Background, I'm a construction manager by education and trade. That includes some structural engineering, and architecture background. Which of course includes Calculus and Physics.
Experience: 17 years of driving experience, with zero AT-Fault accidents involving a vehicle other than my own, and only one accident where I wrecked my own car. Minimal not-at-fault accidents in those 17 years as well (all rear-enders from idiots that were unavoidable).
During those 17 years I imagine I've received maybe 10-12 tickets/citations. I imagine I've fought 10 or 11 of them in court, with a 6/11 win percentage. I've lost count to be honest, but I know I'm +1 over 50% for win percentage. I've been found not guilty and not just won by dismissal due to lack of prosecution.
I've extensively studied traffic laws, vehicle codes, and the criminal justice system in order to achieve this financially rewarding win percentage.
I'm a 5 years running member of the National Motorists Association (NMA).
I've lived long enough that one of those "not at fault" accidents was a police officer hitting my back bumper! The pleasure and satisfaction of knowing a traffic enforcment officer caused an accident before I ever have with another vehicle is immense. I've said for over 13 years that this would happen one day, a day before I ever cause an accident.
I've had some high performance driver's training and spent some good time on the track with quality instructors, and a tiny bit on autocrossing.
I've successfully taught 3 students how to drive and get their first license (all passed first attempt).
I do believe I'd make an expert witness for most courtrooms! LOL
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
If you've had a dozen or so tickets in the last 17 years, you're doing something wrong, either defensively or offensively, or both.
I've been driving almost 40 years. Had a rough start as a teen, but have had exactly 1 moving violation in the last 32 years (5 over. Really.) Been driving emergency vehicles of nearly every size and description for all of those years.
Financially rewarding? Or just dodging a bullet now & then?
Your credibility still suffers, in my humble opinion.
Many dangerous drivers have had a reality check and changed their habits after getting a ticket. But 17? You would think they would have changed everything they knew about driving.
I've been driving 17 years, not received 17 tickets. However, with the way police do their work in CA, tickets are meaningless and often false allegations where the justice system works a majority of the time (but certainly closer to 50% of the time than always).
I figure I get a ticket about once every 2 years. I think I'm on the black list. When they run my license plate they see all the "not guilty verdicts" and "took to court" notations and they like to pull me over and give me another BS ticket. I'm sure some of them were retaliatory attacks in part. I'm 99.9% positive they keep too many records on their computers. All dismissed or not guilty cases should be removed from the record in their entirety as they never should have been written in the first place. They basically amount to fraudulent allegations and harrassment.
Therefore, I do not advise getting citations only to fight them in court. Even if you are successful you are likely to be the target of passive and active retribution from the "force!"
Also, one time I was pulled over for ONE citation which was BS, and then after arguing with the officer over my right to force him to give me the County Seat for my court appearance location/address, he decided to "show me and teach me a lesson" and add a second charge to citation AFTER I had already signed the ticket; then handed it back to me.
The judge found me guilty for the first offense but not guilty on the second. I'll never know why, but it might of had to do with the fact the officer didn't lie and commit perjury like them normally do in court; he actually admitted under questioning he did add the 2nd violation after I signed the ticket.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I've been driving almost 40 years. Had a rough start as a teen, but have had exactly 1 moving violation in the last 32 years (5 over. Really.) Been driving emergency vehicles of nearly every size and description for all of those years.
Financially rewarding? Or just dodging a bullet now & then?
You've been lucky. You don't mention how many times you've been pulled over and let off the hook with a warning. For me, that never happens (read above about retaliatory citations).
Our justice system is rotten and corrupt, but it probably is the fairest in the world. If you get a reasonable judge you can get a fair trial. A fair judge in traffic court is very hard to get, but it does happen. I don't call it dodging a bullet. I believe in the justice system to remove false allegations. Dodging a bullet would be if you were plainly guilty and the officer didn't show up so you were let off the hook.
When you are falsely accused I call it Karma against the force. Not guilty verdicts tend to prove there's a problem with traffic enforcment in CA, not my driving. No accidents on my record also support that statement.
I'll give you that dismissals prove little, and that is usually the way you defeat a ticket since if the officer shows, you are pretty much doomed unless pretrial proceedings went well for you.
But here's what I've found:
The officers show up when they have a near bulletproof case and you are most definitely guilty (like with the maximum speed law, if your going 65.1 MPH or more in CA, you are guilty, and it doesn't matter if your driving away from a nuclear explosion; you are guilty unless it is posted at 70, in which case it is 70.1 or more).
When they write complete BS tickets, questionable logic tickets, poor judgment (I've found most officers lack good judgement and powers of observation) I think they note this to themselves on the ticket somehow, and they ALWAYS fail to show up at these trials.
Everytime I've gone to court fully prepared to ream them through and through and poke giant sized holes in their allegations, they fail to show.
When I know my case is weak and probably subconsciously avoid spending too much time on preparation, go in less than fully prepared to defend myself, and get rocked by an experienced witness as the Officer has testified probably 1,000 times or more in court, and is getting really good at it. They always seem to show at those.
It cannot be a coincidence as I've noticed this pattern over an over. Or maybe Karma is for real?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Texting while driving is a driver error that could lead to an accident.
Cell phone usage falls into that category.
A blown tire that causes an accident could be an exception, if and only if: 1) the tire was properly inflated. 2) the tire was properly installed/maintained. 3) the tire was not overused/worn out. 4) the tire didn't have pre-existing and noticeable upon visual inspection bulges, bubbles, irregular wear, punctures.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Man, I keep saying I'm not going to rise to your bait but it is SO hard not to!
I lived the bulk of my years in So. California and I NEVER ONCE recieved a "meaningless" ticket nor did a cop ever pick on me nor did I suffer a "false allegation"
EVERY TICKET I ever recieved was richly deserved. I had a fast car, not a great deal of sense in those early days and I was a street racer.
I never had an accident because I was LUCKY!
If you show a cop an attitude, you will NEVER get a warning!
I really think you attribute too much to luck there. Some people don't even believe in luck. However, a little luck can definitely keep you out of "not at fault" accidents. Street racing is dangerous and in some ways there you were lucky.
For all intents and purposes I have about a 50% win percentage in challenging tickets in a court of law (and I seem to challenge about 80% of them). If they were all legitimate tickets, I think the percentage would be much higher.
Where you were lucky is in never receving a meaningless ticket or false allegation. Now that is LUCKY.
I guess the recession has led to more shenanigans by law enforcement.
I never show a cop any attitude until AFTER he gives me a citation to sign. I'm very pleasant and cooperative in hopes to get a warning of some sort, but once the ticket is handed over, all bets are off and I'm already building my case and defense right then and there, perhaps with even questions to the officer.
I never got a RADAR speeding ticket until moving to San Diego.
I never got pulled over while driving my parents Camry around for 2 years, no matter how fast I drove. What you drive can affect the attention you get from law enforcement. They didn't like Neons, they didn't like my Accord Coupe and they don't much care for my A3 either, but the Camry was ticket proof.
Maybe it was luck :P
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Verbal warnings? Two. Total. Tickets? Aside from the 'rough start' I mentioned before: Two. Deserved? 1 definitely, 1 questionable. Span between the two? 32 years.
The trick is to not drive so as to draw attention to yourself. And yes, a driving record full of previous citations might very well result in another one the next time you get stopped. It's not retalitory, it's just that you have yet to learn the lesson.
I have better things to do with my time & money than go to court & pay fines or attorney's fees.
The trick is to not drive so as to draw attention to yourself.
I might could have snuck through that California stop if two canoes weren't piled on top of the car. Kind of hard to miss. The Caddy I creamed in '79; definitely deserved the failure to yield on that one. Two tickets. One other stop by a federal cop on the Natchez Trace, but that hardly counts since I was 13 and was simply told to switch places and let my dad drive.
Never a speeding ticket, or even stopped for speeding. Minivans, wagons - that's the ticket. :shades:
Good point about the cop checking your record when they pull you over. I'm going to use that if I get stopped cruising to Chattanooga next week. "Please don't spoil my perfect record".
It would be the practical answer to "just drive slower" except in my neighborhood a 5 lane street is still 45 mph and most people drive at 50 or 55. Because I have a sunflower yellow convertible bug after my 2nd time being pulled over I decided cruise control was in order for that area! I knew red sports cars got more tickets but don't go for bright yellow either! However, my husband with 1 out of state ticket in his life and no accidents that where his fault has to pay more for insurance than I do and he drives an 2002 Honda and we're both over forty. Doesn't make sense to me since I have tickets and 1 accident (though contested) that was my fault. :confuse:
I have better things to do with my time & money than go to court & pay fines or attorney's fees.
I do too! Believe me, the reason I hate the CHP and other traffic enforcement cops so much is when I get a ticket I know how time consuming it'll be to have to fight it. Cost (if you exlude time, gas, car usage is zero). When you are found not guilty or have your case dismissed, there is no fine and there is no attorney fee as I've always defended myself.
Typically, if you go into arraignment in person, you don't even have to post bail and wait for a refund. When the case is dismissed you go home, and no money exchanges hands. If you fight a ticket by mail/declaration, you have to prepay the fine, but the court in CA has been pretty good about sending a timely full refund once aquitted of the charges.
I talk the talk, therefore, since I want to change the system, I do fight my tickets in court and make the officer appear and probably earn some overtime at taxpayer expense. I wish everyone did this. If everyone fought their ticket rather than the current 5% or less, then the system would collapse and they'd be forced to change the revenue stream. Every court case lessens the profits of the traffic enforcement revenue machine. The more you can delay payment, the less profitable it is for them. The system takes their pound of flesh out of you even when you win (by wasting hours of your time and multiple visits to the courthouse); I make sure to return the favor and exert as much "cost" on the prosecution as possible, even when I lose.
The trick is to not drive so as to draw attention to yourself. And yes, a driving record full of previous citations might very well result in another one the next time you get stopped. It's not retalitory, it's just that you have yet to learn the lesson.
What lesson is there to learn? Lately, 2 of my last 3 speeding tickets were for 70 MPH on a wide 4 lane (2 each way) DIVIDED highway with perfect weather and visibility; one in CA, one in Nevada. I've learned that in order to avoid speeding tickets one should stay UNDER 15 over the SL, but if I'm getting tickets for going 70 on a perfectly good DIVIDED highway with light traffic, then I'll just get tickets. The problem is underposted speed limits.
It is hard to blend in when traffic is light. Sometimes you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time and all alone; a situation ripe for being picked on. Certainly, there should be a distinction between a record full of citations, and a record full of citations that were thrown out in court.
The best thing you can do to avoid getting tickets is to not drive at all. Even if you ALWAYS drive under the speed limit you can be singled out to meet a "quota" or an officer could have pulled you over and misidentified you as the speeding car when it was the OTHER gray Honda that was the speeder or violator.
What I've noticed is that all of the tickets had ZERO to do with safety, and everything to do with letting your guard against the CHP down. Also, a couple false allegations, maybe 1 or 2 legitimate versions, and all of a sudden your record looks bad and it's a compounding negative effect. A downward spiral if you will.
Conclusion: 1) It's best to not drive if you never want a ticket. 2) If you do drive, it's best NEVER to get a ticket. 3) If you do get a ticket, it's best to fight it and defeat it, whether it's legitimate or not, because the next one might be the opposite.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Insurance companies are about as reputable as your local illicit drug dealer.
I think the best way to get them to act more responsible would be for more good drivers to self-insure by posting a bond.
Otherwise, good drivers get rates hiked by meaningless citations when it is the bad drivers that are causing accidents and incurring costs for the insurance company.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Good point about the cop checking your record when they pull you over. I'm going to use that if I get stopped cruising to Chattanooga next week. "Please don't spoil my perfect record".
