|
Cole posted:That everyone needs to slow down. Do we just keep punishing randomly (or not so randomly) selected people until...forever? Just cause? Is there a Kantian moral imperative that we defend with our lives, liberties, and fortunes the holy numbers on the white and black signs? quote:Agreed, but I'm not sure what kind of conversation we can have if can't even acknowledge that traffic regulations serve a legitimate purpose
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:yes it it, obstructing the flow of traffic is a ticketable offense ah... so we should ticket those guys
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:18
|
|
Darth123123 posted:Explain this nation non intrusive data mining for us dolts. Lol. In general terms of course Okay. You have a database that includes everyone in the country, and one that includes everyone that drives. When a driver is pulled over and ticketed, the officer punches in the ticket, it makes its way through the police. A system that is completely disconnected from the police and the tax collection agencies in terms of maintenance and upkeep then receives notification about the ticket, and sends a request to the tax collection agencies to look up person x and compute the fine using formula y. They receive it back from the agencies, send it to the cops, the cops mail out the ticket. I'm not a security expert, either. But if you're going to say that that means I shouldn't discuss policy, well, technocracy fetishists should all be disemboweled on live television.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:And if they don't slow down? If they never actually slow down and all these reams and reams of traffic court dockets and fines and incarcerations don't actually produce any change in driver behavior? you are aware how the points system on licenses work, right? you can't just rack up 400 speeding tickets just because. it actually gets a lot worse for you the more tickets you get. and if that isn't reason enough for you to stop breaking the law, then you will eventually end up in jail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:And if they don't slow down? If they never actually slow down and all these reams and reams of traffic court dockets and fines and incarcerations don't actually produce any change in driver behavior? gas chambers
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:19
|
|
Cole posted:And if someone hits me from behind, guess who's fault it is? Not the person doing 55! Are you actually terrified of examining your motivations? Well then.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Cole posted:There is. It's called "call your courthouse and work a payment plan out." Yeah this isn't always allowable, totally depends on the judge. I spent 7 years driving without a license (started with a "random prove you have car insurance" letter from the state a day after I lost my coverage) and kept compounding as I had to keep driving to keep a job. Some court dates I went to, and got continuances and/or stay-of-pays, depending on what the judge would allow to buy as much time as I could. Having spent a lot of time (a LOT of time) in various traffic courts, I found there were certain judges who, if you couldn't pay your ticket in full immediately (literally, you were not allowed to walk out of the room without paying, or go to jail), and if you had already been granted a stay-of-pay before they would deny you those too. So I stopped going to the court dates too. Normally when I got stopped (not for speeding, just because the cop ran my plates and saw a capeas) I would get pulled over and re-cited. Nothing more than a new court date with no hassle (yup, I'm very white). There's a limit on those too, and I spent a few nights in jail as well, never more than a night though, just long enough to get put through the system and given a new court date and sent off again. After 7 years of this I wound up having to pay around $8k to get squared up with everything (they dropped half the fines against me after I showed up to one of my court dates and said that I had the money to settle everything today, no payment plans.) Turns out extended periods in poo poo hole jail conditions were totally unnecessary for the government to (eventually) get their money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Hilbert Spaceship posted:Yeah this isn't always allowable, totally depends on the judge. I've done it twice, never once had to talk to a judge. Driving without insurance is a little different than a speeding ticket, since insurance protects other people on the road from getting financially hosed in the event you total their car and put them in the hospital. Doesn't matter your reason for needing to, you shouldn't have been driving without insurance. Take the bus, make a friend, but figure something else out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay. You have a database that includes everyone in the country, and one that includes everyone that drives. When a driver is pulled over and ticketed, the officer punches in the ticket, it makes its way through the police. A system that is completely disconnected from the police and the tax collection agencies in terms of maintenance and upkeep then receives notification about the ticket, and sends a request to the tax collection agencies to look up person x and compute the fine using formula y. They receive it back from the agencies, send it to the cops, the cops mail out the ticket. I'm not a security expert, either. But if you're going to say that that means I shouldn't discuss policy, well, technocracy fetishists should all be disemboweled on live television. Lmao . We can't even get a national ID card. Much less hook every Podunk county up to an integrated, secure database of some new agency. Lol. Take ur meds
