I got my 2nd speeding ticket. What should I do?

Big Bill wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 04:39:31 GMT, Arif Khokar >
> wrote:

>>>>Then why not just make the penalty for speeding points on license only.
>>>>Make it enough points so that 2 speeding convictions in a period of
>>>>one year would result in the loss of one's license for the same period
>>>>of time.

>>>Why points only, though. Why not hit the offenders where it really
>>>hurts?

>>It really hurts to lose your license. If you end up getting pulled over
>>without a license, you'll get arrested. That's going to "hurt" a lot
>>more than a $100 give or take fine would.

> Well, yeah, I guess so!
> Does it need to be that extreme?

Is driving 80 mph on a rural interstate with sparse traffic (that has a
65 mph speed limit) unsafe? If it is, then it should be that extreme.
If it is not, then it really shouldn't be illegal.

Many people (not referring to you specifically) who support 55 or 65 mph
limits on interstates (the one's who are convinced that driving over an
arbitrary speed is dangerous) seem to think that it's ok to keep the
token fine system with the ability to bargain away points (driving
school, court, roadside) that doesn't deter speeding.

They think that losing one's license for 2 or 3 speeding tickets is too
harsh a penalty. Why, I don't know.

The fact remains that fines do not deter people from speeding.

>>It's not what the offender will rather have. If you want to stop
>>speeding, you need to make it so that losing your license is a real
>>possibility. The system is set up now so that's hardly the case. It's
>>quite obvious that fines don't deter people from speeding (or you would
>>never have situations where less than 1% of traffic obeys the posted limit).

> While there may well be such places (I've never actually heard of one
> except through a FOAF)

I have a traffic speed survey from I-64/I-77 outside of Charleston, WV.
They stated that 0% of drivers were going under 50 mph, 23% of drivers
were driving under 55 mph, 67% of drivers were driving under 60 mph, and
85% of drivers were driving under 62 mph. The posted speed limit at the
time was 50 mph.

> The system seem to work fairly well, except for those who have to pay,
> of course.

If the system was working well, then the incidence of speeding more than
5 mph over the limit would be less than 5 percent of drivers. Virtually
none would be driving more than 10 mph over the limit.

As it stands now, many interstates have median traffic speeds around 70
mph, and 85th percentile speeds of around 75 mph. Of course, those
interstates have posted speed limits of either 55 or 65 mph. If the
system was working well (effective), then the median speed would be
below 55 or 65 mph.

> Anyway, we won't convince each other.

I do hope you reconsider your statement about the system working well.

> Since I don't get speeding tickets, I don't know if points are
> attached here for simple speeding or not.

It depends on the laws and administrative rules of the DMV in your
state. Not all states use a point system, but many do.

>>As long as they're not really deterring the behavior, they're just
>>making money off of it. They're not actually interested in taking steps
>>that would significantly reduce the incidence of speeding.

> Well, that's your opinion.

When the vast majority of drivers exceed the speed limit, it's no longer
just my opinion.

> I seriously doubt that people get together in a room and plan fines so
> that they bring in maximum revenue while keeping tem low enough to not
> draw a rebellion, though.

I never said they did. There are examples of photo radar programs that
were scrapped because of huge public outcry. One such case was in HI.
Another such case was in Ontario, IIRC. IOW, when the chances of
getting caught go up significantly, or the penalties become unbearable,
then people object to it. That only makes sense if the behavior that
the devices/penalites applied to was really dangerous.

But, it's clear that many people do not think that speeding is dangerous
(I'm one of them, if you didn't already know). If it is not dangerous,
then it should not be illegal.

In a previous posting, Arif Khokar > had the
audacity to say:

:>>It really hurts to lose your license. If you end up getting pulled over
:>>without a license, you'll get arrested. That's going to "hurt" a lot
:>>more than a $100 give or take fine would.
:
:> Well, yeah, I guess so!
:> Does it need to be that extreme?
:
:Is driving 80 mph on a rural interstate with sparse traffic (that has a
:65 mph speed limit) unsafe? If it is, then it should be that extreme.
:If it is not, then it really shouldn't be illegal.

Good point, and in fact one which proves speed limits/laws to be
rendered virtually redundant, since the "extreme" charge already
exists in the mold of Dangerous/Reckless Driving.

:Many people (not referring to you specifically) who support 55 or 65 mph
:limits on interstates (the one's who are convinced that driving over an
:arbitrary speed is dangerous) seem to think that it's ok to keep the
:token fine system with the ability to bargain away points (driving
:school, court, roadside) that doesn't deter speeding.

The token fine system isn't quite as bad if they openly admit to
the people that it's really about revenue and not safety. But of
course I have few or no objections to a real safety based system
coupled with proper public transport provisions and a point
based licence endorsement structure. And if the traffic fines
happen to be set low enough so as merely to recover
administrative costs, then so be it.

:They think that losing one's license for 2 or 3 speeding tickets is too
:harsh a penalty. Why, I don't know.

In an environment where driving is a quasi-necessity, I can see
such harsh penalties as somewhat unreasonable. (Of course, this
is starting from the hypothetical and fallacious basis that
"speeding" in and of itself is unreasonable/dangerous.)

In, say, France, if they pull your license for driving Eric
Clapton style at 130 mph, you can just hop on a train that
travels at *180* mph!

:The fact remains that fines do not deter people from speeding.

Because they are not intended to, and that is the government's
dirty little secret. :}

:I never said they did. There are examples of photo radar programs that
:were scrapped because of huge public outcry. One such case was in HI.
:Another such case was in Ontario, IIRC.

And there was another one here in B.C. too scrapped due to its
unpopularity! (Plus the fact that it wasn't generating as much
revenue as the gov't had originally hoped.)

:But, it's clear that many people do not think that speeding is dangerous
I'm one of them, if you didn't already know). If it is not dangerous,
:then it should not be illegal.

And if it truly is dangerous, there are already non-speeding
laws that can deal with that effectively, while simultaneously
granting the motorist true and proper due process rights in a
court of law, presumption of innocence and all that stuff.

--
E.R. aka SJG aka Ricardo
present location: vancouver bc canada
refugee from the european union's evil bureaucracy

In a previous posting, Arif Khokar > had the
audacity to say:

:>>It really hurts to lose your license. If you end up getting pulled over
:>>without a license, you'll get arrested. That's going to "hurt" a lot
:>>more than a $100 give or take fine would.
:
:> Well, yeah, I guess so!
:> Does it need to be that extreme?
:
:Is driving 80 mph on a rural interstate with sparse traffic (that has a
:65 mph speed limit) unsafe? If it is, then it should be that extreme.
:If it is not, then it really shouldn't be illegal.

Good point, and in fact one which proves speed limits/laws to be
rendered virtually redundant, since the "extreme" charge already
exists in the mold of Dangerous/Reckless Driving.

:Many people (not referring to you specifically) who support 55 or 65 mph
:limits on interstates (the one's who are convinced that driving over an
:arbitrary speed is dangerous) seem to think that it's ok to keep the
:token fine system with the ability to bargain away points (driving
:school, court, roadside) that doesn't deter speeding.

The token fine system isn't quite as bad if they openly admit to
the people that it's really about revenue and not safety. But of
course I have few or no objections to a real safety based system
coupled with proper public transport provisions and a point
based licence endorsement structure. And if the traffic fines
happen to be set low enough so as merely to recover
administrative costs, then so be it.

:They think that losing one's license for 2 or 3 speeding tickets is too
:harsh a penalty. Why, I don't know.

In an environment where driving is a quasi-necessity, I can see
such harsh penalties as somewhat unreasonable. (Of course, this
is starting from the hypothetical and fallacious basis that
"speeding" in and of itself is unreasonable/dangerous.)

In, say, France, if they pull your license for driving Eric
Clapton style at 130 mph, you can just hop on a train that
travels at *180* mph!

:The fact remains that fines do not deter people from speeding.

Because they are not intended to, and that is the government's
dirty little secret. :}

:I never said they did. There are examples of photo radar programs that
:were scrapped because of huge public outcry. One such case was in HI.
:Another such case was in Ontario, IIRC.

And there was another one here in B.C. too scrapped due to its
unpopularity! (Plus the fact that it wasn't generating as much
revenue as the gov't had originally hoped.)

:But, it's clear that many people do not think that speeding is dangerous
I'm one of them, if you didn't already know). If it is not dangerous,
:then it should not be illegal.

And if it truly is dangerous, there are already non-speeding
laws that can deal with that effectively, while simultaneously
granting the motorist true and proper due process rights in a
court of law, presumption of innocence and all that stuff.

--
E.R. aka SJG aka Ricardo
present location: vancouver bc canada
refugee from the european union's evil bureaucracy

Arif Khokar wrote:

> IOW, when the chances of
> getting caught go up significantly, or the penalties become unbearable,
> then people object to it. That only makes sense if the behavior that
> the devices/penalites applied to was *not* really dangerous.

Correction noted with asterisks.

Arif Khokar wrote:

> IOW, when the chances of
> getting caught go up significantly, or the penalties become unbearable,
> then people object to it. That only makes sense if the behavior that
> the devices/penalites applied to was *not* really dangerous.

Correction noted with asterisks.

E.R. wrote:

> In a previous posting, Arif Khokar > had the
> audacity to say:

> :Many people (not referring to you specifically) who support 55 or 65 mph
> :limits on interstates (the one's who are convinced that driving over an
> :arbitrary speed is dangerous) seem to think that it's ok to keep the
> :token fine system with the ability to bargain away points (driving
> :school, court, roadside) that doesn't deter speeding.

> The token fine system isn't quite as bad if they openly admit to
> the people that it's really about revenue and not safety.

Possibly, but if they were to do that, then even the people who have not
given the issue a second thought would stand up and demand they
eliminate the penalties entirely and/or change the law. Therfore, the
government and private organizations with vested interest must keep the
perception of speed kills == "exceeding the 55 mph limit on a road with
a 70 mph design speed safe for travel at 80 mph" kills alive. People
who don't really deal with the issue subconciously know this not to be
true, but they're not interested in or even argue against changing the
status quo.

> And if the traffic fines
> happen to be set low enough so as merely to recover
> administrative costs, then so be it.

I don't think a government could limit itself to that. I live in a
state that charges you anywhere from $70 to &110 in court costs even if
you mail in the speeding ticket (with the guilty plea box marked) in
addition to the fine. Cashing a check certainly does not cost that much.

> :They think that losing one's license for 2 or 3 speeding tickets is too
> :harsh a penalty. Why, I don't know.

> In an environment where driving is a quasi-necessity, I can see
> such harsh penalties as somewhat unreasonable.

Keep in mind that I'm not for harsh penalites, I'm for eliminating them
The subthread started with that issue just as a point of debate
about the fact that speed limit enforcement is primarily about revenue.
You might even recall who had the original idea about points only

E.R. wrote:

> In a previous posting, Arif Khokar > had the
> audacity to say:

> :Many people (not referring to you specifically) who support 55 or 65 mph
> :limits on interstates (the one's who are convinced that driving over an
> :arbitrary speed is dangerous) seem to think that it's ok to keep the
> :token fine system with the ability to bargain away points (driving
> :school, court, roadside) that doesn't deter speeding.

> The token fine system isn't quite as bad if they openly admit to
> the people that it's really about revenue and not safety.

Possibly, but if they were to do that, then even the people who have not
given the issue a second thought would stand up and demand they
eliminate the penalties entirely and/or change the law. Therfore, the
government and private organizations with vested interest must keep the
perception of speed kills == "exceeding the 55 mph limit on a road with
a 70 mph design speed safe for travel at 80 mph" kills alive. People
who don't really deal with the issue subconciously know this not to be
true, but they're not interested in or even argue against changing the
status quo.

> And if the traffic fines
> happen to be set low enough so as merely to recover
> administrative costs, then so be it.

I don't think a government could limit itself to that. I live in a
state that charges you anywhere from $70 to &110 in court costs even if
you mail in the speeding ticket (with the guilty plea box marked) in
addition to the fine. Cashing a check certainly does not cost that much.

> :They think that losing one's license for 2 or 3 speeding tickets is too
> :harsh a penalty. Why, I don't know.

> In an environment where driving is a quasi-necessity, I can see
> such harsh penalties as somewhat unreasonable.

Keep in mind that I'm not for harsh penalites, I'm for eliminating them
The subthread started with that issue just as a point of debate
about the fact that speed limit enforcement is primarily about revenue.
You might even recall who had the original idea about points only

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 06:21:56 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 04:39:31 GMT, Arif Khokar >
>> wrote:
>
>>>>>Then why not just make the penalty for speeding points on license only.
>>>>>Make it enough points so that 2 speeding convictions in a period of
>>>>>one year would result in the loss of one's license for the same period
>>>>>of time.
>
>>>>Why points only, though. Why not hit the offenders where it really
>>>>hurts?
>
>>>It really hurts to lose your license. If you end up getting pulled over
>>>without a license, you'll get arrested. That's going to "hurt" a lot
>>>more than a $100 give or take fine would.
>
>> Well, yeah, I guess so!
>> Does it need to be that extreme?
>
>Is driving 80 mph on a rural interstate with sparse traffic (that has a
>65 mph speed limit) unsafe? If it is, then it should be that extreme.
>If it is not, then it really shouldn't be illegal.

Probably not.

>
>Many people (not referring to you specifically) who support 55 or 65 mph
>limits on interstates (the one's who are convinced that driving over an
>arbitrary speed is dangerous) seem to think that it's ok to keep the
>token fine system with the ability to bargain away points (driving
>school, court, roadside) that doesn't deter speeding.

But the fine does deter speeding for most. They can't afford to be
giving that money away.
Obviously, some can though.
>
>They think that losing one's license for 2 or 3 speeding tickets is too
>harsh a penalty. Why, I don't know.

I don't either.
>
>The fact remains that fines do not deter people from speeding.

Sure they do. But not *all*, of course.
>
>>>It's not what the offender will rather have. If you want to stop
>>>speeding, you need to make it so that losing your license is a real
>>>possibility. The system is set up now so that's hardly the case. It's
>>>quite obvious that fines don't deter people from speeding (or you would
>>>never have situations where less than 1% of traffic obeys the posted limit).
>
>> While there may well be such places (I've never actually heard of one
>> except through a FOAF)
>
>I have a traffic speed survey from I-64/I-77 outside of Charleston, WV.
> They stated that 0% of drivers were going under 50 mph, 23% of drivers
>were driving under 55 mph, 67% of drivers were driving under 60 mph, and
>85% of drivers were driving under 62 mph. The posted speed limit at the
>time was 50 mph.
>
>> The system seem to work fairly well, except for those who have to pay,
>> of course.
>
>If the system was working well, then the incidence of speeding more than
>5 mph over the limit would be less than 5 percent of drivers. Virtually
>none would be driving more than 10 mph over the limit.

Where did this 5% come from?
And of course, that's wrong. Just read here; you'll find that many
speed simply becasue they figure they wwill never get caught. The fine
is somethign they complain about if they do get caught. Obviously the
threat of a fine (or any other punishment) doesn't deter all speeders.
>
>As it stands now, many interstates have median traffic speeds around 70
>mph, and 85th percentile speeds of around 75 mph. Of course, those
>interstates have posted speed limits of either 55 or 65 mph. If the
>system was working well (effective), then the median speed would be
>below 55 or 65 mph.

The fact that the system as implemented isn't working well to curb
speeding does not mean that the fines are only for revenue generation;
that's a leap that's not warranted, though it is a tempting one.
>
>> Anyway, we won't convince each other.
>
>I do hope you reconsider your statement about the system working well.

it works as well as thos einvolved (both sides) will let it work.
>
>> Since I don't get speeding tickets, I don't know if points are
>> attached here for simple speeding or not.
>
>It depends on the laws and administrative rules of the DMV in your
>state. Not all states use a point system, but many do.
>
>>>As long as they're not really deterring the behavior, they're just
>>>making money off of it. They're not actually interested in taking steps
>>>that would significantly reduce the incidence of speeding.
>
>> Well, that's your opinion.
>
>When the vast majority of drivers exceed the speed limit, it's no longer
>just my opinion.

You're making that leap again; all that means that you can prove is
that all those drivers speed.
>
>> I seriously doubt that people get together in a room and plan fines so
>> that they bring in maximum revenue while keeping tem low enough to not
>> draw a rebellion, though.
>
>I never said they did. There are examples of photo radar programs that
>were scrapped because of huge public outcry. One such case was in HI.
>Another such case was in Ontario, IIRC. IOW, when the chances of
>getting caught go up significantly, or the penalties become unbearable,
>then people object to it. That only makes sense if the behavior that
>the devices/penalites applied to was really dangerous.

I don't like photo radar; it makes a legal assumption that can't be
backed up by reality.
As for the others, there are other factors that can come into play;
just becasue the drivers object to the high fines doesn't mean they
aer eonly for revenue generation. Frequently, the higher fines point
out tot the drivers that the limits are set too low (but not just for
revenue) bu the powers-that-be for whatever reason can't (or won't)
adjust the limits.
>
>But, it's clear that many people do not think that speeding is dangerous
>(I'm one of them, if you didn't already know). If it is not dangerous,
>then it should not be illegal.


Speeding, by itself, isn't dangerous. Obviously!
But there are a lot of drivers out there who really don't understand
that speeding *can* be dangerous.
Will you grant that?
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 06:21:56 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 04:39:31 GMT, Arif Khokar >
>> wrote:
>
>>>>>Then why not just make the penalty for speeding points on license only.
>>>>>Make it enough points so that 2 speeding convictions in a period of
>>>>>one year would result in the loss of one's license for the same period
>>>>>of time.
>
>>>>Why points only, though. Why not hit the offenders where it really
>>>>hurts?
>
>>>It really hurts to lose your license. If you end up getting pulled over
>>>without a license, you'll get arrested. That's going to "hurt" a lot
>>>more than a $100 give or take fine would.
>
>> Well, yeah, I guess so!
>> Does it need to be that extreme?
>
>Is driving 80 mph on a rural interstate with sparse traffic (that has a
>65 mph speed limit) unsafe? If it is, then it should be that extreme.
>If it is not, then it really shouldn't be illegal.

Probably not.

>
>Many people (not referring to you specifically) who support 55 or 65 mph
>limits on interstates (the one's who are convinced that driving over an
>arbitrary speed is dangerous) seem to think that it's ok to keep the
>token fine system with the ability to bargain away points (driving
>school, court, roadside) that doesn't deter speeding.

But the fine does deter speeding for most. They can't afford to be
giving that money away.
Obviously, some can though.
>
>They think that losing one's license for 2 or 3 speeding tickets is too
>harsh a penalty. Why, I don't know.

I don't either.
>
>The fact remains that fines do not deter people from speeding.

Sure they do. But not *all*, of course.
>
>>>It's not what the offender will rather have. If you want to stop
>>>speeding, you need to make it so that losing your license is a real
>>>possibility. The system is set up now so that's hardly the case. It's
>>>quite obvious that fines don't deter people from speeding (or you would
>>>never have situations where less than 1% of traffic obeys the posted limit).
>
>> While there may well be such places (I've never actually heard of one
>> except through a FOAF)
>
>I have a traffic speed survey from I-64/I-77 outside of Charleston, WV.
> They stated that 0% of drivers were going under 50 mph, 23% of drivers
>were driving under 55 mph, 67% of drivers were driving under 60 mph, and
>85% of drivers were driving under 62 mph. The posted speed limit at the
>time was 50 mph.
>
>> The system seem to work fairly well, except for those who have to pay,
>> of course.
>
>If the system was working well, then the incidence of speeding more than
>5 mph over the limit would be less than 5 percent of drivers. Virtually
>none would be driving more than 10 mph over the limit.

Where did this 5% come from?
And of course, that's wrong. Just read here; you'll find that many
speed simply becasue they figure they wwill never get caught. The fine
is somethign they complain about if they do get caught. Obviously the
threat of a fine (or any other punishment) doesn't deter all speeders.
>
>As it stands now, many interstates have median traffic speeds around 70
>mph, and 85th percentile speeds of around 75 mph. Of course, those
>interstates have posted speed limits of either 55 or 65 mph. If the
>system was working well (effective), then the median speed would be
>below 55 or 65 mph.

The fact that the system as implemented isn't working well to curb
speeding does not mean that the fines are only for revenue generation;
that's a leap that's not warranted, though it is a tempting one.
>
>> Anyway, we won't convince each other.
>
>I do hope you reconsider your statement about the system working well.

it works as well as thos einvolved (both sides) will let it work.
>
>> Since I don't get speeding tickets, I don't know if points are
>> attached here for simple speeding or not.
>
>It depends on the laws and administrative rules of the DMV in your
>state. Not all states use a point system, but many do.
>
>>>As long as they're not really deterring the behavior, they're just
>>>making money off of it. They're not actually interested in taking steps
>>>that would significantly reduce the incidence of speeding.
>
>> Well, that's your opinion.
>
>When the vast majority of drivers exceed the speed limit, it's no longer
>just my opinion.

You're making that leap again; all that means that you can prove is
that all those drivers speed.
>
>> I seriously doubt that people get together in a room and plan fines so
>> that they bring in maximum revenue while keeping tem low enough to not
>> draw a rebellion, though.
>
>I never said they did. There are examples of photo radar programs that
>were scrapped because of huge public outcry. One such case was in HI.
>Another such case was in Ontario, IIRC. IOW, when the chances of
>getting caught go up significantly, or the penalties become unbearable,
>then people object to it. That only makes sense if the behavior that
>the devices/penalites applied to was really dangerous.

I don't like photo radar; it makes a legal assumption that can't be
backed up by reality.
As for the others, there are other factors that can come into play;
just becasue the drivers object to the high fines doesn't mean they
aer eonly for revenue generation. Frequently, the higher fines point
out tot the drivers that the limits are set too low (but not just for
revenue) bu the powers-that-be for whatever reason can't (or won't)
adjust the limits.
>
>But, it's clear that many people do not think that speeding is dangerous
>(I'm one of them, if you didn't already know). If it is not dangerous,
>then it should not be illegal.


Speeding, by itself, isn't dangerous. Obviously!
But there are a lot of drivers out there who really don't understand
that speeding *can* be dangerous.
Will you grant that?
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

> :Speeding, by itself, isn't dangerous. Obviously!
> :But there are a lot of drivers out there who really don't understand
> :that speeding *can* be dangerous.
>
> If you mean "driving too fast for conditions", then yes.

There are a lot of them in the Any Lane At Any Speed category.