• 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
Rocketman said:
I bet the same people that voted for giving a guy the full ticket are the same ones that drive in the left lane on an interstate doing the speed limit.
Click to expand...
Nope, left lane is for 75 or above, imo. I just think the only controlled place is a track, and if he can afford that car, he can afford to lease a track for an hour or two. It's not that expensive, and if you have really cool car, sometimes free.
 
Rocketman said:
cops speed excessively all the time while talking on their phones
Click to expand...

you mean in emergency situations, or that cops are just speeding around at 170 shooting the ****?
 
joko104 said:
The financial stability of an Insurance company? :lamo Yes, reducing the number of tickets given would cost insurance companies money.

I can see exceptions, but there are few in terms of self endangerment.

Which is more self endangering? Driving 170 in a car built for 200 on an empty flat highway? Or rock climbing?
Click to expand...

well, the obvious point is that rock climbing doesn't put other people in danger. Driving at 170 does, even if you assume the road is empty (which you have no basis for)
 
joko104 said:
Generally, since I believe in personal freedom, I do NOT think endangering yourself should be against the law. Under the theory that it should be? Basically everything but saying inside a padded cubical, eating vitamin enriched tofu and drinking sterilized water should be criminal.

The CORE of freedom should be that you can do any damn thing you want provided it does not substantively endanger others.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my core point. You're saying it's OK for anyone to break the law if they think it's not dangerous to anyone else.
 
Literally over 100,000 Americans have died in motorcycle road accidents. Many times more than that seriously and permanent injured.

Shouldn't it be criminal to drive a motorcycle on roads?
 
HonestJoe said:
I think you missed my core point. You're saying it's OK for anyone to break the law if they think it's not dangerous to anyone else.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Summerwind said:
Nope, left lane is for 75 or above, imo. I just think the only controlled place is a track, and if he can afford that car, he can afford to lease a track for an hour or two. It's not that expensive, and if you have really cool car, sometimes free.
Click to expand...

No, he can't. That is a myth.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
well, the obvious point is that rock climbing doesn't put other people in danger. Driving at 170 does, even if you assume the road is empty (which you have no basis for)
Click to expand...

Sure it does. There is no way the person can assure s/he won't fall on someone - under your theory that no one can see if a flat open highway has other vehicles on it.
 
joko104 said:
Literally over 100,000 Americans have died in motorcycle road accidents. Many times more than that seriously and permanent injured.

Shouldn't it be criminal to drive a motorcycle on roads?
Click to expand...

false equivalency. No one is talking about banner a car, but putting limitations on how it is operated
 
Summerwind said:
Nope, left lane is for 75 or above, imo. I just think the only controlled place is a track, and if he can afford that car, he can afford to lease a track for an hour or two. It's not that expensive, and if you have really cool car, sometimes free.
Click to expand...

assuming there is one close by, I see no issue with using a limited access rd to have a little fun, it is much less dangerous than fooling with the damn smart phone while driving
 
Rocketman said:
I bet the same people that voted for giving a guy the full ticket are the same ones that drive in the left lane on an interstate doing the speed limit.
Click to expand...

Or below it.

Along the same lines, this AM I had to follow a car on a VERY curvy road (enough for no passing zones) marked 45 mph - that car doing 25-30 the whole time for over 15 miles on a road with no alternative routes (through the shell islands). BUT when we FINALLY came to a flat open section that was marked a passing zone, the car literally sped up to 55 - and then slowed back to 25. I was driving a pokey old little Ford Ranger than didn't have the power to accelerate and pass in that short distance, plus doing so would have put me 10 over.

There are people that stubbornly get in the right lane going 65 on and Interstate staying exactly along a semi also doing 65 seemingly to try to make a point.

Most annoying is that car that gets and stays just off your left rear fender so you can't change lanes - and will stay right there whether you speed up or slow down. There are some people afraid to pass another car so they just stay off your left blind spot.
 
joko104 said:
Literally over 100,000 Americans have died in motorcycle road accidents. Many times more than that seriously and permanent injured.

Shouldn't it be criminal to drive a motorcycle on roads?
Click to expand...

hell no, I have one of those, thinking about riding it here in a few minutes
 
joko104 said:
Or below it.

Along the same lines, this AM I had to follow a car on a VERY curvy road (enough for no passing zones) marked 45 mph - that car doing 25-30 the whole time for over 15 miles on a road with no alternative routes (through the shell islands). BUT when we FINALLY came to a flat open section that was marked a passing zone, the car literally sped up to 55 - and then slowed back to 25. I was driving a pokey old little Ford Ranger than didn't have the power to accelerate and pass in that short distance, plus doing so would have put me 10 over.

There are people that stubbornly get in the right lane going 65 on and Interstate staying exactly along a semi also doing 65 seemingly to try to make a point.

