Safe Speed Forums

The relationship does not remain directly proportional.

For those cases where the driver was either totally not negligent, or egregiously negligent or worse, the amount of additional questions, time and money would be minimal.

However, those drivers who were either egregiously negligent, reckless, or worse, would stand out as obviously as those whose only offense was technical ... yet the costs borne by such callous scofflaws would - or at least should - offset the costs of the middle cases.

Here's a good middle case for you:

Though I have lived in the same neighborhood all my life, it has changed dramatically over the years. When my older sister was pregnant with her 2nd child - about twenty years ago - it was a known fact that it would take longer for the ambulance to reach you, than it would take a good driver to reach the hospital, provided one was willing to 'demote' redlights to stopsigns, stopsigns to yieldsigns, and yieldsigns to merge signs.

Knowing in advance that my sister was probably going to have a Caesarean breach, I drove as I never have, and probably never will again. At 2:37AM on a Tuesday.

There were no cars to yield to or merge with, no other road users on the other side of the two way road where I momentarily drove on the wrong side while speeding to avoid an abandoned wheel-less car; I straddled the double-yellow line to avoid being overtaken by the officer's cruiser. The only vehicle or other road user I encountered was the officer, and the only road user or vehicle the officer encountered was me and my own.

I was not resisting arrest; I had every intention to pull over at the emergency room bay. The officers graciously allowed me to witness the birth of my 2nd nephew, since the father was in Israel.

After David's birth, I surrendered to arrest, and spent one night in jail.

I was ordered to retrain twice a week for three months, and retake the driver's exam, during which time I was only allowed to drive to and from work, and only during those times or during training. Had I not passed, my license would have been revoked (worse than suspended) for two years, which also would have required the retraining and retesting afterward. I would not have been eligible for the retraining and retesting until I paid fines commensurate with speeding, running a redlight, and running a stopsign, but since I behaved well during my retraining and passed my retest, my license was on probation for six more months after re-passing.

Obviously I'm glad that the judge thought that the details were worth his time. I don't think he was disappointed either.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Good. The limit here for "pathological" cases is 100 mph. In our courts, there is usually little discussion in those cases. As far as I can see, this copper was over a ton, so I can't see what this quibbling was about.

PS: I don't mean "Good" because you had to go on training etc! I mean "Good, they have a decent way of doing things there". It came out wrong.
BTW: do you think 100 mph is beyond the pale? Or should there be a long discussion about it? I'm always in favour of rough justice, unless
I'm the one on the receiving end of it!

I had already posted a comment about that myth earlier in this thread, but as you seem to have missed it here it is again

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Then you aren't in favor of rough justice.

That's fine, neither am I, but I believe that anything less than equal - and sufficient - consideration is not justice.

BTW: "100MpH", in and of itself, is insufficient information, so I can't make a decision either way. I think putting other people besides yourself in danger is beyond the pale.

You do know I used to be a hoon, right? ...

At 1:45AM, in a well-to-do cul-de-sac, I was charged with reckless driving because I drove through an intersection at 35MpH.

Backwards.

I actually told the officer that if she'd ticket me for driving backwards through an intersection [which is a two-point traffic infraction in NYC], I'd plead guilty on the spot, but she was apparently too holier-than-thou to take the advice of someone who is a better witness against himself than anyone else is.

Reckless driving in New York state is both a traffic violation and a misdemeanor.

I was able to convince the judge that since
a) the only people about were officers in patrol vehicles, all of whom - including the officer - were too far away from me to be in any danger
b) that due to the layout of the neighborhood, the sightlines at intersections explained why there were almost no stopsigns, and why 35MpH in a straightaway was not a negligent or reckless speed, even backwards
c) the officer testified that I was in excellent control of my car, and was never in danger of losing control
d) she failed to ticket me for driving backwards through an intersection in NYC
e) she failed to give any evidence whatsoever that I was, in fact, being either negligent or reckless

ticketing me for reckless driving was unwarranted, unsubstantiated, and possibly capricious.

I offered again to plead guilty to driving backwards through a NYC intersection, and to donate $150 to the charity of either the judge's or officer's choice, or a charity at random. The judge did not want to reward the officer's incompetence, for fear of being soft on a woman.

I was ordered to donate $150 each to two different charities of my choice. I selected a Planned Parenthood center in my neighborhood, and a children's health foundation.

No points were awarded.

It's not that I think there should be a long discussion about it. I think that the law serves us, not the other way round. We do not commit offenses against the law, we commit offenses against one another. The law is but the means to make things clearer. It is not an end, and it is certainly neither the tip nor the body of a weapon to be wielded against the public for the gain of those who claim they are upholding it.

"The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we are all damaged." Rough justice, by definition, cannot spare you, unless you are in collusion with it.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

That's very good, but it leaves out the problem of resources. There are many good ways to spend a million pounds, but there are many, many more bad ways. One way to waste a million pounds is to decide to investigate hundreds of pathological cases, just in case one of them had a half-decent excuse. Sorry, but we could spend the million on decent care for the elderly, or to improve maternity services or whatever, i.e. good ways to spend a million pounds. I may not like rough justice, but I dislike the alternatives even more.