But was it a "real" 31 mph zone?

Post #24,475 by wharris2 1/15/02 2:58:40 PM Reply	But was it a "real" 31 mph zone? In the U.S., most speed traps have little or nothing to do with actual safe operation of the vehicle, or the actual safe speed along a particular stretch of road. Policemen camp out in low-profile hard-to-see places and ticket the unsuspecting victim. (And, incidentally, probably making for more unsafe conditions as they process the traffic stop.) "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #24,493 by nking 1/15/02 4:58:40 PM Reply	It was in Finland, and based on his income in 1999 which was $5.2M, which means they got him. Old Roscowe P. Coaltrain would be proud of a ticket like that. Hmmm, maybe they should do that in the USA? It would give Police stations more of an income, and it would mean that officers would target high priced automobiles rather than my 1987 Clunker? "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #24,532 by wharris2 1/15/02 9:19:30 PM Reply	Re: It was in Finland, and based on his income in 1999 Income-based tickets are pure greed by government. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #24,537 by a6l6e6x 1/15/02 9:34:33 PM Reply	Is that like income-based income tax? :) Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #24,565 by CRConrad 1/16/02 4:22:56 AM Reply	That's bullshit, Will. Harris: Income-based tickets are pure greed by government. Bull! Fines are a form of punishment; they're supposed to "hurt a bit". Setting them as a proportion of your income is the only way to make it "hurt" equally for rich and for poor. If they set the fines at some "reasonable" (that wouldn't kill or financially cripple an ordinary mortal like you or me) fixed amount, then how the fuck do you think it would even be noticeable to a fat cat like that Nokia director? He'd just fucking laugh it off! You really gotta lay of re-reading _Atlas Shrugged_ all the time, Beardster. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #24,571 by dmarker2 1/16/02 4:55:14 AM 1/16/02 5:51:40 AM Reply	Re: Gotta agree on this 'un I do agree that some wealthy folks seem to laugh at the idea of a few dollars fine for driving & parking offences. One case in point...... In Australia it is sacrosanct that you don't park your car at the curb where there is a ZEBRA (pedestrian) crossing. But one day I saw a driver of a very expensive sports car do just that (in a very up-market suburb). He did so to buy some 'Fish and Chips' from a locally speciality shop that was directly opposite the pedestrian crossing. Parking was difficult in this area & he would normally have had to park & walk a long way to this shop. I was so incensed that I would have stomped right across his magnificent sportscar bonnet (as much as I loved that type of car) had I not been with my wife. This bastard bought his lunch then drove off to commit some traffic offense elsewhere. These 'types' need some type of fine that truly gets their attention. Cheers Doug Marker (PS: for any Sydneysiders wondering - twas the famous (but now demolished) Fish 'n Chip shop directly opposite the ped crossing & parking area for the ferries on the Pitwater (inner) side of Palm Beach) right next door to the 'Barrenjoey Restaurant'. Here is a picture of the magnificent Palm Beach area (called the 'peninsular' by locals) [link\|http://www.palmbeachbandb.com.au/\|Eat yer heart out anyone from any where else - this is paradise] Surf side is brilliant - inner side is calm water & fishing - adjoins the mouth of the Hawksbury River - is 20 miles from city of Sydney & being a peninsular has no 'ratbag' thru traffic to drive locals nuts (just the bloody tourists & 'Westies' in summer & bastard car parkers at the Pitwater Fish & Chip shop) [link\|http://www.palmbeachgetaways.com.au/\|Another great holiday place near the Pittwater Ferry] [link\|http://www.palmbeachgetaways.com.au/Apartment.htm\|Here is the Pittwater Jetty - F 'n C shop just opposite :-) ] I gotta tell ya that anyone holidaying in Sydney will find Palm Beach is a dream come true 'n this is a comment from someone who ahs been everywhere Doug M Edited by dmarker2 Jan. 16, 2002, 05:06:00 AM EST Edited by dmarker2 Jan. 16, 2002, 05:25:02 AM EST Edited by dmarker2 Jan. 16, 2002, 05:51:40 AM EST Expand All History
Post #24,581 by wharris2 1/16/02 5:52:33 AM Reply	Bullshit my ass if it is a safety measure, then you're right. But for the most part, speed limits aren't safety measures. (As I, and others, have observed.) This particular instance, maybe. Such a low speed limit does imply a residential zone and might conceivably be a legitimate safety measure for the local residents. But even so, $100,000 for a speeding ticket? "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #24,584 by dmarker2 1/16/02 6:12:39 AM Reply	Re: It really is relative If $100,000 fine gets the message thru to this particular wealthy guy - so be it If $100 fine doesn't - then to quote a famous person 'the law is an ass' Cheers Doug M (CRC has you on this ! - accept it gracefully)
Post #24,591 by CRConrad 1/16/02 7:55:26 AM Reply	Yes, your ass, then - 'cos it is. Da Beard: if it is a safety measure, then you're right. As I was going to (but, apparently unwisely, refrained from) reply to your original "But was it a "real" 31 mph zone?" post: In the U.S., most speed traps... Well, there you have it then -- "In the U.S". This wasn't. Now, back to this one: Such a low speed limit does imply a residential zone and might conceivably be a legitimate safety measure for the local residents. Yes, indeed it is -- I found out only yesterday, from a newspaper article (the main subject of which was that he'd appealed the judgement) that it took place on the Särkiniementie (street) on Lauttasaari (island in Helsinki), where I live. I used to cross the Särkiniementie walking to and from work every day, at my previous job. (That's about the only thing that was better about that job, it was in easy walking distance.) What's more important, so did -- and do! -- a lot of school and pre-school children. But even so, $100,000 for a speeding ticket? Yeah. He HAS a whole big fat GIANT lot of money, so yes, $100,000 for a speeding ticket is eminently reasonable -- it doesn't hurt him more than a $500 fine would hurt you or me. Do you have any real objection, besides being oh-so-typically flabbergasted by the thought of a lot of money? The very fact that you can only ask "But even so, $100,000 for a speeding ticket?", with no logical reasoning or other rationale, makes it look quite like you don't. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #24,595 by boxley 1/16/02 9:02:52 AM Reply	perhaps a loss of driving privileges would serve as well? Must be the murikan shivers that got me, a 100k fer speeding? bullpuckey. Your argument that a 100 dollar fine would be laughed at is true. If his conduct is worth the lives of 10 children (in some enlightened states with tort reform you cannot be compensated for the negligent death of a child for more than 10k) perhaps lifting his license for a set period would hurt more than the money. thanx, bill My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
Post #24,607 by CRConrad 1/16/02 10:52:41 AM Reply	Yes, but then again, it wasn't all that bad; only speeding His conduct -- as so many of you have pointed out, speeding per se doesn't have to be all that bad; there's lots of even worse things to do in traffic -- is worth only what to you or me would be a $500 (proctonumerology) fine. For instance, if there had actually been children crossing the street as he sped by and was caught, if the police had actually seen him narrowly escape slaughtering someone's kid, then I assume he'd have been charged with more than speeding; "Reckless Driving" or whatever it may be called. Wouldn't you say that having your license taken away would be a lot worse than paying the $500 fine? OK, so this guy has a lot more money than we do -- but only one driving license, just like everybody else. So the legal presumption, as I understand it, is that he values mere cash a lot less than the rest of us do, but his license just as highly as we do. (Seems reasonable, no?) And therefore, since he didn't actually kill anybody or anything, the harsher[] punishment of removing his license would be no more called-for in his case than it would if it had been you or me that had been speeding. Oh, and lest you try to confuse the issue by conflating Finland with some "state" (You mean, as in "part of America"?!? Sounds more like some fucking third-world hell-hole!) again: I don't think Finland has any such cap on valuing a life. (Sure, our courts don't make people multi-billionaires as compensation, either... But that's just common sense.) But actually, that's neither here nor there: "Tort reform" has nothing to do with it; this wasn't compensation* (to anyone in particular), it was a fine (payable to the state), "pour encourager les autres" (and the guy in question himself, too, in the future). []: Follows logically from the above. Now, maybe the law doesn't have the valuation differential for cash-vs-license at all points along the taxable-income scale perfectly correct, so maybe he would* prefer giving up driving to paying the fine... But, hey, so might you or I with our much lower fines! It's the principle we're talking about, and AFAICS that holds. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #24,629 by Ashton 1/16/02 3:54:43 PM Reply	However eminently sensible is this sliding scale.. (and it is that, IMhO too) Couldn't likely ever be instigated here - at least pre- National epiphany about 'wealth' and other difficult 6-letter words. Why.. it would mean, revealing to The Court, against a long-running local taboo: how much one Makes! / is 'worth'. Then there'd be the bugaboo about a National coordinated database on Everyone. And That is not so silly a concern, given homo-sap behavior, the proliferation of the M$ Insecurity Virus all over and ___ well, we all know what else. But final ax is: 'we' are in abject denial about the sanity of our Corporate laws making it possible for one humanoid to control $50B worth of "power over others' lives" - while 20-25% of Murican children live below the poverty level (Oh and.. lots else in similar vein). No One wants to face the Ogre which completely unrestrained vulture capitalism has created. And damn sure No One WANTS to contemplate what it means that: 3-5% own over half of all there is to 'own'. ie all this bucket of worms would need to be addressed before: such a sane policy might be instigated into the tender consumer psyches of the Murican Peepul. Y'see? Ashton (Finns I take it, are less reluctant to call a spade a umm spade. Here euphemism is the National parlor game. We lie to ourselves a lot.. but please to call it Patriotism)
Post #24,652 by Meerkat 1/16/02 6:02:52 PM Reply	Licence Demerit Points. I'm guessing NSW, Australia isn't the only place that has a 'points' system on their drivers licenses? To cut a long story short, various traffic offences carry a various amount of demerit points. Accrue too many points and you lose your licence. Full info is [link\|http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/a67_c.htm\|here at the RTA web site]. In short: Once accuring 12 points, you temporarily lose your licence. This is in conjunction with fines. So if you can wear the fines, you still have the points to consider. In peak danger periods, primarily long weekends, and Easter, double-point periods are instituted. So for instance if you exceed the speed limit by 45kmh, you accrue 12 points instead of the usual 6. The average licence has a limit of 12 points, so on a double-demerit period you instantly lose your licence. On and on and on and on, and on and on and on goes John.
Post #24,657 by Ashton 1/16/02 6:16:06 PM Reply	Yes, CA has that too and I presume - most other states by now (?) It's heavily weighted for drunk, reckless etc. as is proper. But usual secondary effects (here) re 'speeding' occur on insurance renewal. Again.. none of these costs matter to the plutocrat. But as said above - yes! losing driving provilege is the one adjustment across all classes. Personally I like the UK "L" plate for learner; warns everyone that you ain't ept yet. Possibly - just short of licens(c)e suspension - we might contemplate a "D" plate [Dangerous]: warns everyone that you have the attention span of a 2-year old and are just as apt to throw a temper tantrum. Social pressures might work even on the Super-Ego class (?) Imagine if you had to learn to be polite.. to get the D removed? A.
Post #24,658 by Meerkat 1/16/02 6:44:17 PM Reply	mind your L's and P's Aye, we too have L plates whilst you're learning, and once you pass your driving test you get you red P (for Provisional) plates, which you're on for a year. Provided you've not done anything silly enough to lose them, you then move on to green P plates which you have for another two years or so, before you finally become plateless. So it's handy in so far as knowing whose way to keep out of. Of course, at times it could be handy if there were 'Pensioner' plates as well :) But just keep out of the way of Toyota Crowns and everything is usually OK. On and on and on and on, and on and on and on goes John.
Post #24,637 by wharris2 1/16/02 4:33:56 PM Reply	On the sliding scale I grant CR a lot. We're both right, CR. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #24,655 by CRConrad 1/16/02 6:10:45 PM Reply	OK!

Welcome to IWETHEY!