Most annoying is that car that gets and stays just off your left rear fender so you can't change lanes - and will stay right there whether you speed up or slow down. There are some people afraid to pass another car so they just stay off your left blind spot.
Click to expand...

I make those guys that want to stay on your rear fender let me out. They want to play games we can pull in a rest stop and discuss it
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
false equivalency. No one is talking about banner a car, but putting limitations on how it is operated
Click to expand...

Same principle of self endangerment and endangering others. When a motorcycle hits a vehicle it also endangers not only the motorcycle passenger but the other car.

Other than someone running from the police, can anyone point to ANY ultra high speed accident that hurt others? I can point to hundreds of thousands of non-high speed accidents that did.

Generally, when a person is driving ubber fast, they also are being ubber attentive. Most accidents happen for lack of attentiveness. I am more likely to let my mind and eyes wander when poking down the highway than when blasting down it. And high speed cars are built now for high speed. Many ordinary vehicles are particularly safe at 70 mph. I've seen more than 1 SUV roll over merely due to a blow out. 2+2 tires and run flat tires wouldn't cause that.
 
Rocketman said:
I make those guys that want to stay on your rear fender let me out. They want to play games we can pull in a rest stop and discuss it
Click to expand...

This was years ago, but when in Chicago if I had to get somewhere fast, I deliberately took a banged, up, rusted out, bad exhaust huge old Lincoln towncar. Looked and sounded like hell, obvious in dozens of accidents. Everyone would get out of my way and let me in. Clearly a car with no insurance and not a car you want around you. It worked.
 
joko104 said:
Sure it does. There is no way the person can assure s/he won't fall on someone
Click to expand...

things falling from above is an assumed risk in rock climbing. Someone barreling down the road at 170 on a public road is not

under your theory that no one can see if a flat open highway has other vehicles on it.
Click to expand...

you would need to actually understand the theory to comment on it
 
joko104 said:
No, he can't. That is a myth.
Click to expand...
Really? Then that needs to change right there. My dad used to get access back in the day back in TX, and here in SoCal the autocross still does, so do the gokarts, I know cuz I video 'em. I don't go into the roundyrounds but I assumed if they lease out their parking lots, they'd lease that out still also.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
things falling from above is an assumed risk in rock climbing. Someone barreling down the road at 170 on a public road is not



you would need to actually understand the theory to comment on it
Click to expand...

There is no "assumed risk" a person accepts that a rock loosened by a rock climber or the rock climber him/herself is going to fall on you.

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?
 
Summerwind said:
Really? Then that needs to change right there. My dad used to get access back in the day back in TX, and here in SoCal the autocross still does, so do the gokarts, I know cuz I video 'em. I don't go into the roundyrounds but I assumed if they lease out there parking lots, they'd lease that out still also.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is you can't just go to a race track, say "I have a 200 mph production car and want to drive around your track" and do so. Years ago maybe. Not anymore. "Liabilities." Even drag racing tracks now have limits.
 
joko104 said:
This was years ago, but when in Chicago if I had to get somewhere fast, I deliberately took a banged, up, rusted out, bad exhaust huge old Lincoln towncar. Looked and sounded like hell, obvious in dozens of accidents. Everyone would get out of my way and let me in. Clearly a car with no insurance and not a car you want around you. It worked.
Click to expand...

I go to Chicago 12-14 times a year. Most of the craziness I encounter is on I-57 North going up there through Illinois.
 
Write a ticket for the 170 mph and points against her license.
 
joko104 said:
What I am saying is you can't just go to a race track, say "I have a 200 mph production car and want to drive around your track" and do so. Years ago maybe. Not anymore. "Liabilities." Even drag racing tracks now have limits.
Click to expand...
Oh I see where you're going, and #1 I assume someone will call and make arrangements, proper insurance, etc, just as the autocrossers and go-karters have to. #2- cars on the roundyround are way in excess of 200, iirc, these days, so it shouldn't be an issue.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Go the Swiss way and base the fine off income, so a millionare pays a million!

$1 million speeding fine in Switzerland for Swedish SLS owner
Click to expand...

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:
 
joko104 said:
What I am saying is you can't just go to a race track, say "I have a 200 mph production car and want to drive around your track" and do so. Years ago maybe. Not anymore. "Liabilities." Even drag racing tracks now have limits.
Click to expand...

I really miss my 10 second quarter mile car:

View attachment 67155351
 
joko104 said:
The financial stability of an Insurance company?Yes, reducing the number of tickets given would cost insurance companies money.
Click to expand...
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..
I can see exceptions, but there are few in terms of self endangerment.
Click to expand...
Are those okay with the stability of the family--medical, emotional, etc .
Which is more self endangering?
Click to expand...
going 40 is twice as much as 20 in velocity, but FOUR times the KINETIC ENERGY..
Slow down in town .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom