Conflict of Interest

Isn't conflict of interest usually illegal? Yes, unless it is the government
doing it.

Government setting unresonably low speed limits, and then collecting traffic
fines and keeping the money, is a conflict of interest on the part of the
government.

So, here's what we should do.

Pass a law that the money from _all_ traffic fines must go to advertising to
promote safe driving. That is, _all_ the money that comes from the defendent -
no squirreling away megabucks under the guise of "court costs".

This would be like the old public service announcements on TV, like the ones
that used to tell people not to be road hogs, not to drink and drive, etc.
Thes might actually do some good.

Take the profit out of traffic laws, and maybe we might get traffic laws that
are good for saving lives instead of simply raising revenue. Hell, they might
actually set speed limits so that 85% of the people on the road are naturally
obeying them, and lower the variance of speed on the road, thus make driving
_safer_.

Dave Head

Dave Head, > was motivated to say this in
rec.autos.driving on Sun, 20 Nov 2005 15:10:19 GMT:
> Isn't conflict of interest usually illegal? Yes, unless it is the government
> doing it.

Just like speeding is illegal - except when it is a cop according to a
certain LEO who frequents this group.

> Government setting unresonably low speed limits, and then collecting traffic
> fines and keeping the money, is a conflict of interest on the part of the
> government.

I just call that highway robbery so that the robbers in government won't
get confused by big words like conflict of interest.

> So, here's what we should do.
>
> Pass a law that the money from _all_ traffic fines must go to advertising to
> promote safe driving. That is, _all_ the money that comes from the defendent -
> no squirreling away megabucks under the guise of "court costs".
>
> This would be like the old public service announcements on TV, like the ones
> that used to tell people not to be road hogs, not to drink and drive, etc.
> Thes might actually do some good.

Sounds like a good idea...

> Take the profit out of traffic laws, and maybe we might get traffic laws that
> are good for saving lives instead of simply raising revenue. Hell, they might
> actually set speed limits so that 85% of the people on the road are naturally
> obeying them, and lower the variance of speed on the road, thus make driving
> _safer_.

I don't think that our so-called "representatives," have to brains to
understand a concept like 85th percentile speed. And when they see free
money w/o raising taxes, they won't shoot the goos that lays the golden
eggs, so to speak....

Dave Head wrote:

> Government setting unresonably low speed limits, and then collecting traffic
> fines and keeping the money, is a conflict of interest on the part of the
> government.
>
> So, here's what we should do.
>
> Pass a law that the money from _all_ traffic fines must go to advertising to
> promote safe driving. That is, _all_ the money that comes from the defendent -
> no squirreling away megabucks under the guise of "court costs".

A better idea is to get rid of fines entirely and just have demerit
points assessed on the driver's license (no chance to plea bargain out
of it if pleaing guilty). Make it so that 2 or 3 speeding tickets
within a period of 3 years results in license suspension for a year.

This will take the financial incentive out of enforcing speeding laws.
It will also have the effect of having the public demanding more
reasonable traffic laws.

"gpsman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dave Head wrote:
>> Isn't conflict of interest usually illegal? Yes, unless it is the
>> government
>> doing it.
>>
>> Government setting unresonably low speed limits, and then collecting
>> traffic
>> fines and keeping the money, is a conflict of interest on the part of the
>> government.
>
> This would be a GREAT idea if it weren't so stupid... Speed limits
> aren't unreasonable... even if *everybody* thinks so or chooses to
> ignore them. The ENTIRE street and highway infrastructure is designed
> and set up for the speed limits now in place. Speed limits can't just
> be changed on the whim of the majority of numbskull drivers who don't
> like 'em. But they can be reduced based on increasing traffic density.
> You can expect that to happen before your wish comes true.
>
> A good portion of traffic problems are caused by drivers disobeying the
> speed limit now. Your implied conclusion that if speed limits were
> higher they would be obeyed, if not obviously flawed, lacks any basis.
> I would predict that the same people who drive 70 in a 55 would drive
> 90 in a 75. That's pretty much exactly what they do now.


That's the truth. Ever been on I-15 heading north to Las Vegas on a Friday
afternoon?

gpsman wrote:

> A good portion of traffic problems are caused by drivers disobeying the
> speed limit now. Your implied conclusion that if speed limits were
> higher they would be obeyed, if not obviously flawed, lacks any basis.
> I would predict that the same people who drive 70 in a 55 would drive
> 90 in a 75.

What's your prediction regarding how fast those who drive 70 mph in a 55
mph zone would drive if the speed limit was set to 90 mph?

What's your prediction regarding how fast those who currently drive 70
mph in a 55 mph zone would drive if the speed limit was set to 105 mph?

What's your prediction regarding how fast those who currently drive 70
mph in a 55 mph zone would drive if the speed limit was set to 120 mph?

What's your prediction regarding how fast those who currently drive 70
mph in a 55 mph zone would drive if the speed limit was set to 135 mph?

....

BTW, did you happen to read the Martin Parker et al study on traffic
speeds as they're related to speed limits?

In article >,
Dave Head > wrote:

> Isn't conflict of interest usually illegal? Yes, unless it is the government
> doing it.
>
> Government setting unresonably low speed limits, and then collecting traffic
> fines and keeping the money, is a conflict of interest on the part of the
> government.

If I were in charge, I would require that all money gained from local
cops issuing tickets go to a fund controlled by the state. The state
would them reimburse local communities a certain percentage of each
ticket to cover overhead costs. The reverse should also be true. Any
tickets issues by a state trooper should go into a fund that's
controlled by the county where the ticket was issued. This would take a
lot of the impetus out of issuing tickets because the entity who pays
the cop that's issuing the ticket would gain no points for issuing it.


> So, here's what we should do.
>
> Pass a law that the money from _all_ traffic fines must go to advertising to
> promote safe driving. That is, _all_ the money that comes from the defendent
> -
> no squirreling away megabucks under the guise of "court costs".
>
> This would be like the old public service announcements on TV, like the ones
> that used to tell people not to be road hogs, not to drink and drive, etc.
> Thes might actually do some good.
>
> Take the profit out of traffic laws, and maybe we might get traffic laws that
> are good for saving lives instead of simply raising revenue. Hell, they
> might
> actually set speed limits so that 85% of the people on the road are naturally
> obeying them, and lower the variance of speed on the road, thus make driving
> _safer_.

Your idea makes a lot of sense. Have you tried contacting your local
elected officials to see if you can get any of them to support this idea?

Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> What's your prediction regarding how fast those who drive 70 mph in a 55
> mph zone would drive if the speed limit was set to 90 mph?
>
> What's your prediction regarding how fast those who currently drive 70
> mph in a 55 mph zone would drive if the speed limit was set to 105 mph?
>
> What's your prediction regarding how fast those who currently drive 70
> mph in a 55 mph zone would drive if the speed limit was set to 120 mph?
>
> What's your prediction regarding how fast those who currently drive 70
> mph in a 55 mph zone would drive if the speed limit was set to 135 mph?
>

Irrelevant. Currently no state limit is set faster than 75 mph... and
won't be in our lifetimes.

When they eliminated the speed limit entirely on Montana's interstates
and state highways they left a "safe and prudent" law on the books.
The average highway speed noted during that period was 66 mph.

What y'all miss entirely is that most people's skills aren't sufficient
to operate at even that speed. Consequently, you're not going to be
permitted to drive at double that velocity... or even +20% of that
velocity... no matter how much you disagree with the limits as they're
set now. Speed limits are now set faster than the AVERAGE person can
drive safely.

Speed limits are set using data that you'll never consider including
the reduction of injury and death in the event... somebody does
something stupid. And too many people are too frequently doing
something stupid while they drive. Do you really *want* to drive 120
with all the morons chatting on their cell phones or otherwise engaged
while driving?

I regularly drove 120+ when MT's limit was removed, but damn carefully.
I didn't pass cars who were doing 66 at 120, I slowed down to 85 or
so. What percentage of drivers do you feel would do the same? Why
should a driver traveling 66 be subjected to the danger of being passed
by a moron doing 120 while on the phone?


> BTW, did you happen to read the Martin Parker et al study on traffic
> speeds as they're related to speed limits?

