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

PirateMk1 said:

The reason there are not as many accidents as could be in my opinion is that in general US drivers are actually quite polite. They not especially skillful in general just have better road manners than other countries. Drivers here are not near as willing to swap paint as say an Indian or Kuwaiti driver.

Click to expand...

It's true. We like to bitch, but the truth is our road manners are generally just not that bad.

Mason66 said:

My '94 Z-28 Convertible was limited to 106 MPH. Maybe it was becvause it has R rated tires or because it was a convertible.

My fathers Cadillac STS had no limiter, and I thought I had the sports car. He left me in the dust.

Click to expand...

My SRT-8 had a limiter as well, but the Predator tuner took car of that

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...

Poor people shouldn't have cars in the first place, so there wouldn't be an issue that he can't pay the fine.

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...

You can't outrun the radio signal no matter how fast you drive.

joko104 said:

I really like the UK Top Gear. The USA one is weaker.

Click to expand...

The US Top Gear is a cheap copy of the UK show. They are redoing al of the UK shows they have done over the years, but without all the comedy and information.

It is an extremely weak show and they had better put their spin on it or they will all be out of a job, again.

joko104 said:

In an ancient and rapidly becoming forgot era, he deserves his car because he paid for it.

Now the question is how fair was that to everyone else that he had a car like that AND how can the government get it for the government to sell and pocket the money or it to be a toy for ranking detectives to drive?

Maybe to answer the OP I need to tell the driver's life history, his economic circumstance and how he came to afford the car before people can decide how much he doesn't deserve his ZR1.

For example, if he is a super wealthy evil businessman, hell no he doesn't deserve it. BUT if he came up with the money because he sued a Home Depot store he claimed he slipped and fell in, then hell yes he deserves it and more, more, more. Only victims of life's unfairness "deserve" a car like that.

Click to expand...

Maybe he rented the car and it wasn't really his.

Mason66 said:

You can't outrun the radio signal no matter how fast you drive.

Click to expand...

True. But depending on the number of exits available and how easily identifiable you were from the cop's perspective, it might be possible to avoid them.

Still....probably not a good idea.

Cardinal said:

It's true. We like to bitch, but the truth is our road manners are generally just not that bad.

Click to expand...

We are also afraid of getting sued.

Rocketman said:

My SRT-8 had a limiter as well, but the Predator tuner took car of that

Click to expand...

I didn't want to make any changes like that on my car because I am not smarter than the engineers that made the car.

If you were racing your car, that is a different story, but I was driving mine on the road.

I wanted to go faster coming down that last hill from California into Nevada, but at 106 MPH my engine shut down.

Mason66 said:

I didn't want to make any changes like that on my car because I am not smarter than the engineers that made the car.

If you were racing your car, that is a different story, but I was driving mine on the road.

I wanted to go faster coming down that last hill from California into Nevada, but at 106 MPH my engine shut down.

Click to expand...

I drove it to the race track, changed the rear tires, and then changed them back and drove it home, it was pretty cool

Rocketman said:

I drove it to the race track, changed the rear tires, and then changed them back and drove it home, it was pretty cool

Click to expand...

I did that with my '05 Mustang.

I really enjoyed it.

USViking said:

100 mph over the limit should be a big step up.

Click to expand...

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.

Not enough people drive 100 over the limit to make a significant difference in our prison population. However, if there were enough to make a difference then all the more reason to lock up as many as possible for as long as possible.

Click to expand...

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.

One year actually served naturally assumed a much longer original sentence.

Click to expand...

NO, I could only assume from your post that the sentence was one year and not just the time served to probation.

We can change that any time we want as long as not too many libertarians get elected or appointed judge.

Click to expand...

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.

I don't see how this addresses the point. What the law assumes is that violators will be liable for increased punishment.

Click to expand...

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 or by statue if the law has conditions that if a DWOL occurs it is treated differently.

Whose car do you mean by "his car"?

Click to expand...

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.

Irrelevant due to the seriousness of the crime.

Click to expand...

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. After all it was not malicious but stupidity if you want to call it that.

By that reasoning someone who shoots but misses should not be subject to draconian penalty just because he was lucky. We should not have to wait until someone gets hurt to impose such punishment.

Click to expand...

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.

No it would not. It would only be selecting a different factor, namely percentage of personal wealth, upon which to base equality.

Click to expand...

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?

I am not sure the cutoff point has ever been established for this. I do not think a year's pay would be excessive.

Click to expand...

Are you even employed? 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.

Bull****.

Click to expand...

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.

The state must have enormous power over those who are convicted of serious crime. Orderly society could not be attained otherwise.

Click to expand...

NO the State must have the necessary power over those who are convicted of a serious crime not more. America is NOT an "orderly society" it is Nation of people who are considered individuals and have inherent rights. You are under the misapprehension that our country is some sort of collective. A Democracy is the worst government of all, period. It either becomes a ridged cult State or rips itself apart do to insolvable disputes.

I am a responsible conservative, but the measures I advocate should also be agreeable to responsible liberals. Libertarians I am not sure about.

Click to expand...

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. The OP had a scenario where what can be termed reckless driving occurred but there were no violations of persons or properties. Given that there could be a reasonable fine for doing so but they should not have to forfeit their property nor serve a sentence on a first time violation and we only have the violation without aggravating circumstances so there is no cause for a greater punishment.

People who call themselves "responsible" tend to be the ones who are responsible much ill in this world. Many liberals would probably use that term when advocating for their Statist measures. 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 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.

Mason66 said:

I don't think the roads are in good enough condition to drive that fast. Aren't politicians always crying about fixing the infrastructure? The roads should be redone from scratch.

Click to expand...

Texas is the best when building roads, and more importantly re-building them. Their frontage road system allows them to divert traffic most times off the main highway allowing the workers to concentrate on building the road quickly and efficiently.

PirateMk1 said:

Texas is the best when building roads, and more importantly re-building them. Their frontage road system allows them to divert traffic most times off the main highway allowing the workers to concentrate on building the road quickly and efficiently.

Click to expand...

Yes, I call my state the Land of Perpetual Road Construction for a good reason. :lol:

But we do have excellent highways, roads, and interstates.

Cardinal said:

Maybe my world view is skewed by having only driven Hondas and Toyotas, but 170MPH? WTF?

Click to expand...

Yes, your worldis skewed.

I had a 1977 Firebird slightly modified, with the Trans Am body parts on it that would top 170 MPH. I have since owned a 2000 Z28 and now have a 2002 WS6. These will go in theory over 170 MPH, but I have never driven them that fast.

joko104 said:

It's down to 145? Last I heard the greenies in the EU had it down to 155. Mercedes also has that limiter on USA imports too.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. 250 KPH is 155 MPH.

Lord of Planar said:

Yes, your worldis skewed.

I had a 1977 Firebird slightly modified, with the Trans Am body parts on it that would top 170 MPH. I have since owned a 2000 Z28 and now have a 2002 WS6. These will go in theory over 170 MPH, but I have never driven them that fast.

Click to expand...

Does it seem a little pointless that outside of a racetrack those speeds are so illegal it's science fiction?

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...

I think too many people believe "Fast and Furious" and don't know what it really takes to have a 10 second car.

joko104 said:

So what most annoys you is that person enjoys their car and driving, and the purpose of government is to make certain people are unhappy and punished for anything that matters to them the government doesn't like.

Of course, you are presuming that taking away the license and car stops the person from driving, just like presuming taking away someone's drugs will stop them for using drugs.

Most people whose license are suspended do not stop driving. If the person wealthy, he'd just get another car. If not, he'd just let the ZR1 be re-possessed and finance another car before it was. It likely will be fast, but may not be as well built for it or in as good of condition.

A more likely reality to your goal of teaching the person the illegally of doing what he likes is that next time he doesn't stop from the police. Losing his license could cost him many times more than the ZR1, that he's paying for but doesn't have. He definitely learned his lesson to not stop for the police more than anything else.

And that time then there is a 180 mph chase. Those tend to not end well for anyone, particularly others, though a lot of patrol officers in pursuit cruisers live for them. If a fleeing car broadsides an innocent car in an intersection, generally those in the broadsided car do worse. Front engined cars do better for those inside in a frontal impact than being being broadsided. Then you REALLY have reason to imprison the person. SUCCESS!