I've heard that that can work! Of course, if the officer has drunk from the Kool-Aid and actually believes he's doing a public service to improve safety by writing a speeding ticket, he's unlikely to budge if your 15 or more over the SL.
At the last traffic school I went to (should call it traffic violators bribery payoff to court so insurance doesn't find out) I think only 2 of the speeding tickets (out of 30 students) were for 14 or less MPH over the SL). The threshold in CA is 15 MPH.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Without warning an idiot suddenly pulled out from the curb without looking forcing me to react instantly and slam on my brakes.
There is ZERO question in my mind that had I been going 35 instead of 25 I would have hit him. As it was, it was VERY close.
Well, I don't want to throw fuel on this fire, but IMO, in a situation like this, if you had been doing 35 instead of 25 and hit the buffoon, I'd say you both contributed to it. You, for exceeding the speed limit, and the other guy, for not looking before pulling out. So, I'd say speed would have contributed to the accident, but was not the sole cause.
And, in most cases, I'm sure that it can be argued that there really are multiple causes of an accident, rather than one sole source. But, the insurance company and the police who write up the accident report won't look at it that way. They're going to try and assign blame to whomever was most at fault. If the guy got out far enough that you rear-ended him, it would be your fault. If it was so close that you ended up hitting him broadside, it would most likely be his fault, but the further back on his car that you hit him, the more iffy it would be.
It really is a shame that, in any given accident, they don't assign partial blame. Maybe in some instances they do, though?
Years ago, one of my cousins was in an accident in his mother's Duster, when someone ran a red light. Well, he got all these delusions of grandeur, thinking he was gonna sue for hundreds of thousands of $ (this was aorund 1981, when that was a lot of money), and that his ship came in. But then, a dirty little truth came out. Turns out that he stomped on it and took off the split second the light turned green, and got into a wreck with a car that ran a red light. Now, I don't know who exactly hit whom, but he was found partly to blame, and his windfall was suddenly reduced to $200 per week, not indexed to inflation, and running out when he turned 65.
Turns out that he stomped on it and took off the split second the light turned green, and got into a wreck with a car that ran a red light
That's an entirely different situation than the one IsellHonda's originally described. A light does not give you 100% authority to the right away. A driver must exhibit due diligence in looking before going forward and making sure the path is clear! Just having the green light doesn't make you 100% safe from blame; you still have to look out!
In the other situation I think attributing partial blame due to speed is just plain wrong for the following reasons: 1) 35 MPH may not have exceeded the speed limit under prima facie rules for the basic speed law. The sign might suggest 25 MPH as the limit but the basic speed law in CA allows the limit to increase for optimum conditions (good weather, light traffic, wide lanes, good visibility). You have to actually be driving an UNSAFE speed in order to be speeding by definition, up to 65 MPH, at which point the basic speed law ceases to exist and it's called a MAXIMUM speed law in which case you may never exceed it under any circumstances. 2) If he was clearly visible and was going 35 mph (and didn't speed up suddenly) then it is simply a matter of the other guy failing to yield the right of way and he is 100% to blame. 3) If you take away the unsubstantiated speeding there may or may not have been an accident regardless; who knows. Take away the failure to yield right away and there is no accident! 4) How do you prove he was "speeding" at 35 MPH absent an admission or self incrimination testimony?
I just can't see someone "speeding" as being an excuse for someone else to cause an accident with them, even a partial one. You could say speeding CONTRIBUTED to the occurrence of the accident, but it did not cause it, not even partially!
Now if they came around a blind curve at rip roaring speed that the other person couldn't have POSSIBLY seen even with proper due diligence, that would be different.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
he's unlikely to budge if your 15 or more over the SL.
It's rare that I'm more than 6 or 8 over, sometimes 10 mph. Hopefully I'm never the rabbit.
We need to get Pf_flyer in here to tell his cop story - I forget why he was pulled over, but when the cop walked up to the window, he flipped open his billfold and said "Beam me up, Scotty". The cop must have been a Trekker because after he quit laughing, he let Sneakers go.
It really is a shame that, in any given accident, they don't assign partial blame. Maybe in some instances they do, though?
That's happening more and more, but not in the logical manner you express. More like, you're not the primary fault, but you were there so that's 25%. In fact in some states if your parked car gets sideswiped you may still be held for 10% or more just because the car was there. You're lawyer legislators at work!
If the speed limit is 65 and I get pulled over going 75, then shame on me!
I don't care how clear and dry the road was or how good of a condition my car is in or how good of a driver I am. I took a chance, I rolled the dice, I broke the law and I'll accept my ticket.
I'm not going to whine about how the cop picked on "poor me" or take it to court. 'm not going to come to some forum and complain that the system is all wrong.
I knew the speed limit and I chose to break the law!
Now, if the day ever comes that I get an undeserved ticket, that's another story. In my former life I made quite a few court appearances and I think I know how to present my case.
But, until that day happens I will continue to accept personal responsibility for my actions!
I knew the speed limit and I chose to break the law!
Does it help if you didn't know the speed limit? Ignorance of the law doesn't help your defense in CA. I'll admit I was SHOCKED to find out the limit was 50 MPH in Nevada on Interstate 50. I'd of figured it was 60 or 65, and I was going 70. When he told me the speed limit was 50 I knew why he was patrolling that area right then and there. I really never noticed any signs that said 50.
If the speed limit is not supported by a traffic and engineering survey that corresponds to the 85th percentile, your darn right I'll break the "law." If only to point out they broke the law with the low setting of the speed limit in the first place.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
People do need to see that laws aren't right just because they have been made into laws, and that writing your local bought and paid for legislator is a waste of effort.
Yes, but the price paid might be higher for taxpayers than the person fined, as courts sometimes have a way of correcting improper legislation from incompetent legislatures.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
And you'll pay the price for doing so if you get caught. Cause. Effect. No whining.
The right to whine is guaranteed under the first amendment of the Constitution, I believe. :P
And, if enough people "whine" about it, laws get changed.
Honestly, I'd have more respect for the police if they'd set up speed traps in residential neighborhoods, where speeding is truly dangerous. But no, instead they'll go out on the highways and do it, because the pickings are easier, like shooting fish in a barrel.
Hell, I've almost been hit BY the police, speeding through my neighborhood, on the way to set up their speed traps out on the highways! :mad:
FWIW, my last speeding ticket was in 2005. I was doing 78 in a 65 mph zone. So was everybody else, though. I know, there's the old cliche that just because everybody's doing it doesn't make it right, but if you're going with the flow at 78, technically breaking the law, you're actually acting in a safer manner than if you decided to do 65 when everybody else wanted to do 78.
Plus, this was in southern VA, so more than likely my out-of-state plates made me stick out like Archie Bunker in a Toyota showroom!
Dumb laws geared to ticket revenue may help gov pocketbooks today, but they also erode public trust in the system and respect toward the gov and police. Tactically, smart perhaps, strategically - stupid in the long run.
Honestly, I'd have more respect for the police if they'd set up speed traps in residential neighborhoods, where speeding is truly dangerous. But no, instead they'll go out on the highways and do it, because the pickings are easier, like shooting fish in a barrel.
It's called laziness, they'd all rather hide behind a bush somewhere and pickoff cars that are driving safely but technically illegally than actually do something worthwhile like driving around and actively looking for bad unsafe drivers. The lazyness is so potent that everyone has noticed it. Do officer's actually realize how obvious it is?
Must be a union job. Oh wait, it is!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Not knowing the speed limit is no excuse and I'm sure there were signs posted that you just didn't notice.
So, I think what you are saying is if you happen not to like a speed limit that you feel it's OK to drive at whatever speed you think it should have been set at?
I would love to hear you present that theory to a judge!
So, I think what you are saying is if you happen not to like a speed limit that you feel it's OK to drive at whatever speed you think it should have been set at?
I would love to hear you present that theory to a judge!
Yeah, nevermind the fact the judge probably went down that same stretch of road on his way to work that morning, well over the speed limit, but the cop at the speed trap recognized his car, he waved him on through! :P
Oh, and I do have to confess, I did get a speeding ticket more recently than 2005, but had forgotten about it, because it was photo radar. Got two of 'em, in fact. Both were $40 tickets. One was 45 in a 30 mph zone. I felt bad about that one, because I really didn't realize I was going that fast. Plus, I remembered about 25+ years before, berating my stepdad for speeding through that same neighborhood! So yeah, I totally deserved that one.
The other was 37 in a 25 zone, I think. But it was a wide 4-lane road with a chicken lane down the middle, so IMO the speed was set artificially low.
Time to buy a Fresnel lens I guess. Or start driving the pickup and leaving the tailgate down! :shades:
Dumb laws geared to ticket revenue may help gov pocketbooks today, but they also erode public trust in the system and respect toward the gov and police. Tactically, smart perhaps, strategically - stupid in the long run.
100% agreed. One of the most intelligent posts I've seen lately.
In the motions I request pre-trial for traffic cases, I always point out to the judge in the written motion (to remind them of course) that:
1) The judge should be careful and strive to be fair and impartial as most people have their only exposure and experience with the American Justice system through traffic court. Therefore, a person's opinion of the Nation's justice system will probably be based entirely on their experience with it through traffic court. 2) If a person gets shafted and treated unfair by the court, it will generate nothing but contempt for those who enforce such laws. 3) Laws that are seen as arbitrary and unfair generate contempt, disrespect, and anger directed toward those who enforce such laws. 4) The conclusion is that the judge must uphold and enforce all laws and rules of the court (such as penal codes relating to the discovery motion for evidence) with the same enthusiasm and energy as the original charge by the prosecution.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
So, I think what you are saying is if you happen not to like a speed limit that you feel it's OK to drive at whatever speed you think it should have been set at?
I think millions of drivers do that every day as they vote with their right foots and 90% of the driver's out there routinely "break the law" of speeding.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
It's called laziness, they'd all rather hide behind a bush
Seems to me it'd be easier (and safer) to spot infractions if you aren't also trying to drive and navigate and deal with the radio at the same time. Park and pick 'em off.
Good point there...I wonder how much taxpayer money is wasted in courts headed by highly paid judges for undefendable traffic fines. Almost sounds like a make work project for the public sector.
The point is that the situation was caused because the two of you were at that particular spot at that particular time. Had one of you, or both of you been in different locations, nothing would have happened.
So going a few miles per hour faster (or slower) prior to the incident would have placed you somewhere else, thus preventing that particular incident.
That's true. Had I been going faster I probably would have hit him. If I was going a LOT faster he may have hit the car behind me or he may have hit nothing at all. I was in traffic and really had no choice.
My point was, had I been going five miles an hour faster, there is no doubt in my mind that I would have hit him.
I just wish there had been a cop around to see that happen.
Then again, if you'd of been going 5 MPH faster, perhaps he'd of thought twice about cutting you off in that manner and would have yielded the right of way. If you say he didn't see you, maybe he'd of seen you if you were going faster.
My 90% of drivers out there speed is based on general observation and is a rounded number. It is based on CA drivers, mainly from observation in San Diego and Sacramento counties. You can say it is 90% plus or minus 20% for a 2 standard deviation confidence interval :P
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Then again, if you'd of been going 5 MPH faster, perhaps he'd of thought twice about cutting you off in that manner and would have yielded the right of way. If you say he didn't see you, maybe he'd of seen you if you were going faster.
If the guy who pulled out in front of Isellhondas was actually looking, he might have hesitated if Isell was going faster. However, I have the feeling the dude just pulled out without looking at all...I see people do that all the time. And often, it's hard to judge just how fast an oncoming vehicle is going, so people will pull out in front of you, thinking that you're not going as fast as you are.
Another problem, IMO, is the way the laws are written. If you rear-end somebody, it's almost ALWAYS your fault. So, if someone wants to pull out in front of you, as long as they can get fully out so that you'll rear-end them rather than broadside them, they can go as slow as they want to, and there's really nothing you can do about it. If a cop was to see it, he might write them a ticket for failure to yield right-of-way, but, as we all know, there's never a cop around when you need one!
I'll confess though, that years ago, I ran someone off the road who tried to do that to me. I had a green light, and some little foreign car (can't remember what now) decided to run its red light and make a right turn onto the road in front of me. There was nothing behind me for as far as the eye could see, so it wouldn't have hurt that driver to wait the few seconds it would have taken me to pass and then pull out. But no, they just HAD to get out in front of me.
Well, I decided enough was enough, laid into the horn, and didn't let up on my speed. Driver of the other car ditched off of the road onto the grass, as I blew past.
Now I'll admit, what I did was kinda dangerous. However, the oncoming road ahead was clear, and if that car hadn't gotten out of the way, I was prepared to swerve around.
Those were back in my speeding ticket days. I'm more mellow now.
I'll admit, I've mellowed out too, a bit. In that incident I mentioned above, I was still delivering pizzas, and it was in my Grandmother's '85 LeSabre that she signed over to me after she lost her license, so I'm guessing it was in 1999/2000.
I can still get riled up on occasion, but not like I used to.
I have never needed to brake check anyone, nor ever really had the desire to do so. I have however, tailgated someone to teach them a lesson of what the left lane is for.
It is easier to get out of the way and let someone pass than it is to pass someone sometimes. The person that wants to block traffic and be tailgated has the advantage of escalating the situation if they wish to.
The person behind can't do anything but ram the car in front (if going around isn't feasible), which is a poor option, given that you'll always be found at fault for rear-ending.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Comments
Background, I'm a construction manager by education and trade. That includes some structural engineering, and architecture background. Which of course includes Calculus and Physics.
Experience:
17 years of driving experience, with zero AT-Fault accidents involving a vehicle other than my own, and only one accident where I wrecked my own car. Minimal not-at-fault accidents in those 17 years as well (all rear-enders from idiots that were unavoidable).
During those 17 years I imagine I've received maybe 10-12 tickets/citations. I imagine I've fought 10 or 11 of them in court, with a 6/11 win percentage. I've lost count to be honest, but I know I'm +1 over 50% for win percentage. I've been found not guilty and not just won by dismissal due to lack of prosecution.
I've extensively studied traffic laws, vehicle codes, and the criminal justice system in order to achieve this financially rewarding win percentage.
I'm a 5 years running member of the National Motorists Association (NMA).
I've lived long enough that one of those "not at fault" accidents was a police officer hitting my back bumper! The pleasure and satisfaction of knowing a traffic enforcment officer caused an accident before I ever have with another vehicle is immense. I've said for over 13 years that this would happen one day, a day before I ever cause an accident.
I've had some high performance driver's training and spent some good time on the track with quality instructors, and a tiny bit on autocrossing.
I've successfully taught 3 students how to drive and get their first license (all passed first attempt).
I do believe I'd make an expert witness for most courtrooms! LOL
I've been driving almost 40 years. Had a rough start as a teen, but have had exactly 1 moving violation in the last 32 years (5 over. Really.) Been driving emergency vehicles of nearly every size and description for all of those years.
Financially rewarding? Or just dodging a bullet now & then?
Your credibility still suffers, in my humble opinion.
The next time I have a possibility of an accident happening, I will check first and will be sure to choose the
"not my fault" option. ROFLMAO
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If you had been going faster, that idiot would have been behind you, not in front of you.
So, had I been speeding I wouldn't have had a problem with him?
You sound like another poster here.
Which can and is only be countered by the only "drivel" I've seen posted in these forums.
I figure I get a ticket about once every 2 years. I think I'm on the black list. When they run my license plate they see all the "not guilty verdicts" and "took to court" notations and they like to pull me over and give me another BS ticket. I'm sure some of them were retaliatory attacks in part. I'm 99.9% positive they keep too many records on their computers. All dismissed or not guilty cases should be removed from the record in their entirety as they never should have been written in the first place. They basically amount to fraudulent allegations and harrassment.
Therefore, I do not advise getting citations only to fight them in court. Even if you are successful you are likely to be the target of passive and active retribution from the "force!"
Also, one time I was pulled over for ONE citation which was BS, and then after arguing with the officer over my right to force him to give me the County Seat for my court appearance location/address, he decided to "show me and teach me a lesson" and add a second charge to citation AFTER I had already signed the ticket; then handed it back to me.
The judge found me guilty for the first offense but not guilty on the second. I'll never know why, but it might of had to do with the fact the officer didn't lie and commit perjury like them normally do in court; he actually admitted under questioning he did add the 2nd violation after I signed the ticket.
Financially rewarding? Or just dodging a bullet now & then?
You've been lucky. You don't mention how many times you've been pulled over and let off the hook with a warning. For me, that never happens (read above about retaliatory citations).
Our justice system is rotten and corrupt, but it probably is the fairest in the world. If you get a reasonable judge you can get a fair trial. A fair judge in traffic court is very hard to get, but it does happen. I don't call it dodging a bullet. I believe in the justice system to remove false allegations. Dodging a bullet would be if you were plainly guilty and the officer didn't show up so you were let off the hook.
When you are falsely accused I call it Karma against the force. Not guilty verdicts tend to prove there's a problem with traffic enforcment in CA, not my driving. No accidents on my record also support that statement.
I'll give you that dismissals prove little, and that is usually the way you defeat a ticket since if the officer shows, you are pretty much doomed unless pretrial proceedings went well for you.
But here's what I've found:
The officers show up when they have a near bulletproof case and you are most definitely guilty (like with the maximum speed law, if your going 65.1 MPH or more in CA, you are guilty, and it doesn't matter if your driving away from a nuclear explosion; you are guilty unless it is posted at 70, in which case it is 70.1 or more).
When they write complete BS tickets, questionable logic tickets, poor judgment (I've found most officers lack good judgement and powers of observation) I think they note this to themselves on the ticket somehow, and they ALWAYS fail to show up at these trials.
Everytime I've gone to court fully prepared to ream them through and through and poke giant sized holes in their allegations, they fail to show.
When I know my case is weak and probably subconsciously avoid spending too much time on preparation, go in less than fully prepared to defend myself, and get rocked by an experienced witness as the Officer has testified probably 1,000 times or more in court, and is getting really good at it. They always seem to show at those.
It cannot be a coincidence as I've noticed this pattern over an over. Or maybe Karma is for real?
Driver error is the problem.
Texting while driving is a driver error that could lead to an accident.
Cell phone usage falls into that category.
A blown tire that causes an accident could be an exception, if and only if:
1) the tire was properly inflated.
2) the tire was properly installed/maintained.
3) the tire was not overused/worn out.
4) the tire didn't have pre-existing and noticeable upon visual inspection bulges, bubbles, irregular wear, punctures.
I lived the bulk of my years in So. California and I NEVER ONCE recieved a "meaningless" ticket nor did a cop ever pick on me nor did I suffer a "false allegation"
EVERY TICKET I ever recieved was richly deserved. I had a fast car, not a great deal of sense in those early days and I was a street racer.
I never had an accident because I was LUCKY!
If you show a cop an attitude, you will NEVER get a warning!
I really think you attribute too much to luck there. Some people don't even believe in luck. However, a little luck can definitely keep you out of "not at fault" accidents. Street racing is dangerous and in some ways there you were lucky.
For all intents and purposes I have about a 50% win percentage in challenging tickets in a court of law (and I seem to challenge about 80% of them). If they were all legitimate tickets, I think the percentage would be much higher.
Where you were lucky is in never receving a meaningless ticket or false allegation. Now that is LUCKY.
I guess the recession has led to more shenanigans by law enforcement.
I never show a cop any attitude until AFTER he gives me a citation to sign. I'm very pleasant and cooperative in hopes to get a warning of some sort, but once the ticket is handed over, all bets are off and I'm already building my case and defense right then and there, perhaps with even questions to the officer.
I never got a RADAR speeding ticket until moving to San Diego.
I never got pulled over while driving my parents Camry around for 2 years, no matter how fast I drove. What you drive can affect the attention you get from law enforcement. They didn't like Neons, they didn't like my Accord Coupe and they don't much care for my A3 either, but the Camry was ticket proof.
Maybe it was luck :P
Tickets? Aside from the 'rough start' I mentioned before: Two.
Deserved? 1 definitely, 1 questionable.
Span between the two? 32 years.
The trick is to not drive so as to draw attention to yourself. And yes, a driving record full of previous citations might very well result in another one the next time you get stopped. It's not retalitory, it's just that you have yet to learn the lesson.
I have better things to do with my time & money than go to court & pay fines or attorney's fees.
I might could have snuck through that California stop if two canoes weren't piled on top of the car. Kind of hard to miss. The Caddy I creamed in '79; definitely deserved the failure to yield on that one. Two tickets. One other stop by a federal cop on the Natchez Trace, but that hardly counts since I was 13 and was simply told to switch places and let my dad drive.
Never a speeding ticket, or even stopped for speeding. Minivans, wagons - that's the ticket. :shades:
Good point about the cop checking your record when they pull you over. I'm going to use that if I get stopped cruising to Chattanooga next week. "Please don't spoil my perfect record".
I knew red sports cars got more tickets but don't go for bright yellow either! However, my husband with 1 out of state ticket in his life and no accidents that where his fault has to pay more for insurance than I do and he drives an 2002 Honda and we're both over forty. Doesn't make sense to me since I have tickets and 1 accident (though contested) that was my fault. :confuse:
I do too! Believe me, the reason I hate the CHP and other traffic enforcement cops so much is when I get a ticket I know how time consuming it'll be to have to fight it. Cost (if you exlude time, gas, car usage is zero). When you are found not guilty or have your case dismissed, there is no fine and there is no attorney fee as I've always defended myself.
Typically, if you go into arraignment in person, you don't even have to post bail and wait for a refund. When the case is dismissed you go home, and no money exchanges hands. If you fight a ticket by mail/declaration, you have to prepay the fine, but the court in CA has been pretty good about sending a timely full refund once aquitted of the charges.
I talk the talk, therefore, since I want to change the system, I do fight my tickets in court and make the officer appear and probably earn some overtime at taxpayer expense. I wish everyone did this. If everyone fought their ticket rather than the current 5% or less, then the system would collapse and they'd be forced to change the revenue stream. Every court case lessens the profits of the traffic enforcement revenue machine. The more you can delay payment, the less profitable it is for them. The system takes their pound of flesh out of you even when you win (by wasting hours of your time and multiple visits to the courthouse); I make sure to return the favor and exert as much "cost" on the prosecution as possible, even when I lose.
The trick is to not drive so as to draw attention to yourself. And yes, a driving record full of previous citations might very well result in another one the next time you get stopped. It's not retalitory, it's just that you have yet to learn the lesson.
What lesson is there to learn? Lately, 2 of my last 3 speeding tickets were for 70 MPH on a wide 4 lane (2 each way) DIVIDED highway with perfect weather and visibility; one in CA, one in Nevada. I've learned that in order to avoid speeding tickets one should stay UNDER 15 over the SL, but if I'm getting tickets for going 70 on a perfectly good DIVIDED highway with light traffic, then I'll just get tickets. The problem is underposted speed limits.
It is hard to blend in when traffic is light. Sometimes you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time and all alone; a situation ripe for being picked on. Certainly, there should be a distinction between a record full of citations, and a record full of citations that were thrown out in court.
The best thing you can do to avoid getting tickets is to not drive at all. Even if you ALWAYS drive under the speed limit you can be singled out to meet a "quota" or an officer could have pulled you over and misidentified you as the speeding car when it was the OTHER gray Honda that was the speeder or violator.
What I've noticed is that all of the tickets had ZERO to do with safety, and everything to do with letting your guard against the CHP down. Also, a couple false allegations, maybe 1 or 2 legitimate versions, and all of a sudden your record looks bad and it's a compounding negative effect. A downward spiral if you will.
Conclusion:
1) It's best to not drive if you never want a ticket.
2) If you do drive, it's best NEVER to get a ticket.
3) If you do get a ticket, it's best to fight it and defeat it, whether it's legitimate or not, because the next one might be the opposite.
I think the best way to get them to act more responsible would be for more good drivers to self-insure by posting a bond.
Otherwise, good drivers get rates hiked by meaningless citations when it is the bad drivers that are causing accidents and incurring costs for the insurance company.
I've heard that that can work! Of course, if the officer has drunk from the Kool-Aid and actually believes he's doing a public service to improve safety by writing a speeding ticket, he's unlikely to budge if your 15 or more over the SL.
At the last traffic school I went to (should call it traffic violators bribery payoff to court so insurance doesn't find out) I think only 2 of the speeding tickets (out of 30 students) were for 14 or less MPH over the SL). The threshold in CA is 15 MPH.
There is ZERO question in my mind that had I been going 35 instead of 25 I would have hit him. As it was, it was VERY close.
Well, I don't want to throw fuel on this fire, but IMO, in a situation like this, if you had been doing 35 instead of 25 and hit the buffoon, I'd say you both contributed to it. You, for exceeding the speed limit, and the other guy, for not looking before pulling out. So, I'd say speed would have contributed to the accident, but was not the sole cause.
And, in most cases, I'm sure that it can be argued that there really are multiple causes of an accident, rather than one sole source. But, the insurance company and the police who write up the accident report won't look at it that way. They're going to try and assign blame to whomever was most at fault. If the guy got out far enough that you rear-ended him, it would be your fault. If it was so close that you ended up hitting him broadside, it would most likely be his fault, but the further back on his car that you hit him, the more iffy it would be.
It really is a shame that, in any given accident, they don't assign partial blame. Maybe in some instances they do, though?
Years ago, one of my cousins was in an accident in his mother's Duster, when someone ran a red light. Well, he got all these delusions of grandeur, thinking he was gonna sue for hundreds of thousands of $ (this was aorund 1981, when that was a lot of money), and that his ship came in. But then, a dirty little truth came out. Turns out that he stomped on it and took off the split second the light turned green, and got into a wreck with a car that ran a red light. Now, I don't know who exactly hit whom, but he was found partly to blame, and his windfall was suddenly reduced to $200 per week, not indexed to inflation, and running out when he turned 65.
He lives in his mother's basement now.
That's an entirely different situation than the one IsellHonda's originally described. A light does not give you 100% authority to the right away. A driver must exhibit due diligence in looking before going forward and making sure the path is clear! Just having the green light doesn't make you 100% safe from blame; you still have to look out!
In the other situation I think attributing partial blame due to speed is just plain wrong for the following reasons:
1) 35 MPH may not have exceeded the speed limit under prima facie rules for the basic speed law. The sign might suggest 25 MPH as the limit but the basic speed law in CA allows the limit to increase for optimum conditions (good weather, light traffic, wide lanes, good visibility). You have to actually be driving an UNSAFE speed in order to be speeding by definition, up to 65 MPH, at which point the basic speed law ceases to exist and it's called a MAXIMUM speed law in which case you may never exceed it under any circumstances.
2) If he was clearly visible and was going 35 mph (and didn't speed up suddenly) then it is simply a matter of the other guy failing to yield the right of way and he is 100% to blame.
3) If you take away the unsubstantiated speeding there may or may not have been an accident regardless; who knows. Take away the failure to yield right away and there is no accident!
4) How do you prove he was "speeding" at 35 MPH absent an admission or self incrimination testimony?
I just can't see someone "speeding" as being an excuse for someone else to cause an accident with them, even a partial one. You could say speeding CONTRIBUTED to the occurrence of the accident, but it did not cause it, not even partially!
Now if they came around a blind curve at rip roaring speed that the other person couldn't have POSSIBLY seen even with proper due diligence, that would be different.
It's rare that I'm more than 6 or 8 over, sometimes 10 mph. Hopefully I'm never the rabbit.
We need to get Pf_flyer in here to tell his cop story - I forget why he was pulled over, but when the cop walked up to the window, he flipped open his billfold and said "Beam me up, Scotty". The cop must have been a Trekker because after he quit laughing, he let Sneakers go.
That's happening more and more, but not in the logical manner you express. More like, you're not the primary fault, but you were there so that's 25%. In fact in some states if your parked car gets sideswiped you may still be held for 10% or more just because the car was there. You're lawyer legislators at work!
I don't care how clear and dry the road was or how good of a condition my car is in or how good of a driver I am. I took a chance, I rolled the dice, I broke the law and I'll accept my ticket.
I'm not going to whine about how the cop picked on "poor me" or take it to court. 'm not going to come to some forum and complain that the system is all wrong.
I knew the speed limit and I chose to break the law!
Now, if the day ever comes that I get an undeserved ticket, that's another story. In my former life I made quite a few court appearances and I think I know how to present my case.
But, until that day happens I will continue to accept personal responsibility for my actions!
Does it help if you didn't know the speed limit? Ignorance of the law doesn't help your defense in CA. I'll admit I was SHOCKED to find out the limit was 50 MPH in Nevada on Interstate 50. I'd of figured it was 60 or 65, and I was going 70. When he told me the speed limit was 50 I knew why he was patrolling that area right then and there. I really never noticed any signs that said 50.
If the speed limit is not supported by a traffic and engineering survey that corresponds to the 85th percentile, your darn right I'll break the "law." If only to point out they broke the law with the low setting of the speed limit in the first place.
And you'll pay the price for doing so if you get caught. Cause. Effect.
No whining.
No whining.
The right to whine is guaranteed under the first amendment of the Constitution, I believe. :P
And, if enough people "whine" about it, laws get changed.
Honestly, I'd have more respect for the police if they'd set up speed traps in residential neighborhoods, where speeding is truly dangerous. But no, instead they'll go out on the highways and do it, because the pickings are easier, like shooting fish in a barrel.
Hell, I've almost been hit BY the police, speeding through my neighborhood, on the way to set up their speed traps out on the highways! :mad:
FWIW, my last speeding ticket was in 2005. I was doing 78 in a 65 mph zone. So was everybody else, though. I know, there's the old cliche that just because everybody's doing it doesn't make it right, but if you're going with the flow at 78, technically breaking the law, you're actually acting in a safer manner than if you decided to do 65 when everybody else wanted to do 78.
Plus, this was in southern VA, so more than likely my out-of-state plates made me stick out like Archie Bunker in a Toyota showroom!
It's called laziness, they'd all rather hide behind a bush somewhere and pickoff cars that are driving safely but technically illegally than actually do something worthwhile like driving around and actively looking for bad unsafe drivers. The lazyness is so potent that everyone has noticed it. Do officer's actually realize how obvious it is?
Must be a union job. Oh wait, it is!
So, I think what you are saying is if you happen not to like a speed limit that you feel it's OK to drive at whatever speed you think it should have been set at?
I would love to hear you present that theory to a judge!
I would love to hear you present that theory to a judge!
Yeah, nevermind the fact the judge probably went down that same stretch of road on his way to work that morning, well over the speed limit, but the cop at the speed trap recognized his car, he waved him on through! :P
Oh, and I do have to confess, I did get a speeding ticket more recently than 2005, but had forgotten about it, because it was photo radar. Got two of 'em, in fact. Both were $40 tickets. One was 45 in a 30 mph zone. I felt bad about that one, because I really didn't realize I was going that fast. Plus, I remembered about 25+ years before, berating my stepdad for speeding through that same neighborhood!
The other was 37 in a 25 zone, I think. But it was a wide 4-lane road with a chicken lane down the middle, so IMO the speed was set artificially low.
Time to buy a Fresnel lens I guess. Or start driving the pickup and leaving the tailgate down! :shades:
100% agreed. One of the most intelligent posts I've seen lately.
In the motions I request pre-trial for traffic cases, I always point out to the judge in the written motion (to remind them of course) that:
1) The judge should be careful and strive to be fair and impartial as most people have their only exposure and experience with the American Justice system through traffic court. Therefore, a person's opinion of the Nation's justice system will probably be based entirely on their experience with it through traffic court.
2) If a person gets shafted and treated unfair by the court, it will generate nothing but contempt for those who enforce such laws.
3) Laws that are seen as arbitrary and unfair generate contempt, disrespect, and anger directed toward those who enforce such laws.
4) The conclusion is that the judge must uphold and enforce all laws and rules of the court (such as penal codes relating to the discovery motion for evidence) with the same enthusiasm and energy as the original charge by the prosecution.
I think millions of drivers do that every day as they vote with their right foots and 90% of the driver's out there routinely "break the law" of speeding.
Seems to me it'd be easier (and safer) to spot infractions if you aren't also trying to drive and navigate and deal with the radio at the same time. Park and pick 'em off.
I sometimes creep a bit over the speed limit but I don't do this on purpose nor do I think that 90% of other drivers do either.
So, I give up! Speed all you want and spend as much time in court as you see fit.
You can't change the world because you don't happen to like the rules.
So going a few miles per hour faster (or slower) prior to the incident would have placed you somewhere else, thus preventing that particular incident.
My point was, had I been going five miles an hour faster, there is no doubt in my mind that I would have hit him.
I just wish there had been a cop around to see that happen.
My 90% of drivers out there speed is based on general observation and is a rounded number. It is based on CA drivers, mainly from observation in San Diego and Sacramento counties. You can say it is 90% plus or minus 20% for a 2 standard deviation confidence interval :P
If the guy who pulled out in front of Isellhondas was actually looking, he might have hesitated if Isell was going faster. However, I have the feeling the dude just pulled out without looking at all...I see people do that all the time. And often, it's hard to judge just how fast an oncoming vehicle is going, so people will pull out in front of you, thinking that you're not going as fast as you are.
Another problem, IMO, is the way the laws are written. If you rear-end somebody, it's almost ALWAYS your fault. So, if someone wants to pull out in front of you, as long as they can get fully out so that you'll rear-end them rather than broadside them, they can go as slow as they want to, and there's really nothing you can do about it. If a cop was to see it, he might write them a ticket for failure to yield right-of-way, but, as we all know, there's never a cop around when you need one!
I'll confess though, that years ago, I ran someone off the road who tried to do that to me. I had a green light, and some little foreign car (can't remember what now) decided to run its red light and make a right turn onto the road in front of me. There was nothing behind me for as far as the eye could see, so it wouldn't have hurt that driver to wait the few seconds it would have taken me to pass and then pull out. But no, they just HAD to get out in front of me.
Well, I decided enough was enough, laid into the horn, and didn't let up on my speed. Driver of the other car ditched off of the road onto the grass, as I blew past.
Now I'll admit, what I did was kinda dangerous. However, the oncoming road ahead was clear, and if that car hadn't gotten out of the way, I was prepared to swerve around.
I too have "taught people lessons". I have"brake checked" tailgaters and raised my "fingers" to those who deserved it.
Those were back in my speeding ticket days. I'm more mellow now.
I'll admit, I've mellowed out too, a bit. In that incident I mentioned above, I was still delivering pizzas, and it was in my Grandmother's '85 LeSabre that she signed over to me after she lost her license, so I'm guessing it was in 1999/2000.
I can still get riled up on occasion, but not like I used to.
It is easier to get out of the way and let someone pass than it is to pass someone sometimes. The person that wants to block traffic and be tailgated has the advantage of escalating the situation if they wish to.
The person behind can't do anything but ram the car in front (if going around isn't feasible), which is a poor option, given that you'll always be found at fault for rear-ending.