• 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
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.

My 92 Z28 squatted nicely at speed. You could actually feel it squatting down. Unfortunately, the original T-Tops were Lexan, and those didn't hold up at high speeds but flexed. Had to replace them with glass. No way that thing floated. I generally only went to around 120 or so myself. And I didn't go airborne on a few minor pot holes or road joints that had expanded a bit.

The car needs a brake upgrade for going higher though. The feel of them was just off, felt to weak the higher I went. That is why I generally stayed down around 120, even though 130 was easily possible.

But I know what he means on cars not designed for high speed. I have had floating on some of those even at lower speeds.
 
My 92 Z28 squatted nicely at speed. You could actually feel it squatting down. Unfortunately, the original T-Tops were Lexan, and those didn't hold up at high speeds but flexed. Had to replace them with glass. No way that thing floated. I generally only went to around 120 or so myself. And I didn't go airborne on a few minor pot holes or road joints that had expanded a bit.

The car needs a brake upgrade for going higher though. The feel of them was just off, felt to weak the higher I went. That is why I generally stayed down around 120, even though 130 was easily possible.

But I know what he means on cars not designed for high speed. I have had floating on some of those even at lower speeds.

LOL...

I lost all the chrome window stripping the first time I put my foot in it, The air at those speeds ripped it right off.
 
Most highways are engineered to be safe at 70 or at 90, not at 170.

Highway design is not really an issue except entry and exits. Highway quality is a real issue though. Americas highways are actually some of the best designed in the world, just poorly maintained and not enough planing done on getting on and off.

Capability of the vehicle and driver along with actions of other drivers are the real issues with safety and no design is ever going to take that away.

Whether it was safe to that driver, I don't really care about. It is only safety to others that should be concern. If you do 170 and hit a deer, oh well, you made that choice. If you do 170 and hit someone else, that is where it becomes a problem. Of course, if you are doing 30 and cut off someone doing 70, you are just as guilty of endangering others as someone driving 170 on an empty road, more so actually.

Speed is never the cause of an accident. Human actions are the cause, not the speed. Speed only controls the severity of impact not whether an accident will actually happen.
 
Everyone should be put in prison at least 2 or 3 times. That is what the American revolution was about. The King of England was way, way too lenient.

Since running a redlight, driving with worn tires, tail-lights out, and speeding in crowded traffic all could kill someone and is more dangerous than someone driving along super fast across an empty desert. Thus, some on this thread think all those people also should be in prison, no license and no vehicle. Tens of millions of people in prison.
 
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.




Not OK.

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




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.




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.




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.

Your braking distance stats are grossly outdated. My CL65, a relatively heavy car, will come to a stop from 70 in under 150 feet. From 170 in 1/3rd the distance you claim. Those old braking charts are just that. Ancient.

Interesting your defense of DUI by comparison. :roll:
 
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.

ALL INTERSTATES were designed so that military vehicles such as army trucks could go at least 100 mph. That was and is the legal standard, so you are wrong.

You are wrong about cars becoming airborne the faster they go. That's true if you're driving a 1950s Olds Rocket 88. It does NOT apply to modern performance cars. They actually get heavily the faster they go due to ground effects (wings, flairs, spoilers and underbody structure.)
 
Drag racing tracks amateur racing should be outlawed from allowing anything but street legal cars that at least met the minimal DOT safety standards. The NHRA should be declared an organized criminal organization. LOTS of people die drag racing on NHRA tracks to NHRA rules. So do spectators sometimes.

The NHRA induces and rewards people for racing cars to 50 year old safety technology, while penalizing or even banning modern cars with modern safety design, structure and equipment.

Does the NHRA require disc brakes? Hell no.
Does the NHRA require tires rated for the speed? Absolutely not.
Does the NHRA require automatic fuel and electric cut off if the car rolls? No.
What about airbags? Absolutely not.
Anti-lock brakes? No.
Hell, you can run bicycle tires on the front in a car that will roll at 0.25 g forces at 250 mph - and that's a-ok to the NHRA.

The NHRA wants old farts to keep racing their old cars decade after decade that are 1000% more dangerous than ANY modern production car and far more than that for any performance modern car.

Old farts love the NHRA. The NHRA allows them to think their cars - that couldn't do jack**** on the street, aren't street legal in any fashion, and are dangerous-as-hell dinosaurs are cool super fast cars.

Most younger drivers increasingly despise the NHRA because modern, street legal, safe high performance cars are banned - so the old farts don't look bad.

So to the HNRA if a guy bolts a cheap 8 point roll cage in his 1976 Malibu that he's stripped down, has a fuel and electric cut off switch that someone could eventually maybe get to cut off them off, and has a helmet and fire jacket by a company that paid a cut to the NHRA, and seatbelts that paid a fee to the NHRA, he can do really fast with ain't-worth-**** drum brakes, any amount of structure removed regardless of lost integrity, and have 2 inch wide tires up front over inflated and under inflated rear tires... and that's a-ok.

But try to race a late model Roush Mustang with no more than nitrous and DOT legal racing rear tires? Per NHRA rules they will declare "It's TOO DANGEROUS!" That Mustang has huge disc brakes, automatic fuel and electrical system cut off it air bags deployed - and it has air bags - and the body center section is very heavily constructed.

But someone with the same motor in a 1964 Fairlane that has all but worthless drum brakes, no airbags, and a chassis cutup, not safety glass, no rollover or accident fuel or electric cutoff, that can't steer if it goes 5 degrees off straightline -all by someone probably who didn't graduate from high school deciding he's an automobile engineers. That is what NHRA wants on their tracks.

And You Tube is filled with videos of those old dinosaurs losing entire front axle assembles and rear ends, crashing off walls, flipping, and burning.

This is profitable to the NHRA. They make money off the required crap that has their certification sticker. The old farts racing those cast iron dinosaurs FEEL like they are daredevils driving their death traps and it attracts spectators who love to see accidents.

Such old farts of those iron and steel dinosaurs - believing the start of art in automotive performance is a Holley Dominator carb and roller rockers - do NOT want modern cars on the tracks. Because they'd blow their old otherwise worthless cars away.

And they will go into total blind rage at anyone going fast off track too. Why? Their cars are so damn dangerous and so illegal they CAN'T drive them on the street. And if they did make their cars street legal - even the decades old standards of their old machines they just keep "racing" decade after decade? Modern street performance cars would blow them away - shattering their self protected illusions.

Amateur drag racing cars should meet roadway safety standards to be allowed to race. Only professionals in exhibition races should be allowed otherwise. How many hundreds, thousands, of people have been killed or hurt under NHRA anti-safety rules?

Want to hear old FART NHRA racers rage? Demand that cars on NHRA tracks meet minimal modern automotive safety standards. They'll go BERSERK!
 
Don't get me wrong. They should allow ANTIQUE CAR racing of those dangerous ancient cars by amateurs, provided they meet minimal DOT safety standards and are street legal. But REAL amateur racing should be about modern, street legal cars both stock and built up. Non-street legal drag racing should be limited to professional racing.
 
Last edited:
Your braking distance stats are grossly outdated. My CL65, a relatively heavy car, will come to a stop from 70 in under 150 feet. From 170 in 1/3rd the distance you claim. Those old braking charts are just that. Ancient.

Interesting your defense of DUI by comparison. :roll:

That calculator didn't even take into account weight of vehicle, tires (composition or condition), braking system, road surface, road condition, etc, etc.
 
That calculator didn't even take into account weight of vehicle, tires (composition or condition), braking system, road surface, road condition, etc, etc.

Such a chart likely is from some 1950s state issued driving training manual that they just keep reprinting.
 
That '77 Eldorado had a 425 Cubic Inch V8 which put out 195 horsepower when new. That was a huge car to pull with so few horse power.

If it was a '76 it would have had the 500 but with 215 horsepower.

As a comparison, the 1970 Eldorado had the 500 cubic inch engine and that had 400 horsepower when new.

That was a fun car to burn the front tires down to nothing. Hard to see through the smoke though.
thats hp. For seat of the pants feel, especially in a boat, it's torque that matters. And big blocks make torque, period.
 
LOL...

You are taking this entirely too far.

Besides, I said "twist that makes it to the wheels."

You cannot violate the laws of physics. One tire will have more force on it than the other.

Well, he's talking about tube frame cars, now. Non street legal. With a solid rear, a good locking diff, yeah, those are gonna lay straight power. But they have to be trailored to the track. Not my cup o tea.
 
Drag racing tracks amateur racing should be outlawed from allowing anything but street legal cars that at least met the minimal DOT safety standards. The NHRA should be declared an organized criminal organization. LOTS of people die drag racing on NHRA tracks to NHRA rules. So do spectators sometimes.

The NHRA induces and rewards people for racing cars to 50 year old safety technology, while penalizing or even banning modern cars with modern safety design, structure and equipment.

Does the NHRA require disc brakes? Hell no.
Does the NHRA require tires rated for the speed? Absolutely not.
Does the NHRA require automatic fuel and electric cut off if the car rolls? No.
What about airbags? Absolutely not.
Anti-lock brakes? No.
Hell, you can run bicycle tires on the front in a car that will roll at 0.25 g forces at 250 mph - and that's a-ok to the NHRA.

The NHRA wants old farts to keep racing their old cars decade after decade that are 1000% more dangerous than ANY modern production car and far more than that for any performance modern car.

Old farts love the NHRA. The NHRA allows them to think their cars - that couldn't do jack**** on the street, aren't street legal in any fashion, and are dangerous-as-hell dinosaurs are cool super fast cars.

Most younger drivers increasingly despise the NHRA because modern, street legal, safe high performance cars are banned - so the old farts don't look bad.

So to the HNRA if a guy bolts a cheap 8 point roll cage in his 1976 Malibu that he's stripped down, has a fuel and electric cut off switch that someone could eventually maybe get to cut off them off, and has a helmet and fire jacket by a company that paid a cut to the NHRA, and seatbelts that paid a fee to the NHRA, he can do really fast with ain't-worth-**** drum brakes, any amount of structure removed regardless of lost integrity, and have 2 inch wide tires up front over inflated and under inflated rear tires... and that's a-ok.

But try to race a late model Roush Mustang with no more than nitrous and DOT legal racing rear tires? Per NHRA rules they will declare "It's TOO DANGEROUS!" That Mustang has huge disc brakes, automatic fuel and electrical system cut off it air bags deployed - and it has air bags - and the body center section is very heavily constructed.

But someone with the same motor in a 1964 Fairlane that has all but worthless drum brakes, no airbags, and a chassis cutup, not safety glass, no rollover or accident fuel or electric cutoff, that can't steer if it goes 5 degrees off straightline -all by someone probably who didn't graduate from high school deciding he's an automobile engineers. That is what NHRA wants on their tracks.

And You Tube is filled with videos of those old dinosaurs losing entire front axle assembles and rear ends, crashing off walls, flipping, and burning.

This is profitable to the NHRA. They make money off the required crap that has their certification sticker. The old farts racing those cast iron dinosaurs FEEL like they are daredevils driving their death traps and it attracts spectators who love to see accidents.

Such old farts of those iron and steel dinosaurs - believing the start of art in automotive performance is a Holley Dominator carb and roller rockers - do NOT want modern cars on the tracks. Because they'd blow their old otherwise worthless cars away.

And they will go into total blind rage at anyone going fast off track too. Why? Their cars are so damn dangerous and so illegal they CAN'T drive them on the street. And if they did make their cars street legal - even the decades old standards of their old machines they just keep "racing" decade after decade? Modern street performance cars would blow them away - shattering their self protected illusions.

