Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics

12728293032

Comments

  • eliaselias Posts: 1,904
    yeah, it's annoying but also funny when the LLCs speed up when you try to smoothly/safely pass on the right.

    however in USA anyone is probably ill-advised to go faster than a true 99mph while passing. 100 mph is technically a criminal/reckless in every USA state, as far as I know.

    Also consider that your speedo reads *at least* 3% fast, so when it reads 100 your true speed is probably no more than 95.

    one of my cars has a dashboard/diagnostic mode where it will show the real speed in a tiny font on LCD screen, while the speedo-needle reads way faster.
    this is how most modern car speedos are designed, as far as i understand.

    see you in the right lane, everyone!
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,572
    Don't forget, it's only illegal if you get caught :shades:

    My fintail has a laughably optimistic speedometer, always 10-15% fast...E55 is very accurate though, as it has a needle, digital readout, and GPS which I assume can measure it too.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    edited August 2012
    100 mph is technically a criminal/reckless in every USA state, as far as I know.

    In CA that might mean having a real honest trial with a jury present, and an appointed defendent attorney. I seriously doubt "revenue" enforcers want to make a criminal case out of "speeding."

    They just want your money.
  • hammerheadhammerhead Posts: 885
    100 mph, depending on the speed limit at the time, could easily be reckless drivving (still a misdemeanor) or reckless endangerment (in some places a felony). It IS a criminal case, sometimes, as it should be.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    What I'm saying is the cop is likely to write you up for 99 MPH instead of 100 if you were going 10 or less over 100.

    Officers also often will do you the supposed "favor" of writing a ticket for 15 over if you were 16-25 over because it'll be cheaper as a fine in CA if you aren't going more than 15 over the speed limit (another good reason all speed limits should be set to the 85th percentile since it is used as a basis of legal liability at times). They love to act like they are cutting you a break by writing you a ticket for less fine money by cutting a break of a couple MPH on the speed.

    In reality, all they are doing is messing you up by raising your insurance premiums, making you waste your time to fight a ticket (or money to pay it), and just trying to butter you up into accepting the ticket without a fight.

    You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

    A real criminal case or Felony offers the Defendant an opportunity to exercise his rights, and get a fair trial. Sure it raises the stakes, but I'd rather be found not guilty of murder than guilty of speeding even 5 MPH over, for example. By raising the stakes, at least you get a fair and just trial most likely (by having a lawyer appointed to you, and also by having a jury decide your fate rather than a sole disgruntled judge corrupted by the Police that write the tickets in the first place.
  • hammerheadhammerhead Posts: 885
    And a misdemeanor may (and I'm pretty sure a felony would demand) get you cuffed & stuffed for a ride to the local municipal motor inn for a photography session and perhaps even a (ahem) physical exam. Meanwhile, your car gets impounded. Vehicles used in the commission of a felony are often seized. Kiss your ride good bye.

    Is it really worth risking going through all that just to try to prove that you think you're smarter than the system, and to score points in your apparent grudge match with LEOs?

    Go ahead with that. The rest of us will be enjoying the drive without you.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,572
    All he needs is a FOP sticker or enough income, and he's home free. That's how the LEO community rolls. Funny how in my town I know where there is always a downhill speed trap, but I see Ferraris and Porsches speeding up my street at twice-thrice the limit every few days, and never see a parked cop.

    Funny line from a motorcycling theory book I recently read:

    "we need to remember that most of the traffic laws on the books were created well before Hitler commissioned the Volkswagen and are equally outdated" :shades:
  • eliaselias Posts: 1,904
    absolutely good/correct points, A3, 100% .

    Too bad for motorists that the traffic clerks/courts aren't open weekends, else more people would fight their tickets. That's often a factor that prevents me from fighting the tix like you.

    More power to you & Perry Mason, again again again again again .
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,160
    edited August 2012
    Night courts aren't uncommon - seems like there was even a TV show about one.

    Even better, just do it by video from your house. Photo radar, video trial.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,572
    A TV show nearly 30 years ago...have never known of a night court in person.

    Luckily we haven't devolved to the limey Orwellian surveillance grid, and crony capitalist traffic cameras still aren't common here.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    Are those night courts for actual trials, or just simply arraignments where you plead guilty, or not guilty?

    I have a feeling it's just for arraignments. Either way, you can avoid the 2nd lost day (or more likely lost 2 or 3 hours), by pre-paying the fine/bail and pleading not guilty that way without showing up or fighting it by mail/declaration off the bat (my choice in my most recent mishap).

    You only have to show up once in court if you pre-pay the treacherous bribe (oh... I mean bail).
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,160
    Beats me - you're the court expert. :P

    Makes sense to have them though. You are paying to heat and cool and maintain those big fancy buildings; may as well use them more than 8 hours a day.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    I'll bet 90% on it just being for formalities like arraignment. Afterall, the officer's shift might not cover nights for him to show up at trial in a night court :P .

    And what judge is going to want to work nights? Who wants to work nights? Those snobby moody grumpy old white men that are judges are going to want to work nights? I doubt it, not without extra compensation.

    They will be extra grumpy and moody if they get forced to work nights; no thank you :)
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    That is the question.

    La Mesa traffic court case is going to trial. Offerred chance to pay $55 and go to traffic violator's school and have the conviction held confidentially away from my Insurance company.

    Not taking the bait!

    I will request my real new trial next week, without waiving time, so it'll be within 45 days (once they get the letter).

