Florida 'speed trap' town disbands police force

[JockoJohnson]

Look, the bottom line is that traffic laws should stem and be enforced for safety reasons and not revenue generation for the local jackboots. Period. Full stop. End of story.

If a town is getting half of its yearly revenue from traffic tickets then the police are writing tickets to generate revenue and not for safety. It really isn't that difficult of a concept to understand.

Never argued that. That town's police force should definitely be investigated. But some here are not putting forth a good argument against speed limits. They should be enforced within reason. If you put a ticket quota in (officially or unofficially), then there will be problems.

 

[TechBoyJK]

FTFY

Where there's no victim there's no crime. Traffic infractions are no different. Who's the offended party making the claim?

While I agree with your sentiment, what you're saying isn't true. Run a stop sign? no victim. But you create a situation in which creating a victim is much more likely because pedestrians assume you will stop.

Same issue with doing 100mph on an interstate with a 70mph limit. I got pulled over doing 100+ in a bmw z4 with a fresh set of z rated tires. 100mph was silkly smooth.

Cop didn't scream at me because I created victims, he screamed at me with 'what if this.. what if that..." point being I was driving at a speed which greatly increased the risk of creating victims.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Some countries do not give the right of way to pedestrians. This actually makes more sense when you think about it. Why would you give the right of way to the squishy target? They should wait until there are no cars present. These same countries aren't stupid either. They build overpasses and tunnels so that pedestrians can safely get across unpassable highways.

 

[NoStateofMind]

So, attempted murder is not a crime, because you didn't kill anyone.

I said that? Interesting. Mind quoting it?

Speeding means the victim is the person you kill .. statistically.

Speeding is arbitrary. Accidents happen regardless of speed. If you've lived in any sizable city you'd know speed limit signs are not much more of an in effect than ornaments on a christmas tree. It's just something to reference not to rigidly adhere to.

It's not a crime ofc, but it's an enforceable law; the same way that driving down the wrong side of the road is also not a crime .. until you wreck someone.

There are times in my opinion that action/fines are warranted. However you must be able to prove the actions of the driver caused damage to another party.

Anyway, the whole point isn't that speeders got tickets, is that they had speed traps. Where the word "trap" means "trap" - you can't get down to the required speed limit in time, or the signs are hidden.

The whole traffic system is set up for revenue.

 

[NoStateofMind]

While I agree with your sentiment, what you're saying isn't true. Run a stop sign? no victim. But you create a situation in which creating a victim is much more likely because pedestrians assume you will stop.

Absolutely! If you can prove your claim then you are entitled to compensation.

Same issue with doing 100mph on an interstate with a 70mph limit. I got pulled over doing 100+ in a bmw z4 with a fresh set of z rated tires. 100mph was silkly smooth.

Cop didn't scream at me because I created victims, he screamed at me with 'what if this.. what if that..." point being I was driving at a speed which greatly increased the risk of creating victims.

Yeah I don't live in the land of 'what if' but I realize for their BS theft system to work it has to. "what if" is not a victim and connot make a claim.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Look, the bottom line is that traffic laws should stem and be enforced for safety reasons and not revenue generation for the local jackboots. Period. Full stop. End of story.

:wub:

 

[The Merg]

The whole traffic system is set up for revenue.

So every stop sign, traffic light, speed limit sign is only there for revenue generation?

The reason there are fines for not following traffic laws is so that there is an incentive to follow the traffic laws. If there is no consequence for breaking a law, why would people follow the law? And for breaking a traffic law, they've opted to use fines as the deterrent as it was deemed to not be an appropriate level of punishment to put people in jail for running a red light.

- Merg

 

[Londo_Jowo]

In utopia you can do whatever you want, there are no stop signs, speed limits, or traffic lights. Everyone is courteous and kind when transiting the highways, biways, and streets.

 

[NoStateofMind]

So every stop sign, traffic light, speed limit sign is only there for revenue generation?

The violation of these "laws" is set up for revenue generation.

The reason there are fines for not following traffic laws is so that there is an incentive to follow the traffic laws. If there is no consequence for breaking a law, why would people follow the law? And for breaking a traffic law, they've opted to use fines as the deterrent as it was deemed to not be an appropriate level of punishment to put people in jail for running a red light.

- Merg

Your almighty "law" shouldn't be the objective IMO. Safety and common respect for the individual and their Rights as a living human being should be the standard on which we interact. The State profits from these 'violations' that have no injured party by fleecing the public. The State has not sustained (and cannot sustain) an injury and has no claim to any damages.

Why would they follow these stop signs and redlights if the State didn't extort money from them? Well I just don't know, maybe they would like to be safe? Maybe they would like to be free of lawsuit? That's enough deterrent for me. Are you going to claim that people don't care about safety or lawsuit and are going to run them anyway? Well guess what smarty pants? They are the same one's that do it now. So your wealth confiscation program ends up having a net negative effect on society.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So every stop sign, traffic light, speed limit sign is only there for revenue generation?

The reason there are fines for not following traffic laws is so that there is an incentive to follow the traffic laws. If there is no consequence for breaking a law, why would people follow the law? And for breaking a traffic law, they've opted to use fines as the deterrent as it was deemed to not be an appropriate level of punishment to put people in jail for running a red light.

- Merg

So what is your opinion on how police/firefighters a basically get a free pass to speed? Cops won't ticket other cops (for the most part).

So they can speed and break the law with basically no consequences, right?

