Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics

stever · August 2012

Someone over in Edmunds Answers could use your expertise, Andres. :shades:

andres3 · August 2012

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.

stever · August 2012

Thanks!

(I bet he pays the fine though).

hammerhead · August 2012

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.

andres3 · August 2012

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.

andres3 · August 2012

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 Browns 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 occurringeven when there are virtually no accidents at the intersections in question.

Finally, the bills 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 theres still time to stop it. Contact Governor Brown now and tell him to side with Californias 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!

berri · August 2012

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.

xrunner2 · September 2012

Texas will have a speed limit of 85 MPH on a new 41 mile long toll road scheduled to open in November.

michaellno · September 2012

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.

stickguy · September 2012

why pay, when the open interstates are probably running at 85 anyway?

andres3 · September 2012

So that you can avoid the insulting indignity of being stopped, pulled over, questioned, fined, and interrogated for no good reason in the name of "safety" just because the sign says 65 or 70 in CA where it would say 80 or 85 in truly progressive States.

stever · October 2012

"Now in Europe, where the police in many countries use stationary and mobile radar cameras to catch speeders, the smartphone is being honed into a highly effective  and controversial  mobile radar detector.

6 percent of all French drivers now use radar driving apps.

Most of these companies rely on their users to scout and report the locations of speed cameras, which are then forwarded to others using the same application. Drivers passing the same points are asked to confirm or amend the sightings."

In Europe, Speed Cameras Meet Their Technological Match (NY Times)

fintail · October 2012

Only "controversial" to those who use such cameras to increase their undeserved piles of gold or to preserve their surplus overhead jobs.

From what I have witnessed in Germany, camera traps (and I didn't hear of many) were also signed.

keystonecarfan · October 2012

This past summer we drove from Pennsylvania to Tennessee (via Virginia) for our vacation. The speed limit on the interstates ranged from 65 mph to 70 mph.

The main effect of the varying speed limits was that we, along with most of the traffic, were either 5 mph over the limit, or 10 mph over the limit.

andres3 · October 2012

Not to sound like an advertisement, but smartphones in the US have an Escort app that has been doing this for a year now. You buy the smart cord live and use your radar detector in conjuction with your phone and you have a 2012 level of technology for "flashing your lights" to warn motorists of extra enforcement up ahead.

It works great.

andres3 · October 2012

Good news! Had my trial today at 9:30 a.m.

Showed up at 9:15 a.m., procrastinated a lot and was cramming for my defense and cross examination at the last minute, so I didn't mind waiting and arriving early.

At about 9:35 they open the courtroom up, bailiff takes roll call, and we all sit until about 10:10 a.m. After the 40 minute delay, they ask us to all rise, and the judge (female) steps into the court. The court thinks they are getting their pound of flesh out with time wastage, but I'm loving it as I'm getting more minutes to do my last minute preperation and "radar error" research reading, educating myself with the time going by.

I didn't see any La Mesa PD motorcycles in the parking lot (good sign). There were a bunch of CHP bikes, and one SD PD bike. No uniformed La Mesa PD officers in court; another good sign, but one guy walking in just after the doors opened worried me a lot, as he was young and in a nice business suit (potentially my cop?)

They call one case and the person isn't present. They call my name 2nd, I stand up, say here, and the judge says the officer isn't present, case dismissed, go to the bail room.

I go to the bail room, 10 minutes later the clerk calls me up, says my case has been dismissed, that I'll receive my refund ($360) in 4 to 6 weeks. La Mesa PD and the City of La Mesa -- PAY UP!!! GIVE ME MY MONEY BACK!!! BOOOYAH!

I tell the clerk I'd like to see the officer's testimony from the trial by declaration/mail that I was found guilty in. She looks at me puzzled, and says my case has been dismissed. I tell her that my case was a Trial De Novo for a trial by declaration where I was originally found guilty, and for my own personal knowledge, I'd like to read the officer's testimony/letter that resulted in me being found guilty (she looks at me crazy) says "your case is dismissed and you'll have to pay if you want copies." I calmly state I don't need copies, just a couple minutes to review his letter and read it right here. She reluctantly hands me the paperwork, I find it quickly and read it as fast as I can as she just stands there waiting for me to finish.