The problem with government control freaks - in and out of government - is they actually believe everyone will let the government control and constrain them in any and every way. Rather, it makes many people see the law, law enforcement, the court system and the government as the enemy of their life - and that actually might be accurate too as the number of local, county, state and federal laws and regulations continues to grow a million pages a day with ever more reasons to condemn people doing what they want or being less than perfect and perfectly submissive sheep.

And then if it goes badly because the government can't yet put mind-control in people (though would like to), even if innocent people are harmed or die as a result - they justify it anyway blaming the person in the situation they put the person into in the first place. For such government control freaks, although the USA has the largest prison population on earth, many times more people with criminal records, restricted citizen's rights and paying fees to ongoing government monitoring (probate and fees), it will NEVER be enough.

Just look at this forum's messages on any topic with any criminal punishment consequences. About 40% of the members want more laws, more severe punishment, even punishments beyond any that exist now, even beatings and torture, to totally destroy the person's life - in this instance for driving really fast across an empty desert on an empty highway. Put 100,000,000 people in jail and it wouldn't be enough.

Remember, lots and lots of people supported Maos and Stalin's death camps and summary brutal executions and imprisonments. Americans are made of the same dna and mindset. RABID xenophobia, all FEAR based, and fear leads to hatred - wanting all your fears addressed by imprisoning anyone who even in theory makes you afraid.

Click to expand...

After reading your first sentence, which totally misrepresented the comments I've posted on this thread, I knew you had no idea what I said or what my position is - you have an agenda, and my views don't fit it. That's fine - have a good day.

Lord of Planar said:

I think too many people believe "Fast and Furious" and don't know what it really takes to have a 10 second car.

Click to expand...

Quite

The Nissan GTR with 545 hp, large tires all around, launch control and 4 wheel drive can hit the 1/4 mile in 10.8.

I doubt a Dodge Challenger even with a supercharger is going to be able to hit 10.99 or less

The Mark said:

True. But depending on the number of exits available and how easily identifiable you were from the cop's perspective, it might be possible to avoid them.

Still....probably not a good idea.

Click to expand...

Having lots of exits, which by default means lots of ENTRANCES, just makes the crime worse. At 170 mph, you're doing almost a mile every 20 seconds. Which is less time it takes many drivers to get up to 80 mph when merging onto the interstate.

Lord of Planar said:

I think too many people believe "Fast and Furious" and don't know what it really takes to have a 10 second car.

Click to expand...

A buddy of mine had a 9 second Barracuda and it takes the smallest of things to put you into the wall with that much power, and he did twice.

I decided 12 seconds is the fastest I want to go in a 1/4 mile.

Lord Tammerlain said:

Quite

The Nissan GTR with 545 hp, large tires all around, launch control and 4 wheel drive can hit the 1/4 mile in 10.8.

I doubt a Dodge Challenger even with a supercharger is going to be able to hit 10.99 or less

Click to expand...

In order for a new challenger to consistently make 10 second passes, it would need at least 550hp to the wheels, which would be over 600 on the motor, it would need to loose at least 500 pounds, and it would need to be running at least 345 drag slicks in the back. With a good driver, that MIGHT make low 10 sec passes. Not sure, though. I am, obviously, more of a Chevy guy.

KevinKohler said:

In order for a new challenger to consistently make 10 second passes, it would need at least 550hp to the wheels, which would be over 600 on the motor, it would need to loose at least 500 pounds, and it would need to be running at least 345 drag slicks in the back. With a good driver, that MIGHT make low 10 sec passes. Not sure, though. I am, obviously, more of a Chevy guy.

Click to expand...

And the stock rear would last about 5 passes. Who ever had the idea to put an IRS in those should be shot.

Mason66 said:

A buddy of mine had a 9 second Barracuda and it takes the smallest of things to put you into the wall with that much power, and he did twice.

I decided 12 seconds is the fastest I want to go in a 1/4 mile.

Click to expand...

Thats called poor suspension set up and or poor driver skills.
Could be bad track prep, but if you can build a 9 second car. You should know the track conditions before running.