New Speeding Law in Va.

Off Topic
41

[quote]swivel wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
… I don’t agree with this law 100%, but I like the basis of it. To me, it’s just like traffic cameras. A huge deterrent.

???

“the basis of it” clearly is not to make traffic safer. “the basis of it” is to funnel revenue away from the state and to the traffic attorneys.

you really think $1000 and points for 7 years is reasonable for failure to signal ? $1000 could be family groceries for a month to some. $1000 could be a car payment for 4 months.
[/quote]

It’s not reasonable, but I’m not worried because I’m the only fucker in the whole state who uses them. Well, me and the old folks who leave them on all the time.

And you’re absolutely right, it’s written into the law that it will “increase revenue.”

42

[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
swivel wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
If you can’t afford to speed, don’t. I don’t see why that’s such a hard thing to follow. You’re not supposed to be speeding anyway.
[/quote]

That’s a nice world you live in where the rich can do whatever they want to and the working class gets hammered.

If you want to make the roads safer, how about a bill to put more police and state troopers out there. That would be fantastic. But draconian fines are not the answer.

43

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
If you want to make the roads safer, how about a bill to put more police and state troopers out there. That would be fantastic. But draconian fines are not the answer. [/quote]

That would be great, but before you hire more police you need to generate more revenue. The money has to come from somewhere.

44

[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
swivel wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
Don’t like fines? Don’t break the law.

don’t break the law ?

don’t make the law is more like it.

the maker of this law is an attorney who makes his money in traffic court. this doesn’t disturb you ?

It does disturb me, absolutely. But i’m not worried about it because I won’t be the one who gets pulled over.[/quote]

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

[quote]swivel wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
Don’t like fines? Don’t break the law.

don’t break the law ?

don’t make the law is more like it.

the maker of this law is an attorney who makes his money in traffic court. this doesn’t disturb you ?

[/quote]

This is a huge abuse of power and the law makers are making money just like how the lobbyist used to treat them to have some face to face time.

You elected the your representatives to represent you! Not their pocketbook.

45

[quote]SeanT wrote:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
[/quote]

That’s great, except for the fact that I vote so I do speak out.

And just because my opinion doesn’t jive with yours means that i’m someone who just takes everything as is and goes through life clueless?

46

[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
SeanT wrote:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

That’s great, except for the fact that I vote so I do speak out.

And just because my opinion doesn’t jive with yours means that i’m someone who just takes everything as is and goes through life clueless?[/quote]

Understandable. Never meant to make it mean that if you didn’t agree with me, then you take everything as it is. Just reminded me of a great quote.

47

Most traffic enforcement is not about safety.

Traffic cameras are not about safety, especially when certain jurisdictions reduce the length of the yellow light to catch more people going through the light on red. Traffic cameras encourage people to make unsafe stops to avoid being photographed. Many drivers do not even know that you are “safe” if you are already inside the intersection when the light turns red. So they hit their brakes hard, and everyone behind them has to do the same.

Putting police officers out on the street during rush hour causes people to, again, hit their brakes hard and cause traffic jams. During rush hour.

It is unsafe to drive much more slowly than the rest of the traffic around you, and it is a sign of despotism when every action available to you is either dangerous to your person or against the law. You may drive the speed limit and face danger from other drivers (and possibly be ticketed for impeding the flow of traffic) or you can drive faster and be ticketed for that.

48

Unfortunately many - if not most - people do go through life clueless. They’re called sheeple.

I think this quote works too:

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ~ Samuel Adams

49

[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
If you can’t afford to speed, don’t. I don’t see why that’s such a hard thing to follow. You’re not supposed to be speeding anyway.

Why is speeding necessary? I just don’t understand why you seem to be pro-speeding. And if you’re not, then my mistake, I apologize, it’s just how you seem to be coming across.

I have issues with this law, but I like the premise - stop speeding. Whether or not that’s what the politician/lawyer who fronted the law’s real intention was, I hope it works and it curbs speeding. If someone loses their home, can’t feed themselves, loses their job or car, etc… because they chose to speed, that’s their fault.

Have 10 kids and can’t afford to feed them, that’s your fault unless there was some amazing occurences that forced you to have 10 kids.

Sorry if I don’t feel sympathy for people breaking the laws. That doesn’t mean I agree with every aspect of the law.
[/quote]

Dude “the premise” is not speeding. the premise is a state rep figuring a way to siphon from state revenue and “increase” his business while the little guy gets caught in the crossfire.

why do you continue to sell this as a speeding issue ? why are you putting words in my mouth and saying i’m “pro-speeding” ? are you a traffic attorney ?

this is not about speeding. repeat : this is not about speeding. they are not trying to stop speeding. they (the state)want more speeding so they can generate more revenue. and they (the traffic attorneys want higher fines and extended points to make it financially wise to engage an attorney rather than simply pay the fine.

when a guy fights ticket his attorney will get paid- not the state. the guy who made this law is a traffic attorney. what part of this are you not getting ?

this is not about speeding.

50

[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
Mad Titan wrote:
swivel wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
Don’t like fines? Don’t break the law.

don’t break the law ?

don’t make the law is more like it.

the maker of this law is an attorney who makes his money in traffic court. this doesn’t disturb you ?

Great response swivel…I hate when people just blindly follow rules without thinking WHY it was put in place or if its even necessary…

I don’t blindly follow rules/laws/regulations, but I have to follow them regardless whether I know why/what they are for.
[/quote]

I could not imagine what this world would be like if everybody just followed rules regarless of what they are for.
Would america even exists? considering its development was by criminals?

51

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Would america even exists? considering its development was by criminals?
[/quote]

Australia would’ve been totally screwed.

52

For those saying we should just obey the laws, I agree when the laws are based on universally agreed-upon moral principles. For example, it is pretty much agreed upon that if I were to wait under my neighbor’s porch with a baseball bat and then beat the fellow to death when he got home that I commited murder. That crime is based on a moral principle that protects the welfare of all society.

This traffic law is not based on any type of moral principle. It is based on stealing money from wage earners and giving it to greedy politicians and lawyers. I am not saying there should not be traffic laws. I am also not saying that there is not some need for speed limits and punishment for violators. The roads do need to be safe. But, the purpose of this law is not to make the roadways safe. The purpose is to make money for the state.

Perhaps we need an alternative to speed limits. Instead of set speed limits, perhaps it should be made illegal to go a certain speed above the average flow of traffic (say 15 mph). If the traffic is flowing 70 and you are driving 85 you are endangering others, and would be ticketed. If you are out of some deserted stretch of road doing 85 in the middle of night your speed would be the average flow of traffic and you would be fine. This would also allow adjustments for reasonable speeds based on road conditions. If the roads are a solid sheet of ice, the traffic is flowing 20 mph, and you are driving 45 you are an idiot and would be ticketed. Of course, there made be a need for a set speed limit for certain areas (such as a 25 mph school zone), but overall I think a law based on the average flow of traffic makes more sense and fits in better with protecting the public than the concept of an absolute speed limit.

53

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
Mad Titan wrote:
swivel wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
Don’t like fines? Don’t break the law.

don’t break the law ?

don’t make the law is more like it.

the maker of this law is an attorney who makes his money in traffic court. this doesn’t disturb you ?

Great response swivel…I hate when people just blindly follow rules without thinking WHY it was put in place or if its even necessary…

I don’t blindly follow rules/laws/regulations, but I have to follow them regardless whether I know why/what they are for.

I could not imagine what this world would be like if everybody just followed rules regarless of what they are for.
Would america even exists? considering its development was by criminals?
[/quote]

I’m sorry, i’ll revise what I said.
I have to follow them regardless whether I know why/what they are for if I want to live in the United States and not get into any legal trouble which compromises my right to vote.

54

[quote]swivel wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
If you can’t afford to speed, don’t. I don’t see why that’s such a hard thing to follow. You’re not supposed to be speeding anyway.

Why is speeding necessary? I just don’t understand why you seem to be pro-speeding. And if you’re not, then my mistake, I apologize, it’s just how you seem to be coming across.

I have issues with this law, but I like the premise - stop speeding. Whether or not that’s what the politician/lawyer who fronted the law’s real intention was, I hope it works and it curbs speeding. If someone loses their home, can’t feed themselves, loses their job or car, etc… because they chose to speed, that’s their fault.

Have 10 kids and can’t afford to feed them, that’s your fault unless there was some amazing occurences that forced you to have 10 kids.

Sorry if I don’t feel sympathy for people breaking the laws. That doesn’t mean I agree with every aspect of the law.

Dude “the premise” is not speeding. the premise is a state rep figuring a way to siphon from state revenue and “increase” his business while the little guy gets caught in the crossfire.

why do you continue to sell this as a speeding issue ? why are you putting words in my mouth and saying i’m “pro-speeding” ? are you a traffic attorney ?

this is not about speeding. repeat : this is not about speeding. they are not trying to stop speeding. they (the state)want more speeding so they can generate more revenue. and they (the traffic attorneys want higher fines and extended points to make it financially wise to engage an attorney rather than simply pay the fine.

when a guy fights ticket his attorney will get paid- not the state. the guy who made this law is a traffic attorney. what part of this are you not getting ?

this is not about speeding.
[/quote]

Apparently none of my points came across clearly. I’m not for the attorney fee’s which this will generate. I despise this mans apparent reasons for fronting the bill.

However, if the overall effect is that it reduces speeding by a measurable margin, then I don’t think it is an entirely bad thing.

55

[quote]BigDaddyT wrote:
For those saying we should just obey the laws, I agree when the laws are based on universally agreed-upon moral principles. For example, it is pretty much agreed upon that if I were to wait under my neighbor’s porch with a baseball bat and then beat the fellow to death when he got home that I commited murder. That crime is based on a moral principle that protects the welfare of all society.

This traffic law is not based on any type of moral principle. It is based on stealing money from wage earners and giving it to greedy politicians and lawyers. I am not saying there should not be traffic laws. I am also not saying that there is not some need for speed limits and punishment for violators. The roads do need to be safe. But, the purpose of this law is not to make the roadways safe. The purpose is to make money for the state.

Perhaps we need an alternative to speed limits. Instead of set speed limits, perhaps it should be made illegal to go a certain speed above the average flow of traffic (say 15 mph). If the traffic is flowing 70 and you are driving 85 you are endangering others, and would be ticketed. If you are out of some deserted stretch of road doing 85 in the middle of night your speed would be the average flow of traffic and you would be fine. This would also allow adjustments for reasonable speeds based on road conditions. If the roads are a solid sheet of ice, the traffic is flowing 20 mph, and you are driving 45 you are an idiot and would be ticketed. Of course, there made be a need for a set speed limit for certain areas (such as a 25 mph school zone), but overall I think a law based on the average flow of traffic makes more sense and fits in better with protecting the public than the concept of an absolute speed limit.[/quote]

There would be some problems with this, but overall I agree with your logic completely.

57

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Joker, maybe I’m wrong but I’m thinking you’d of made an excellent Tory in 1775 Richmond.[/quote]

Well that confirms it. You’re completely wrong. :slight_smile:

58

[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Joker, maybe I’m wrong but I’m thinking you’d of made an excellent Tory in 1775 Richmond.

Well that confirms it. You’re completely wrong. :)[/quote]

Yeah, completely wrong. You’d be better a better tory in New York.

mike

59

http://www.timesdispatch.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-07-13-0152.html

60

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Yeah, completely wrong. You’d be better a better tory in New York.
mike[/quote]

I’ve said all I had to say on this topic and apparently you have to… Or you wouldn’t be discussing me.

I think it’s kind of funny how you think you can judge a person and what they stand for on one topic.

Thanks for the laugh. :slight_smile: