Make sure the kid or the little old lady you're going to kill is a Democrat so that you can have a clear conscience.

Do the crime---pay the fine.

You are indeed a troubled young man. I recommend you pick any branch of the US military and enlist. Maybe you will grow up.

But he hasn't done the crime until he either pleads or is found guilty. THEN you pay the fine. Until THEN, I'd fight it tooth and nail.

It is not like I drove my car into the water and let a girl drown and then didn't serve a day in jail because I am rich....I speed and the laws are unjust.

I don't take liberals or their criticisms seriously...Defending the pattern sexual harasser's obstruction of justice negates your credibility on any subject regarding morality or ethics.

Abortion is murder.

Ummmm ..... yep

In terms of "Do the crime, do the time", yes, it makes perfect sense. Why not just have cops make you pay them right there at the traffic stop? Maybe it's because you're entitled to a hearing/trial/whatever. If the state can prove their charge, you have to pay. If they can't you ARE INNOCENT. Until then, YOU ARE INNOCENT.

Not paying unless and until you are adjudged guilty is a mild form of civil disobedience ... that's the part you guys are not getting.

Those of us that put the state though the paces hope for 2 things (well, I do anyway):

1. The cop wil not show, or if he does he will not be able to meet his burden. And remember it's the state's burden, not the motorists'

2. Barring that, at least it costs them as much or more than they are getting from me. SO it's an economic disincentive for the state to continue with a system that I consider corrupt.

So that's it ... pretty simple. You might not agree with it, but that's why they make chocolate AND vanilla ice cream :)


Of course, this does not change Mul's astounding moral relativism, or make him any less crazy. Sorry Mul, but you need help SmileWavy

Luckily, our court system's view of guilt or innocence has nothing to do with metaphysical facts. I've pleaded guilty before to plenty of stuff I did not remotely do, but the charge was far less serious than what I had originally been charged with and/or actually did do. So pleading it down was the best route.

SoCal911, if a cop nails you doing 85, but decides to write you up for 78, do you protest because you were guilty of doing 85?

Rodeo, for once I absolutely concur with you. Been taking your meds?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day :)

No. I do get it And it is appropriate for the case you mentioned before of a 4 lane 25 mph zone. I too would argue that.

It is just not appropriate doing 100 on a freeway.

However, if you think all speed limits should be abolished then you would do as he did. He never stated that, so I must presume he just did this out of a childish " I'll show them" attitude.

Does anyone really want all speed limits abolished?

I do think most speed limits should be abolished. To clarify Racing my Porsche, its never safe to race on the street. I only race in sanctioned events like VARA or HSR west. As to speeding, does a tree make a sound if it falls in the forrest and no one hears it? Am I speeding if I am going 140 mph across Idaho or parts of Montana and I don't pass a single car (one MB did pass me though). Was I speeding when I drove from Boston to San Diego with an AVERAGE speed of 86mph, in the double nickel days? No tickets.

I've done a lot of driving on the Autobahn and Autostrada. Speed limits are rare (or used to be, getting more common). There’s very little carnage.

Speed is a nice, simple metric, but as Snowman points out, but it's a pretty unreliable indicator of "safety." It’s easy to measure, so has become the "gold standard." Point the gun, bingo, $300 or $400 tickets will pop up with amazing frequency. Like every 3rd or 4th or 5th car. I’m sorry, that cannot be justified.

Now, on some days, in some automobiles, 55 on a particular road might be incredibly unsafe. On other days, in different conditions with different equipment, 120 might be a reasonable and safe speed.

Instead of a focus on real safety issues (left lane driving, tailgating, turn signals), law enforcement has taken the easy, and profitable, road.

snowman, Glad to hear that. And when you have exceeded the speed limit there does not seem to have been any safety issue for the public. That really is fine with everyone, I suspect.

I have also driven across country, 3 times, and there are many stretches where one can exceed the limit without a public safety issue. I too have driven fast in Montana years ago, and I couldn't see a car for as far as I could see.

But in LA, doing 100 in freeway traffic is a safety issue. The primary purpose of the CHP is public safety. You really have to do something stupid or otherwise to draw attention to yourself to get a ticket on the LA freeways. And when you do, just pay the fine. That is really the essence of my posts.


Rodeo and snowman, I don't think we are that far apart. If it is a ridiculous speed trap or speed limit, then going to court is a small act of civil disobedience. But perhaps the better avenue might be to get a petition of your neighbors and get your coucilman to supoort a change.

Councilman--let me think.. cash or safety, cash or .. was that cash you are talking about. Get real.

Well, I know in my area we do have a responsive city coucilman. But not having the same "cash cow" situation as you perceive, my experience may not be applicable.

The National Motorists Association has been trying to reform traffic laws for years, with only minimal success. It’s hard to fight the massive revenues generated by absurd speed laws. And if you try, you wil see just how much money the insurance lobby has (more than you could imagine).

Restoring Speed Limit Credibility
and Improving Safety

This problem has a simple and effective answer, one which has been well known for nearly sixty years.?? The default posted speed limit, in the absence of very unusual circumstances that the driver cannot perceive, must be set at the 85th to 90th percentile level of free-flowing traffic under good conditions. The list of engineering references supporting this proven methodology is very long.

****
?What to do has been well known since the 1940's. You tend to get the best overall safety, the smoothest traffic flow, the most appropriate choice of road types, etc. when limits are set at the 85th-90th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. ***

Court systems at state, county and local levels will lose a lot of speeding ticket revenue with 85th-90th percentile limits, so their opposition must be blunted with strong statements to the public from the engineering community that safety and traffic efficiency should override ticket revenue.?
Most highway speed limits in the USA are posted between the 30th and 50th percentile of free-flowing traffic speeds under good conditions. This means that posted limits arbitrarily define 50% to 70% of all drivers as violators.

The public will never accept that the safe driving habits of over half of all drivers should be illegal. Until this counterproductive practice is stopped, drivers will not respect posted limits.

All posted speed limits need to be set with science, generally at the 85th-90th percentile speeds, to achieve the highest levels of safety, the smoothest traffic flow, and the most appropriate choice of road types. They must not be set with arbitrary decrees from unqualified groups, many of whom have revenue motives.

More here: http://www.motorists.org/index.html

On most strecthes around here, 65 is well within that 85% band. On some short sections, a few miles, on two particular freeways, that is not true and speed limits could be raised over those short sections. But if one travels those stretches one hardly ever sees a CHP. I surmise they also know that going above the speed limit in those areas does not pose a safety hazard.

Well, I think that road is the exception. Try an experiment.

When you drive it next week, for a few days concentrate on not exceeding 65. See how many cars pass you. See how many you pass.

I drive 101 a lot, and I normally do not exceed 65 and I pass most people. Also 880 is the same. The primary reason is that there are lots more people using them than when the freeways were first made. LA seems to get more money for highway construction than we do up here. Of course they have a more expansive flat area with more people.

The two big exceptions are 280 in the hills, maybe 10 miles at 75 would be more appropriate and 680 for the about the same span. There is limited access in those areas. But we have on and offs about every 1/2 mile or less here around the city so just cars merging to get on or off causes the flow of traffic not to exceed 60-65.