want the penalty redefined to prevent the violator from ever owing another car.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    WRONG, no one was injured in this case and no damage to property occurred the driver was complaint with the officers instructions. If there were injuries or damage then an higher penalty may be applicable but it should not have extreme penalties especially for a first time offender.
    Here is what I was replying to: This is extreme since the OP doesn't have a history of the driver and I can assume that this is a first time offense, she cooperated by pulling over immediately after she knew she was caught. First time offense and compliance with law enforcement should not be a factor in defining serious crime, or in sentencing practices. You will agree, I hope, that a first-time murderer deserves to have the book thrown at him. As for the lack of injuries that was covered in the example of the school bus stop shooter.

    As for lack of damage of any kind suppose the expert marksman in the school bus stop scenario above decided instead to amuse himself by seeing how close he get to shooting people without them even knowing they were being shot at. Someone sitting on a park bench would not notice a slug kicking up dirt behind him, and would not be alarmed by the report if it came from far enough away.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    After all it was not malicious but stupidity if you want to call it that.
    Malice does not define felony, and stupidity does not mitigate it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    If they was "lucky" then they should be charged with reckless discharge of a firearm. And yes the penalty should not be draconian. Fine them, jail him for a few months if necessary, have the rest on probation, and make him take classes on gun safety. That should be enough for most people to get their attention.
    There is simply a divide between us: I think reckless endangerment should be more severely dealt with thank you.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    Which is a violation of equal protection under the law. It may not be "fair" that people with more wealth can more easily pay fines than others but that IS the way under common law which the Constitution requires. And what happens when the person has no income?
    Our debate concerns what the law should be, correct? You seem to agree that heavier fines would be appropriate for wealthier offenders; if so you should agree with me that some places, such as Finland and Denmark, are getting it right:

    The World's Highest Speeding Fines

    (from link):
    Even if you're one of the richest men in Europe, a nearly $200,000 speeding ticket is going to pang just a little (and that was in 2002, when $200,000 was a lot of money). The Trick here is that Finland, and nearby Denmark, both levy speeding fines depending on the annual income of the driver unfortunate enough to pick up a ticket. In this case, records showed that Jussi Salonoja, a 27-year-old heir to a northern European meatpacking empire, earned $11.5 million in 2002, which after a complex calculation by the courts resulted in the world-record fine of about $200,000. And all that for driving 50 mph in a 25 mph zone. A Finnish business executive also had a $165,000 fine reduced to a mere $9000 after he restated his earnings to the courts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    Are you even employed?
    I retired after a 32-year working life, and I do remember what it was to get a paycheck.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    YES it is excessive given that NO harm came to a person nor property was damaged. If you want a stiff fine OK a $1000.00 fine would be one. A years income is out of proportion to the offense committed. I do not think you know how much a burden that would be.
    Sorry to hear you are not on board after all with an appropriate system of fines for seriously reckless driving. I guess Finland would really give you an aneurism.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    I do not take for granted that the government is run by people who have the attitude that they are serving in the best interests of the greater populace nor do I believe that when given such tools as you want to give would they serve the best interests either. Government is run by people and not angels and allowing them this discretion will be abused.
    I do not take for granted that levying a serious penalty for a serious crime is likely to lead to government activity opposed to the best interests of the public.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    NO the State must have the necessary power over those who are convicted of a serious crime not more.
    Necessary power is enormous power when it includes the ability to deprive someone of his wealth and freedom.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    America is NOT an "orderly society" it is Nation of people who are considered individuals and have inherent rights.
    Yes, America IS an orderly society, and that order is in no conflict with any individual who exercises his rights responsibly. For example there exists for most people a right to own firearm, but there does not exist a right to shoot at innocent people, even with intent to miss.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    You are under the misapprehension that our country is some sort of collective.
    Whatever you mean by “collective” you are using it as a form of slur rather than in any sense constructive to intelligent debate.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    A Democracy is the worst government of all, period.
    Democracy is the best form of government, by far.