The officer used general arguments that didn't really apply to my case in his declaration. He made subjective statements which would and could really be seen as false statements. Things like 35 MPH is the speed limit for optimum conditions, that at the time of the citation (10:20 a.m weekday NON RUSH HOUR) there's lots of people entering and exiting the driveways alongside the roadway, frequent bicyclists and pedestrians (bold lies). The thing is he didn't completely perjur himself because he made these statements subjectively and generally, he did later on in his letter admit when taking his radar reading I was the only moving object around (benefits doubt about radar to admit that). Therefore, he stopped short of stating there were any bicycles or pedestrians applicable to my case. Maybe he was trying to justify his enforcement efforts???

I'd like to think justice was served and that the officer was a coward who wouldn't dare defend his false allegations in a court of law. However, the truth is because I had the county seat as my venue, and the La Mesa PD normally goes to the East County Courthouse, he didn't show. Reason being that it wasn't financially beneficial to the city for him to show. He already wasted time re-writing the ticket 2 times (due to his own errors), and wasted time writing a prosecution letter in my trial by mail, he wasn't going to show up outside of his home court. The courts are clever, they schedule a La Mesa PD day at the court, and all traffic cases are heard on the exact same day every week (could be Wednesday, for example). Do you think he's going to pass up time to "kick it" with his buddies and colleagues at El Cajon, where he might have 2 or 3 trials conveniently scheduled back to back to back, or go to Kearny Mesa to handle one case he know he has to lie about to win? The financial reasoning behind traffic enforcement dictated he wouldn't show up today, and I was proven right. There's more money in it for him to show up at his regular courthouse only.

The justice of this case makes me feel better about not fighting the CHP speeding case earlier this year and just paying the fine and going to traffic school on that one. I had a good case this time and made a good judgement call.

My best judgment call was to not accept the court's offer to bribe me into accepting a guilty verdict by allowing me to go to traffic school for an extra $55 even though there's a rule you can't do traffic school within 18 months of your last session. They were willing to bend the rules on that in order to get my $360 + $55. I didn't take the deal; I doubled down and went all-in!

Take that La Mesa PD.

Tickets on Lake Murray Blvd = 2
Convictions = 0

Undefeated, 2-0 record; taking all challengers and newcomers; bring it! Bring it La Mesa! You only have until 2014 to use that almost 10 year old traffic and engineering survey where the 85th percentile was 41 MPH, but you still set limit at 35? I bet the next survey comes out to 45 MPH or more at 85th percentile, and if the limit were set to 45, I might actually obey it! 35 makes me laugh and I ignore it.

hammerhead · October 2012

Wow.
Because, after all, it is all about you.

andres3 · October 2012

Wow.
Because, after all, it is all about you.

It's not about me. It's about all Americans.

HOpefully, the City and PD department review their conviction and fine collection rates for different citations on different roads, and keep track (stats).

Hopefully, they'll see an unusual resistance to speeding tickets given on Lake Murry Blvd. by the La Mesa PD. HOpefully, they'll see the trend that a higher percentage of people won't be walked on and tend to fight those tickets at a higher rate. Hopefully they'll see and take notice of a higher rate of dismissals and not guilty verdicts. Hopefully they'll realize enforcement efforts on underposted roads is in vain, and adjust accordingly. Hopefully, they can learn from their mistakes.

I know I did my part as a citizen to correct this bad behavior by my local gov't with negative reinforcement.

elias · October 2012

NICELY DONE, ANDRES3.

please continue your responsible & safe motoring and contesting whatever unjust citations happen your way.

also please keep ignoring the naysayers who would seem to prefer that you CONFORM to be one of the sheeple!

ANDRES3 FOR PRESIDENT (of the NMA.)

[ Are you active in your local NMA chapter? you would be a great resource for local drivers who aren't as well-informed as yourself.) ]

andres3 · October 2012

ANDRES3 FOR PRESIDENT (of the NMA.)
[ Are you active in your local NMA chapter? you would be a great resource for local drivers who aren't as well-informed as yourself.) ]

This should answer your question regarding activity in my local NMA chapter:

There's a local NMA chapter in CA??????

I don't think the CA chapters in the NMA are very alive, but they should be!

As to a great resource for drivers, 85% of what I know about fighting and winning tickets should be credited to David Brown's NOLO PRESS publications.

The NMA does have the best cross examination question booklet I've ever seen on radar though. You get to be a regular Johnny Cochran.

ronsteve · October 2012

Are those night courts for actual trials, or just simply arraignments where you plead guilty, or not guilty?

Overland Park, KS has (or at least in 1999, had) a traffic court that convened in the evening.

andres3 · December 2012

Just got my insurance renewal for the following year 2013. They have my record as follows:

Accidents: 0
Traffic Citations: 0

Ahhh... the wonders of traffic school erasing one, and having another thrown out of the courtroom and dismissed all in one year. Of course, the citation date on that dismissal was from 2010.

That's another great reason stalling and delaying your traffic ticket case is a good idea. If you can delay the conviction for a year and a half, then the 3 year window insurance companies are allowed to know about it (look up the record) is shortened, and hence, the amount of time they can wrongfully upcharge/surcharge you for it.

elias · December 2012

Good Driving, Andres3, and nice job handling the traffic 'events'.
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year !

andres3 · January 2013

Let this be the year that everyone does their fair share of light flashing and honking at LLC's.

Let this be the year where everyone learns to merge at full speed so as not to impede traffic.

Let this be the year where law enforcement actually earns their paycheck and actually seeks out dangerous drivers rather than waiting and hiding behind a bush (while eating a donut and reading the newspaper) for the first person to ignore an underposted limit.

Let this be the year where red-light and speed cameras are outlawed by the Supreme Court.

Let this be the year where all the bad roads in the USA are re-paved.

andres3 · January 2013

I find DUI checkpoints highly inconsiderate. I've wasted over 20 minutes getting through my last one, and that didn't even include being pulled aside (which I wasn't).

They are inconsiderate for the following reasons:

1) The courts erred in ruling them Constitutional. They trample on several fundamental rights.

2) The ends don't justify the means.

3) They waste time, waste gas, increase pollution (from tailpipes idling), and create congestion.

fintail · January 2013

Here's a nice enforcement tactic

Yeah, respect them, right. Animal Farm...

andres3 · February 2013

There was a story of charges brought against 9 Philadelphia traffic court judges recently. I'm sure that city isn't alone with a corrupt traffic court and enforcement system.

In good news:

San Diego Mayor Filner lived up to his election promises, and had the illegal and unconstitutional camera's brought down. All red-light cameras and required associated (red light photo enforced intersection) signage was removed as well (at taxpayer expense) the other day.

So San Diego is now free from the oppression that was REDFLEX or whatever other scam artist run corporation that works in red-light cameras.

So the taxpayer paid to put up the signs and cameras, and now the taxpayer pays to have them removed and thrown away. My big question is what scum sucking idiot no brain people thought this was a good idea in the first place?

He cited several reasons for removing them:

1) increased accidents or lack of evidence showing any reduction in accidents.
2) bred contempt and disrespect for law enforcement
3) bad way to welcome tourists to the city, and say thank you for visiting, here's a $500 fine in the mail.

The unsaid final reason was that I believe San Diego was no longer making a profit on the camera's, and was barely breaking even.

In other good news, my favorite quote from this story:

An analysis of crashes that occurred during the ICCs first full year of operations, from December 2011 through December 2012, also found that speeding was not to blame for most of these accidents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2013/02/04/icc-speed-limit-go- ing-up-to-60-mph/?wprss=rss_local

Speed limits going up, what's not to like? Albeit painstakingly slowly and incrementally.

Some here might find it blasphemy that most accidents weren't related to speed. With greater speed comes greater risk, or so some in the dark ages still say.

fintail · February 2013

"Speed kills" is one of the greatest lies ever perpetrated against a populace.

The crony capitalist camera operators should be treated as other corporate criminals. More of our market oligarchy at work.

1) increased accidents or lack of evidence showing any reduction in accidents.
2) bred contempt and disrespect for law enforcement

Exactly. Some people need to prove their side, and if they want respect, earn it like normal people.

