posted
Like sure it is excusable if your in an emergency to speed and it can be rationalized that sure its OKAY to speed in the sense that everyone does it and people get annoyed at you for driving slow but of course it must be understood that the law is the law and yes while you CAN speed if your CAUGHT you should understand 1) you were speeding 2) You knew you were speeding and 3) You know there are ramifications for speeding.
My dad was caught speeding is is trying to pull the argument that because the people infront of him were speeding he shouldn't get a ticket.
I tried to tell him "dad, there is no valid excuse for speeding, you speeded, you were caught speeding it is time to pay the piper. It doesn't mater if the 5000 people infront of you were speeding the police caught YOU you are only responsible for yourself."
Sure, if I had a car ild probly drive that ~10 mile beyond the speed limit but I wouldn't try to pull the "everyone else was doin' it" defense.
Which brings me to my next thought.
They should put unhackable illegal to uninstall speed systems with wi-fi in your car that deducts from your bank account $$$ if you go past the speed limit. People would start driving slower really fast.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, you must never hold elected office.
You're right on the "everybody was doing it" defense. Doesn't work. I went to traffic court and waited behind about 15 people in a row trying that one with the judge, and usually he wouldn't even let them finish the "matching the flow of traffic" argument. I'm not sure why everybody kept trying after they saw everyone else get shot down.
From what I can tell, your only hope for getting out of a speeding ticket, barring truly exceptional circumstances, is to ask the officer for a warning before he writes the ticket. Once it's on paper...you're paying the fine.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
unless you get the court date changed, then the cop will be a no show and you win by default.
IP: Logged |
posted
There are certain roadways around the DC area where it would have been profoundly unsafe to drive the speed limit and I would have tried to use that as a defense if I were to be fined for 'going with the flow' on them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or if you live in a remote County in a remote State, and the Sheriff has you on a "do-not-stop list and the new deputy hasn't done his homework.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you go fishing, you don't expect to catch all the fish. Cops don't expect to catch every speeder. But in the case of speeding, you chose to be in the target population.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: From what I can tell, your only hope for getting out of a speeding ticket, barring truly exceptional circumstances, is to ask the officer for a warning before he writes the ticket...
...while being very civil and polite. (very important)
I've always thought the punishment should fit the crime. It kind of seems strange to me that the penalty for driving to fast is to cough up money. I think it would be interesting if they could make cars so that the maximum speed is adjustable. If you're caught doing 15 mph over the speed limit, then they fix your car so that for the next 60 days, you can only drive a maximum of 15 mph *under* the speed limit. Leaving for work a hour earlier every day and getiing home an hour later would be much more of a deterrant for me than a fine.
btw, I make this suggestion in jest; even if this were possible, it wouldn't be practical. It's just fun to think about.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK; Sean for Grand Poobah! Let the punishment fit the crime. (Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado)
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That the people ahead of your are speeding isn't a particularly reasonable defense. That the people behind you are speeding, particularly if they seem to be driving in an otherwise reckless manner and there's no reasonable way to get away from them and no safe way for them to pass you, seems like an excellent excuse for speeding.
Frankly, I wish the police would catch fewer people just for speeding and more people for reckless driving (weaving in and out of lanes, cutting into narrow gaps other people are leaving for safety, using shoulders as their own personal high-speed lane...) But that requires being in traffic and watching cars over time, not just staying in one place with a laser or a radar gun.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:From what I can tell, your only hope for getting out of a speeding ticket, barring truly exceptional circumstances, is to ask the officer for a warning before he writes the ticket. Once it's on paper...you're paying the fine.
I have a friend who has successfully gotten out of at least one ticket by arguing that the radar gun that recorded his speed was unlikely to be correct due to angles and density of traffic.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Frankly, I wish the police would catch fewer people just for speeding and more people for reckless driving (weaving in and out of lanes, cutting into narrow gaps other people are leaving for safety, using shoulders as their own personal high-speed lane...) But that requires being in traffic and watching cars over time, not just staying in one place with a laser or a radar gun.
I have often voiced the idea that we should have an entirely new department of law enforcement, totally separate from the police, solely dedicated to traffic (living in Vegas gives one such ideas). All these people would do is drive around all day long and give people tickets for traffic infractions. And it would free up the police to focus on real crime. I suppose the feasibility of such an idea would depend on the area; but in Vegas, such a department would pay for itself.
When I suggested this idea to my father, he said, "I would do that for free."
I suppose the obvious drawback to such a department would be that if it was effective in deterring traffic violations, it would eventually *stop* paying for itself.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suppose the obvious drawback to such a department would be that if it was effective in deterring traffic violations, it would eventually *stop* paying for itself.
Yup. Some cities with red light cameras have considered turning them off because when people became aware of them and stopped running red lights city revenue went down.
posted
It would reach a natural equilibrium I think. I'd guess there'd be bigger organizational hurdles.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I think it was the Mikado himself. But isn't the election for Lord High Poobah this year? I asked a CHP officer, once, how he decided when to make speeding stops when the average speed on the CA freeways seems to be in excess of 15 miles over the posted limit. He said that he imagined himself as a shark swimming in a large school of fish. Every now and then, he would just swallow one at random. EDIT: because the world didn't stop while I was typing. Mexico city had a system differentiated police. The "tan" police did the traffic enforcement. The "brown" guys did the parking and crowd control and the "blue" officers were the neighborhood patrol. Detectives wore cowboy boots and pressed shirts. It all worked out fine.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there should be a civilian organization which allowed people to get safe driver certification, and then allowed those people to give tickets for reckless driving infractions.
It would encourage people to drive more safely, because you never know who around you has the power to ticket you for cutting people off or tailgating.
Of course, there would be oversight, training, and if you got a ticket yourself you'd lose your certification for a period of time, but I think it would make the roads a much safer place to drive.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Making a safe traffic stop would probably require having a sidearm and training in how to use it and how to react to others who might be armed or violent. It's hard for me to imagine how a civilian traffic enforcement could safely pull people over to give citations.
Of course, there's the option of having them issue citations without pulling people over - kind of a mobile, intelligent substitute for enforcement cameras. Could even use cameras. Yeah.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's more along the lines of what I was thinking, non-stop citations.
Maybe have cameras mounted in the cars, and when the infraction occurred, the driver would push a button, which would flag the recording for that previous minute until the driver finished recording.
The video would then be electronically forwarded to local law enforcement, who could issue the citation by mail, just like red-light cameras. The recording would be used as evidence if the citation was contested.
Full due process, but a much wider reaching long arm of the law. The people who had the system would also have to voluntarily have GPS systems in their car, to insure that they are driving safely and legally.
Tickets would be limited to obvious infractions such as reckless driving and unsafe following distance, so there would be no debate about the accuracy of speed recordings.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
it all sounds a bit on the big brother side, but i've often wished i had a way to nail the idiots having races on the freeway.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've only received one speeding ticket. In my defense, which I did not offer at the time, I will say that I was going downhill. And, there was a relatively large uphill directly in front of me.
Waiting to bust speeders at the bottom of a hill is a good strategy for cops. However, it takes no skill. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had one friend get out of a ticket by arguing that his dash lights had recently failed, it was at night and that he was keeping pace with traffic. It just so happens that the traffic consisted of 4 police cars, all going 15 mph over the limit. The judge agreed that that constituted entrapment and let him off the hook.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, when the dash lights failed in my car, the headlights failed also. This made for a simple fix - new headlights. Or maybe that was one of the times the multifunction lever in the steering column failed? I forget. The mechanic said something about an intentional design to tell people, "Hey, stupid! Something's not working right!" Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
the unfortunate thing that leads to lots more speeding tickets than reckless driving tickets (even though the latter is certainly more important) is that speeding is easy to diagnose and prove.
"hey look, this radar gun says you were going 10 mph over, case closed."
vs.
"Well, according to my very subjective view of things, while I was distracted avoiding traffic in my own lane, it looked like you were following that car too closely."
The first is a slam-dunk in court, the second is a lot harder to pin.
Actually a decent example is a former roomate who was pulled over for going ~25 over, but this was based on an officer "pacing" him while the officer merged on to a highway. While the roomate was definitively speeding, and at a speed that could be considered reckless, he got off because the officer couldn't prove anything. While this is less than ideal in terms of safety, it's closer to ideal in terms of legal rights.
Also, while the 15 mph under limit would probably serve as an effective punishment for the speeder, it would also likely create a safety hazard in many situations. While claiming you were speeding for safety might be dicey, it certainly can be dangerous to go well under the speed limit as well.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
To me there is nothing inherently wrong with speeding. For instance, doing 49 in a 45 does not make you the devil.
Reckless driving, however, is another matter, and the argument can be made (to me) that doing 60 in a 45 is inherently reckless.
Also, swerving between cars to gain more speed, or tailgating to make someone go faster, etc... all reckless actions - because as "in control" as the speeder may feel, they are increasing the risk of accidents by those who react nervously/awkwardly to their non-standard actions.
Cops that give tickets for going 49 in a 45, or even for going 55 in a 45 on a straight, nonresidential road with no other traffic, are simply trying to generate money from ticket revenue.
And, by the way, the "I had to speed because people behind me were speeding" is no defense, either - as you should have pulled over to let them pass. And the "road speed" argument is also inappropriate - as everyone driving 20 mph over the limit is as reckless as one person doing it.
That said, I am an offender - though, as rivka put it, it is my choice to put myself in the target population.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suppose the obvious drawback to such a department would be that if it was effective in deterring traffic violations, it would eventually *stop* paying for itself.
Yup. Some cities with red light cameras have considered turning them off because when people became aware of them and stopped running red lights city revenue went down.
I love the irony of this statement. It's almost like the cops want people to break the law, because then they'll be able to fund their department. No one else finds this funny?
As for speeding, there are good times and bad times to speed. I believe that going with the flow of traffic is a good thing. But if someone is being reckless and tailgating and swerving in and out of traffic, it's not safe.
For instance, in Massachusetts, the land of horrible drivers, on my highway the speed limit is 55. No one, and I mean NO ONE goes 55. The normal flow of traffic is at least 65, more likely 70. When the highway's speed limit turns into 65, the normal flow is 75. If you go any slower, it really is dangerous. At night it changes, but during the day, that's what it is. If you go slower, it's not safe. Now, the cops know that we're all ridiculous drivers and so you can go 10 miles over the speed limit next to a cop and not get pulled over. They only pull over the crazy ones. It honestly depends on the situation.
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evie3217: I love the irony of this statement. It's almost like the cops want people to break the law, because then they'll be able to fund their department. No one else finds this funny?
Yes, this occurred to me as well. But if they turn the cameras off, how will they get caught to generate revenue? Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evie3217: I love the irony of this statement. It's almost like the cops want people to break the law, because then they'll be able to fund their department. No one else finds this funny?
Yes, this occurred to me as well. But if they turn the cameras off, how will they get caught to generate revenue?
The cameras cost money to operate and in some cases they were generating less revenue than the cost of running them..
Posts: 212 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You want people to drive safer? Take out the airbags and install a machete pointed at the throat".
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you read the OP? There were at least a dozen spelling and grammatical errors, and legitimate national spelling variations are not among them.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For instance, in Massachusetts, the land of horrible drivers, on my highway the speed limit is 55. No one, and I mean NO ONE goes 55. The normal flow of traffic is at least 65, more likely 70. When the highway's speed limit turns into 65, the normal flow is 75. If you go any slower, it really is dangerous. At night it changes, but during the day, that's what it is. If you go slower, it's not safe. Now, the cops know that we're all ridiculous drivers and so you can go 10 miles over the speed limit next to a cop and not get pulled over. They only pull over the crazy ones. It honestly depends on the situation.
I know of situations like this, particularly a few stretches of I-35 in Kansas City. However, I wouldn't necessarily want to take chances on this. Periodically (a few times a month, seemingly at random), the police run speed traps that involve at least half a dozen cars and bikes. There's no shortage of targets, and I'm pretty sure they nail anyone doing 10MPH over. (Provided they have a bike or car free... )
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Sure, if I had a car ild probly drive that ~10 mile beyond the speed limit but I wouldn't try to pull the "everyone else was doin' it" defense.
Which brings me to my next thought.
They should put unhackable illegal to uninstall speed systems with wi-fi in your car that deducts from your bank account $$$ if you go past the speed limit. People would start driving slower really fast.
People would drive slower because they'd be living in a fascist wasteland.
Hey, we should put microchips in everyone's shoulders to track their movements and make sure they don't associate with bad people, or go anywhere they have no business going, and we shold deduct $$ from their bank accounts if they do. After all, no one who isn't hiding anything has ANNNY reason to fear the social effects of that kind of power over the individual.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Sure, if I had a car ild probly drive that ~10 mile beyond the speed limit but I wouldn't try to pull the "everyone else was doin' it" defense.
Which brings me to my next thought.
They should put unhackable illegal to uninstall speed systems with wi-fi in your car that deducts from your bank account $$$ if you go past the speed limit. People would start driving slower really fast.
People would drive slower because they'd be living in a fascist wasteland.
Hey, we should put microchips in everyone's shoulders to track their movements and make sure they don't associate with bad people, or go anywhere they have no business going, and we shold deduct $$ from their bank accounts if they do. After all, no one who isn't hiding anything has ANNNY reason to fear the social effects of that kind of power over the individual.
Also, the hyper-rich would have no incentive to slow down. The poor, on the other hand, might find it difficult to get to work on time.
I guess you could scale it, somehow...
Another problem with Blayne's "solution"--people without bank accounts.
Edit: Although, I guess, in Blaynelândia, you'd just mandate that people keep a bank account. I mean, you're looking out for their own good, right? (This also applies to healthcare, but that's another issue for another time...)
Posts: 433 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While they're installing those devices, they should go ahead and install software on Blayne's computer to deduct money from his account every time he downloads pirated software.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: While they're installing those devices, they should go ahead and install software on Blayne's computer to deduct money from his account every time he downloads pirated software.
Actually, in a previous thread, he proposed a bandwidth tax to address the issue of piracy.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: While they're installing those devices, they should go ahead and install software on Blayne's computer to deduct money from his account every time he downloads pirated software.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
