Has he ever hit something or someone? If the answer is no, then speeding laws are too strict and must change.
Would you apply the same reason to drunk driving? If not, why?
To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets
71–80 of 156 posts
Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets
#72That's absolutely horrifying... Relatively small increases in speed dramatically increase the stopping distance and as such the danger of driving. Especially with a huge truck like that. That's why Amsterdam (with much more food traffic) has recently reduced speed limits a lot. > At 30km/h, the stopping distance of a car is 13 metres. At 50km/h it’s more than double at 27 metres. That 20km/h reduction is the crucial…
What you're saying is all true, but typically road design influence driving speed more than anything. Changing speed limits rarely has an impact on that (at least in the US).
Not sure, but I think that in the Netherlands a municipality is not allowed to slap some 30kmh road signs along a roadway and call it a day. If the street does not 'communicate' that it is designed for that velocity, i.e. it is too broad, too many car lanes, then it must be adapted first to slow down traffic. There are a number of interesting design guidelines and manuals on the web, like CROW [0] for bicycle traffic, applied across the Netherlands.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROW_Design_Manual_for_Bicycle...
Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets
#73That's absolutely horrifying... Relatively small increases in speed dramatically increase the stopping distance and as such the danger of driving. Especially with a huge truck like that. That's why Amsterdam (with much more food traffic) has recently reduced speed limits a lot. > At 30km/h, the stopping distance of a car is 13 metres. At 50km/h it’s more than double at 27 metres. That 20km/h reduction is the crucial…
[flagged]
So you’re consistent in your defense of victimless crimes, yes? If he was shooting heroin in his off hours, you’re ok with that? If he’s smuggling drugs regularly, you’re ok with that? If he’s engaging in prostitution, you’re ok with that?
Just want to be sure you have a logically consistent position here.
Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really, you are asked who was driving. If you are driving: You say "Me", then they give you the points You lie, say it "Bob", then you're guilty of perverting the course of justice. They then write to Bob, If Bob agrees, then he's also guilty of perverting the course of justice, but most of the time you'll both get away with it. If Bob disagrees, then they look more into it. If you refuse to answer then you're gu…
That would run afoul of the right against self-incrimination in the US[1]. The government can't compel someone to admit they were driving, and can't punish people for refusing. The government has to provide proof they were driving. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-incrimination
[deleted]
Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets
#75Has he ever hit something or someone? If the answer is no, then speeding laws are too strict and must change.
When I go faster than usual, I always slow down around other traffic. So if the law accounted for that, that would be nice. It seems silly to be pulled over if you're the only one on the road. However I can understand that slower speeds can reduce catastrophic results if a tire blows. I suppose it's akin to wearing seatbelts: As long as you're driving reasonably around other traffic and only speeding when you're by y…
I would say you are rationalizing as is the parent of your reply, whose own reply is now invisible as it's been dv into oblivion.
Statistically if you speed the chances of a mishap increase. It's just a fact of observation. You are making a rationalization that statistics don't apply to you, and HN has judged you accordingly.
Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets
#76> The expert, former cop turned criminal justice professor Michael Alcazar, said Giovansanti should face “serious discipline.” But that’s not happening — an NYPD spokesperson shrugged off the suggestion of punishment because Giovansanti’s tickets are “not related to his job or his duties in the department.”
This angers me. Police officers are granted special privileges that ordinary citizens are not, and should be held to higher standards of conduct both on the job and off. In a just world, police officers would be exemplar citizens while wearing the uniform and while not. If they are not, how can we trust them to wield special privileges and authority over us?
Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets
#77The solution is pretty straight forward. Fine should be scaled to your income and have an escalating multiplier for reoffense within the same category of offense with a cool down period of a few years if they don't break the law. I've brought this up many times online and people usually reply with something like "lots of people who have no income on paper but are wealthy speed" and a recent solution that I've seen po…
> escalating multiplier for reoffense within the same category of offense with a cool down period of a few years if they don't break the law. My country - Poland - implemented this part a couple of years ago. Specifically a reoffense in the same category within two years results in a higher tier fine - about twice the usual amount. Fines were also adjusted for inflation after over 20 years of being nominally the same…
Jesus christ, 140kph?!? That’s fast. Max speed limit where i live is 120kph and that feels too fast for most roads.
Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really, you are asked who was driving. If you are driving: You say "Me", then they give you the points You lie, say it "Bob", then you're guilty of perverting the course of justice. They then write to Bob, If Bob agrees, then he's also guilty of perverting the course of justice, but most of the time you'll both get away with it. If Bob disagrees, then they look more into it. If you refuse to answer then you're gu…
That would run afoul of the right against self-incrimination in the US[1]. The government can't compel someone to admit they were driving, and can't punish people for refusing. The government has to provide proof they were driving. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-incrimination
Courts have held that people have less rights while driving then they do in other settings (such as walking down the street or as a passenger in a vehicle). For example, the doctrine of implied consent allows the government to compel you to submit to a blood alcohol test without a warrant. I wonder if something similar could be applied here.
I certainly support civil liberties, but they need to be balanced against the government's strong interest in preventing the bloodshed that comes from the reckless operation of vehicles.
Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
NYPD policy should probably consider repeated reckless disregard for the law to be a discipline issue.
If he paid the fine, I don't know that it's disregard for the law. The laws says if you do this, you owe a fine. If you pay the fine, it's following the law.
The law actually says it’s illegal to speed. It doesn’t say it’s ok to speed as long as you pay the fine.
Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets
#80Universal surveillance at its most terrifying
What’a scary about this, specifically? Speed cameras? Logs of tickets issued?