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Cole posted:you are aware how the points system on licenses work, right? you can't just rack up 400 speeding tickets just because. it actually gets a lot worse for you the more tickets you get. and if that isn't reason enough for you to stop breaking the law, then you will eventually end up in jail. "Drivers who receive speeding citations are at increased risk of receiving subsequent speeding citations, suggesting that speeding citations have limited effects on deterrence in the context of the current traffic enforcement system. When comparing different penalties, PBJ is associated with a reduced rate of recidivism more than stronger penalties; however, it is unclear whether the reduction primarily is attributable to the penalty itself or to characteristics of drivers receiving PBJ. Increasing drivers' perceptions that they are at risk of being caught speeding may improve the effectiveness of speeding law enforcement."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Cole posted:I've done it twice, never once had to talk to a judge. My insurance was only ever lapsed for about a week. I didn't drive for any extended period of time without it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
National ID cards are actually racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:24
|
|
Darth123123 posted:Lmao . We can't even get a national ID card. Much less hook every Podunk county up to an integrated, secure database of some new agency. Lol. Take ur meds We absolutely can, depressive. You should just get it over with and kill yourself if you're gonna be obnoxious about your brain defects, frankly.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:So you're arguing there's an individual deterrent effect? I disagree. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17366333 Right, and eventually your driving privilege will get taken and you will get thrown in jail for continuing to be an idiot. Jail is a pretty good deterrent since you can't drive a car in a 6x9 cell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
argondamn posted:National ID cards are actually racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Cole posted:Right, and eventually your driving privilege will get taken and you will get thrown in jail for continuing to be an idiot. Jail is a pretty good deterrent since you can't drive a car in a 6x9 cell. For speeding tickets. I'll ask again, why do we have laws on the books that we openly acknowledge everyone breaks as a matter of routine, and for which the deterrent model is jail. Why should we spend so much money and effort to enforce a regime that criminalizes innocuous behavior and winds up throwing people in cages? What interest does that serve?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Somehow Zsa Zsa Gabor didn't get her rear end shot for slapping a police officer during a traffic stop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
We should just do away with laws in general because preventing the crime is usually an afterthought of the whole process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
argondamn posted:We should just do away with laws in general because preventing the crime is usually an afterthought of the whole process. That in itself isn't revolutionary. Why should people not hold in contempt a system that punishes them without purpose to serve a regulation that has no demonstrable safety benefits? Why should anyone respect a system that respects a number more than the people that number is ostensibly supposed to protect?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:So you're arguing there's an individual deterrent effect? I disagree. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17366333 What a fascinating statistic you've found there, people who get caught speeding are more likely to speed then people who don't get caught speeding. Even if the person who gets a ticket cuts his speeding in half that will still be more than the person not speeding. Or are you still laboring on under the delusion that the cops just randomly pull people over out of the crowd thats going at the speed of traffic on the interstate instead of that one guy who's doing 85? If you only drive a small amount over the cops aren't going to bother you, on the highway this "grace" amount is larger because the speed is higher and its safer to speed on the highway. This isn't loving rocket science
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:So now we've moved from fairly benign fines being proper deterrent to jailing people being a proper deterrent. Alright, so what is the alternative?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What a fascinating statistic you've found there, people who get caught speeding are more likely to speed then people who don't get caught speeding. Even if the person who gets a ticket cuts his speeding in half that will still be more than the person not speeding. Or are you still laboring on under the delusion that the cops just randomly pull people over out of the crowd thats going at the speed of traffic on the interstate instead of that one guy who's doing 85? And the guy doing 20+ mph over the limit, he doesn't get a speeding ticket. That's the threshold over which you start to look at direct criminal charges, usually reckless driving. Reckless riving is the catchall we use for people who are actually driving in a manner that endangers themselves and the public. Speeding is the catchall we use for people who are driving just like everybody else. And no, I don't think it's entirely random who gets pulled over by the cops for everybody-does-it crimes. I don't think it's random at all. Finally, why do we have a law on the books that depends on the grace of non-enforcement to function properly?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:No, that was a longitudinal study of individual people's likeliness to drive over the speed limit after facing the sanction of a prior speeding ticket, offered for proposition that speeding tickets don't deter individuals from future speeding after having been so sanctioned. I haven't bothered to provide evidence that speeding tickets don't prevent the public generally from speeding. I got a speeding ticket for doing 59 in a 30 and didn't go to jail or face anything other than a speeding ticket.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:44
|
|
Cole posted:I got a speeding ticket for doing 59 in a 30 and didn't go to jail or face anything other than a speeding ticket. That's a drat shame.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Cole posted:Alright, so what is the alternative? 29 over is pretty drat high for simple speeding. By the local standards where I work, realizing a simple speeding ticket under those circumstances is a really good outcome. I don't know what state you live in, but the ones I practice in have all used 20 mph over as a cutoff for reckless driving by speed. Then there is a separate reckless driving by endangerment statute that encompasses more broadly the whole universe of driving like an rear end in a top hat. Ultimately, we have already criminalized unsafe driving per se. If you are actually driving unsafely, there's a charge for you. I'm a lot less interested in deterrence when you're talking about genuinely dangerous driving, myself. That is a place where I can genuinely get behind the idea that punishment should fall even without other benefit, if you are actually and knowingly making the roads unsafe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:No, that was a longitudinal study of individual people's likeliness to drive over the speed limit after facing the sanction of a prior speeding ticket, offered for proposition that speeding tickets don't deter individuals from future speeding after having been so sanctioned. I haven't bothered to provide evidence that speeding tickets don't prevent the public generally from speeding. They don't require the grace of non-enforcement to function properly, people would drive slower if there was no grace window. Europe has much higher speed limits on its highways then the US, guess what, they drive over those higher limits as much as they can get away with without getting pulled over just like we do in the US. edit: that was an unfortunate typo Jarmak fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's a drat shame. Would you have rather I went to jail? Because you seem pretty anti-jail. Would you joke about racism too?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:51
|
|
Cole posted:Would you have rather I went to jail? Because you seem pretty anti-jail. Would you joke about racism too? Yes, and yes. Problem?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:If your standard 5-10+ MPH over the speed limit driving isn't hazardous in and of itself, and if enforcing the posted limits serves no deterrent function, then the solution is to abolish the law. Let traffic cops spend their time looking for and responding to calls of genuinely dangerous driving, and actually keeping people safe. What the gently caress man, your own study said that enforcing speeding regulations had a deterrent effect, you can't have move the goalposts to "actually receiving the ticket doesn't have a additional deterrent effect" and then go back and act like you proved its not a deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
This is an awful derail. Can we go back to legshot chat?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Cole posted:I got a speeding ticket for doing 59 in a 30 and didn't go to jail or face anything other than a speeding ticket. 119 in a 65 here, same thing. In Beaver City, Oregon. The cop wrote "white" for "race" on my ticket 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
After reading all this, I've decided that The Alternative is a great invention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What the gently caress man, your own study said that enforcing speeding regulations had a deterrent effect, you can't have move the goalposts to "actually receiving the ticket doesn't have a additional deterrent effect" and then go back and act like you proved its not a deterrent. The study found some amount of rehabilitative benefit from these sorts of dispositions. That in itself does not surprise me. When courts give people the opportunity to avoid developing a permanent criminal record by actually trying to substantively address that person as an individual, they find better long-term outcomes. Of course, to have a system like this would actually require the court to engage and work with defendants as people. The overwhelming majority of traffic courts operate like treadmills, funneling people and their money in and out. If there is a way to get the benefits of the criminal justice system actually trying to help and work with people without the threat of conviction for innocuous behavior, that would be great. Bu that would suddenly turn traffic tickets from a money-making operation into a rehabilitative effort that would cost money instead of making it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
What if they couldn't afford registration/license or the insurance to keep it valid? Oh, you have a court date, better choose between appearing and getting fired in your wage-slave job you have no alternative to because the cops threaten/murder random people in the street and nobody wants to bring a business there. Guess they should have just moved somewhere else with the savings they don't have from the job they make subsistence wages on to feed the kids that thankfully still buy the lie that their mom/dad ate earlier in the day and aren't hungry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:No, the study found that what limited deterrence in what Maryland calls PBJ. PBJ is "Probation Before Judgment," which in many jurisdictions is called a deferred finding. Essentially, courts can give people the opportunity to jump through hoops to avoid an actual conviction. The study is talking about specific deterrence, not general deterrence, the study wasn't even attempting to measure general deterrence but they still mention finding evidence of it in very conclusion you loving quoted. More than that if you read the results instead of just the conclusion it says that it was only male drivers that displayed no evidence of specific deterrence, they did find significant amount in female drivers and drivers who receive PBJ (which isn't just in Maryland btw). Rent-A-Cop posted:This is an awful derail. Holy poo poo do I agree but how the are we supposed to talk about fixing the cops or the courts if we can't even get some sort of baseline agreement that law enforcement is at all neccesary
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:This is an awful derail. Rent, you are a good poster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The study is talking about specific deterrence, not general deterrence, the study wasn't even attempting to measure general deterrence but they still mention finding evidence of it in very conclusion you loving quoted. More than that if you read the results instead of just the conclusion it says that it was only male drivers that displayed no evidence of specific deterrence, they did find significant amount in female drivers and drivers who receive PBJ (which isn't just in Maryland btw). Setting aside defining "effective," do you have any data to actually show that speeding tickets are effective? quote:Holy poo poo do I agree but how the are we supposed to talk about fixing the cops or the courts if we can't even get some sort of baseline agreement that law enforcement is at all neccesary What is it that you think cops and courts do?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Not wielding nigh-unaccountable traffic stop power to levy unpayable fines against the residents of the city you live in is not some anarchic abandonment of basic law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:I know it's talking about individual deterrence. I've said so repeatedly. And what part of this sentence do you find elusive? The study noted that women were more likely to demonstrate some measure of deterrent effect. But the thrust of their date is summarized as: " Overall legal consequences had no significant effect on the risk of receiving a repeat speeding citation relative to ticketed drivers who escaped those consequences," and "Drivers who receive speeding citations are at increased risk of receiving subsequent speeding citations, suggesting that speeding citations have limited effects on deterrence in the context of the current traffic enforcement system." The thrust of their summary decided to just ignore the data on women for some reason, maybe because it was their desired result or maybe they just decided since men do most of the speeding they could just act like the data on women didn't exist, maybe a little of both. But as for data? yeah, Randbrick posted:...Increasing drivers' perceptions that they are at risk of being caught speeding may improve the effectiveness of speeding law enforcement." your own loving study I can't for the life of me fathom how you can be possibly making the mental leap from "limited specific deterrent effect" to "no deterrent effect", especially considering general deterrence is really the thing we care about. FAUXTON posted:Not wielding nigh-unaccountable traffic stop power to levy unpayable fines against the residents of the city you live in is not some anarchic abandonment of basic law enforcement. Sorry "basic law enforcement" was a bit hyperbolic, getting a little frustrated that we can't move past a basic concept like "having fines for speeding incentivizes not speeding" or "not pulling someone over for only going 5 over doesn't delegitimize the entire legal system"
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Rent, you are a good poster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:42
|
|