    And how about Hitler? (Pardon the godwinization) Mussolini? Lenin-Stalin-Mao-Pol Pot? Khomeini? Mullah Mohammed Omar (Taliban supreme leader since 1994, still at large), and god knows how many other personifications of forms of government so much worse than Democracy that it is ridiculous.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    It either becomes a ridged cult State or rips itself apart do to insolvable disputes.
    Most if not all modern Democracies have enjoyed expansion of rights over last 150-200 years. I cannot think of any that are ridged [sic?] cult states, or that suffer from unsolvable disputes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    I am a Libertarian, I believe that Liberty is of the highest value of all within the structure that any acts must not violate the rights of others.
    This is not a exclusively libertarian view.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    The OP had a scenario where what can be termed reckless driving occurred but...
    Rehash. Skip it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    People who call themselves "responsible" tend to be the ones who are responsible much ill in this world.
    Most of the ill of the world is caused by people who have deranged views of where their responsibility lies, or who behave in ways they know are at odds with what constitutes truly responsible behavior.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    Many liberals would probably use that term when advocating for their Statist measures.
    No one but the state can effectively guard against numerous transgressors, both potential and actual. Take the real estate markets. Take Wall Street. Take the Mafia. Take the KKK. Take people who think it’s kewl to drive 170mph on a public road.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    One should be responsible for ones self and one's dependents. I am nor you are not responsible for the actions of another but since we must have laws to deter reckless behavior then we must have reasonable laws that deter these acts…
    This is not a exclusively libertarian view.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious
    and reasonable penalties for violations and it must not be an undue burden for violations without negative outcomes. The point is no actual harm was done in the OP by the driver. If there were harm done then we can establish a proportional penalty with respect to the harm done.
    Previously addressed.

  7. #297
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:48 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by USViking View Post
    I do not promise to go any further with this exchange, which is becoming drawn out, tedious and redundant.




    (“Probability” may range from 0%-100% or, in statistics notation, 0-1. “Possibility” is colloquially equivalent to “Probability.”)

    There certainly IS a reasonable possibility of having a wreck even under ideal conditions at 170mph, except maybe for a professional race car driver. Speaking of professionals, a professional marksman could fire any number of rounds near a crowded school bus stop with a probability of near 0 of hitting anybody if he wanted to just scare people. By the logic you advocate above, charging him with a felony would be inappropriate.




    My point is that appropriate sentencing must be imposed regardless of the size of the prison population, especially for more serious crimes such as reckless endangerment. How the people and the three branches of government decide to cope with overcrowding is a different issue.




    My exact words were: “Spend at least a year in jail.” “Spend” is not a synonym of “be sentenced to” and since few felons serve out the full terms of their sentences it is reasonable to assume that when a felon spends a year in jail he normally would have received a much longer original sentence.




    The issue is not that there must be limits, the issue is where to draw the line on them. In some cases the line is now drawn too broad, and should be narrowed. In other cases the line is drawn too narrow, and should be expanded. A 170mph driver should not be entitled to own any vehicles, and confiscating all vehicles he does own would be an appropriate part of retribution, so the limiting line on vehicle confiscation should if necessary be expanded.




    Fine, the law dictates. I was only trying to figure out what you were trying to get across with this comment: And the law cannot assume that if the accused/convicted would violate any suspension on his license.




    I was not objecting to use of the masculine pronoun, I was wondering whether the car in question belonged to the violator, or to the friend who was driving him around. If the violator is driven by a friend in a friend's car, that is fine, but it is business as usual, and I want the penalty redefined to prevent the violator from ever owing another car.




    Here is what I was replying to: This is extreme since the OP doesn't have a history of the driver and I can assume that this is a first time offense, she cooperated by pulling over immediately after she knew she was caught. First time offense and compliance with law enforcement should not be a factor in defining serious crime, or in sentencing practices. You will agree, I hope, that a first-time murderer deserves to have the book thrown at him. As for the lack of injuries that was covered in the example of the school bus stop shooter.

    As for lack of damage of any kind suppose the expert marksman in the school bus stop scenario above decided instead to amuse himself by seeing how close he get to shooting people without them even knowing they were being shot at. Someone sitting on a park bench would not notice a slug kicking up dirt behind him, and would not be alarmed by the report if it came from far enough away.




    Malice does not define felony, and stupidity does not mitigate it.




    There is simply a divide between us: I think reckless endangerment should be more severely dealt with thank you.




    Our debate concerns what the law should be, correct? You seem to agree that heavier fines would be appropriate for wealthier offenders; if so you should agree with me that some places, such as Finland and Denmark, are getting it right:

    The World's Highest Speeding Fines

    (from link):





    I retired after a 32-year working life, and I do remember what it was to get a paycheck.




    Sorry to hear you are not on board after all with an appropriate system of fines for seriously reckless driving. I guess Finland would really give you an aneurism.




    I do not take for granted that levying a serious penalty for a serious crime is likely to lead to government activity opposed to the best interests of the public.




    Necessary power is enormous power when it includes the ability to deprive someone of his wealth and freedom.




    Yes, America IS an orderly society, and that order is in no conflict with any individual who exercises his rights responsibly. For example there exists for most people a right to own firearm, but there does not exist a right to shoot at innocent people, even with intent to miss.




    Whatever you mean by “collective” you are using it as a form of slur rather than in any sense constructive to intelligent debate.




    Democracy is the best form of government, by far.

    And how about Hitler? (Pardon the godwinization) Mussolini? Lenin-Stalin-Mao-Pol Pot? Khomeini? Mullah Mohammed Omar (Taliban supreme leader since 1994, still at large), and god knows how many other personifications of forms of government so much worse than Democracy that it is ridiculous.




    Most if not all modern Democracies have enjoyed expansion of rights over last 150-200 years. I cannot think of any that are ridged [sic?] cult states, or that suffer from unsolvable disputes.




    This is not a exclusively libertarian view.




    Rehash. Skip it.




    Most of the ill of the world is caused by people who have deranged views of where their responsibility lies, or who behave in ways they know are at odds with what constitutes truly responsible behavior.




    No one but the state can effectively guard against numerous transgressors, both potential and actual. Take the real estate markets. Take Wall Street. Take the Mafia. Take the KKK. Take people who think it’s kewl to drive 170mph on a public road.




    This is not a exclusively libertarian view.




    Previously addressed.
    I gather by your retirement comment that you are basically an old guy sitting at home raging against people who drive fast. Nothing new about people driving fast.

    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.

    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. 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.

  8. #298
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    02-18-14 @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,660

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    An older car is body on frame, as far as I am concerned.

    The '88 Mustang was new fangled crap.
    This is my latest project, so far it is just a good loud driver

    Attachment 67155403

  9. #299
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:48 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    170 is not safe on an open road.
    Tracks vs roads.
    Tracks get walk down inspections every event.
    Tracks get swept every event.
    Tracks get cleared of debris before every event.
    Tracks get prepped every event.
    Tracks have safety and medical staff on site every time they are open.
    Tracks have guardrails to keep the cars on the track surface in the event of an out of contol car.
    Tracks dont have pot holes, wash outs, puddles, slower traffic.
    Highways are not prepped.
    Not inspected before every days runnings.
    Not cleared of debris.
    Not closed off to other traffic merging.
    Not guard railed usually.
    And no med staff on hand everywhere some bone head decides to leg it out.
    Oh, and if that officer died in a wreck trying to catch said 170 driver. That is a manslaughter charge on him. Happend here in Florida a few years ago with a FHP officer losing contol going after a Bike vs Porshe that were clocked at 150+.
    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.

  10. #300
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

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

    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.

Page 30 of 44 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •