Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Another lesson of statistics involves correlation and causality.
Not sure about many, but I'll accept that speed can be a contributing factor to an accident. I like that word contributing.
However, no one can say that speed was the CAUSE of an accident. Cause and contributing are two far different things.
For instance, you could recreate an accident scenario in a similator, and bring in 100 drivers. Maybe 75 drivers deal with the emergency situation and avoid the accident all together. 25 drivers might choose the same course of action that led to the accident. All had vehicles going the same speed initially, so it is obviously decisions and actions separate from speed that caused the accident. If you can go back and say "I should have done this or that and I'd of been all right" then you know speed didn't cause the accident, but poor choices/decisions which translates to driver error.
Heck, you should be able to blame the car salesman for an accident where you rearended someone where 30' would have made all the difference in the world. That salesman contributed to the accident just as much as speed did. :P
Getting there:
"The app basically locks down the phone when it senses motion. Callers are informed that the phone's owner is driving and incoming texts receive an automated reply. Five numbers can be selected to ring through, and up to three apps (such as navigation, music and weather ... but not Facebook) can remain operable while the app is running."
Automotive App of the Week: Sprint Drive First (Straightline)
Might sell it to parents of teen drivers, but I'd never own it.
Self-discipline & enforcement. Both sides, get busy.
They always seem to overlook those little details.
Self-discipline and enforcement are both extremely inconsistent.
Perhaps a bluetooth hands-free speaker system as mandated standard equipment, a la seat belts, air bags, CHMSL's, etc? Nobody is ever going to completely eliminate the 'distracted driving' threat, but give folks tools easily used, and perhaps you can mitigate the hazard to a greater degree.
It should be made a mandatory thing (just like Airbags, stability control, etc) and the dealers should program everyone's phone when the car is purchased. For the most part it takes less than 5 minutes to connect your bluetooth phone to the car.
My fiance has a Motorola bluetooth unit I bought her. It works great and even reads texts out loud as they are received. She can then respond to the text simply by speaking. Its the way it should be, her phone doesn't ever leave her pocketbook.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
The above statement is based on envy. Laws are for all who are equal. :P
Actually, I'd say that speed is a contributing factor in accident severity more than I'd say it's a factor in causing accidents themselves.
I dated the queen of a beauty pageant but married the runner-up of that same contest. So, I say levy a vanity tax on the high-maintenance pageant queens! (But please don't tell her majesty that this was my idea or she might still beat the stupid out of me with her tiara.)
Still it is nice to read other plots of sweet revenge devised by those who may have suffered some horrible slight in life. Like watching a chronic used car shopper rail against the "overprivileged" who can afford that great new car smell! :P
But only Sweden and Switzerland really need a justice system to examine a defendant's tax records and sources of income before handing down the weighty verdict of a traffic fine. Cuckoo!
To us mere mortals, the amount of the fine for reckless driving like that might be incentive enough to keep us from doing so since we don't have limitless supply of cash for which to pay for our debauchery. To fine someone more because they have the means to pay more makes sense in that regard.
Using that false logic leads to the unemployed not being fined at all & if a minority the commonwealth may owe him money due to his lack of financial acuity.
The written law does and should not consider the financial status of the offender. All offenders are to be dealt with equality. No special fines for special offenders.
That the ultra rich can afford it and is not "hurt" as much as the commoner is another issue. The amount of a fine should not be directed by envy. :mad:
No, you can't soften it based on deductions, etc., it is a percentage fine based on gross income. Would there be those who slip through the cracks (such as those with low income but high net worth)? Yes, even though generally it will be a fair alignment. Even if you make $1,000 a year, you still pay the same proportional fine. Nobody is financially devastated, nobody is fined heavier (e.g., higher percent) because of high income.
A $1,000 fine might be cruel and unusual punishment for someone that is poor, but you could levy the same fine for someone that makes 100,000 a year and it would not be a violation of our Bill of Rights.
"Envy" is a sad pseudo-psychobabble distraction by those who are afraid that the masses will realize how ill-gotten those 1%er fortunes really are.
The top few are pined about as being smarter, harder working, more responsible, simply better, especially in the devolving USA where money makes everything no matter where it comes from. Time to hold them to those standards a little. It works fine in places with better quality of life indices than our burgeoning second world globalized idiocracy.
Definitely should be a capital offense. But nothing as easy as an injection or even hanging. No, for this kind of unforgivable affront against the world of driving, only death by slow torture, or maybe drawing and quartering, will do.
An argument for the "deterrence" effect and "fairness" of an income-based traffic fine system seems to be an inconsiderate remedy for inconsiderate drivers. :shades:
First of all, municipalities do rely on traffic violations for a revenue stream and one of the most fierce examples of that was New Rome, Ohio: Population 60, 14 police officers and $400K annually from traffic fines and mayor's court. That's a formula which doesn't reflect a commitment to deterrence.
And if the upper class should be treated to the kind of "fairness" which fines them more simply because they have more, then maybe the lower class should have fewer liberties because they can't afford to participate. Is it fair that the lower class should only have a fractional vote on issues such as this or others?
For all intents and purposes, that is pretty much how it runs in the corporate-dominated masked oligarchy that has developed. You get the justice you can afford.
I had my signal on and was making a left in my 54 Ford.. She tried passing me on the LEFT.
And got upset when I slammed on the brakes, almost missed her and yelled at her.
In short in indentical situations increasing the speed by 5 MPH may make an accident completely unavoidible while reducing the speed 5 MPH may make an accident completly avoidable.
All factors of an accident are contributing factors.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I was thinking... what could be so important/urgent on a Sunday afternoon to make someone in such a hurry, and act in such a ridiculous way? Must be senility. Or so I hope.