    Let's see if the La Mesa PD shows up at the County Seat (not their usual venue).
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,572
    Sounds like it is truly about safety and not revenue. Oh wait!
  • eliaselias Posts: 1,904
    A3, great googly moogly, I would take that deal in a heartbeat and have agreed to things like that with town clerk(s) decades ago.
    $55, no insurance notification, and such low $ .
    sounds like they reduced it to the city/town ordinance violation rather than a state civil violation?
    traffic violators school is much fun for me.
    The in-person ones are way more fun than the online ones, but hey, I'll take what I can get. :}
    Traffic school has gotta be fun for you too, just admit it, teacher's pet!
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    $55, no insurance notification, and such low $ .

    Hhaha, that $55 fee is in ADDITION to, not in lieu of, the original fine/bail/punishment of $360!

    So in order to send in my trial by mail, I have to pre-pay and post bail of $360. They want $55 MORE dollars :P Not such low $$$ on the line.

    When this case gets dismissed... no insurance notification, I get my $360 refunded, and the $55 stays in my bank account.
  • mikefm58mikefm58 Posts: 2,882
    Here in Orlando, I saw on the news that virtually ALL cases where there was a lawyer representing were thrown out. The guy they interviewed is making a killing, $100 a pop he charges, still cheaper than paying the fine.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,572
    I'd rather throw my money at a bloodsucking ambulance chasing lawyer than at a crooked corrupt traffic court system, too.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    $100 is a super bargain. That's a no-brainer. The NMA referred CA lawyer I contacted wanted $1,500 as a retainer to do a "bazooka" style defense as he put it.

    Basically inundate the police agency and DA with so much paperwork they cry mercy and drop the case, or at least, fail to comply properly to all the requests and then you win that way.

    Guess CA lawyers are more expensive.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,160
    edited August 2012
    Someone over in Edmunds Answers could use your expertise, Andres. :shades:

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    Gave him a good answer. I once saw a lady found guilty that actually went to a speedo shop and had her speedometer verified as inaccurate in such a way as to show she didn't know she was speeding (it read 10 MPH too low from actual speed), and she was still found guilty anyway.

    I guess the judge figured she should have known her speedo was inaccurate.

    With the maximum speed law, I suppose that is the right judgment. It doesn't matter why you were speeding, only if you were speeding. If I was the judge, I'd of let her go and given the benefit of the doubt. But in essence, she testified to her own guilt, as if she said her speedo read 65, then she's inherently saying she was driving 75! Guilty! She should of plead the 5th.

    With the basic speed law, you'd still have to show that 10 MPH didn't put you in a unreasonable or unsafe speed range.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,160
    Thanks!

    (I bet he pays the fine though).

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • hammerheadhammerhead Posts: 885
    In some states (mine for one), you don't HAVE to have a speedometer. Yes, you have to have an odometer, and yes, you have to abide the speed limits (no matter what YOU say, Andres), but no, you don't HAVE to have a working speedometer, unless it's a kit car. Weird.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    I'm surprised more people don't take the NMA up on it's very generous offer to pay the speeding ticket fine in the event you lose as long as you take it to court and fight it. It's tremendously generous of them when you consider you can get a 3 year membership for less money than one ticket would be worth.

    I suppose they will have to start offering people $1,000 to fight their ticket in order to get more people to do it.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    I thought I'd share this bulletin from the NMA I received:

    The California Legislature just passed Senate Bill 1303, which strips away fundamental rights for motorists accused of red-light camera violations. The measure will now go to Governor Brown’s desk.

    Despite the claims of its backers, SB 1303 does nothing substantive to protect motorists from the abuses of photo enforcement. In fact, some of the most recent bill amendments came at the urging of Redflex Traffic Systems, a major photo enforcement vendor.

    The true purpose of SB 1303 is to eliminate a major legal hurdle for camera vendors by allowing camera-based photos and video into evidence without testimony as to their validity. With no camera company representative in court to testify, ticket recipients are deprived of the basic right to challenge the evidence against them.

    In addition, SB 1303 allows any jurisdiction to justify ticket cameras for “safety reasons” simply by showing that violations are occurring—even when there are virtually no accidents at the intersections in question.

    Finally, the bill’s proposed changes to the “notice of non-liability” (otherwise known as a snitch ticket) will only lead to more motorist confusion and perpetuate this abusive and unfair practice. (Learn more about snitch tickets.) --->>> http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/fake-tickets

    SB 1303 is a cynical attempt to further erode motorists’ rights in California, and there’s still time to stop it. Contact Governor Brown now and tell him to side with California’s drivers by vetoing SB 1303. Please forward this alert on to others and ask them to respond as well.

    John Bowman
    National Motorists Association

    ____

    Tell Governor Brown 1984 isn't wanted in CA!
  • berriberri Posts: 4,159
    I think a lot of states are changing camera violations from criminal to civil infraction cases. That means no points on your license, but also more difficult to fight in court. Of course this all has to do with safety and not emptying state and local budget balances.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    Texas will have a speed limit of 85 MPH on a new 41 mile long toll road scheduled to open in November.
  • michaellnomichaellno Posts: 4,300
    Texas will have a speed limit of 85 MPH on a new 41 mile long toll road scheduled to open in November.

    There are stretches of I-15 in Utah with an 80MPH limit on them.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,287
    why pay, when the open interstates are probably running at 85 anyway?

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

Sign In or Register to comment.