andrewducker | Speeding Fines

Me and Sven were having this arguement a moment ago about what is implied and what is said. I'd like Andy to clarify his position on what he thinks is fair - the concept of speeding fines being charged at an utterly extortionate rate or just means tested fines.

If we take a 20mph zone and suggest someone is trying to keep to it;

1. The speedometer in nearly all cars can be out by as much as 5mph at low speeds and doesn't become accurate until say 30mph. At 70mph it starts to become inaccurate the other way (says you are faster than you actually are). Speed cameras are more accurate, but there is a potential for as much as 10-15% inaccurancy in measuring the speed. So lets say you are clocked at 25mph instead of 20mph. 5mph difference is about 8kph. You are gonna be charged over a weeks salary for the inaccuracy of the equipment you have (this actually opens up car manufacturers for being sued, but that is a seperate arguement).

2. If you are constantly looking at the speedometer, you are a dangerous driver. You should glance at it occasionally and keep your eyes on the road for other users and pedestrians. It is VERY easy to deviate from your speed whilst going over varied terrain.

It seems to be that most people who are utterly in favour of speeding fines are non-drivers. This is a totally fucked up concept in my eyes as they have no experience of the difficulties involved of being a perfect driver. And anyone who suggests driving 5mph under the speed limit instead, good luck because when there is a white van driver in your rear view mirror blearing his horn and potentially causing an accident if you have to break sharp. Hell, most other road users would drive up your arse to get you to do the speed limit as well, let alone the aggressive ones that don't own their vans.

If there is more to the law than Andy has actually bothered to divulge in the interests of causing an argument, then I might change my mind, but on the information given, this is fucking appauling.

It seems to be that most people who are utterly in favour of speeding fines are non-drivers.

Yeah, because drivers aren't ever going to be in favour of themselves being fined no matter if it's fair or not. People want to keep their money and other people taking it away is almost always seen as "unfair".

I'm not saying the Finnish system is fair and I'm not saying the opposite either because I don't know enough about it or the exact wording of the law and therefore don't feel qualified to make a judgement.

I'm certainly not in favour of fining *me* for speeding. Other people, sometimes - but it's never the "speeding" that makes me want them to be fined, it's the "dangerous driving" that they're indulging in, in addition to speeding.

If I was driving dangerously, I am happy to be fined. If I am making an honest mistake because I care more about not running people over than sticking to the limit strictly, I am not. I fail to see the problem with this.

What I am saying is that unless you have sat behind the wheel of a car and driven that you have no concept of the realities of driving. Would you not agree that those with experience in a field should be the ones making laws?

Statistically, the faster you're going, the more accidents you will get into and the more people will be harmed.

Or, put another way, "faster than parked IS FAST ENOUGH TO KILL!"

Less facetiously, at a certain point speed relative to the other people on the road with you *becomes* dangerous driving.

Ambulances.

Police.

Fire Brigade.

Less fecetiously, at the point where you do not think you can break in time, you should not be driving at this speed. I could be going at the same speed as you, up your arse, and kill you, because I cannot break in time. Your point is moot.

Your point is moot.

No, you're simply either too stupid or working too hard at incomprehension to understand it.

Please try again.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html

I have a pretty beefy IQ and I am far from stupid. Telling me this is largely pathetic, but mostly going to amuse everyone who knows me via Andrew Ducker. Have a read of the amazing logical fallacies webpage above complete with link to your failure.

You claim it's "working too hard at incomprehension", but I still have my doubts.

Perhaps if you tried demonstrating basic literacy, and actually addressing what I *said* rather that what you wish I had said?

(no subject)

chuma.livejournal.com - 2009-04-26 03:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

theweaselking.livejournal.com - 2009-04-26 04:00 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

chuma.livejournal.com - 2009-04-26 04:07 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

theweaselking.livejournal.com - 2009-04-26 04:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

chuma.livejournal.com - 2009-04-26 12:16 (UTC) - Expand

Surely to monitor everyone to see whether they're driving dangerously as opposed to driving carefully is almost impossible? And, for example, my dad would argue he drives safely, but he doesn't.

You appear to be suggesting that the entire government of Finland can't drive and therefore shouldn't be making laws about it.

While it'd be nice for our governments to be experts in every field they pass laws on, that's completely unworkable. We'd have to elect thousands of different mini-goverments, each for a different field. This is why they have advisors. Sometimes the advice they receive is flawed and they often seem to ignore it, but that's the best workable solution I've seen. People cannot be experts in many different fields. They don't have time for that. You can't know the ins and outs of everything from genetic engineering to how the health system works to defense strategies, but that's what you're effectively demanding.

It is more that interest groups lobbying the government seem to influence these laws in a "do it for the children" type thing. These are the same misinformed people who get laws in Germany attempting to be passed to bad computer games because they apparently lead to school shootings.

But at this point, you're arguing against the existence of fines themselves.

Fines already exist and are already graduated (and, pointedly, cops over here will almost always cite you for the next category down, giving you the error in their measurement devices as an offset in your favour) - this simply changes whether that 8kph is a week's pay *for everyone*, or whether it's a week's pay for you and half a day's for me.

If you are constantly looking at the speedometer, you are a dangerous driver.

If you can't read the spedometer without taking your eyes off the road, your car is badly designed and your spedometer is in the wrong place.

I do have a problem with the revenue led speed cameras. I have less problem with a police officer making a qualified judgement.

I also have a problem with the idea that 8kph is a reasonable speed difference to take a weeks salary from someone. It is not the concept of means tested fines I dislike, just the strength of the fines being quoted.

"If you can't read the spedometer without taking your eyes off the road, your car is badly designed and your spedometer is in the wrong place."

I'm guessing you don't drive. You cannot ensure you aren't fractionally deviating from the speed limit and still pay full attention to the road ahead.

I do have a problem with the revenue led speed cameras.

We don't have those, but we do have Red Light Cameras, which are worse - statistically, intersections with RLCs are *more* dangerous, because
A) they cause people to drive erratically and sometimes dangerously to avoid the massive fines, such as by slamming on their brakes or gunning their engine to make it through the light.[1]
B) in many cases, in order to justify the cost of the camera system, the yellow lights are *shortened* so that more people will be caught running them. This is illegal, but hard to catch, and has been the case in many communities.

The actual facts show that adding a second to the amber light and a fraction of a second to the "red in all directions" state before switching prevents for more accidents and injuries than any number of cameras.

I also have a problem with the idea that 8kph is a reasonable speed difference to take a weeks salary from someone. It is not the concept of means tested fines I dislike, just the strength of the fines being quoted.

Ah, okay. I have no argument with you, there.

I'd just rather that, if it's determined that a week's pay is the correct fine for, say, going 60 over the limit, that week's pay will be a week's pay for *everyone* who commits the same offense.

You're arguing that a week's pay is too much for 5kph (one work week), and sure, that I agree on. But as long as you're giving fines in *general*, I'd rather index them to income, and then adjust percentage based on severity of the offense.

(And yes, this would mean I'd be paying more than I would now, were I to get another speeding ticket. But I'd still be paying less than the asshole in the Audi who's weaving in and out of traffic and passed me like I was standing still.)

I'm guessing you don't drive.

You're wrong. I own a car and drive daily. It's a requirement of my business that I be able to get to a client's site in a reasonable amount of time.

And I can see my spedometer without taking my eyes off the road, because the designers of my car were not clueless asshats. Checking my mirrors and clearing my blind spot before changing lanes take more attention than my spedometer, and it would be a hell of a lot more dangerous to NOT do those.

Even checking my tachometer before shifting gears takes more attention than watching my speed, although I can also do that by listening.

But who said anything about fractionally deviating[2]? Like I said, nobody is giving you a ticket for 3-5 or even 10kph over the limit. And the difference between your deliberately going 20 over and accidentally going 23 isn't that big a deal, especially when the ticket is going to take the error in the measuring device into account and ticket you for 15 over in either case.

[1]: This generally requires TWO errors to make an accident, such as someone else following too close, but the fact that the cameras regularly cause one of the errors should tell you, right there, that it's a bad idea.

[2]:I actually tend to toss on cruise control because I've gotten a few speeding tickets in the past and I know I have a lead foot if I don't pay attention.

"Checking my mirrors and clearing my blind spot before changing lanes take more attention than my spedometer, and it would be a hell of a lot more dangerous to NOT do those."

And people often cross the rooad when you overtake on these duel carriageways? No.

"And the difference between your deliberately going 20 over and accidentally going 23 isn't that big a deal"

Sadly because Andy Ducker likes to get people to post on his LJ and not actually post legitimate comment, he didn't mention that all these details were readily available on the finnish governmental website which I just looked at. And the difference between 20 and 23 KPH? Well.... a business man just got a mention in their equivilent of th house of commons. You see this fine actually doesnt apply until you have 20KPH over the limit. Until then, it is a 110 Euro fine. So because he was 2 more KPh over the limit, instead of 110... he was charged 118,000 Euros. Now how is THAT fair exactly?

And people often cross the rooad when you overtake on these duel carriageways? No.

I suspect you are working from a deeply *different* theory of motorised travel than I am.

Is it nice in 1930, where you live?

Now how is THAT fair exactly?

You appear to once again be deliberately ignoring my point: Fees dependent on the ability of the criminal to pay are more fair than set fees, even if the specifics aren't quite to our liking.

You claim I am deliberately ignoring your point, but completely ignoerd my last paragraph. How selective of you.

I AGREE that means paying is better than fixed fines. Do I have to repeat myself in every single thread with you? My problem is that the finnish scheme is utterly fucked up and actually worse than the UK scheme due to the way it is implemented.

"Is it nice in 1930, where you live?"

Keep those strawman arguments going; they are working so well for you right now....

€118000?! What? I'll take this 'unfair' Britain any day.

Edited 2009-04-26 01:47 (UTC)

I got the figure wrong in retrospect - it was 112,000 but point still valid. Have a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

And people often cross the rooad when you overtake on these duel carriageways? No.

People cross the road while I change lanes about as often as they cross the road while I check the speedometer.

Perhaps this is a North America thing. Our roads have a lot of lanes. There's plenty of jaywalking on 4-lane and even 6-lane streets in Toronto.

Sadly because Andy Ducker likes to get people to post on his LJ and not actually post legitimate comment,

By this point Andy hadn't been near his computer for four hours, because he'd been off having dinner with his girlfriend, and then gone to bed.

If you want information then google for it yourself rather than blaming me for not spoonfeeding it to you.

In fairness mate, be your own admission, you set up extremes to create debat on your LJ.

(no subject)

andrewducker - 2009-04-26 11:51 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

chuma.livejournal.com - 2009-04-26 12:09 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

andrewducker - 2009-04-26 13:19 (UTC) - Expand

It's the graduated nature of the fines that attracted me. Making them work more fairly seems like a good idea.

I'm also in favour of speeding fines in general - but in a reasonably lenient manner. 15% tolerances is fine by me. It's people doing 45 in a 30 limit I want to stop, not people doing 33.

Why are speedometers so inaccurate? Is it a cost thing, that an accurate device is prohibitively expensive, or is there some giant conspiracy of silence on this issue, because neither the car or speed camera manufacturers or the government or whoever wants to admit this?

Speedometers actually measure rotation speed of the shaft going into the gearbox, and multiply out by the current gear ratio and assumed wheel diameter to give the speed.

There's a lower bound on accuracy due to variation in tire diameter (tread wear, changes in tire pressure, and different makes of tire) - I can easily imagine 1% variation in diameter, which turns into a bit more than 2% variation in circumference. There's also going to be varation in exact gear ratios over time.

I suppose you could stick a laser dopplermeter on the bottom of the chassis, which would get an accurate speed whenever the laser isn't covered in muck. Plus you could use your car as a mouse for a really, really big monitor.