[The Mafia Line]

Rustpot, on Nov 3 2009, 09:13 AM, said:

Mafia Line;
Good luck getting a traffic ticket to the Supreme Court.

And by the way, things like Plessy v. Ferguson was during a time of social unrest for rights for a group of people to be granted. A speeding ticket is not a monumental "let's change the law!" sort of thing.

Speed kills. If you're going 55 and have 5 car lengths to the next car you have a shit load more reaction time than if you were going 80. Add in a cell phone and what do you get? Jackasses commuting at 70mph while grooming and having a teleconference. Not all speed limits are for revenue generation. There are very few spots in the world without speed limits and mainstream USA would never be able to handle it.

You do not plead innocent and lie when you know you are guilty. Pay the fine but go through the proper channels to change the speed limit if you think it's wrong.

You sound like a fool who has no grasp on the legal system or how any sort of government works but is trying to dish out advice.

I obviously understand that a traffic ticket isn't going to the US supreme court. I did say Technically. However, there is a little used way of fighting a speeding ticket by contesting the speed limit of a certain area. It's pretty hard to do so it's rarely if ever used but it's possible.

Speed limits are so low because that way almost everybody is speeding. In NYC the limit is 50. 95% of the cars on the road are going above 50MPH. Everyone is then eligible to receive a speeding ticket. I found that the unofficial limit is 70. 70 your fine 71 your getting pulled over. If the sign said 70 and it was a strict policy with stricter fines the roads would be just as safe. Remember, the speed posted is the LIMIT, you can drive slower than that if you want.

Your saying that if some crazy ass cop pulls over a guy for going a painstakingly slow 51 in a 50, he should just pay the fine because he was speeding. That it insane, in my opinion. Also, speed limits should not be instituted with the idea that people will be on their cell phones or whatever because in NY and most states now, talking on your hand held cell phone is now illegal.

(I don't ever talk on cell, as I believe thats more dangerous than speeding, but if I ever did for a second and got a ticket, I'd still fight it because the constitution allows me to do it.)

As far as revenue goes, tickets are a HUGE source of revenue and that is one major reason why speed limits will never go up. Lets get real here. For years the federal government mandated that every interstate be 55mph because it saved the most gas. That has now been changed. But it was 55, not because thats what they felt was a safe speed for the people but because it saved the most gas. I think it's interesting that people really associate speed limits to public safety.

I might be a fool in your opinion, but I'm just stating my opinion and no one has to listen to me. I know the system in NYC very very well and have got to know a few traffic lawyers in the area. It's an extremely corrupt system that just wants your money. But hey, I'm just a fool who knows nothing about the legal system.

[Drewhunz]

Rustpot, on Nov 3 2009, 08:13 AM, said:

Not all speed limits are for revenue generation. There are very few spots in the world without speed limits and mainstream USA would never be able to handle it.

Montana had "Reasonable and prudent" limits on it's highways until 1999 Highway fatalities have increased since a speed limit has been imposed. Flow management is a bigger issue than speed limits, but aren't argued as much except for the case of limited admittance freeways and highways. However, if a limit exists and you are ticketed for exceeding this limit- end of discussion.

[eric42434224]

I was in traffic court once, and this guy was arguing a traffic ticket. The cop was behind him, pacing him and clocked him at 11 mph over the speed limit. The guy went on and on about how the cop couldnt know for sure how fast he was going, that everyone goes a little above the posted limits, how the cop transposed two letters in his name on the ticket, and in his finale....he said that he was going just as fast as everyone else on the road.

The judge sat there and listened quietly, and let the guy rant. Then he asked a few questions:

Judge: Are you in fact the person that was stopped that day and given the ticket in question?
Driver: -Yes.

Judge: Were you going over the posted speed limit?
Driver: -Yes, but everybody else was goi....

Judge: Guilty. Pay the fine.



Seriously. If you were going over the posted speed limit, you were speeding. If you want to take the chance and go 9 mph over knowing the cops likely wont pull you over...fine....but you are still speeding. We are adults here. Stop acting like a child and take responsibility for your actions. Christ.

[Rustpot]

Mafia Line- you clearly do NOT know what you're talking about. You can't "technically" take a speeding ticket to the Supreme Court.

The posted limit and the enforced limit are two different things. If the cops of the area want to impose a different limit they damn well better be doing it off the record. Unless NY traffic law differs that much from Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio.

Distracted driving has been around much before cell phones, I was only using that as an example. You think we should have sky-high speed limits but the truth is most Americans, given the chance to do 90, would drive 100+, speeds at which things like tire wear, tire pressure, vehicle maintenance, and driver ability all come into play. There's a reason not everyone can be a race car driver, excess speed takes a lot more skill to do safely. European driving standards are well above our own, and Europeans tend to take much greater care of their cars, so it can fly there.

If you're bitchy about NY roads being 50 mph and the fact that a cop can issue a ticket for going 51 when "everyone else is doing 70" then go do something about it. You can be given a ticket for going under the posted limit as well. The fact that most everyone is speeding is a pack mentality - "they can't get us all!" - and in no way makes it legal to do so, the cops just bite the bullet and make a cutoff at 70 and let all the little fish go. I'm sure if they wanted to they could pull over everyone but there's more to being a cop than handing out tickets.


Drew- that's why I said "mainstream" America, I'm aware of Montana and what the speed limit has done.

[The Mafia Line]

Clearly reading isn't your strong suit, because I said, technically, fighting a law you disagree with is the best way to change a law. I understand that a speeding case will not make it the supreme court and I believe I also said that too.

My basic argument is:

A) Speed limits should be FAIR and then policed strictly. Not 90+ but not 55 either.

B) Until speed limits are fair I will fight, and encourage others to fight their speeding tickets even if they are "guilty".

Most importantly, you fight a ticket with legally sufficient arguments and not by telling the judge some sob story that everyone knows is horseshit, that even if were true, would not legally get you out of speeding. You fight a ticket by questioning the officer in the hopes that he took poor notes and forgot aspects that prove your guilt, you question his training with a radar gun, so on so forth.

BTW: There are divisions of every police force solely to give tickets. Usually called Highway Patrol.

[Rustpot]

The Mafia Line, on Nov 4 2009, 10:10 PM, said:

BTW: There are divisions of every police force solely to give tickets. Usually called Highway Patrol.

Go up to a highway patrol officer and tell him his job is only to write tickets.

You're a fucking joke dude. You seem to be the most opinionated person with the least amount of clues.

Boo-hoo. I can't go as fast as I want. Boo-hoo, the cops made a simple error and wrote my name wrong, I shouldn't have to pay the fine for speeding. Boo-hoo.

Quote

Maybe one day, speed limits will change in specific states due to state supreme court cases.

Looks like my reading comprehension was just fine. Jackass. Maybe you should learn how to make a valid argument.

I don't even care about the warning, fighting everything and trying to get away on a technicality is not being "American" or any such bullshit. You're being a greedy bitch who cares more about what it costs and what it means to you than anything else. If you're confused about speed limits then don't break them. I don't give a rat's ass about NYC being 50 and everyone going 70.

Police officers' primary job is to keep your dumb ass safe. If you're driving excessively fast or slow for the conditions and they get you you still might not get a ticket. They're not out to get you, they're out to enforce laws and keep the public safe.

[RecLeagueHero]

Obviously there are no police officers whose sole duty it is to go on traffic details. With the exception of meter maids, who are usually not allowed to carry fire arms, make arrests, or do anything outside of writing parking tickets. That said, if you look at resource usage for police at the state and local level (obviously the FBI, SS, ATF, or US Marshalls don't write traffic tickets) the use of man hours in traffic enforcement is significantly higher than in other areas. You could make the argument that virtually everyone drives and therefore the greater police usage is needed. Of course, issuing traffic fines makes the state money. Whereas crime prevention patrols do not. It would be perfectly valid to say that an increase in crime prevention patrols would probably have a greater positive impact on a community's well being than traffic enforcement actions. It would also be valid to say that practices like per officer quotas on fine income for the state have cast traffic enforcement actions in a suspect light by the population at large. While some police departments have actually done away with these practices, many more merely chosen to call them something else. Instead of having dollar quotas per officer they'll have a set number of "contacts" an officer is supposed to have in a given period of time. These sorts of things have cast doubts on where legit policing of traffic ends and where state profiteering begins.

[Rustpot]

RecLeague- that is true, the system of quotas or what it has evolved into has seriously hurt the image of the intent of a police officer's job, but don't think that traffic enforcement and crime prevention can't be intermingled. Leading causes of injury and property damage occur with vehicles. If the officers weren't on the streets and highways in the first place the response time to any call would be astronomically higher.

The fact of the matter is that an abundantly high percentage of Americans are terrible drivers or have no sort of respect for traffic laws. If you take away the fear of getting a ticket or arrested for breaking traffic laws everyone will go as fast as they want, blow through stop signs and red lights, pass in no passing zones, not yield for school buses, etc.

If no one broke the laws and police/cities didn't make any money from tickets I don't think they'd start lowering the speed limits or imposing restrictions just to catch people as Mafia Line may think, but rather it would reflect that the community is well behaved and more likely to need less of a police force.

I'll use my town as an example. We have one unit, possibly two on patrol for the campus and neighborhoods that are university contracted state troopers. We have one or two additional city units to police the highway and backroads, and county sheriffs that do their thing. So on any given night we have potentially 2 cars covering a city of 10,000 people. But we also have next to zero crime. The speed limits are 55 (as they are on every road in this part of the state) out of town, 45 on the 4 lane in town and 35 through town, but I see people stopped every day. Is it that the cops need to stop anyone and just be dicks to someone going 37 in a 35? No, it's because everywhere you go there are idiots who think going 50 in a 35 is just fine or excusable, or they're late, or they have the general American "everything I want right now!" attitude and can't be subject to some un-American 35mph limit.

Talk to a cop and ask him what his least favorite part of the job was. I'll bet after paperwork traffic enforcement is right up there. But you know what else? Sitting on a street corner watching cars has also been key in capturing wanted felons, stolen vehicles, and untold amount of other crimes.

[kredmore]

The Mafia Line, on Nov 4 2009, 09:10 PM, said:

Clearly reading isn't your strong suit, because I said, technically, fighting a law you disagree with is the best way to change a law. I understand that a speeding case will not make it the supreme court and I believe I also said that too.

My basic argument is:

A) Speed limits should be FAIR and then policed strictly. Not 90+ but not 55 either.

B) Until speed limits are fair I will fight, and encourage others to fight their speeding tickets even if they are "guilty".

Most importantly, you fight a ticket with legally sufficient arguments and not by telling the judge some sob story that everyone knows is horseshit, that even if were true, would not legally get you out of speeding. You fight a ticket by questioning the officer in the hopes that he took poor notes and forgot aspects that prove your guilt, you question his training with a radar gun, so on so forth.

BTW: There are divisions of every police force solely to give tickets. Usually called Highway Patrol.

Please help me understand how fighting a ticket by questioning the officer, etc. helps fix your basic argument of unfair speed limits? This doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't you work through the legislature process to change the law?

This post has been edited by kredmore: 16 November 2009 - 05:09 PM

[MorePower4me]

The Mafia Line, on Nov 3 2009, 02:03 PM, said:

But hey, I'm just a fool who knows nothing about the legal system.

Quoted for truth...

[gxc999]

One important thing to remember, speeding defenses vary GREATLY from state to state. In many states, you have little to no hope, but in several others, you might have a good chance. E.g., Florida and Georgia. In Florida, a ticket is a ticket, very little you can do, however one of my prior professors, who practiced civil for quite some time, said the number of defenses and success rate in Georgia was really surprising. Take that for what it's worth.

[skeeter14]

I didn't read all the posts (i'm lazy), so forgive me if I'm going over stuff from the past:

In response to the original poster, I'd offer this advice *Note* I'm from upstate NY:


1) Show up to court on the appearance date. If you plead guilty by mail, you are opening yourself up to the full punishment by law which will be extremely harmful to your record, insurance, wallet.

2) Don't hire a lawyer. It's your first offense. You're not at risk for any suspensions at 12mph over, and you have no points that will put you into harms way with a suspension.

3) When you appear, there will most likely be three options:
a)Plead Guilty (you will lose)
b)Plead Not Guilty, and schedule a trial date (you will lose)
c)Speak with the Town Prosecutor. Choose this option. They will have a copy of the ticket, your record etc. Apologize for speeding, and most likely, they will give you an ACOD. You'll have to take a defensive driving class, which will also lower your insurance, a parking on the pavement fine, and if you stay clean for 6 months, the speeding charge disappears. What does go on your record is the reduced charge of the parking on the pavement, because you do ultimately plead guilty to that.


hope that helps

[Leafsrule16]

Just when you think someone's dignity and credibility coudlnt have been crushed more ..