No, (I couldn't be less interested) but let me guess what he found.
People drive faster than the speed limit so the limits should be
raised...? That seems to be the predominant argument on the matter in
this NG and it's ridiculous on it's face. Laws are usually enacted for
the protection of citizens against dangerous practices. Just because a
lot of people, or even most people want to behave dangerously is no
reason to legalize it.
-----

- gpsman

"necromancer" > wrote in message
th.net...
> Dave Head, > was motivated to say this in
> rec.autos.driving on Sun, 20 Nov 2005 15:10:19 GMT:
>> Isn't conflict of interest usually illegal? Yes, unless it is the
>> government
>> doing it.
>
> Just like speeding is illegal - except when it is a cop according to a
> certain LEO who frequents this group.

It's not according to the LEO, it's according to the laws of the state of
Texas and includes more vehicles than just police vehicles... TRC 545.365
(a)(2):

§ 545.365. (a) The regulation of the speed of a
vehicle under this subchapter does not apply to:
(1) an authorized emergency vehicle responding to a
call;
(2) a police patrol; or
(3) a physician or ambulance responding to an
emergency call.
(b) A municipality by ordinance may regulate the speed of:
(1) an ambulance;
(2) an emergency medical services vehicle; or
(3) an authorized vehicle operated by a blood or
tissue bank.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"gpsman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Arif Khokar wrote:
>>
>> What's your prediction regarding how fast those who drive 70 mph in a 55
>> mph zone would drive if the speed limit was set to 90 mph?
>>
>> What's your prediction regarding how fast those who currently drive 70
>> mph in a 55 mph zone would drive if the speed limit was set to 105 mph?
>>
>> What's your prediction regarding how fast those who currently drive 70
>> mph in a 55 mph zone would drive if the speed limit was set to 120 mph?
>>
>> What's your prediction regarding how fast those who currently drive 70
>> mph in a 55 mph zone would drive if the speed limit was set to 135 mph?
>>
>
> Irrelevant. Currently no state limit is set faster than 75 mph... and
> won't be in our lifetimes.
>
> When they eliminated the speed limit entirely on Montana's interstates
> and state highways they left a "safe and prudent" law on the books.
> The average highway speed noted during that period was 66 mph.
>
> What y'all miss entirely is that most people's skills aren't sufficient
> to operate at even that speed. Consequently, you're not going to be
> permitted to drive at double that velocity... or even +20% of that
> velocity... no matter how much you disagree with the limits as they're
> set now. Speed limits are now set faster than the AVERAGE person can
> drive safely.
>
> Speed limits are set using data that you'll never consider including
> the reduction of injury and death in the event... somebody does
> something stupid. And too many people are too frequently doing
> something stupid while they drive. Do you really *want* to drive 120
> with all the morons chatting on their cell phones or otherwise engaged
> while driving?
>
> I regularly drove 120+ when MT's limit was removed, but damn carefully.
> I didn't pass cars who were doing 66 at 120, I slowed down to 85 or
> so. What percentage of drivers do you feel would do the same? Why
> should a driver traveling 66 be subjected to the danger of being passed
> by a moron doing 120 while on the phone?
>
>
>> BTW, did you happen to read the Martin Parker et al study on traffic
>> speeds as they're related to speed limits?
>
> No, (I couldn't be less interested) but let me guess what he found.
> People drive faster than the speed limit so the limits should be
> raised...? That seems to be the predominant argument on the matter in
> this NG and it's ridiculous on it's face. Laws are usually enacted for
> the protection of citizens against dangerous practices. Just because a
> lot of people, or even most people want to behave dangerously is no
> reason to legalize it.

You're not going to get through to these people in here. The points you
brought up mirror mine and that of law enforcement, but the most important
one is about what people think they can get away with. People here use the
premise of the 85th percentile as a basis of their argument. That
information is included in a speed survey, but is only one factor of many,
not the sole determining source. People will continue to drive as fast as
they think they can get away with regardless of the speed limit. I saw it
when the speed limit here was 55, and I see it now that it's 70.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

gpsman, > was motivated to say this in
rec.autos.driving on 20 Nov 2005 13:12:35 -0800:
> Speed limits are set using data that you'll never consider including
> the reduction of injury and death in the event...
>

If that's your arguement - that speed kills and slower is better, then
why don't we adopt a 35MPH limit and reduce the death/injury count even
more? Or just outlaw private ownership of vehicles entirely and cut the
highway death rate to zero?

Or is it that you are perfectly willing to send people to their mangled
deaths so you can zip along to the yacht club at your prescious 55MPH?