Amateur drag racing cars should meet roadway safety standards to be allowed to race. Only professionals in exhibition races should be allowed otherwise. How many hundreds, thousands, of people have been killed or hurt under NHRA anti-safety rules?

Want to hear old FART NHRA racers rage? Demand that cars on NHRA tracks meet minimal modern automotive safety standards. They'll go BERSERK!
Ahhhummm, bull****.
 
Don't get me wrong. They should allow ANTIQUE CAR racing of those dangerous ancient cars by amateurs, provided they meet minimal DOT safety standards and are street legal. But REAL amateur racing should be about modern, street legal cars both stock and built up. Non-street legal drag racing should be limited to professional racing.

You have gone off the deep end. People die racing in all sorts of racing. But the NHRA has a superior record of safety at its tracks nation wide.
You have offered nothing but raging hyperbole. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of passes are made each year at NHRA sanctioned tracks and very very few people are injured or die. Probably more kids playing sports are hurt than in all of racing every year.
Start backing up your insane claims with some real data.
 
Well, he's talking about tube frame cars, now. Non street legal. With a solid rear, a good locking diff, yeah, those are gonna lay straight power. But they have to be trailored to the track. Not my cup o tea.

Tube frame cars can be street legal. Mine was. Drove mine all over Daytona for Turkey Rod runs every years.
 
ALL INTERSTATES were designed so that military vehicles such as army trucks could go at least 100 mph. That was and is the legal standard, so you are wrong.

You are wrong about cars becoming airborne the faster they go. That's true if you're driving a 1950s Olds Rocket 88. It does NOT apply to modern performance cars. They actually get heavily the faster they go due to ground effects (wings, flairs, spoilers and underbody structure.)
Actually the main purpose of the interstate highway program as far as military use was concernd was landing air planes. Please, find me a military vehicle that could do 100 mph back in the 50s. Hell even today you are lucky to get 65 out of a newer Hummer.
 
Tube frame cars can be street legal. Mine was. Drove mine all over Daytona for Turkey Rod runs every years.

In CT, they aren't. I was gonna buy a tube frame C3, but after going to the DMV prior to purchase, was told the car could not be registered due to it not having a legal chassis. I think if it's a tube frame from the factory, sorta like the old ford gt40, or some newer super cars, it's fine. Are you sure the DMV was aware your car was tube frame when you got it registered? I'm pretty sure it's a DOT thing.

I'd love to do a tube frame for my 76, as it sits, best I can hope for to reduce flex is a good cage, and even at that, up here, only 4 point roll bars are street legal.
 
Reminds me of how my Mrs. drives:

 
Actually the main purpose of the interstate highway program as far as military use was concernd was landing air planes. Please, find me a military vehicle that could do 100 mph back in the 50s. Hell even today you are lucky to get 65 out of a newer Hummer.

You'd be lucky to get older military vehicles up to 55. They are made for hauling, not....HAULING.
 
Actually the main purpose of the interstate highway program as far as military use was concernd was landing air planes. Please, find me a military vehicle that could do 100 mph back in the 50s. Hell even today you are lucky to get 65 out of a newer Hummer.

That used to be the joke that there is no such think as a military vehicle that does 100. But that was the justification Eisenhower gave. Many, many people were furious at their land being taken, towns bypassed and farms cut in half.
 
You have gone off the deep end. People die racing in all sorts of racing. But the NHRA has a superior record of safety at its tracks nation wide.
You have offered nothing but raging hyperbole. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of passes are made each year at NHRA sanctioned tracks and very very few people are injured or die. Probably more kids playing sports are hurt than in all of racing every year.
Start backing up your insane claims with some real data.

You're the one wanting to imprison people for going fast on open flat highway. You have yet to back up any reason to whatsoever.

The NHRA predictably keeps no record of deaths and accidents. I could do about 10,000 video links to such accidents.

Link to anyone ever hurt in the OP situation I gave.

Oh, that's right. You presume anyone should go to prison and otherwise be criminalized unless proven otherwise - your presumption in favor of prosecutions and jailings.
 
Reminds me of how my Mrs. drives:



Did you make that vid, or do you mean that this vid reminds you of how your wife drives?



If it was you...nice road. Where's that at? And advice, out a small bright weighted item on the end of a short string, and dangle that from the mirror. Low tech g meter...gives the viewer a better idea of speed. I do it in my vette vids...it's always fun to see how close to sideways I can get it before the tires break.
 
In CT, they aren't. I was gonna buy a tube frame C3, but after going to the DMV prior to purchase, was told the car could not be registered due to it not having a legal chassis. I think if it's a tube frame from the factory, sorta like the old ford gt40, or some newer super cars, it's fine. Are you sure the DMV was aware your car was tube frame when you got it registered? I'm pretty sure it's a DOT thing.

I'd love to do a tube frame for my 76, as it sits, best I can hope for to reduce flex is a good cage, and even at that, up here, only 4 point roll bars are street legal.

Rent a room in Florida as your address and register it in Florida claiming you are a "seasonal" resident. You can get an INSTANT title and tags - though need to car here to see the VIN number.

So many snowbirds here on out of state license there is no problem and lots of old people have put-together cars as a hobby, plus there is NO inspection, NO tailpipe test AND you can register it for TWO years - which goes on birthdays. The only thing you'll need is proof of insurance, which they generally neither confirm nor make a copy of. Then in CT claim you also have a winter residence in Florida if ever even stopped and asked you have the Florida plate. You do not need to bring the car in to have the sticker renewed every 2 years and generally can do that by mail.
Stamp whatever the VIN # was on the tube frame.
Haul it here once and you have tags and title with no inspections for life.
 
You're the one wanting to imprison people for going fast on open flat highway. You have yet to back up any reason to whatsoever.

The NHRA predictably keeps no record of deaths and accidents. I could do about 10,000 video links to such accidents.

Link to anyone ever hurt in the OP situation I gave.

Oh, that's right. You presume anyone should go to prison and otherwise be criminalized unless proven otherwise - your presumption in favor of prosecutions and jailings.
In the very vid you posted, that Audi came close to 100mph twice. MILES and miles away from 170.

Getting caught doing 120 on the interstate when it's deserted? Whatever. Pay the fine, lose the points. 140, 150, or higher? Effing 170?!? Rediculous. Revoke the license for a while. Not someone I want to share the road with. Oh, but no ones around, it was safe! Really? Where'd the cop that caught him come from, then? A wormhole?
 
joko said:
Your braking distance stats are grossly outdated.
Oh is that so?

Did you actually look at the citation? Here is what the owners have to say about themselves on their home page:

Forensic Dynamics Inc. is a consulting forensic engineering firm specializing in accident reconstruction...
Our firm has reconstructed over 10,000 accidents and given expert witness testimony in over 500 trials across North America.


Seems I have to decide who to believe, Forensic Dynamics, Inc., or some putz who calls himself “joko.”

joko loses.



joko said:
My CL65, a relatively heavy car, will come to a stop from 70 in under 150 feet. From 170 in 1/3rd the distance you claim.
Whoa Nellie- not the distance I claim, the distance a company of auto accident reconstruction engineers claims.

And speaking of citations, you could stand to provide a few of your own. Don’t blame me for not trying, though- I googled all kinds of “Mercedes CL65 braking performance” hits, and found nothing except sales boilerplate glossy.

But, taking your 1/3 the distance****at face value, assuming a drunk takes triple the normal time to react, he will stop a car doing 70mph in about 400 feet, whereas at 170mph Mr. cold sober joko hotstuff needs about 647 feet to stop that CL65 of his. (I will provide the calculations as soon as I see a believable cite for the 1/3 the distance claim)

Joko loses again, this time to a drunk.



joko said:
Those old braking charts are just that. Ancient.
Rehash, covered.



joko said:
Interesting your defense of DUI by comparison.
Interesting you haven’t told us you would prefer someone driving home from the neighborhood bar at a sober 130.
 
Back
Top Bottom