Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
actual product may differ from illustration

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                     

Traffic Time Out

Take a couple of hours to pull over and think about what you did!
  (+9, -2)
(+9, -2)
  [vote for,
against]

The Traffic Time Out is a way to instantly pay the penalty for a traffic violation in lieu of paying a fine and/or having to appear in court. Essentially the Traffic Time Out is an option that the arresting officer can provide for you in the event that you are pulled over for minor traffic related infractions.

Say you get caught doing 45 in a 30MPH zone, the cop will give you the option of taking the $100 ticket with a bad mark on your driving record OR you can simply sit in Traffic Time Out for 3 to 4 hours (depending on the severity of the charge) and then freely go on your way.

If you opt for Traffic Time Out, you must sit in your car while it is parked in the designated lot. You aren't permitted to talk on your cell phone, read, sleep, listen to the radio, or for whatever reason get out of your vehicle except for a bathroom break every hour.

If you are caught doing anything other than sitting in the driver's seat looking straight ahead, more time can be added to your punishment. If you choose to argue with the officer about the penalty time, he has the right to double it as needed.

Those who oppose Traffic Time Out can still utilize the court system accordingly if they aren't guilty of the accused violation, however, this could be a viable alternative that keeps everyone happy. I mean sometimes it might make more sense to sit in your car on punishment for a couple of hours than to spend all day in court.

This can also be useful in situations where a fender-bender or other type of crash takes place where it's hard to determine who is at fault. If both parties in the car crash can't come to any type of agreement, then the officer can put them BOTH in Traffic Time Out until they can come to some sort of agreement.

Jscotty, Jun 22 2010

[link]






       What he said. [+]
swimswim, Jun 22 2010
  

       interesting lack of judicial system where you are [-]
FlyingToaster, Jun 22 2010
  

       Being that Traffic Time Out is optional for all parties involved, some people will take their lumps for the sake of not having to go to court. In the case of a traffic accident, if I know I was in the right and they were wrong, I would have to think long and hard about whether I want to argue in court 4 months from now or sit in Time Out .
Jscotty, Jun 22 2010
  

       Yes, this doesn't work so satisfactorily if there is damage or injury, but for minor wrongdoings (dangerous overtaking, speeding, use of a mobile phone whilst driving, etc.) it seems OK. Particularly dangerous roads may require a 'naughty step'.
hippo, Jun 23 2010
  

       So, an opt-out for people with a lot of time on their hands.   

       A few MPH over the speed limit 'cos you're trying to get to work on time - that'll be the fine, then.   

       Unemployed kid driving like a twat - spend a couple of hours doing nothing in parking lot and you're off.   

       What is the intended benefit of this idea? If the point of punishment is intended to be deterrent, why would you offer a choice?   

       (-)
Twizz, Jun 23 2010
  

       I like this. Especially in the UK where speeding puts points on your licence which, when you exceed a certain number, means big trouble.[+]
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 23 2010
  

       // big trouble //   

       British Justice is the best that money can buy; it's worth investing in a few judges - the rate of return isn't high, but the asset value is considerable.
8th of 7, Jun 23 2010
  

       //If the point of punishment is intended to be deterrent, why would you offer a choice?//   

       Because good law-abiding citizens sometimes make mistakes. And in other instances, people misunderstand the law and did not have ill intentions in the first place.   

       //If I was in a traffic accident and knew it was their fault, I'd make damn sure they reimbursed me for the damage to my vehicle.//   

       This option would have to be limited to states that have no-fault insurance laws or situations that become confrontational even when the party at fault is obvious. e.g. if a rear end collision turns into a verbal fight causing a public disturbance. The offender's insurance will cover the damage to the other car but the argument that ensues is another matter.
Jscotty, Jun 24 2010
  

       All of them if it becomes a public disturbance.
Jscotty, Jun 24 2010
  

       Some of these comments appear to be missing the point of traffic laws.   

       The reason why tailgating (for example) is an offence is that it's dangerous and puts others at significant risk. To say that tailgating has no victim is plain wrong.   

       Anything we do has a risk attached. We make decisions on what risk is acceptable and what is not. I'm not saying all these decisions are correct, far from it, but if we are to have traffic laws, there has to be some standard which is applied to everyone.   

       Once we've established what the standard is, we have to enforce it fairly. It's all very well claiming that some people exceed the speed limit without intent, but how can we ensure that it is only those people who take the opt-out? would suggest that those who speed without realising it are more dangerous because they're clearly not paying attention. If you're speeding, changing lanes or whatever and maintaining an approprite level of observation and caution, you'll see the cop or the camera in planty of time and won't get caught.
Twizz, Jun 25 2010
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle