Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[USA] It's not free to speed. It's $25

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by stu_h, Sep 7, 2010.

  1. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I1D6T01&show_article=1

    The way I see it , the current speeding fines are just a tax.

    Speed everyday , and now and then you will be called upon to pay your speeding tax.

    $239 for 265 days of speeding... no problem , cheap even !


    It would be awesome to be able to pay $25 then spend the day having a great time without a care !
  2. Drive at up to 90mph on high quality freeways? How's that any different to what usually happens in California and Nevada nowadays anyway?

    Anyone who's been there will know what I mean. The big interstates in California and Nevada are already marked at 70-75mph (~110-120kph), for which 80-85mph (130-140kph) is pretty much the normal traffic flow speed. Lower speed limits are present (and more heavily enforced) in many other US states, but when it comes to Nevada, 90mph is close to the upper speed of normal traffic flow anyway.

    I guess that really what this is, is an attempt to recognise that people are already pretty much doing this anyway, and rather than most "running the gauntlet and taking the chance of getting caught doing something that most everyone does", they're just decriminalising it for a fee.
  3. Wont work. How will cops know who's paid and who hasn't? They can't visually.

    If the cops are going to pull over everyone above 75m/hr and letting the people with passes go then they are going to get sick of the inconvenience. So they're not going to bring in anywhere near $1B.

    More likely is that the cops are going to give up pulling over anyone under 90m/hr. In that case, why would anyone go through the inconvenience of buying a pass when they don't have to? Once again, they're not going to earn $1B.

    But the biggest problem is that as soon as the first accident occurs over 75m/h, the lawyers will be brought out against the government and the compensation costs will eat into what's left.
  4. Easily fixed, cops just don't tick the box that says "Speed was a factor" and there will be no case.

    If they can tick it every time here and make it a factor, the reverse must work. ;)

  5. not visually

    as for "it'll all fall apart and everyone will die - nevada has had high speed limits for ages and currently sits with a few 75mph freeways. Until recently, they never even signed their rural roads which is one of the reasons the gumball rally's used to love the state.

    Hell, texas even raised some limits to 80 and both they and nevada noted a drop in traffic incidents on said roads. (there are threads about these here already).

  6. note the phrase 'First, vehicles would have to pass a safety inspection. Then vehicle information would be loaded into a database, and motorists would purchase a transponder'
    they don't need to check the vehicle itself, simply search for the transponder signal.
    that idea could work here, but they'll never sign off on it because it would cut speeding fines they so clearly rely on to fund things such as fixed speed cameras, more red-light cameras and covert cameras mounted in brand new $85k cars