Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics

gee35coupe · December 2006

In Ga...Fines can't be charged until you are going at least 10 mph over. So you probably won't be gettijng a ticket until at least 13 over. Makes sense to me. I would hate to get a ticket for 5 over. There's at least that much drift depending on terrain.

rayainsw · December 2006

"In Ga...Fines can't be charged until you are going at least 10 mph over. So you probably won't be gettijng a ticket until at least 13 over"

Source, please?
Thanks,
- Ray
Driving 90+% in Georgia....

fintail · December 2006

Funny story on the news tonight about some red light cameras in Seattle (in the city). Apparently the citations are thrown out of the registered owners signs an affidavit stating they weren't behind the wheel. They don't have to name a driver. Easy loophole.

fintail · December 2006

It's only illegal if you get caught, right?

gee35coupe · December 2006

http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/laws.html
Says no fine for 5 over.

http://atlantalaw.ejwassoc.com/traffic_offenses.php
Says no points until 15 over

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/GaCode/?title=40&chapter=6
I was wrong about the no ticket til 10 mph. But they can't levy a fine for more than $25 until then. Probably not even worthe the paperwork.

rayainsw · December 2006

I see.
Thanks for those links!
- Ray
Who MAY need to recalibrate that right foot - slightly....

scape2 · March 2007

is wrong.. You are guilty before proving innocence. This happened to my wife. She was coming home and was in the slow lane exiting the freeway doing about 50mph. There was a whole line of cars exiting this ramp. As she was exiting she noticed an officer with his lights on and he was after her!@ She was surprised and pulled over. The officer told her he clocked her doing 70MPH!!?? She asked the officer how could I be doing 70 in an exit lane with cars all around me doing 40-50 and slowing down?? The officer gave here a ticket and told her to see the judge!!?? Nice huh??
I spoke with an officer friend and he said this was wrong and the officer probably lost is laser tag and just picked my wife out of the group of cars!! Needless to say my wife went to court and tried to explain to the judge, but was still fined at a lower rate. Love this system :sick:

tpe · March 2007

The traffic system definitely doesn't play by the same rules as our regular judicial system. As you said, "guilty until proven innocent". And how can a person prove himself innocent? So basically we're all at the mercy of the cops and we just have to hope we don't run across one that's having a bad day. The rational that people use for defending this system is that the government can essentially set any rules they want because driving is a privilege, not a right. So essentially when you are driving you have agreed to suspend some of your rights. I personally think its BS but that's what we've got.

PF_Flyer · March 2007

It's not so much that you're guilty until proven innocent on a traffic ticket. From a Wikipedia entry on summary offence..

In the law of many common law jurisdictions, a summary offence (or summary offense) is an offence which can be tried without an indictment. In practice, this often means a trial without a jury, jury trials being reserved for indictable offences. Summary offences are often "petty crimes" or crimes that are not considered very severe such as most driving offences.

Summary offences have a length of time which they are valid on a State's recordkeeping. In most states, summary offences last 5-7 years.

It's not "different than the regular legal system". It IS the legal system. Your right is to have a trial by magistrate or judge.

I've had 3 tickets in the last 30 years. Did they all tick me off? Yep. I got it for hitting 50 going downhill in an area where a 35 zone changed to a 45, and 40 in a 35, and 38 in a 25.

tpe · March 2007

I agree that driving offenses don't merit a jury trial. That's not the point I was making. The fundamental difference here is not the level of severity but who the burden of proof falls on. For a serious offense the state has to prove its case. For a traffic offense the alleged violator has to prove his innocence. That's impossible to do. I doubt there is anything in common law regarding this shift in the burden of proof based on the severity of the offense.

My last ticket was in Bluffton, SC. There is a notorious speed trap where the limit goes from 55 to 45 then almost immediately to 25 for about 200 yards then back to 45. I wasn't familiar with the area at the time but it turns out there is always a cop there. It really is like shooting fish in a barrel. I was pissed enough to show up in court for this one. There must have been a dozen people before me that all had received speeding tickets in the exact same spot. Most of them were going 15-25 mph over the limit. When they got in front of the judge he offered them the chance to plead guilty to 9 mph over the limit. Of course there was an additional fee involved. I was only clocked at 11 mph over the limit, the slowest of anyone there. When it was my turn before the judge I wasn't offered the same deal and was found guilty for 11 mph over the limit, which carried more points. I asked the judge why I didn't get the same offer. His response was that the previous cases have no bearing on my case. It does turn out that I was the only one with an out of state drivers license.

fintail · March 2007

But it's not about money!