About the local corrupt irresponsible should be imprisoned or hanged LEOs, no TV news story carried it on their site or on the air. Only a print media site carried it. I wonder why.

stever · May 2013

"Privacy advocates are going to court in California over the use of automatic license plate readers by police.

The sophisticated camera systems are mounted on squad cars and telephone poles. They are able to read license plates and record the time, date and location a car was encountered.

One such device, the SkyCop Mobile License Plate Recognition & Video Surveillance System, is touted by the Memphis Police Foundation on its Web site. The organization says the system can provide police with such information as "improper registration, people driving on revoked licenses, stolen plates and/or stolen vehicles, outstanding warrants, sex offenders (and) known gangsters."

Court Battle Looms Over Automatic License Plate Readers

andres3 · June 2013

If a photograph from hearsay evidence is good enough for the courts then a picture of the dollar bills covering the fine should suffice as well.

No double standards!

stever · June 2013

"The email from police union President Ken Allen explains future police pay raises will be funded through traffic tickets and court revenue. It comes on the heels of the passage of the citys budget."

APD email says traffic money to fund future pay raises (wsbtv.com)

fintail · June 2013

It's all about safety! Think of the children!

I wonder how corrupt that will end up being in an area with many parts that don't seem to be 100% in the first world.

andres3 · January 2015

Utah high speed 80 MPH and up speed limits studies are in, and the predicted blood bath didn't occur. In fact, accident and fatality rates are down in Utah in the higher speed zones since the limits were raised.

Oh the horror of finding out speed kills is a myth.

stever · January 2015

Here's a link:

Utah reports fewer crashes, better compliance with 80 mph speed limit (missoulian.com)

andres3 · January 2015

I wonder how the "speed" kills crowd will explain that one in Utah? Maybe Utah has a lot of German immigrants?

ruking1 · January 2015

andres3 said:
I wonder how the "speed" kills crowd will explain that one in Utah? Maybe Utah has a lot of German immigrants?

Even the NHTSA own statistics say that (inappropriate) excessive speed is app 20%. So not to state the UTTER obvious but APPROPRIATE to way SLOWER speeds are responsible for the OVERWHELMING majority !! (yes the other 80%)

andres3 · January 2015

ruking1 said:

andres3 said:
I wonder how the "speed" kills crowd will explain that one in Utah? Maybe Utah has a lot of German immigrants?
Even the NHTSA own statistics say that (inappropriate) excessive speed is app 20%. So not to state the UTTER obvious but APPROPRIATE to way SLOWER speeds are responsible for the OVERWHELMING majority !! (yes the other 80%)

Most studies have speed being involved as a causal factor at 2%, 3%, or 5% depending on who your looking at. If it's higher then that, then they are probably attributing 10th degree relationships to "involve speed" as a "related" factor.

1) http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2627.asp (US Dept. of Transportation Study confirms Speed not a significant Causal factor in collisions).

2) http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2442.asp (Purdue Univ. Study - Higher Interstate Speed Limits are Safe)

ruking1 · January 2015

I am really not sure how to resolve that 15% to 18% DIFFERENCE. The data cited is a snap shot of the SMALLER 2007 picture and FATALITIES NOT included. However, I do see another difference, between 2007 and 2012 NHTSA data.

In any case, here is the data source for those who might be interested.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

stever · October 2015

Dare I? (good article on the Pinto if nothing else)

"Excessive speed, for example, is implicated in an overwhelming number of fatal crashes. Traffic enforcement cameras—“speed cameras”—have been shown, conclusively, to reduce road fatalities.

Western European countries have been aggressive in adopting speed cameras, which is one of the main reasons that their road deaths have fallen so dramatically. The United States has not. Even simple police enforcement of the speed limit, in some states, has been lacking."

The Engineer’s Lament (The New Yorker)

fintail · October 2015

Yeah it's speed cameras, not increased safety tech. Gotta keep the revenue streams coming in, pensions don't fund themselves.

berri · October 2015

What it is lacking is the fact that many places have artificially low speed limits so the speeding isn't always as serious as its made out to be, but that manipulation does increase camera revenues!

Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles