$12,000.00 Speeding Ticket
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Turby on 31 Aug 2008 18:54 On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:20:09 -0400, "David T. Ashley" <dta(a)e3ft.com> wrote: >If someone runs you over deliberately with a car, don't you feel that they >should be charged with murder? If they kill you. it's vehicular homicide. If not, it's assault with a deadly weapon. Both are felonys, punishable with much greater than $12,000 fines. (Go ahead, AMHIK.) In California, going that fast would easily qualify for reckless driving, which carries a $145 to $1000 fine _and/or_ 5 to 90 days in jail. Going 160mph would probably push you into the max end of that. Personally, I think $12k is cheap compared to 2 or 3 months in jail. As a _speeding_ fine, however, I think $12k is ridiculous. -- Turby the Turbosurfer
From: Turby on 31 Aug 2008 18:54 On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:46:37 -0400, "David T. Ashley" <dta(a)e3ft.com> wrote: .... >There is no reason that the death penalty should be reserved for only murder >and treason. If someone, for example, destroys a big-ticket item (a dam, a >skyscraper, etc.) but doesn't injure or kill anybody ... one could make the >argument that such a crime is worse than murder. $100M or $1B is far more >than one individual is worth in terms of the damage to society. Oh really? Then you think it's incredulous that the government would spend $250 million for 3 lives? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25521147/ -- Turby the Turbosurfer
From: Andrzej Rosa on 31 Aug 2008 18:55 David T. Ashley wrote: > "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:peero5-278.ln1(a)bakters.bandit.home... >> David T. Ashley wrote: >> >>> It isn't clear what kind of a society you want to live in ... clearly >>> one where innocent people get killed frequently for no good reason. >>> >>> Aside from diagnosing me with rabies ("frothing"), you really have not >>> addressed the issue of why you believe that very dangerous behavior >>> shouldn't be answered with very inconvenient sanctions ... >> >> Shoot them on the spot. Wait, shooting is too civil. Catch them alive >> and torture them some before you shoot. That will learn them, won't it? > > I appreciate the humor, but everyone has missed my point. > > Endangering people with a motorcycle is no different than, for example, > discharging a firearm into the air in a populated area. It puts others at > too great a risk. You could find a better metaphor. Terminal velocity of a dropping bullet isn't anything dangerous. > To live with each other, we all need to make a few concessions to protect > each other's safety. > > I don't see any reason in the world that sufficiently reckless behavior > shouldn't result in very large fines. I do. State can't harvest misdemeanors. If the misdemeanor is serious enough, change its status to something graver and arrest people, but do not let the state earn. > The fact that the behavior occurred > on a motorcycle shouldn't inherently limit the fines. > > I don't see any reason in the world that sufficiently reckless behavior > shouldn't result in criminal prosecution. The fact that the behavior > occurred on a motorcycle shouldn't inherently prevent this. Sure. But huge fines are iffy at best, and confiscation of property of a citizen shouldn't be so easy. I say, if you are so hell bent against speeding, put him in jail but keep your greedy hands away from his bike. > Some of the people on this list seem to be of the opinion that traffic > fines should be limited to a few hundred dollars regardless of how > egregious the > offense. Why? "Ordinary" speeding (100 in a 70), perhaps. But going 160 > mph on a road where one might encounter other traffic ... that is nearly > criminal. I did it once. I chased a car, for fun. The car was faster, because with a tankbag I couldn't lie flat on the tank, which was tiring. There was traffic and all. Why, I hit 220 km/h fairly regularly (my personal "I've had enough" point). Now, I don't expect everybody to accept it as my right. It might happen that the society will get pussified^Wcivilized to the point when behavior like that will be a felony. Well, nothing beautiful lasts for ever. But they should never have the right to seize my bike! > What makes a motorcycle special in a way where the rider should be exempt > from accountability and responsibility? I guess some people just can't > handle adult priveleges. The only special thing about a bike is that a biker always risks more than anybody else on the road, no matter if he is fast or slow. But it isn't much, I agree. -- Andrzej Rosa
