A Weak Economy Means More Traffic Tickets... Duh!!!

[I_Got_Banned]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? ALL

Speeding? You'll pay higher 'taxes' - MSN Money

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? ALL

Speeding? You'll pay higher 'taxes' - MSN Money

And yet, those who don't speed (generally) don't have anything to worry about!

 

[I_Got_Banned]

And yet, those who don't speed (generally) don't have anything to worry about!

Well, consider the fact that those who don't speed (generally) will get there later than people who do speed (generally).

Now, since it is a well known fact that to the average person "TIME = MONEY", one could argue that those who speed (generally) have the potential to make more money than those who don't speed (generally).

Assuming that a someone who does speed (generally) does make enough money to cover the citation and have a little left over, then:

People who speed (generally) ARE BETTER OFF than people who don't speed (generally).

 

[Zigner]

Well, consider the fact that those who don't speed (generally) will get there later than people who do speed (generally).

Yes, but (generally), the savings in time can be measured in minutes. Not even tens of minutes...just minutes.

I get a kick out of watching people tear by me like bats out of hell, only to be stuck next to me at the next stoplight...or only to be waiting at the stop sign at the end of the offramp when I pass by.

 

[racer72]

People that speed also get in more auto accidents and are killed in these accident more often. Their vehicles suffer more wear and tear and cost more to maintain. They also tend to get aggravated more easily by heavy traffic and suffer more health problems such as anxiety and high blood pressure, leading to higher medical bills than those that don't speed.

People who speed (generally) ARE BETTER OFF than people who don't speed (generally).

I don't think so.

 

[Zigner]

People that speed also get in more auto accidents and are killed in these accident more often. Their vehicles suffer more wear and tear and cost more to maintain. They also tend to get aggravated more easily by heavy traffic and suffer more health problems such as anxiety and high blood pressure, leading to higher medical bills than those that don't speed.


I don't think so.

Much better said...

 

[I_Got_Banned]

People that speed also get in more auto accidents

Not according to NHTSA statistics... Speed is not the #1 contributor to accidents...

Alcohol is... See figure 5 in this NHTSA publication: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/TSF/2007/810998.pdf

. . . and are killed in these accident more often.

That's not really true either.
The data is not cnclusive enough to dictate that. For example look at Table 1 inthat same link I posted.

For example, -looking at USA Totals- it shows that in -non-interstate fatalities- more people died at <35 (less than 35mph) -last column- {total = 1485} ..... or at 35 mph speeds -column before last- {total = 1517} ..... than at the 40mph speed -3rd column from the left- {total = 917}.... but then it goes up... So there is no clear defininitive trend...

I am not condoning speeding or driving over the limit.

 

[Zigner]

Not according to NHTSA statistics... Speed is not the #1 contributor to accidents...

Who said it was?

 

[AHA]

Well, consider the fact that those who don't speed (generally) will get there later than people who do speed (generally).

Now, since it is a well known fact that to the average person "TIME = MONEY", one could argue that those who speed (generally) have the potential to make more money than those who don't speed (generally).

Assuming that a someone who does speed (generally) does make enough money to cover the citation and have a little left over, then:

People who speed (generally) ARE BETTER OFF than people who don't speed (generally).

Then speeders should enroll in a time management class if they can't get their daily stuff done without driving like they're on fire.

 

[Jim_bo]

You guys just don't get it. I don't usually agree with IGB, but the article makes a clear point.... traffic tickets are used for revenue vice safety.

It is a weak minded argument to say:

And yet, those who don't speed (generally) don't have anything to worry about!

If a city was to adopt a policy to search everyone walking down the street, the same argument would be "those who don't have weapons or drugs don't have anything to worry about!" What nonsense!!

The police are here (supposedly) to "protect and serve". However, when traffic tickets become a mere source of revenue, that only amounts to the State simply serving itself!! I know Carl likes to argue that local governments only get pennies on the dollar from traffic tickets... but you just can't argue that MILLIONS of dollars are paid to the State each year for traffic tickets. That money goes somewhere. Also... there are many occassions where auto insurance companies will purchase radar equipment for underfunded police agencies. I think the self-serving interest there is pretty clear.

Some people are just not smart enough to see their liberties being taken away from them... right under their noses.

 

[AHA]

You guys just don't get it. I don't usually agree with IGB, but the article makes a clear point.... traffic tickets are used for revenue vice safety.

It is a weak minded argument to say:



If a city was to adopt a policy to search everyone walking down the street, the same argument would be "those who don't have weapons or drugs don't have anything to worry about!" What nonsense!!

The police are here (supposedly) to "protect and serve". However, when traffic tickets become a mere source of revenue, that only amounts to the State simply serving itself!! I know Carl likes to argue that local governments only get pennies on the dollar from traffic tickets... but you just can't argue that MILLIONS of dollars are paid to the State each year for traffic tickets. That money goes somewhere. Also... there are many occassions where auto insurance companies will purchase radar equipment for underfunded police agencies. I think the self-serving interest there is pretty clear.

Some people are just not smart enough to see their liberties being taken away from them... right under their noses.

Yeah, let's all go break every traffic law (to hell with keeping adults and children safe on the roads), and yell out our liberties.
Heck, I'll yank my sleeping toddler out of bed, put her in the car NOT strapped in her car seat, and go have a race on the residential streets in my neighborhood right now. Anyone coming?

"Self-serving", my foot!

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Who said it was?

racer72 did. In a post that you agreed with and complimented!

People that speed also get in more auto accidents and are killed in these accident more often.

 

[Dougthegreat]

Yeah, let's all go break every traffic law (to hell with keeping adults and children safe on the roads), and yell out our liberties.
Heck, I'll yank my sleeping toddler out of bed, put her in the car NOT strapped in her car seat, and go have a race on the residential streets in my neighborhood right now. Anyone coming?

Whoops! Watch that slippery slope there!

As far as annexing, I have observed towns doing the same thing around here. What specifically comes to mind is Cumberland, MD - they drop the speed on I-68 to an annoying 45 MPH, and heaven help you if you go over that and don't have a MD license plate.

Little towns in Virginia are able to tack on an additional $200 to whatever the court fines you. There is absolutely no argument anyone could present that would make me believe that this is anything more than a revenue-generating tool. What makes speeding on a rural road $200 worse than speeding on the interstate, or in a densely-populated urban neighborhood?

States like Massachusetts - which apparently started a program that rewards troopers for giving tickets vs. warnings - should be sued. If that's not a kickback, I don't know what is. If it really is just about safety, then there should be no incentive to cite vs. warn, and there should be no "expected minimum performance" based on number of citations written.

 

[racer72]

racer72 did. In a post that you agreed with and complimented!

Please quote the part that I stated speeding is the number 1 cause of accidents. I never stated that. According to the State Patrol of my state and something called the Insurance Institute, distracted driving is the leading cause of auto accidents. Drunk driving is the leading cause of fatal accidents.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Please quote the part that I stated speeding is the number 1 cause of accidents.

We're still on the first page of this thread and you only had one post prior to this one. Is it really that hard to miss?

Please refer back to the post you referenced and you will find your quote (in the dark gray shaded text box) beneath the remark I made.

I never stated that.

Right, you never stated that but you implied it when you stated "People that speed also get in more auto accidents" and you left out the more than what part. But now you're gonna try and dance your way around it.

According to the State Patrol of my state and something called the Insurance Institute, distracted driving is the leading cause of auto accidents. Drunk driving is the leading cause of fatal accidents.

And where do speeders fit in according to the sources you quoted there?
Also, does that mean that you're retracting your earlier statement that "people that speed also get in more auto accidents"?