Paul Mihalka Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 "Doesn't it make sense to increase fines to subsidize those who don't pay?" NO Link to comment
tallman Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 The real question is: Are Georgians smart enough to fire the people who are doing this to them (kick their asses out in the next election) or if they're going to do like most people do: bitch and piss and moan about it...and then re-elect the same jackasses over and over again. If it is the latter, then you deserve the government that you get. Sorry Russell, but I can't let that pass. You do live in Kaliforneyeay, correct? Yep. California: The world capital of morons who keep re-electing jackasses who screw over the voters time after time after time. Apparently they're cloning and spreading east. Link to comment
bimmers Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 well, 200 bucks extra is what they said it would cost. But the other option is to take the speed limit down to 0 and we would have no traffic deaths. Or like in Finland base the fine on your income and note gross income. So those poor bastards are first paying 50+% in tax and then they get a fine exceeding their gross pay.. It has made the statewide news a few times with fines in the half million dollar range. We finally in Ga did get a speedier way to correct the assessment values of homes/property through final arbitration so now we will probably see the millage rate go up instead. You never win in the fight against government digging into your pocket, unless your name is Pelosi or other cabinet member--revolt. Speeding should be judged based on the circumstance and endangering level of OTHER people. I also did 600 miles the other weekend with moving avg speed of 65. h Link to comment
Kinsley Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Speeding should be judged based on the circumstance and endangering level of OTHER people. YES, exactly Link to comment
Nice n Easy Rider Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Speeding should be judged based on the circumstance and endangering level of OTHER people. YES, exactly Okay, but how is the LEO to know whether the driver/rider has the necessary skill/experience so as to not be endangering the lives of other people. The LEO is observing a snapshot in time and has to make a determination on the limited information he has at the moment. I'm not saying it's right but I'm still not hearing a workable solution to the problem. Link to comment
Kinsley Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 It's his judgement, but to write you up just because he can should not be the standard, but it is what happens too often. How many of us have seen radar run on perfectly open roads in perfect weather conditions with nothing in danger but our wallets? Link to comment
BanjoBoy Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 It's his judgement, but to write you up just because he can should not be the standard, but it is what happens too often. How many of us have seen radar run on perfectly open roads in perfect weather conditions with nothing in danger but our wallets? I have,I have,I have,I have,I have,I have,I have,I have,I have,I have,... We also have double yellows up HWY 1 where you can see ahead for a mile. LEOs hide and wait for people to make a perfectly safe pass, then pull them over and extort big $$$. It's all about the money! Link to comment
ElevenFifty Posted May 9, 2009 Author Share Posted May 9, 2009 I'm the father of a LEO - ride with a few retired cops occasionally ... While the 'its extortion - all about the money' argument may hold water in the case of small town speeder traps, I don't believe it to be true in any large sense. We still are, or wish to be, a nation of laws. When we, as individuals choose to break those laws, we accept the possibility of penalties. If we judge the law to be bad-wrong-unjust, we have the courts, ballot, and petition as recourse. SuperSpeeder targets the 'jet-jockey' mentality of agressive, lane cutting drivers on GA slabs that endanger us all ... if you've ridden 75/85/285 around ATL, you know what I mean. How it is enforced by individual officers is unpredictable BUT the 'Letter of the Law' is appropriate. My original post was meant as an alert to anyone transiting the state. I find that long distances are covered quickly by steady pace and short stops ... I can live with 85 on the four lane. 75 on the vast majority of two lane twisties is just insane anyway. I'm a fairly agressive rider and I don't think this law will impact me very much. For the record, I support it and the gentlemen who enforce it. (I'm going to print this post and carry it in my wallet as a suck-up to the guy who eventually pulls me over) Link to comment
ElevenFifty Posted May 9, 2009 Author Share Posted May 9, 2009 CORRECTION!! The news reports were wrong - the law goes into effect January 1, 2010. The state expect 23Million annual revenue from additional fines. We have been warned. Link to comment
SageRider Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 CORRECTION!! The news reports were wrong - the law goes into effect January 1, 2010. The state expect 23Million annual revenue from additional fines. We have been warned. Seems to me that if the new law was expected to work and deter speeding in the areas targeted, there would not be an expectation of any additional revenue. Alas, this law is more about raising money than about safety. Link to comment
Asymmetrical Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 I'm in favor of eliminating all speed limits, except for drivers age 25 and under. 'Driving to endanger' would be the replacement standard to determine appropriate speed. While they're at it, if Washington is really serious about reducing oil imports, the U.S. Dept. of Tranportation could require all states and municipalities to time traffic lights to promote the smooth flow of traffic as a condition of receiving federal highway funds. Stop and go traffic is a huge waste of fuel. Chance of passage of either of these ideas is *zero*. Link to comment
Lmar Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 I enjoyed the speed limit in Montana 10 or so years ago; Safe & Prudent! Link to comment
smiller Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 I enjoyed the speed limit in Montana 10 or so years ago; Safe & Prudent! And for the most part it worked. The reason it got killed were all the yahoos coming in from out of state testing the 'unlimited' speed limit. Link to comment
Paul Mihalka Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 I love Montana. Crossing over from Wyoming to Montana on the Beartooth Parkway, a two lane no guard rails mountain road, the signs say Welcome to Montana - Speed limit 70mph. On that road I can ride within the limit. Link to comment
Kinsley Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 We still are, or wish to be, a nation of laws. When we, as individuals choose to break those laws, we accept the possibility of penalties. If we judge the law to be bad-wrong-unjust, we have the courts, ballot, and petition as recourse. SuperSpeeder targets the 'jet-jockey' mentality of agressive, lane cutting drivers on GA slabs that endanger us all ... if you've ridden 75/85/285 around ATL, you know what I mean. How it is enforced by individual officers is unpredictable BUT the 'Letter of the Law' is appropriate. The point some people are trying to make is that the speed limit (law) is not appropriate for everyone, depending on ability, vehicle, road conditions etc., so when they speak of additional revenue coming from this new speed limit law it only strengthens the "It's all about the money" argument. Link to comment
fisherman Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 It IS all about the money and they do it because it's easy. If it had anything to do with safety the legislature would pass laws that would in fact keep our roads safer. They could start with ticketing drivers who used the left lane for anything other than passing. How about a big fine for talking on the phone and putting makeup on at the same time. Or reading the newspaper and drinking coffee? We have all seen this and it is my opinion that any one of them is more dangerous than going over the posted speed limit. Gil Horsley Link to comment
smiller Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 How about a big fine for talking on the phone and putting makeup on at the same time. Or reading the newspaper and drinking coffee? We have all seen this and it is my opinion that any one of them is more dangerous than going over the posted speed limit. Sorry, those offenses are too costly to prove in court, you make much more money working radar behind the crest of a hill. Especially in Georgia. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.