119 in an 88

[DepthsofSpace]

Or as he wrote it, 74 in a 55.

Motherfuck. >_<

I hate speed limits. Four lanes, no one around and he still tickets me. Can't one of these cops just give me a warning, like they seem to do everyone else? Geez, I have a friend that seems to talk his way out of cops all the time. I'm well spoken, very professional, apologetic, but not pleding and they don't cut me any slack.

There goes my wardrobe fund for December. I get to pay the fuckin' State its extortion money. I didn't hurt anyone, where is the crime?

[Godslayer Jillian]

I got a ticket for going at 37 in a 20 area. There were no people crossing the fucking street!

[Underwater Ophelia]

I think if you break the law, you break the law.
It does suck that sometimes people get off, and sometimes don't, but you agree to follow the law by having a legal license.

[DepthsofSpace]

Can I burn the license and remove myself from the system? ^_^

(Why do we need laws that only generate revenue from the State? Studies show speed limits cause more accidents than they prevent)

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by DepthsofSpace

Can I burn the license and remove myself from the system? ^_^

(Why do we need laws that only generate revenue from the State? Studies show speed limits cause more accidents than they prevent)

How's that?
How are accidents more likely to occur by driving at a slower speed than a faster one?

[DepthsofSpace]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

How's that?
How are accidents more likely to occur by driving at a slower speed than a faster one?

I've seen a few theories, that's just what the data says. In areas with no speed limits the number of fatal accidents goes up when limits are enacted.

One thought put forth was that people pay more attention when driving and less likely to drift into other lanes or loose focus.

And that aside, the limits are always placed 15-20 MPH below safe speeds. You can comfortably do 75, and endanger no one on the highway I was on. 85 on the interstate is nothing in modern vehicles.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by DepthsofSpace

I've seen a few theories, that's just what the data says. In areas with no speed limits the number of fatal accidents goes up when limits are enacted.

One thought put forth was that people pay more attention when driving and less likely to drift into other lanes or loose focus.

And that aside, the limits are always placed 15-20 MPH below safe speeds. You can comfortably do 75, and endanger no one on the highway I was on. 85 on the interstate is nothing in modern vehicles.

I think the point is, when you get down to it...low speeds mean less force.

[james"bloody tears"]

dont speed, no speeding=no ticket

[MollyMac]

no shit. alternately, stop driving.

55 is optimum for engine and fuel efficiency, anyway. your speed is bullshit. deal with the consequences of breaking the laws you accepted when you paid for your license.

and don't give the fascist argument or the "no one got hurt" shite, neither hold when you have a choice and you have linear time.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by MollyMac

deal with the consequences of breaking the laws you accepted when you paid for your license

Because they give you other options for traveling quickly?

[gothicusmaximus]

120 miles per hour?
Yeah dude. You could have hurt someone, and that someone would most probably have been yourself. Some laws are bullshit, but others exist for your protection. The government's not trying to exhort you, they're trying to deter you from speeding with a fiscal penalty.
Like Ophelia said, Force is Mass by Acceleration, and greater speed reduces available reaction time.

[Delkaetre]

120km/h, 74mph.
Still a good bit over the limit, though. Unless you're on a German Autobahn where speed limits seem to be optional or nonexistent, try to keep within limits. There are always idiots who turn without indicating and so on, and the claim that 'But he has no self-preservation instinct! It was Darwinism!" won't work if you're booked for manslaughter after some idiot turned out in front of you and got wrecked.
There are times when going over the speed limit is understandable and times when it's just being selfish. Example- you're giving birth? Speed right up, dear. You're just running late because you didn't think to allow enough travel time? That's a bit silly of you.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Delkaetre

120km/h, 74mph.

My American education fails me again. When are we going to get ourselves on the metric system?

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

...you agree to follow the law by having a legal license.

Um. No.

You agree to something when you agree to it. That's why we call it "agreeing" and not "being bullied".

Drake

[Sir Canvas Corpsey]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

My American education fails me again. When are we going to get ourselves on the metric system?

AMEN!

Anyway, you speed, you pose a danger to at least one person, plus it's law, maybe if you were 1k over the limit then i'd agree that the officer needs to pull the ten foot pole out of his ass.

But you a fair bit over, it only takes one other driver doing the same thing as you and you could be dead, crippled, or burnt to the put where your skin melts off and you just look like a poppin fresh reject for the rest of your life,my praising makes it sound oddly humorous however i've seen it happen, not much shocks me, the will this girl had to live at something like age 14 onwards having had most off her body destroyed in the flames, shocked me.

Don't risk following her footsteps

[Valerius]

I know it's fun going fast sometimes, but, rules are rules, and questioning something as trivial as the speed limit is absurd. Also, driving is not a right, it is but a privilege given to us by the government, and it can be revoked at any time given reasonable cause.

The speed limit is there for a reason, even if there seemed like no one was around, shit does happen. People are fallible, and for all you know a small child could have run straight into the road, or some other shit that could have caused you to lose control of your vehicle which would endanger the lives of other people.

[Sir Canvas Corpsey]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Um. No.

You agree to something when you agree to it. That's why we call it "agreeing" and not "being bullied".

Drake

Don't play the victim of the government and it's "evil" and "unfair" laws it sounds pathetic. (though i'm against the terrorism laws)

You do agree when you recieve the license, it counts as a contract binding that you have agreed to the laws at the time of the contract being created and it is susceptable to change at any point where events should dictate so.

Oh and Valerius, thankyou! Privilege is a perfect word

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Um. No.

You agree to something when you agree to it. That's why we call it "agreeing" and not "being bullied".

Drake

No one's forcing him to drive. They're society's roads- if he doesn't want to obey the rules of society, why should he get to use them?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Yeah, well, I'd drive out of society's roads. Buy a jeep, climb the not-so-steep mountain that leads to my college, go through a shallow part of the river to cross the border, but they're not letting me do that either, are they?
This is where I'd agree with Rosie's logic, but unfortunately she's not arguing what she argued for PMs in this more relevant topic.
Roads are the only option they give us. They have arbitrarily claimed the land and we have to comply. I didn't agree to follow road regulations; I complied, because it was my only option.
"Rules are rules" is an argument that only works if you had the liberty of signing a social contract and you did.
And speed limits are quite stupid. They really do nothing to help prevent accidents. 120 mph is just as deadly as 50 mph if the driver is reckless. As Brent Knutson said in an essay "In most cases these limits are arbitrarily imposed and sporadically enforced."

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Sir Canvas Corpsey

Don't play the victim of the government and it's "evil" and "unfair" laws it sounds pathetic. (though i'm against the terrorism laws)

I am not playing the victim. I don't even drive. I take trains. In Tokyo. And I did not claim that the laws in question were "evil" or "unfair". Thank you for playing.

You do agree when you recieve the license, it counts as a contract binding that you have agreed to the laws at the time of the contract being created and it is susceptable to change at any point where events should dictate so.

I never made any such agreement when I got my CA driver's license, and it would be null in any case. A contract entered into under duress is unenforceable, and unilaterally open-ended terms are also unenforceable. When you get a ticket, they nail you for violating some traffic law. They don't file a civil claim for breach of contract. There's a reason.

So this idea that you bind yourself contractually to follow an open-ended set of rules when you get your driver's license is nonsense - morally, legally, and in any other way.

Drake

[MollyMac]

The liscence is proof that you are informed of the laws, signing and paying for it is the agreement.

If you don't like it, fine. But if we had no such agreements, there's be little use in roads and little yellow lines that tend to prevent head on collisions.

[Methadrine]

Speeding tickets are great.

1. You break the law, you only pay for it. Better than jailtime.
2. What you pay funds other things, and it's for sure not donuts.
3. Hopefully you learn to drive within the limits next time.

[Underwater Ophelia]

If you don't like the way it's run, think of a better system. For now, this is the best and safest thing we have.

[Splintered]

If it's the best and safest thing we have then why do people lobby for better systems?

[MollyMac]

Ophie implied "for now" or "currently" in her statement. There is always room for improvements.