What % of ticket risk curbs violations ?

[jimmy4321]

Government: "OK people, we got another one hooked on all the crap we spew........put jimmy4321 in that category.........who's next"? "Take your pick........we have lots of people that feel they need us to control their lives completely".

If ONLY the offending driver died or got mangled during a crash, maybe my view would be different.
When you drive a vehicle and share the roads with others, unfortunately other people get unwillingly invited to your up world.
The idea that it's sooo offensive that there are consequences by enforcement in any way because you feel it's safe to gun through a yellow/red light or it's safe to speed though a stretch of road is simply bizarre.

Ohhh!! cause you don't want to be controlled what are you 12???

Want to take those risk? get an offroad vehicle or climb something - it's fun

[lesliepaul]

Nope.

At my salary, traffic tickets don't even make me blink. Chump change, not a punishment or deterrent.

I think Britain and Germany do things this way. Makes sense, unless you have none.

[/quote]


I've have several friends who actually set aside money (like a retainer) when they travel to just cover any speeding tickets they may incur in their travels. Me on the other hand can afford the odd ticket but it has been 35 years since I had to pay one. Rest assured, I do not want to give my money out for something like this. Unlike you who say's he "does not blink"..........I blink.......even when I see I could have saved a buck on a jar of peanut butter at another store.........but that's just me.

As I have stated before, the BEST deterrent to reduce traffic violations or speeders in this case is a MARKED police car. Why hide when driver safety is paramount (right Traffic Services Officer L.M.). Hiding equates to revenue first, safety second.

[Glacier]

Speed causes almost no accidents. Mostly, accidents are from people not paying attention.

[my5cents]

Speed causes almost no accidents. Mostly, accidents are from people not paying attention.

.... and you have the statistic to back that up ?

[spooker]

Speed causes almost no accidents. Mostly, accidents are from people not paying attention.

A quick search returns multiple lists of "top causes" and so far "speeding" is coming up in the top 5 ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laiza-king-/top-15-causes-of-car-accidents_b_11722196.html
http://www.after-car-accidents.com/car-accident-causes.html

[Glacier]

100% of accidents are caused by speed. I mean, if no one was moving there would be no accidents. There are almost always other factors as well though. The first accident I remember being is was caused by my mom driving too close to the ditch (snow was plowed over the ditch so it looked like it was part of the road bed). The next thing I knew we were upside down in the gully.

The second accident I was in was because the driver was drunk, stoned, and tired, and fell asleep at the wheel.

The third accident I was in was because a drunk driver blew a stop sign.

The fourth accident I witnessed was a deer jumped out in front of a car going 100km/h in a 100 zone. Had he been going 12km/h speed would not have been a factor here. What an idjit. He should have been going 10km/h in a 100 to prevent this accident.

The fifth accident I witnessed was a driver losing control on ice and spinning into the ditch.

The next accident I witnessed was a couple getting in a fight while driving, and they hit the ditch.

The next accident I witnessed was police officer looking down at his computer screen before rear-ended a car.

And the list goes on.

If you are paying attention speed should never really be the cause unless it's slippery outside or you're an idjit driving through a school zone a break-neck speed.

[my5cents]

100% of accidents are caused by speed. I mean, if no one was moving there would be no accidents. There are almost always other factors as well though. The first accident I remember being is was caused by my mom driving too close to the ditch (snow was plowed over the ditch so it looked like it was part of the road bed). The next thing I knew we were upside down in the gully.

The second accident I was in was because the driver was drunk, stoned, and tired, and fell asleep at the wheel.

The third accident I was in was because a drunk driver blew a stop sign.

The fourth accident I witnessed was a deer jumped out in front of a car going 100km/h in a 100 zone. Had he been going 12km/h speed would not have been a factor here. What an idjit. He should have been going 10km/h in a 100 to prevent this accident.

The fifth accident I witnessed was a driver losing control on ice and spinning into the ditch.

The next accident I witnessed was a couple getting in a fight while driving, and they hit the ditch.

The next accident I witnessed was police officer looking down at his computer screen before rear-ended a car.

And the list goes on.

If you are paying attention speed should never really be the cause unless it's slippery outside or you're an idjit driving through a school zone a break-neck speed.

"100% of accidents are caused by speed. I mean, if no one was moving there would be no accidents."

Well that's like saying "driving causes accidents".

Excessive speed, (too fast for conditions) causes about 30% of accidents.

A car is travelling 60 in a 50 zone, but it's dark and raining, and there are lots of driveways. Someone pulls out and bang.

A car is travelling 80 in an 80 zone, it's dusk, it's an area where deer frequent, bang.

Snowy icy mountain pass travelling 70 in a 110 zone, looses control, bang.

Many many many circumstances where speed contributes to collisions.

[KL3-Something]

Fines should be a % based on one's income.

So it's ok to be punished more then someone else simply based on your income? A ticket is for the crime committed, not your income.

Increase their insurance by all means being that more tickets makes you a potentially higher risk driver.

Ever been to traffic court? With the exception of violations with statutory minimum penalties, the judges invariably reduce the fines for those who state that they are not in a good financial position (and almost everyone claims to be). It's already happening in one direction. Has been for years. Why shouldn't it work in the other direction?

The "punished more" is a relative term.

[spooker]

If you are paying attention speed should never really be the cause unless it's slippery outside or you're an idjit driving through a school zone a break-neck speed.

Speed directly affects how much of the environment you can actually observe ... would love to find that infographic I remember from who knows when that shows the cone of vision and how it narrows as you go faster ...

Speed directly affects how quickly your reactions can affect your movement ... if you're feeling confident that you have the same reactions as someone who drives F1 I'd make sure I live in a different province ...

Yes, if you never move your chances of getting into an accident are much lower than any other option ... but the speed limits are setup to give people an equal playing field ... when you choose to "speed" you're making the choice to diminish your ability to drive safely ...

[Glacier]

That's a given. You can drive according to how well you're paying attention. If you're sexting while having sex and watching TV you shouldn't be going more than 0.00001 km/h, or if you're driving through a school zone, you have to make sure you can see everything. By contrast, if you're on the Coq. you can easily go 140km/h safely for most of it.

[my5cents]

That's a given. You can drive according to how well you're paying attention. If you're sexting while having sex and watching TV you shouldn't be going more than 0.00001 km/h, or if you're driving through a school zone, you have to make sure you can see everything. By contrast, if you're on the Coq. you can easily go 140km/h safely for most of it.

You've left out that when you are going 140, a driver you are closing on, may assume you are going 110, and not recheck carefully enough to realize you are closing very quickly, change lanes and bang.

Most of your examples assumes nobody else is going to misjudge something.

[Glacier]

True, that's why you don't pass someone at 140. You slow down as you approach other vehicles.

[GordonH]

Fines should be a % based on one's income. Other countries do it, it can be done.

I'm not a fan of making cameras ubiquitous in public, really; panopticism isn't a good ideal.

A $1,000 fine to a person earning $100,000 or more, is nothing more then small blip.
That same fine to someone earning under $50,000 whole different story.

As I've said & continue to say, fastest way to teach adults a lesson is to hit there wallets hard. So I agree base the fines on their earnings.
Then maybe they will think twice before being idiot driver.

[johnny24]

You've left out that when you are going 140, a driver you are closing on, may assume you are going 110, and not recheck carefully enough to realize you are closing very quickly, change lanes and bang.

Most of your examples assumes nobody else is going to misjudge something.

Speed limit is 120, not sure why you'd assume someone is doing 110. Actually not sure why you'd "assume" the speed of any car.

[my5cents]

Speed limit is 120, not sure why you'd assume someone is doing 110. Actually not sure why you'd "assume" the speed of any car.

I made up a speed limit, for my fictional highway. Not sure how or why you'd correct my fictional speed limit.

??? "Not sure how or why you'd assume the speed of any car"

OK, perhaps you'd like "estimate" the speed of another car. You're waiting to turn onto a street and there's a vehicle approaching. You gauge it's distance and estimate it's speed. If you estimate it is travelling slowly and it is not it will be upon you too quickly and could cause a collision.

A lot of drivers would assume an approaching vehicle was travelling near the speed limit.

Don't we routinely do this every day in our normal driving ?