Finnish man fined £83,000 for speeding because he earns £10.1 million

[An Exception]

Disagree with the fine increase, the fine is more administration fee then anything else.

The points are the deterrent to not doing it again, to many points gets a ban no matter how wealthy you are.

This. Unless of course you can afford to hire Nick Freeman.

 

[hyperseven]

^^^
So you wouldn't have a problem with police saying "hey, let's pull over all the black drivers we see". After all, if they don't break the law, would this even matter?

Well most people don't want the police to target one group of people over another for any reason. Doing so doesn't make for a fair society.

Is racial profiling illegal?

Anyway what has that got to do with what you said about police 'pointing the gun' at certain cars, if you did not speed thus braking the law, why would this matter?

 

[Xordium]

So it is not logical to assume that if a car can break faster, that it is not safer?
If that's what you are saying, there is no point talking to you.

Yes it is logical but you've then taken that and extrapolated to saying that making cars brake faster would save far more lives than punitive fines. That is the step of thought that is not substantiated by your given proof.

Apologies. From your previous post it suggested you wanted to do bad things but didn't due to the consequences YOU would face. If that's the case that has nothing to do with conscience and more to do with self preservation. Good conscience would be when you consider the consequences to OTHERS.

Where exactly did I say the consequences would be solely felt by me?

Again you're expanding things, extrapolating things or just plain making stuff up to suit your agenda ...

 

[An Exception]

Is racial profiling illegal?

Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights:
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground
such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, association with a national
minority, property, birth or other status.

The bolded words would make it illegal to profile people on either grounds. i.e. race, property, status.

 

[An Exception]

Yes it is logical but you've then taken that and extrapolated to saying that making cars brake faster would save far more lives than punitive fines. That is the step of thought that is not substantiated by your given proof.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ll-save-no-lives-and-TfLs-data-proves-it.html

Speed camera's and fines won't stop people speeding and they are not making the roads safer. Accident rates are dropping though and that's probably due to motor vehicles improving.
The biggest argument against speeding is the drastically increased braking distance. The answer is obvious, better brakes.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

The answer is obvious, better brakes.

Or drive slower?

 

[Xordium]

Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights:
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground
such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, association with a national
minority, property, birth or other status.

The bolded words would make it illegal to profile people on either grounds. i.e. race, property, status.

Let's take that back a few posts.

You stated that this will without fail incentivise the targetting of certain groups. You offered no proof that would be the case, yet again you expect everyone to take you assumption and supposition as fact. The problem isn't we don't ....

You then twisted that into racial profiling before pulling it back to the Human Right's Act.

So you've completely perverted an argument based around policy to stop discrimination into a vague assumption that any form of potential pertertrator profiling would be equivalent to it without even suggesting that such profiling would even exist.

Since speed

Speed camera's won't stop people speeding and they are not making the roads safer. The biggest argument against speeding is the drastically increased braking distance. The answer is obvious, better brakes.

You've the given a Daily Mail article about the effects of speed camera usage as something to support your notion that braking distance will be significantly more effective over speed cameras. Nowhere does that disreputable and secondary source offer such a comparison. Yet again you've extrapolated the assumption that one thing will cause another when any reasonable person would notice that is not necessarily the case.

For example, the problems with cars hitting people is twofold 1) the speed at which they hit people 2) where they hit people (eg modern 4x4's hit kids at head height therefore causing more serious injuries).

You've gone about this the completely wrong way you are alleviating something rather than mitiating. The answer is not to stop fast vehicles stop quicker it's to stop fast vehicles going fast in areas where there is a likelihood of an accident.

 

[dowie]

Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights:
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground
such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, association with a national
minority, property, birth or other status.

The bolded words would make it illegal to profile people on either grounds. i.e. race, property, status.

it isn't optimal really - I mean sure, you need to add in an element of randomness but when it comes to things like airport screening we should be targeting certain groups more frequently (and in reality we probably do)

 

[Haggisman]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ll-save-no-lives-and-TfLs-data-proves-it.html

Speed camera's and fines won't stop people speeding and they are not making the roads safer. Accident rates are dropping though and that's probably due to motor vehicles improving.
The biggest argument against speeding is the drastically increased braking distance. The answer is obvious, better brakes.

Better brakes aren't going to do **** when some numpty pulls out in front of you because they thought you were doing 50, but you were actually doing 100, and you hit them before it even registers properly.