 

[NoStateofMind]

So what is your opinion on how police/firefighters a basically get a free pass to speed? Cops won't ticket other cops (for the most part).

So they can speed and break the law with basically no consequences, right?

Police enjoy being the enforcement arm of the ruling class structure which protects its own. They are not subject to the same consequences.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

The reason there are fines for not following traffic laws is so that there is an incentive to follow the traffic laws. If there is no consequence for breaking a law, why would people follow the law?

That's why cops are such shite drivers whether on or off the clock. No consequences.

 

[Paul98]

How often are people stopped for doing something that is actually causing or could cause a real threat to others, vs how many are simply pulled over for breaking some traffic law?

There are tons of people that are terrible drivers and do stupid things that cause or almost cause accidents.

And I am not sure why, but the last few years it's seems people pay much less attention when they are driving.

 

[The Merg]

So what is your opinion on how police/firefighters a basically get a free pass to speed? Cops won't ticket other cops (for the most part).



So they can speed and break the law with basically no consequences, right?

They like to call it job courtesy.

My belief is that if they speed, they should be susceptible to the same laws.

Cops enforce the law. They are not above it.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

The violation of these "laws" is set up for revenue generation.



Your almighty "law" shouldn't be the objective IMO. Safety and common respect for the individual and their Rights as a living human being should be the standard on which we interact. The State profits from these 'violations' that have no injured party by fleecing the public. The State has not sustained (and cannot sustain) an injury and has no claim to any damages.

Why would they follow these stop signs and redlights if the State didn't extort money from them? Well I just don't know, maybe they would like to be safe? Maybe they would like to be free of lawsuit? That's enough deterrent for me. Are you going to claim that people don't care about safety or lawsuit and are going to run them anyway? Well guess what smarty pants? They are the same one's that do it now. So your wealth confiscation program ends up having a net negative effect on society.

So penalizing people that break the law in hoping that it helps prevent them from breaking the law again has a negative effect on society?

- Merg

 

[NoStateofMind]

So penalizing people that break the law in hoping that it helps prevent them from breaking the law again has a negative effect on society?

- Merg

You have no victim and therefore cannot penalize someone to begin with. Don't put the cart before the horse and all that. That action on its own has a negative effect on society by way of wealth confiscation and atrophied Rights.

Nice try at misdirection though.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Run a stop sign? no victim. But you create a situation in which creating a victim is much more likely because pedestrians assume you will stop.

If you are a retard about it then sure. If you slow down and you can see clearly 1/4 mile in each direction, and there are no pedestrians or cars in sight, what is the risk of rolling through? None. Even if someone runs out from hiding behind a bush and tries to cross in front of you (EXTREMELY unlikely situation)...if you have at least slowed down, you can easily stop in time. Saying that we create a situation in which a victim is more likely assumes a retard is making the driving decisions. It kind of condescends to everyone.

Same issue with doing 100mph on an interstate with a 70mph limit. I got pulled over doing 100+ in a bmw z4 with a fresh set of z rated tires. 100mph was silkly smooth.

Cop didn't scream at me because I created victims, he screamed at me with 'what if this.. what if that..." point being I was driving at a speed which greatly increased the risk of creating victims.

I bet all his "what if this" and "what if that" are unlikely situations that even if they did happen would have caused you to slow down on your own in the first place. If you're driving 100mph and weaving in and out of cars that are doing 65 then you are making retard decisions and he SHOULD yell at you. Assuming you're NOT a retard, I can only surmise there was pretty much nobody else around you and conditions were otherwise safe.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

They like to call it job courtesy.

My belief is that if they speed, they should be susceptible to the same laws.

Cops enforce the law. They are not above it.

- Merg

So you are admitting that practically, the police are above the law, since they get "job courtesy".

Doesn't that break your whole concept of deterrent? A whole subset of people are free to ignore the law.

 

[Linux23]

So interstates shouldn't have speed limits?

for the most part no. i know the capabilities of my vehicle and should be able to do the speed limit i feel comfortable with, which is oddly enough between 75 and 80 mph.

 

[The Merg]

So you are admitting that practically, the police are above the law, since they get "job courtesy".

Doesn't that break your whole concept of deterrent? A whole subset of people are free to ignore the law.

I'm saying that's what they call it. I didn't say I agree with it.

And not that it excuses them from it, but cops do get a lot of additional training in regards to driving at higher rates of speed and in dangerous conditions. I'd be less worried of a cop driving 10 MPH over the limit compared to junior that got his license 3 months ago.

- Merg

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I'm saying that's what they call it. I didn't say I agree with it.

And not that it excuses them from it, but cops do get a lot of additional training in regards to driving at higher rates of speed and in dangerous conditions. I'd be less worried of a cop driving 10 MPH over the limit compared to junior that got his license 3 months ago.

- Merg

But they don't have consequences, regardless of whether you agree with it. So it breaks your concept correct? The police have no reason to follow the law since they aren't punished, so they don't.

And we see this behavior in the police all over the place. They know they will be protected, so they have no incentive to stop speeding illegally, beat people up, killing people, escalating to violence for no reason, etc, etc, etc.

Why should they stop shooting or abusing people? The DA's won't prosecute, the "blue line" will help to cover it up, won't report them, etc. No incentive (punishment) to stop. Your theory is already really broken.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I didn't say I agree with it.

Attempted lawyer talk. You're not saying it but you sure do believe it.

And not that it excuses them from it

Yes, yes it does in your mind. That is the ONLY reason to even bring it up. Just admit it. You LIKE the double standard because it serves you and yours.