210delray · March 2007

My wife was not ticketed by an officer for a traffic violation, but she was arrested and handcuffed, taken to the county jail, and booked for criminal trespassing. She did not trespass, but a disgruntled police officer, who was moonlighting by building a fence for a next-door neighbor with a grudge against us, lied in court saying that I did trespass (about 6 inches) into our the corner of the neighbor's 1-acre yard. The temperamental judge didn't like her version and convicted her (30 days suspended, no fine). So the justice system definitely has many flaws.

imidazol97 · March 2007

Wow. Where did this kind of thing happen? doesn't speak well for police or courts.

Officers are often described as testilying. I didn't believe that was general tenet when attorneys at a party talked about that decades ago in Cincy area. But lately it's come up again. One of our good friends is an officer. I do not believe he would ever do that but...

I recently was very relieved to worm out of jury pick after sitting most of the day and being about #18. I had a bad cold from which I was recovering and didn't want to be in the cold courtroom and had a doctor's appointment in two days for a recheck after almost pneumonia. I believed the defendant was guilty based on body language and other factors since I was well acquainted with his type and the techniques they used to feign innocence.

I also had to give the name of our friend in court who's an officer. But being multiple criminal charges many, many policement and FBI people would be testifying. I didn't want to have to choose between two sides for veracity judgements knowing many officers are not always truthful if they can justify it based on pragmatism.

PF_Flyer · March 2007

This discussion is about traffic laws, not law enforcement in general.

210delray · March 2007

This happened where we live currently - central VA.

In honoring the host's request to stay on topic, please see here and following posts (#7301-7311).

kylerenfrew · March 2007

Patrol cars are on an inevitable path to get more surveillance and video recording equipment.... and they're going to be unmarked. Intersections that have a bad history of red light runners and stretches of highway that have speeders are going to get more surveillance/camera equipment.

It's fun watching the shock of the road-rager when he found out the high-powered red Ford Mustang was festooned with video surveillance/data recording equipment and was a cop car! The suspect was pulled over by marked units and could forget about the "privilege" of driving for a long time.

Believe me, the "courtroom crybabies" really shut up when they see the evidence... It's great!

tpe · March 2007

and stretches of highway that have speeders are going to get more surveillance/camera equipment.

I'm sure that's correct but why should that be? If you start with the premise that a cop's job is to "protect and serve" then they should be deploying their resources in areas that have proven to be the most dangerous, which is not necessarily the same places that would generate the most tickets. If a high percentage of vehicles exceed the speed limit on a particular section of highway in all likelihood it's because the limit is artificially low and these people aren't doing anything that is unsafe. I've been driving on a road like this for the past 10 years. The limit is 55 but the flow of traffic is closer to 65. I've never seen an accident on this section of highway but cops routinely set up speed traps. The other day it was snowing and sleeting and no one was driving faster than 35. The signs still said 55 so why was everyone travelling slower? Is it possible that most people are capable of making their own decisions as to what is or is not a safe speed?

210delray · March 2007

Do you live in PA per chance? That state seems to have a penchant for futile attempts to maintain 55 mph limits on freeways that would be posted at 60 or 65 mph in neighboring states, let alone what western states would do.

tpe · March 2007

Do you live in PA per chance?

No but I live in Maryland so I drive in PA from time to time. Maryland used to have a governor named Schaefer. This was back when most states were starting to raise their limits from 55 to 65 or 70. Schaefer publicly stated that as long as he was governor the limit in Maryland would never go above 55. He was defiant on this saying he would veto any legislation that allowed this. What a public servant. Thankfully he's gone and our major highways have gone up to 65 mph. I'm not a big fan of set speed limits because what is a safe speed is dependent on a lot of changing variables, eg time of day, visibility, road conditions, traffic congestion, etc.. How can a static number ever accurately reflect a safe speed?

210delray · March 2007

I live in VA, so I remember Schaefer quite well -- he was a crusty old fellow with very strong opinions.

As for speed limits, ideally they should be variable like those on the NJ Turnpike. But cost constraints will prevent that from happening on large scale.

Still, in the absence of variable signs, fixed limits are superior to something like Montana's reinstatement of "reasonable and prudent" speed limits once the nationwide 65/55 maximum speed law was repealed back in 1995. The number on the sign is supposed to represent a safe maximum speed under optimum conditions -- clear, dry weather, in daylight, with no heavy traffic.

Montana had to institute fixed limits -- 75 mph on rural freeways -- because of the vagueness of "reasonable and prudent." Cops, motorists, and judges had differing opinions on what this meant. And speed junkies from around the country and even abroad were flocking to Montana to run at what they felt were "reasonable and prudent" speeds.

kylerenfrew · March 2007

You should know then.....

Maryland seems to be the leader in electronic surveillance-that's where I was when I saw the Mustang. I though the Mustang was one of the cars pulled over until I saw that it had the "lights" flashing also. I heard the other vehicle they use is a Ford SUV of some type.

The topside of the loop has those signs saying "Aggresive Driver Imaging Area" which I thought was just a bunch of hot air, something to get people to slow down and play nice. After seeing this whole deal with the Mustang, I've concluded they ain't just whistling dixie!

I'm all for it! Some of the stunts and sheer stupidity I've seen as a trucker with a lot of time on the roads. Traffic tickets exist for a reason!

Funny how people go into a tirade when they get a ticket from a cop, but conveniently forget about the other part of the job. The cop is there, usually first responder to vehicle entrapment with your bones all cattywumpus, they never get any thanks, It's just part of their job.

tpe · March 2007

My understanding is that this period in Montana where the "reasonable and prudent" law was in effect there was no increase in accidents or fatalities.

I've heard that explanation of how speed limits reflect the maximum safe speed under optimum conditions. I personally don't believe this. The fact that most people where I live travel 5-10 mph over the limit tells me that they either don't care about their safety or they don't believe the limit reflects the maximum safe speed. People will often times respond that if you raise the limit by 10 mph people will just drive 10 mph above that. Again, I don't buy it. Anyone who's travelled on interstates with a 55 limit and also where there is a 70 limit have probably noticed the speed of traffic is not 15 mph higher on the 70 highway.

tpe · March 2007

I'd be interested to know what percentage of a cop's job involves responding to emergencies compared to writing out citations?

Besides, they aren't the only people to respond to emergencies. There are also rescue squad vehicles and ambulances, maybe helicopters. These were in all likelihood called in by another motorist. If I'm in a serious accident I could really care less if the cop responded. His main function is just to direct traffic not to provide any life saving assistance. He might tell me to hang in there until real help arrives. I suspect in a serious accident your chances of survival have very little to do with how fast a cop shows up, or if he shows up at all.

imidazol97 · March 2007

I'm all in favor of using police cars for aggressive driver control. I'm also in favor of all kinds of electronics to record what goes on AND that the data can not be erased--it will be permanently stored and publicly accessible. I recall the video surfacing of a Northern Kentucky (Cincy suburban area) officer being stopped for drunk driving. Instead of being ticketed and jailed, he was driven home by the policemen from a neighboring juridiction. Other drivers would have been tarrd, feathered, and sent to SingSing for the same level of drunkedness.

There has been a number of policemen and firemen around the Greater Cincy area being involved in accidents off duty and seeming to get special treatment. So bring on the uncorruptible video gear...

Ohio does not allow unmarked cars to be used for traffic control. Any vehicle without lights and markings is not legal. This comes from decades ago when other states as well had fake policemen using "unmarked" cars to stop and abuse the public.

I recall my older sister talking about having to be very careful when she traveled east and south from Ohio because of problems. Her husband was an over-the-road truck driver so she would meet him in different places. It wasn't safe for her to travel alone.

fintail · March 2007

"Traffic tickets exist for a reason! "

Revenue shortfalls masquerading as safety

imidazol97 · March 2007

Nahhhhh. Couldn't be. Our politicians wouldn't do anything that wasn't in the best interests of the public..., would they?

:P

Kirstie_H · March 2007

In my area, this is certainly true. This is evidenced by the fact that high-danger areas are left unpatrolled in favor of more highly-trafficked areas (i.e., the place where the most tickets can be handed out rather than the place where safety is most at risk).

fintail · March 2007

Wow, I didn't know you lived in my fair city.

The fact that I know where every speedtrap spot is in this place says a lot. It's always a high volume wide smooth flat road where few accidents take place.

fintail · March 2007

I think it is a developing trend, these guys have a great record.

Kirstie_H · March 2007

Let me guess, you forgot one additional attribute.. high-volume, wide smooth flat road, OR the same + a sudden change in speed limit.