Nope it would not be fair. It's easier for someone making $250K a year to pay a $2,500 fine than for someone making $25K a year to pay a $250 fine. Even though both are paying 1%.
Secondly that may be in violation of the 8th Amendment.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
According to their website Metra (the train sysytem runing between the city of Chicago and the suburbs) has over 300K passengers a day. That would be over 150K people taking two trips daily. That would be about 2.0% of the population of the Chicago metro area.
The Chicago Transit Authority records 1.5 million boardings a day. I would think this would represent at least 300K individual riders or more than 10% of the cities population.
Thats not counting the RTA (Reginal Transportation Authority the suburbs buses), cabs and passengers in cars, people walking, people on people movers at the airport and so on.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It is easy to say that someone making $25,000 would have a harder time with a fine than someone making 10x that amount and paying 10x the fine, but there are many a six-figure household that live no more within means than a five-figure, and many a five-figure that live well within. It really isn't up to the governing body to dictate how folks spend their income except when a fine is incurred. Obviously, those living closer to the edge of their means will find a fine such as this more difficult to absorb, but that doesn't mean such a fine would be less significant (actually, it would probably be the opposite) for someone who is more frugal.
If this sort of fine were to cause "hardship," well, that's a darn good motivator to avoid incurring the fine. Since the point of a fine is to be a deterrent, it sounds to me like would be doing its job! :P
My old '69 Econoline has one of those linear speedometers that reads up to 85. I made the needle disappear once (but only once... I was just testing it out, honest!).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I concur, I was simply amazed that it just kept going around. Only did it once.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The problem with that argument is that you're focusing on the wrong number. The fine has nothing to do with the amount fined; it is a percentage of income, which is entirely appropriate because it exists as a deterrent.
One day, while he had the needle "pegged" (against the wrong side of it!), he hit a pot hole that apparently jarred the car something awful. It caused the needle to bounce to the other side of the peg... and from then on it wouldn't move at all unless he pushed the car north of about 140. In an Escort, no less. :surprise:
I've witnessed the "my car can't even go that fast" defense in traffic court several times. It never works.
The problem is, in traffic court, you are guilty until proven innocent. Traffic court is inherently unamerican.
Therefore, when they make the statement, the cop is wrong, my metro can't go 100 MPH, the judge just doesn't believe them. They always seem to fail to bring out video tape of a track outting with multiple instruments to measure speed and show that the car is at full throttle and tops out at a speed of less than 100 MPH.
Absent a truck load of evidence proving your statement (as common sense as it may seem) the judge will just pretty much ignore it.
For instance, in a motion hearing on getting the county seat as my court of venue, I was unopposed by the prosecution as both the officer and the DA/City Attorney failed to show. I stated that my place of work was closer to the county seat court, and provided both my unopposed testimony under oath, and a business card with the same address as proof to back up my statement. I thought this was foolproof.
Apparently, it wasn't good enough for the judge as I heard "This court does not find that you have met the burden of proof." Amazing, as I was unopposed! No testimony contradicting mine. No evidence to contradict me. I suppose I needed to get everyone in the company I worked for to sign an affidavit stating my place of work was with that company at that address. I'm not sure what else I could have done short of calling a bunch of witnesses to meet this "burden of proof" the judge was citing to deny my rightful motion.
To this day, I regret not appealing my later guilty verdict in that case on the basis of that incorrect denial of my motion. I was advised to and told it was black and white, I had a right to the county seat as my venue, and the judge was wrong to violate that right. But so goes the reputation of the El Cajon, CA court is that of the one of the 3 most corrupt court houses in CA.
That's just not true. We'll have to agree to disagree.
In a certain set of circumstances, that could be true. But the circumstances of real life are not going to conform to result in your statement being true.
Going faster could often help you avoid an accident. This would apply to all kinds of potential accidents.
The key is to have the proper following distance to allow for reaction time, manuevers, and braking in case of an emergency. The following distance will need to increase as speeds increase, but there is no reason that going slower would be safer as long as you have the corresponding increase in following distance.
Tailgating at 50 MPH for instance, would be much more dangerous than being on that same road all by yourself with no other traffic at 75 MPH.
Speed isn't the problem, it is ALMOST ALWAYS OTHER factors.
Almost as bad, was that I had two motions to be considered at that hearing. They were separate and unrelated. This was a motion to compel discovery as the Sheriff's in Santee, CA don't cooperate with providing copies of evidence (radar logs, calibration records, officer's notes on the back of the citation copy).
We'll, with the disastrous and unfair and unjust way the first motion went, I had forgotten to ask about the 2nd. I stepped down from the stand and was still in the courtroom in the seating area, and they were just had gotten started with the next person when I realized "OUR" mistake (the judge should have noticed there were two, not one motions) She had only ruled to deny my motion on the "Change of Venue" no ruling on the second. I didn't want to interrupt the court and the next person that had started, so I motioned to the Bailiff and asked him what to do? After they finished with the next guy, they handed her my case and told her "he says he has two motions". She muttered something to them like "I already ruled." I stated I had a 2nd motion that had not been ruled on yet.
She grabbed the case file, and IMMEDIATELY said without ANY consideration "motion denied, ALL motions denied."
So I barely reached the podium again with my left foot moving forward before having to turn back around again! LOL She gave me about 2 seconds the second time around.
I guess she had made up her mind from reading my motions beforehand (seriously doubt she ever read them though!) :P They typically like to make people who defend themselves argue motions orally because you can copy out of a book and be a good writer for the written motion, but arguing a legal point orally takes some skill which is why lawyers get paid. Also, I'm a better writer than public speaker, personally. She had obviously predetermined and decided El Cajon would receive its fine money no matter what the facts of the case were.