From: David T. Ashley on 31 Aug 2008 19:38 "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:p4kro5-op9.ln1(a)bakters.bandit.home... >> >> Endangering people with a motorcycle is no different than, for example, >> discharging a firearm into the air in a populated area. It puts others >> at >> too great a risk. > > You could find a better metaphor. Terminal velocity of a dropping bullet > isn't anything dangerous. You may find this page interesting. http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/March01.htm On average, a bullet fired straight up won't produce a lethal wound. However, one can get unlucky and get: a)A bullet with an x-component (not fired straight up). b)One that enters an eye or mouth, etc. c)A larger bullet than was used in those tests (= higher terminal velocity). 300 feet per second is about 200mph ... that could sting. Firing guns in the air ain't entirely safe ... >> To live with each other, we all need to make a few concessions to protect >> each other's safety. >> >> I don't see any reason in the world that sufficiently reckless behavior >> shouldn't result in very large fines. > > I do. State can't harvest misdemeanors. If the misdemeanor is serious > enough, change its status to something graver and arrest people, but do > not > let the state earn. Thank you! Finally, somebody who makes a credible argument! OK, I can see that point of view. I've actually experienced that point of view. I once received an expensive speeding ticket with no points. The motive was clear: I wasn't doing anything dangerous but they wanted my money. Stop milking minor crimes for money -- OK, that seems reasonable. I never thought of it that way ... you make a good point. >> The fact that the behavior occurred >> on a motorcycle shouldn't inherently limit the fines. >> >> I don't see any reason in the world that sufficiently reckless behavior >> shouldn't result in criminal prosecution. The fact that the behavior >> occurred on a motorcycle shouldn't inherently prevent this. > > Sure. But huge fines are iffy at best, and confiscation of property of a > citizen shouldn't be so easy. I say, if you are so hell bent against > speeding, put him in jail but keep your greedy hands away from his bike. > >> Some of the people on this list seem to be of the opinion that traffic >> fines should be limited to a few hundred dollars regardless of how >> egregious the >> offense. Why? "Ordinary" speeding (100 in a 70), perhaps. But going >> 160 >> mph on a road where one might encounter other traffic ... that is nearly >> criminal. > > I did it once. I chased a car, for fun. The car was faster, because with > a > tankbag I couldn't lie flat on the tank, which was tiring. There was > traffic and all. Why, I hit 220 km/h fairly regularly (my personal "I've > had enough" point). > > Now, I don't expect everybody to accept it as my right. It might happen > that the society will get pussified^Wcivilized to the point when behavior > like that will be a felony. Well, nothing beautiful lasts for ever. But > they should never have the right to seize my bike! > >> What makes a motorcycle special in a way where the rider should be exempt >> from accountability and responsibility? I guess some people just can't >> handle adult priveleges. > > The only special thing about a bike is that a biker always risks more than > anybody else on the road, no matter if he is fast or slow. But it isn't > much, I agree. Well, I think that any criminal charges should have a scientific basis ... one should know approximately how dangerous to others going 160 mph on a bike is. I have no idea, actually. Maybe 160 mph in a car is a better example ... And it depends on where one does this. On a 2-lane highway is different than a limited-access freeway. But there should be a scientific basis. I honestly don't know how dangerous to others a motorcycle is or is not.
From: Calgary on 31 Aug 2008 19:50
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:13:12 +0200, Andrzej Rosa <bakters(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Calgary wrote: > >> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:08:28 +0200, Andrzej Rosa <bakters(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >>>First I am Canadian and live in Canada. >>> >>>I first heard about this law in American context, so I made an assumption. >>>I wasn't aware that it works like that in Canada too. Sorry for you, >>>guys. >> >> Considering your admitted ignorance of Canada and all things Canadian >> your "Sorry for you guys" comes across as an immature and ill informed >> sentiment. > >You mean that it's all right that a state can earn above ten thousand >dollars on a single speeding ticket? There is nothing wrong with it? If >so, I'm sorry for you. Actually my point was you are making a judgement of life in Canada based on total ignorance of what life in Canada is like. That speaks volumes about you. -- See Ya On The Road 2000 Yamaha Venture Millennium 2004 HD Road King Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. |