That doesn't speak for or against the speaker, really, except that she recognizes her personality type as one that is strongly social-oriented. In that regard, it speaks positively - i.e., she is in touch with herself. There are plenty of folks out there who prefer denial as their mode of operation.
Another lesson of statistics involves correlation and causality.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
The fact of the matter is that speed is a contributing factor in many accidents.
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.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
If you walked into the dealership wanting to buy a sporty car that could stop from 60 MPH in 115 feet, but the salesman talked you into buying something bigger that stops from 60 MPH in 145'.
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
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I agree that speed is only a contributing factor to accidents (and I often speed myself; dependent on conditions, my vehicle and my driving abilities), but I have to point out that: the higher your speed, the less time you have to make the correct choice/decision prior to an accident. Also, while speed doesn't cause accidents, it can make them worse - simple physics, that.
You should lobby Apple to invent an APP whereby the phone doesn't work or turn on when the vehicle is in motion
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."
In motion? Car, bus, train passengers? Might sell it to parents of teen drivers, but I'd never own it. Self-discipline & enforcement. Both sides, get busy.
And common sense is not so common anymore, either.
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.
A lot of cars have bluetooth now, and I still see drivers of said cars with a phone to their ear. People are by definition lazy, and some demographics are just incompetent when it comes to tech.
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.
I won't disagree with that. The tech costs nothing now and anyone should be able to pair up their phone. It kills me when I see a new highline car with a phone-holding yapper.
To expect that life, the universe and everything can be bent and shaped to treat all socio-economic groups equally is pathetic, I agree. And yet satisfying somehow...
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!
A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
We are told the rich become so via hard work, smarts, responsibility, and so on. Maybe they should be held to a higher standard. It seems only 21st century Americans are deathly afraid of class warfare...I wonder why. If the billionaire out there wants to [non-permissible content removed] it up in his Veyron on a public road, he can pay a proportionate fine. He's smarter and more responsible and harder working, and should know better.
In some respects that's actually a pretty good idea. If a billionaire so decides to "[non-permissible content removed] it up" in his Veyron and gets fined? What's the typical fine for something like that? $100, $200? I'm not sure and I know it varies for each municipality, but to that billionaire, even $1000 or $5000 fine is probably just pocket change. To him it's no big deal.
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.
"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:
True, it should not be directed by envy. It should, however, be directed by the likelihood to be a deterrent. No system is perfect, but for a "serious" offense, the fine could be 5 mils (0.005%) of one's household annual gross income. For a household whose gross is $100,000, that is a $500 fine.
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.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Exactly, in order to be truly fair for all, fines need to be levied as a percentage of income basis, rather than an arbitrary flat fee. If you believe in a flat fine as it currently is, then you must be one of those everyone should pay a flat tax as well.
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.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
What the law says and what is right are like night and day.
"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.
Today's winners - making up for lost time as the past few days have been tranquil here. First one - HHR on a 40mph yellow signed off ramp, going maybe 32. By the end of the ramp had about 8 cars backed up behind it. If you're that timid about driving, you need to keep off the road during peak hours when actual people have places to go. Later I was on a 35mph 4 lane arterial, going maybe 38, in the left lane. From the right, a Tacoma 4 door pulls out and gets right in front of me, causing me to brake...couldn't wait for me to get past. I hope someday he's in LA or Miami and pulls that on a thug with a short fuse and tall shooting accuracy. If I see a gold Tacoma squished after hitting a barrier and bursting into flames, I won't cry.
First one - HHR on a 40mph yellow signed off ramp, going maybe 32.
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.
Yesterday I heard a commotion and looked out to see that a car in my neighborhood had been rear-ended while entering their driveway. No injuries and both cars were drive-able. I don't know what the fine is for failing to maintain assured clear distance but I doubt that there is a need for a sliding scale to remedy such things. But at least both vehicles looked like domestic, late models worthy of bashing each other on an equal playing field - socioeconomically speaking.
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?
A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
"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.
Unfortunatly speed much of the time pushes the circumstances beyond accident avoidance. Increase the speed and the manuvarability dimonishes and stopping distance increases.
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
While increasing speed does increase the severity of an accident, it can also be a major contributor to an accident. The faster you go the harder it is to avoid the accident.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
This happened yesterday on a sunny, warm Sunday afternoon: my wife is leaving a mall with our daughter, stopped at a stoplight in the right lane. Left lane is for left turns only. Right lane is for going straight or right turns. She is going to go straight. Old guy in an old car behind her apparently is going to turn right. Blasts his horn at her. She motions to the red light. Apparently he wants her to cross four lanes of traffic against a red light so he can turn a little sooner. She stays put. Then... he starts getting out of his car, cussing a blue streak. She opens her door and says... a few choice words. He gets back into his car. Light changes and she drives off.
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.
Exactly, in order to be truly fair for all, fines need to be levied as a percentage of income basis, rather than an arbitrary flat fee.
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
I used to take the express train into the Loop (downtown Chicago) from the far west burbs. Ten cars seating about 125 people each filled to standing room only and there were at least three of these every morning. Lots of people on those trains.
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
Back in the 80's I had a Dodge Omni, the speedometer was circular that only went up to 85 MPH with the odometer at the bottom of the circle. So 0 to 85 about 3/4ths around the circle. One time I floored it just to see what it would do I got it to about 20 MPH for the second time around. If I could do that with an Omni I would not be surprised that a Metro could get up to 100.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I'd want independent verification (GPS or similar) of a 20 year old 3cyl car doing 100. I remember Rodney King's Excel being claimed some insane speed too. Not that I think we'd ever be lied to.
The 8th amendment? I think someone would have a tough sell citing a fine as undue hardship. The way the fines are set up now would be more prone to that sort of argument than a percentage-of-income approach.
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
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Sometimes it amazes me that any of us have lived as long as we have. :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!).
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Yeah the 8th amendment, which is not about hardship. The 8th amendment fobids excessive fines. I would argue that fining someone $2,500 is excessive if someone else is fined $250 under the same circumstances.
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.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Hahaha; that reminds me of a friend who owned a 1994 Escort. I think his speedometer went to 120, but the needle would continue traveling around toward the zero if he kept pushing it. There was a peg in there right at the zero, against which the needle would rest when the car was stopped.
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:
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
100+ in a 3cyl Metro....I am going to have to call BS on that one.
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. They really need to go the extra mile.
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.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
While increasing speed does increase the severity of an accident, it can also be a major contributor to an accident. The faster you go the harder it is to avoid the accident.
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.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
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.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
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.