Speeding is NOT a Crime, but Crashing Might Be

I am getting sick of politics as the election edges closer and also tired of discussing Islam and terrorism so I thought I would put together a topic for discussion that is an extreme example of my beliefs, but within my belief system just the same.

I don't consider speeding a valid crime. I define crime as damage or imposition against person or property and as such speeding isn't in and of itself a crime. Now, if I were speeding and was the proximate cause of an accident or if I crash into someone or something then there is a victim (whether it is person or property depends on the circumstance).

In a situation where there is no one else on the road or perhaps light traffic, but with a wide open, safe stretch of road I can't see any good reason for someone to stop you. Also, driving is NOT a privileged in my mind because people have a right to freely travel without being harassed by authorities (at least in my opinion).

So, if I were on a jury I would not usually convict someone of a speeding violation. I could be convinced of certain situations where speeding could be a crime, but only if you can produce an actual victim of this persons erratic driving which really isn't speeding it is just a poor driver.

I would also argue that drug dealers engaging in consenting commerce with another individual should not be charged with a crime. Commerce between two individuals should not be a crime unless there is an intent to harm someone else in the process (such as murder for hire or sex slavery).

Anyway, I hope you all find this a pleasant diversion from the endless crap political threads we have right now on ATS. I see this as a personal liberty issue and frankly I would like to see crimes that don't have a victim be decriminalized. I would also like to see a corporation have a different standard than a sole-proprietor and individual into their rights as far as crime.

So, what do you all think?

jury nullification......change the laws.

a reply to: Metallicus

I agree with your sentiments. Entirely.

a reply to: Metallicus
If you are speeding you are more likely to be in an accident because you have less time to react. The distance it takes your car to stop is also somewhat exponential. If it takes approx 20 feet to stop a car going 20mph, then if that car is going 40mph it takes 80 feet. No amount of driving skill can change that.

I would also argue that drug dealers engaging in consenting commerce with another individual should not be charged with a crime. Commerce between two individuals should not be a crime unless there is an intent to harm someore else in the process (such as murder for hire or sex slavery).

So if I buy some heroin and give a lot of freebies out to get people hooked, then they start coming to me willingly to buy it, that's cool? And when they run out of cash and start stealing/robbing/random crime to buy from me? That's between them and their victim right? I'm blameless?

Yeah yeah ... My second paragraph was more of a devil's advocate response, as I kind of agree with decriminalizing drugs, but still I figured I would address it with an obscure hypothetical.

I totally agree brother, I should be legally allowed to burn up some rural back street at 160 kms per hour, because I know for a fact I can handle it...But that's when the whole gun debate comes into play.

Some people are clearly competent enough to be able to handle it... But then again, there is a whole lot of people who are clearly not competent enough to be able to handle the right.

a reply to: Metallicus

In a situation where there is no one else on the road or perhaps light traffic, but with a wide open, safe stretch of road I can't see any good reason for someone to stop you.

I live by this^^^

When the road's clear and visibility is good, the speed limit is open game.

However, I accept that if I get caught I'll be getting points on the licence and heavy costs. As a society, we have to have black and white speed limits or we'd have carnage and endless (expensive) court hearings to establish whether Driver A was driving safely or dangerously.

For example, I could drive at 60mph through a residential area if the road was clear. Would that be safe? No. So we need limits in place to override the individual's belief that it's okay to speed through such areas if they can't see people near the kerb.

"Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you."

Sorry, thought that seemed appropriate.
But no, I completely agree. Speeding in itself is -not- a crime, and I say that as a non-driver who occasionally suffers from severe bouts of Pedestrian Rage. (Never had much interest in driving, can walk everywhere I need to.)

The problem is when, as has been mentioned, incompetents get behind the wheel.

a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

If you are speeding you are more likely to be in an accident because you have less time to react. The distance it takes your car to stop is also somewhat exponential. If it takes approx 20 feet to stop a car going 20mph, then if that car is going 40mph it takes 80 feet. No amount of driving skill can change that.

Yes, I understand that, but no crime has yet been committed and you shouldn't be able to convict someone of a crime that hasn't happened. That would be my argument anyway.

I appreciate the response.

I see no harm in speeding on the freeway at 2 am with no one around . I do it on my motorbike .

But there is a time and place to speed or excessively speed

a reply to: Metallicus

No worries, I don't really have stong feelings on the topic to be honest but I was interested in seeing the discussion play out. I suppose in the interest of keeping the thread going I will argue with you for argument's sake hehe.

Yes, I understand that, but no crime has yet been committed and you shouldn't be able to convict someone of a crime that hasn't happened. That would be my argument anyway.

Here I would argue that it's not about the law, it's about safety. Other people on the road are at risk because of a decision you are making (to speed) which is outside of their control. Whilst it might not be 'injustice', I would argue it is 'unfair' to others. Your actions have the potential to affect way more than just your own life because the roads are shared.

a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

The key word being 'potential'.

You can't be convicted of a potential crime, right?

a reply to: Metallicus

Yes, it is potential. But the risk is real and, for the most part, avoidable.

But I feel that the answer you have already given twice (no crime has yet been committed and you shouldn't be able to convict someone of a crime that hasn't happened) would, in your opinion, be a reasonable argument for any counter points raised in this thread. That doesn't leave much room for a prolonged discussion so I suppose we should just agree that we disagree lol.

Edit:

At least on the speed limit argument. I'm pretty much in agreement that there shouldn't be victimless crimes but I have some exceptions.

a reply to: Metallicus

To be clear on you example of speeding (appreciate is part of a wider point about victimless crime). Do you think there should be no speed limits, so speeding is never a crime unless there is an actual victim?

a reply to: Metallicus

I totally agree with you. No victim no crime. Seems reasonable.

But remember, Law Enforcement isn't really about Justice and using Reason. It's about raking in money and controlling the populace. It shouldn't be, but it is and that is truly why you're getting busted for speeding. Because "they" said so, not because you committed an actual crime.

Would it be fine to be off your tits on drink/drugs in a 2 ton car with dodgy brakes and a steering rack thats about to fail doing 180mph past a school just as the kids (including yours) are leaving the place with one hand on the wheel and one hand on a shotgun out the window?

a reply to: Metallicus

Speeding isn't a crime but the infringement fines system is a crime just laws. Under the infringement fines system, you are guilty until you prove you are not guilty of anything. There is a thing called the Bill of Rights that dates back to 1688 in the UK.

Some of those rights are:

The right to a fair trial by our peers (equals) (a jury)

The right to freedom from cruel or unjust arrest, search, seizure, detention, fines or imprisonment without conviction, or excessive bail.

The right to face our accuser in open court.

The infringement system subjugates, overrules, all these rights and is characterised by not by the rule of common law but by characteristics of tyranny.

Speeding which results in no injury or damage to any human being, animal or another's property. If subjected to common law, it cannot be proven to be any crime at at all because there is no injured party to be an accuser.

This itself demonstrates that the infringement system is there for an ulterior purpose, namely, to raise indirect tax from the masses. The fact that the infringement system subjugates the 3 rights above, proves just how tyrannical and desperate for money, are those who establish and maintain the infringement system.

originally posted by: Maxatoria
Would it be fine to be off your tits on drink/drugs in a 2 ton car with dodgy brakes and a steering rack thats about to fail doing 180mph past a school just as the kids (including yours) are leaving the place with one hand on the wheel and one hand on a shotgun out the window?

Now that's just a silly question. Everyone knows you don't hang the shot gun out the window when doing all that other stuff. You might drop it and lose your gun!!

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

because I know for a fact I can handle it

Famous last words.

Sometimes I like to push the boundaries.
vimeo.com...

originally posted by: Maxatoria
Would it be fine to be off your tits on drink/drugs in a 2 ton car with dodgy brakes and a steering rack thats about to fail doing 180mph past a school just as the kids (including yours) are leaving the place with one hand on the wheel and one hand on a shotgun out the window?

Bears repeating.

It's not about 'precrime', it's about a tacit contract with other road users, pedestrians and infrastructure - that is granted for a share of the road.
Motor vehicles are deadly weapons, and the argument that posits 'I am in control', or, I shouldn't be fined for speeding, or driving on the wrong side of the road, or backwards, or blindfolded...removes the 'sharing' part of the contract, making you the hero of your own GTA episode - why not?...you're in control, right?

Licencing and infringement laws generally follow this 'contract' rule, and all of it revolves around risk reduction and safety for yourself, other road users and whoever else you could potentially mash to a pulp with a deadly weapon...otherwise, there should be no problem driving under a myriad of conditions that could 'potentially' kill a whole bunch of people in the blink of an eye...that's taking liberties with other peoples' lives - without their consent...

Å99