Who did he harm?
Depends on how you look at it. He took up resources that could better be spent on solving or preventing other crimes.
Nope. Cop did that. Didn't have to chase him, could have stopped when he lost him.
And the consequences of a collision gets worse with increased velocity, so while nothing happened today, the police acted in the public interest to prevent that.
Nope. That's an increased risk of harming someone, and it was his decision to take that risk. Risk ≠ harm, though. So, fail on that, too.
Or you could argue that increased speed leads to more pollution which harms the environment and thus everybody.
Nope. Any increased pollution is a result of increased consumption of gas. The cost of the pollution that is caused by burning the gas is already factored into the cost of gas.
Either way he didn't follow the rules that were setup and got punished for it. Rightfully so.
Nope, still not harm. That's no different from jaywalking or letting your grass grow too tall.
1) You're not serious? If people weren't speeding cops could do other things. Now they have to watch over people who can't follow the rules. That cop would could have been put to better use than to catch speeders. Helping somebody's granny over a street or something.
2) That's his risk to take when he's on the race track. Not on a public road. The harm he has potential to do increases, and he has no right to take that decision for everybody else on the road.
3) More fuel burned, more pollution. WTF does cost have to do with anything? People nearby breathe in more pollution, that's harm. And if you agree with +90% of the climate scientists you also contribute to global warming, admittedly not by much though. Still harmful to the environment.
4) Nope, not harm. I agree with that. Didn't say it was though. Just that there are rules and you either follow them or accept the consequences.
In my state they do you for speeding if you are 1km over the limit. Now speedo error can be +/- 10%. Tell me how one can do the right thing when its technically impossible to do so ?
I believe the most likely case here is you don't have your facts straight.
The fact you cant possibly know your speed to the extent required by law isnt the definition of arbitrary punishment ?
Nobody holds you to a 1km accuracy. That's where you don't have your facts straight.
Yeah i was wrong its actually 0km over
http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/margin-for-error-on-speeding-reduced-to-zero-20110324-1c8kp.htmlNote that the design rules allow for a 10% tolerance while speed cameras have none and many people have received fines for being less than 5km over.
So what? That doesn't change anything I have remarked about this statement. That has little to do with leniency. All that is being stated there is that the law is the law. It's like saying: "If we're trying to determine if you're trespassing on someone's land, the cutoff is going to be if you're on their land, not 20 feet into their land."
So they've now made it clear what the law means, which says nothing more than what the speed limit sign already says. After that, however, and this is where you need to show a little more wisdom, the following will occur:
- Allowance for drivers to watch the road, rather then their speedometer continuously. Courts don't want to be fighting cases where the accused demonstrates that there must be an allowance provisioning for safety where the driver cannot always look at the speedometer.
- Allowance for slight inaccuracies in the speedometer.
- Allowance for slight inaccuracies of the police cruiser's speedometer or radar.
- The officer will not want to be known for numerous tickets thrown out.
Factor all those in, and we're back to about ten percent leeway, which is about what you can expect in the U.S. Basically, here in the U.S., you might be able to count on 4 miles per hour over the speed limit. Often you'll get more, if the officer has other priorities, which is often. But that's it.