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

Rocketman said:

I really miss my 10 second quarter mile car:

View attachment 67155351

Click to expand...

Looks more like a 12 second car for the rear tire size. Plenty fast though. Curiously, Challenger owners more play with their cars than Vette owners. Most Vette owners drive like the old guys driving them. It'd be nice if Chrysler would lose a few hundred pounds off their Challengers. Sharp cars though.

Only EVIL people have 10 second cars. :lol:

NIMBY said:

You talked about people doing anything they wanted..
That is inclusive of their car crashing at a high rate of speed with only them losing their lives, so yes costing insurance companies..

Are those okay with the stability of the family--medical, emotional, etc .

going 40 is twice as much as 20 in velocity, but FOUR times the KINETIC ENERGY..
Slow down in town .

Click to expand...

I fully agree with slow down in down in town and overall around others. I don't think the chance someone somewhere might come into the picture in another vehicle suddenly creates horrific dangers for someone driving very fast on an open highway - and certainly not in relation to other life dangers people cause to others.

As for stability, insurance etc, many hobbies, sports and recreational activities, are very dangerous. And I have no doubt there will be increasing pushes to outlaw and with increasing major penalties all those too.

It also takes exponentially increasing amounts of power to accelerate and move a car once a car hits about 100, and only true super cars with the areodynamics to match can get past 160. The fabulous Lambrogheni Contact could only do 150 mph top speed, 160 if they removed the rear wing (which was dangerous to do at high speeds). By the 1980s, the fastest production cars made - even super exotics - couldn't reach 170 mph. Given 1950s Jaguars could reach 140, this wasn't much of a gain.

It has only been the last few years that production cars, even the most exotic, could really go over 200 mph, despite claims otherwise. Most making such a claim still can't and peak out in the 190s.

Tire technology isn't much good over 200 mph for continuous driving either. The fastest of all production cars, Buggati at 256 mph has tires that cost $10,000 each. When tested for the Buggati's weight, the tires are good for only 1 such run with safety and 2 only a possibility. When tested for 3 such 250 mph runs, nearly always 1 of the 4 will blow.

The current limiting factor on super cars is NOT horsepower. It no longer even is areodynamics. It is tire technology.

joko104 said:

Looks more like a 12 second car for the rear tire size. Plenty fast though. Curiously, Challenger owners more play with their cars than Vette owners. Most Vette owners drive like the old guys driving them. It'd be nice if Chrysler would lose a few hundred pounds off their Challengers. Sharp cars though.

Only EVIL people have 10 second cars. :lol:

Click to expand...

It had a Kenne Bell Super charger and I would change over to the hoosiers at the track. I like the Challenger becasue it is a bigger car, I don't like be cramped up in a small car.

joko104 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Here in Ontario, Canada, if you're caught going more than 50kms - that's about 30mph - over the speed limit, your car is automatically impounded for 30 days and your license is automatically suspended, pending a court hearing. Going 100mph over the speed limit - 160kms - would possibly result in jail time.

In Ontario, this is referred to as "stunt driving" due to several serious accidents where two idiots have been racing cars on city streets or provincial highways and one or both ended up killing themselves and sometimes several other innocents along the way.

Personally, I have no problem with this but I would also state that our speed limits are too low now considering the safety and speed of vehicles being manufactured today. Racism alert here - there is one qualifier - that being any Asian driver - math geniuses, car driving disasters.

CanadaJohn said:

Here in Ontario, Canada, if you're caught going more than 50kms - that's about 30mph - over the speed limit, your car is automatically impounded for 30 days and your license is automatically suspended, pending a court hearing. Going 100mph over the speed limit - 160kms - would possibly result in jail time.

In Ontario, this is referred to as "stunt driving" due to several serious accidents where two idiots have been racing cars on city streets or provincial highways and one or both ended up killing themselves and sometimes several other innocents along the way.

Personally, I have no problem with this but I would also state that our speed limits are too low now considering the safety and speed of vehicles being manufactured today. Racism alert here - there is one qualifier - that being any Asian driver - math geniuses, car driving disasters.

Click to expand...

we have new asian neighbors, they have hit our mailbox once backing out of their drive. They have also backed into a car in motion coming up the street.

Rocketman said:

we have new asian neighbors, they have hit our mailbox once backing out of their drive. They have also backed into a car in motion coming up the street.

Click to expand...

I've often joked that China's secret plan to take over the world is to send terrible drivers everywhere to "drive" us crazy.

Camera's are replacing Cops. Camera's do not give any breaks.

CanadaJohn said:

Here in Ontario, Canada, if you're caught going more than 50kms - that's about 30mph - over the speed limit, your car is automatically impounded for 30 days and your license is automatically suspended, pending a court hearing. Going 100mph over the speed limit - 160kms - would possibly result in jail time.

In Ontario, this is referred to as "stunt driving" due to several serious accidents where two idiots have been racing cars on city streets or provincial highways and one or both ended up killing themselves and sometimes several other innocents along the way.

Personally, I have no problem with this but I would also state that our speed limits are too low now considering the safety and speed of vehicles being manufactured today. Racism alert here - there is one qualifier - that being any Asian driver - math geniuses, car driving disasters.

Click to expand...

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

The impoundment of vehicles and a license suspension seems a bit harsh if alcohol is not involved, but I bet it does cut down on repeat speeding. Does it?...

We're due to get some snow Tues or Wed... :afraid:

It is curious how the USA and much of the EU has become anti-capitalism, anti-freedom, billions of pages of regulations, laws and people ever demanding more punishments and more government controlling people - along with national corporate socialism for which everyone is response for everyone else's health, housing, food, and all of life's needs - while Russia and China are racing into capitalism and in Russia in some regards increasingly towards personal freedom.

In Russia, the government is agreeable to shutting down highways to allow 1 kilometer street drag racing (over twice the typical quarter mile) in production and somewhat modified production cars. This mostly is so rich people can race each other.

This would be unthinkable to allow in the USA. First, in the USA rich people are evil and allowing anyone to do anything that everyone can't do is totally intolerable. Unless everyone gets a Ferrari no one should have one, or at least no one should be allowed to enjoy one because that's "unfair."

"Fairness" has replaced "freedom." The only way to obtain perfect fairness is to use government to reduce everyone to the absolute lowest common denominator.

Second, OMG someone might get hurt! And the purpose of life and the purpose of government is making certain that no one ever gets hurt as the foremost purpose of government and of life. "Liberty or death" had been replaced with "Protect me!"

polgara said:

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

The impoundment of vehicles and a license suspension seems a bit harsh if alcohol is not involved, but I bet it does cut down on repeat speeding. Does it?...

We're due to get some snow Tues or Wed... :afraid:

Click to expand...

Snow tires get worse gas mileage and should not be allowed as planet killers. They also do not stop as fast on dry payment so represent intolerably endangering others - particularly since they will have different reactions to braking, accelerating and turning than all the cars without them. What right do you have to endanger others this way?

Hiram said:

Camera's are replacing Cops. Camera's do not give any breaks.

Click to expand...

Nor care about safety or guilt. Cameras only are part of a computer system that demands money from people.

joko104 said:

Damn those old folks for that crap of equal treatment under the law. Get the damn rich people! Take their money! I don't know why they don't run all remaining rich people and their companies out of the USA. That is being done TOO SLOWLY! No one should tolerate ANYONE who make more than a 5 figure income or drives a vehicle worth more than $30K. Everyone in the USA should have exactly the same income, exactly the same savings, the same size housing and exactly the same amount of money, plus identical value cars. :roll:

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what sparked the emotional outburst. It's about giving the penalty the same effect. You could fine that guy $500 a day or every time you caught him, and he wouldn't care. The Swiss way makes him much more likely to pay attention to his lawbreaking.

Manc Skipper said:

I'm not sure what sparked the emotional outburst. It's about giving the penalty the same effect. You could fine that guy $500 a day or every time you caught him, and he wouldn't care. The Swiss way makes him much more likely to pay attention to his lawbreaking.

Click to expand...

So you support discrimination?

joko104 said:

Nor care about safety or guilt. Cameras only are part of a computer system that demands money from people.

Click to expand...

Cameras are about revenue........and little else.

Hiram said:

Camera's are replacing Cops. Camera's do not give any breaks.

Click to expand...

The gal who slammed into us on 880 an injured us (and others) in 2005 had "breaks" before. They didn't seem to help. Give breaks for 10 miles over the speed limit, not30,40,50 or 100.

I am for more reasonable speed limits (yes, I mean higher) but if people wanna go 170 MPH on public roads......NO. Let them pay for track space.

joko104 said:

No, you are missing my point by declaring all of reality and all of laws are only about absolute black and white issues.

I've often stated that "law" is NOT my god, everyone is a criminal many, many thousands of times over but just wasn't caught, and I look at "law" pragmatically in terms of benefits versus risks in terms of compliance.

Click to expand...

Nothing in life is black and white which is exactly the reason the law needs to be. It would be unworkable on a case-by-case basis.

You're proposing anarchy where everyone does whatever they want. There's nothing limiting that principle to driving laws though. Theft, rape and murder all become fair game if the person doing them thinks they're OK. That'd be a mess.

A very poorly written poll:

(1) Posing 20mph over the limit in the question for an actual infraction of 70mph over the limit grossly understates the seriousness of the infraction. The penalty for driving 70mph over the limit should be much greater than the penalty for driving 20mph over.

(2) Poll respondents should have been able to select more than one penalty.

Driving 70 mph over the limit should be a felony. Convicted violators should:

(1) Spend at least a year in jail.

(2) Have all their motor vehicles permanently confiscated.

(3) Never be allowed to drive again.

(4) Pay a big fine. The idea of of tailoring the fine to the violator's income sounds good to me-- make it at least a year's worth.

polgara said:

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

The impoundment of vehicles and a license suspension seems a bit harsh if alcohol is not involved, but I bet it does cut down on repeat speeding. Does it?...

We're due to get some snow Tues or Wed... :afraid:

Click to expand...

Hi Lady P - it's pretty cold here today, compared to the last couple of weeks, but I haven't heard anything about snow - still well above freezing here.

There have been some high profile cases - one in particular involved an older lady who claimed she was just trying to pass a truck - she actually got off too.

I'm not really all that concerned about people losing the cars and licenses for a period of time - with people like this, their cars are very important to them and teaches them a lesson that a loss of money doesn't seem to do. I don't drink, except on rare occasions - I have an older car, although I do drive fast and hate slow drivers - but I just putter around the neighborhood now so it doesn't affect me much.

USViking said:

A very poorly written poll:

(1) Posing 20mph over the limit in the question for an actual infraction of 70mph over the limit grossly understates the seriousness of the infraction. The penalty for driving 70mph over the limit should be much greater than the penalty for driving 20mph over.

(2) Poll respondents should have been able to select more than one penalty.

Click to expand...

It was actually 100mph over the limit in his scenario. Although why the hell the driver stopped in that scenario, I dunno - the chances the cop could catch up were quite low.

USViking said:

Driving 70 mph over the limit should be a felony. Convicted violators should:

(1) Spend at least a year in jail.

(2) Have all their motor vehicles permanently confiscated.

(3) Never be allowed to drive again.

(4) Pay a big fine. The idea of of tailoring the fine to the violator's income sounds good to me-- make it at least a year's worth.

Click to expand...

ridiculous. I would feel much more safe if your car would not start when a cell phones was in it.

joko104 said:

There is no "assumed risk".

Click to expand...

No, there is clearly an assumed risk of things falling on your head in rock climbing. That is why rock climbers often use helmets

Your "theory" is that drivers can't see open land, but rock climbers always are looking downward to see if anyone is below them on the ground?

Click to expand...

No, my theory is that someone traveling at 170 miles/hour on public roads, without warning lights, is not something people normally consider when driving on them.

hence, it's not part of the assumed risk. This is in contrast to rock climbing where a standard piece of gear is a helmet and various safety precautions to prevent people from falling

USViking said:

A very poorly written poll:

(1) Posing 20mph over the limit in the question for an actual infraction of 70mph over the limit grossly understates the seriousness of the infraction. The penalty for driving 70mph over the limit should be much greater than the penalty for driving 20mph over.

(2) Poll respondents should have been able to select more than one penalty.

Click to expand...

I meant it to be multiple choice and screwed up. Sorry.

The Mark said:

It was actually 100mph over the limit in his scenario. Although why the hell the driver stopped in that scenario, I dunno - the chances the cop could catch up were quite low.

Click to expand...

Fleeing a police officer is a felony and engages people, including the officer. Many police pursuit cruisers now will do 160. So a 10 mph advantage? Besides, no one can outrun radio waves and hoping to somehow get away expends more police resources and diverts from other police activity.

In the OP hypothetical, the only thing the driver likely wanted to do was drive super fast in what s/he saw as a situation endangering no one for the pleasure in doing so. The Italian slogan is "the seduction of speed" for fast driving. Trying to elude the police is another matter entirely.

If any of you make your driving habit driving the MINIMUM legal speed limit rather than the maximum even when no time needs to get somewhere, then tell me that going fast isn't attractive to you.

The minimal Interstate speed is 45. That would be THE safest legal speed to drive on an empty highway. Who drive as SLOW as you safely and legally can? If not, many messages of this thread REEKS of hypocrisy.

USViking said:

Driving 70 mph over the limit should be a felony.

Click to expand...

Given that speeding tickets are a citation and at worst a misdemeanor that would be a big step upping it to felony. Not only would this require a trial by jury but could be a burden if the accused decides to not waive having a Grand Jury for indictment. Also the OP has it going 100mph over the speed limit.

Convicted violators should:

(1) Spend at least a year in jail.

Click to expand...

Our prisons and jails are overburdened already and you suggest that we should add to their number for a first time offense. And BTW if it is a felony it would most likely be more than a year punishment since by definition a felony requires more than a year sentence.

(2) Have all their motor vehicles permanently confiscated.

Click to expand...

The vehicle that was used can be impounded but not the vehicles that were not used in the offense. And the law cannot assume that if the accused/convicted would violate any suspension on his license. The person could after all have a friend drive him in his car so it also not that the cars could not be of any use to him.

(3) Never be allowed to drive again.

Click to expand...

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. A suspension would be reasonable but not a lifetime ban. A draconian penalty for an offense that does not involve harm to people or damage to property (actual harm) is likely to ratchet down on what is required to receive such a penalty, since there is no quantifiable standards that the penalty is weighed against.

(4) Pay a big fine. The idea of of tailoring the fine to the violator's income sounds good to me-- make it at least a year's worth.

Click to expand...

This then would violate the equal protection clause as well as the excessive fines clause. Fines of this extent are almost certain to establish an Authoritarian Rule over the people by the government. Most people who are not wealthy and even many of the wealthy would not be able to afford such a fine and this can be used as a means of control over them to whatever the State would allow itself. This means giving the people who run the State would be granted enormous power than has been granted to the State so far.

I see that you list yourself as Conservative. Perhaps a reevaluation of your lean should be made since this does not seem like anything a conservative would be for.