 

[Xordium]

it isn't optimal really - I mean sure, you need to add in an element of randomness but when it comes to things like airport screening we should be targeting certain groups more frequently (and in reality we probably do)

The Human Right's Act does not exclude criminal profiling. It prohibits prejudicial assumptions. Moreover, there is no evidence that what he said will come to pass he jsut expects us to take his word on that. Considering how well he has formed his arguments in this thread I would caution that is maybe not the wisest of decisions.

 

[An Exception]

it isn't optimal really - I mean sure, you need to add in an element of randomness but when it comes to things like airport screening we should be targeting certain groups more frequently (and in reality we probably do)

I don't think we should be concerning ourselves with airport screening, if we are not doing train station screening, bus station screening etc etc.

But then if we do all that, we are basically living in 1986. Those who sacrifice liberty for security get neither.

 

[An Exception]

Better brakes aren't going to do **** when some numpty pulls out in front of you because they thought you were doing 50, but you were actually doing 100, and you hit them before it even registers properly.

I routinely see people doing 100 motorway, yet it's statistically the safest roads to drive on.
While better brakes won't prevent all collisions and I'm sure we can find all number of exceptions if we are imaginative enough, they will still reduce the total number of them.

 

[Xordium]

I don't think we should be concerning ourselves with airport screening, if we are not doing train station screening, bus station screening etc etc.

But then if we do all that, we are basically living in 1986. Those who sacrifice liberty for security get neither.

I think you'll find George Orwell wrote 1984 not 1986 ...

 

[Haggisman]

I don't think we should be concerning ourselves with airport screening, if we are not doing train station screening, bus station screening etc etc.

But then if we do all that, we are basically living in 1986. Those who sacrifice liberty for security get neither.

A train cannot be hijacked and easily diverted from it's track to a high value target, and can be stopped relatively easily mid-journey.

A bus can be stopped relatively easily at any point on it's journey.

A plane can be hijacked and diverted to anywhere within fuel range, cannot be stopped easily mid-flight (other than shooting it down, which over populated areas will result in almost as much damage as if it reaches the target), so there's a huge difference...

 

[arknor]

Who contributes more to society statistically. A group earning 10k a year, or a group earning greater than 10k an year?
As a general rule, the more you earn, the more you contribute.
Obvious is obvious.

I didn't realise only monetary contributions so society count

most middle and upper management are just parasites leeching off the real workers they could disappear over night and the world would carry on producing goods.
if all the minimum wage disappeared over night the country would grind to a halt

Just because someone is doing a crap job doesn't make them worthless and without value like you seem to think.
who are the people volunteering at charities and groups around their areas? doubt it's the rich trying to make a difference in the community.


Judging thing this forum they are to busy crying about their neighbours parking

 

[Haggisman]

I routinely see people doing 100 motorway, yet it's statistically the safest roads to drive on.

Indeed, despite the huge number of cars with "inferior" brakes...

 

[BuffetSlayer]

While better brakes won't prevent all collisions and I'm sure we can find all number of exceptions if we are imaginative enough, they will still reduce the total number of them.

So would driving slower.

So would less cars on the road.

So would better driving standards.

So would better road quality.

So would more Police patrol cars.

Oh and brakes are already very good and on most modern cars have reduced their breaking distance considerably below what the highway code stipulates.

Yet still we have thousands of people a year dying on our roads.

Ergo - the problem will not be fixed by simply having better brakes.

 

[An Exception]

I didn't realise only monetary contributions so society count

Tell that to these guy's.

most middle and upper management are just parasites leeching off the real workers they could disappear over night and the world would carry on producing goods.
if all the minimum wage disappeared over night the country would grind to a halt

Overnight? Yes it would. Although longer term these jobs are at risk from technology and autonomy.

Just because someone is doing a crap job doesn't make them worthless and without value

No, but it does mean statistically the contribute less in terms of wealth. Yes there are altruistic people that do lot's of good for little in return, just because the are good people. But I don't see that many of those people around.

 

[Xordium]

Indeed, despite the huge number of cars with "inferior" brakes...

It would also have nothing to do with pedestrian casualties or cyclists nothing like that. And of course he hasn't actually demonstrated if they are safer and by what mechanism he is measuring those statistics.

 

[Xordium]

No, but it does mean statistically the FINANCIALLY contribute less.

Fixed that there for you.

What's with the big picture - can't make your point again so you have to go with a great big whopping appeal to emotion?