Speeding and punishment

[Borodog]

The system of traffic enforcement in the United States (and I'll wager anywhere that has as vigorous a system as the ours) is little more than a giant revenue generation racket. It's a wonderful racket because it can easily be sold to the public as being beneficial.

You can easily understand that it's a scam by looking at how traffic enforcement often works. Patrol cars are often unmarked, often hide in shadows, behind trees and roadside signs, etc, so that they may surprise unwitting motorists. If the point of speed enforcement were truly to slow down the average speed of the traffic, the patrol cars would be extremely conspicuous, constantly lit up like Christmas trees so that motorists would know they were there and a ticket could be imminent. Clearly, the object is not to reduce the speed of traffic, but to snag 1 car in thousands so that their $300 to $800 per hour of revenue can be generated.

Furthermore, once you get to traffic court, you can again see that reducing speeding is not the object. Tickets are routinely "pled down" so that the drivers' insurance rates (and hence their ability to stay on the road, speeding, and generating revenue) is least likely to be affected, while of course the fines and court costs remain the same.

Quotas and "ticket drives" are common in law enforcement. Work zone signage often goes up weeks (sometimes months) before construction projects begin and after they end, in order to extend the duration that increased fines can be made.

Even the construction of highways is designed to maximize enforcement revenue. Lanes are made wider and wider with the justification that this makes them safer. In actuality the wider the lane, the safer the driver feels psychologically, and the faster the average driver will drive. Meanwhile the higher speeds increase the frequency of accidents and their severity (because the energy of a collision goes as the square of the speed).

Traffic enforcement is probably the archetypical local government revenue racket. I've talked with several police officers who openly admit it.

[nicky g]

"You can easily understand that it's a scheme by looking at how traffic enforcement often works. Patrol cars are often unmarked, often hide in shadows, behind trees and roadside signs, etc, so that they may surprise unwitting motorists. If the point of speed enforcement were truly to slow down the average speed of the traffic, the patrol cars would be extremely conspicuous, constantly lit up like Christmas trees so that motorists would know they were there and a ticket could be imminent. Clearly, the object is not to reduce the speed of traffic, but to snag 1 car in thousands so that their $300 to $800 per hour of revenue can be generated."

Hardly, unless there were enough traffic cops to monitor all traffic all of the time. If they didn't stay hidden, people would simply speed when they weren't there and hide otherwise. If they stay hidden there's a possibility that you're of being caught at any time, and hence have an incentive to never speed.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Hardly, unless there were enough traffic cops to monitor all traffic all of the time. If they didn't stay hidden, people would simply speed when they weren't there and hide otherwise. If they stay hidden there's a possibility that you're of being caught at any time, and hence have an incentive to never speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how well does that work?\

Edit: But you do have a good point. It's still a racket, though.

[sternroolz]

[ QUOTE ]

The point is that speeding IS dangerous and it IS illegal, but people rarely have the same anger over it as a crime as they do other crimes, such as drug use. People would never go for a "3 strikes" law that gave mandatory life imprisonment to every caught speeding three times. Is there a good reason behind that, or is it simply due to the fact that there is some chance such a law could be applied to them or somebody they know and love?


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know how many people die each year in the United States due to accidents caused by speeding? I don't, but am very curious to find out. I'm guessing that the number is MUCH lower than anyone here would guess

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The point is that speeding IS dangerous and it IS illegal, but people rarely have the same anger over it as a crime as they do other crimes, such as drug use. People would never go for a "3 strikes" law that gave mandatory life imprisonment to every caught speeding three times. Is there a good reason behind that, or is it simply due to the fact that there is some chance such a law could be applied to them or somebody they know and love?


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know how many people die each year in the United States due to accidents caused by speeding? I don't, but am very curious to find out. I'm guessing that the number is MUCH lower than anyone here would guess

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that in almost all automobile accident fatalities, one of the drivers was driving above the speed limit. (Because many people drive above the speed limit a lot of the time.)

The relevant statistic would be how many accidents occurred which would not have occurred had the drivers been driving at or below the speed limit.

Also, the matter is complicated because sometimes people are speeding and also under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. In that case, both speeding and dulled reflexes may have contributed to the fatality. So speeding cannot be separated from DUI and other factors.

[Ray Zee]

people speed for lots of reasons and risk others lives for it. a fitting punishment for the casual speeder is to make him sit in his car pulled over for two hours.
plus insurance costs for having a ticket or two go way way up.

[Gamblor]

While licensed activities such as driving and surgery do not fall under the normal provisions of criminal negligence, such provisions and common law emanating therefrom can give us an indication where this is likely to go.

Most criminal negligence provisions hold "wanton and reckless" behaviour as the standard of proof on the Crown's part (or the People, in the US). So in reality, the issue is whether you were acting recklessly. If you're driving 10mph over the limit but safely, that's much less troublesome than driving 10 under and like a moron.

The only thing differentiating between the drug dealer and the driver is whatever the statute makes it out to be.

The first thing you have to understand is that Criminal Law is probably the worst mechanism on earth for enforcing morality. It is designed to protect people and institutions from each other, not morals. In other words, murder isn't a crime because it's wrong, it's a crime because we can't allow people to murder each other and expect a state to function properly.

[theweatherman]

The bestpart about speedingis that you dont even have to be speeding to geta ticket. In NY there is such a thing as too fast for road conditions. This means if your doing the posted limit in the snow/rain/dirt whatever, they can pull you over and ticket you for driving too fast. How great of a racket is that?

[CORed]

Speed enforcement is primarily a revenue generating measure, and secondarily a safety measure. Speed limits on most roads and streets are set artificially low to ensure a large supply of speeders so the traffic cops can stay busy all day writing tickets to generate the revenue to pay for the traffic cops, judges and prosecuting attorneys. On most moderately trafficked roads and streets, obeying the speed limit is actually less safe than moving with the flow of traffic, which is usually 7-10 mph above the posted limit. Driving the speed limit will force other drivers to change lanes to pass you, increasing the probability of an accident.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Driving the speed limit will force other drivers to change lanes to pass you, increasing the probability of an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

The direction of causation here is a bit off.