There's a 20-mile outer road that I travel on regularly, on which the speed limit is generally 55. For one 1-mile stretch, it changes to 45. Wanna take a stab at the most highly-patrolled stretch?

kylerenfrew · March 2007

High volume traffic areas? Wouldn't there then be more incidents of traffic infractions - naturally? I routinely saw a state cop on a rural road that is a few miles off the interstate. Shouldn't he have been on the interstate with the target-rich environment?

One of the times he just happened to pull into the convenience store for coffee right after me and I said "I saw you there on XYZ road, are you watching for speeders? He laughed and said they where asked to hang out near the area for "surveillance" and it didn't have anything to do with traffic but, if he did see someone speeding, he would of course, go after them. He wouldn't (naturally) tell me what the surveillance was for. A short while after a guy was arrested on domestic abuse stuff and violating a restraining order right around where the cop was parked. After this I never saw him again in the area.

Oh my gosh! Cops actually have other things to do besides giving tickets... Imagine That! (Yes, that is sarcasm). I think people forget that cops have other things to do....

Kirstie_H · March 2007

Shouldn't he have been on the interstate with the target-rich environment?

Only if his main goal was to generate revenue. Otherwise, he should be positioned in an area where there are the most incidents, not the highest number of violations. Volume of violations does not necessarily = greatest danger.

If you're on a straight stretch of interstate on a dry sunny day and the majority of traffic is travelling at 80 MPH, there is limited danger compared to a curvy country road on which there are known risk-takers, or on which there are known to be many drunk drivers. The risk of accident is greater on the country road than it is on the more highly-trafficked road. Due to lower volume, the risk of revenue generation is, naturally, lower.

andre1969 · March 2007

is go after the dangerous drivers. Those who are driving well above the flow of traffic, darting in and out as they change lanes, cutting other drivers off, tailgating, cruising the passing lane at speeds below the flow of traffic, etc.

However, if you're just going along at the flow of traffic, regardless of the speed limit, the cop is actually creating a dangerous situation, for himself, you, and everyone else on the road, if he tries to pull you over.

Yet, I've gotten two tickets in the past for doing just that. They'll risk the lives of everyone around them, just to zero in on one car in a herd that catches their fancy. And an out-of-state license plate will catch their eye much quicker than dangerous driving.

As for nothing better to do besides giving tickets? Well, I guess sometimes on a hot summer day, they might take a break and go off to someplace like this:

:P

fintail · March 2007

It couldn't be the part with the random change!

In my area there are two completely different roads that are mainly posted at 40, but both have a half mile or so stretch where they dip to 35, then get back to 40 for no apparent reason. These both have notorious speed traps. A significant amount of people go 45-50 in the 40 (as it is perfectly safe), and the revenuers aren't so bad that they will get you for 5 over...but 10 is good enough.

tpe · March 2007

Oh my gosh! Cops actually have other things to do besides giving tickets

No one said they didn't. For example they call me a couple times a year to solicit a donation for their retirement fund. Funny, I'm pretty sure they have a retirement plan? I guess they want more and maybe they also think that people will be somewhat intimidated by talking to a cop and feel obligated to donate.

Another thing, exactly how many police agencies do we need? Where I live there are four different ones patrolling the same roads. They better be writing a lot of tickets if they expect to pay for this redundancy.

I remember about 15 years ago my car was broken into and the stereo stolen. I called the cops and an officer came by to take a report. His attitude was like that of someone really being put out. Between rolling his eyes and sighing he did jot down a brief description of the incident. When he left he felt compelled to tell me that there was almost no chance I'd ever see this car stereo again. A few minutes later I found myself thinking, "he's probably right but why exactly does his job exist"?

andres3 · March 2007

The California Highway Patrol is one of the worst organizations and waste of tax payer money available. In general in my years of experience I've come ot understand that they are not their to "protect and serve," but only to annoy, harrass, and waste court time and taxpayer money.

They will issue fake radar tickets/citations. They will make up false radar readings from the sky. They will believe their radars to be infallable and free from error, even with common sense and logic dictating otherwise.

kylerenfrew · March 2007

You guys don't happen to have access to a scanner do you? Just listen to mutual aid for awhile, it's a really good learning experience for people that think cops biggest worry is keeping the powdered sugar from the donut off their tie.

We had recent weather that just turned the roads into an ice skating rink. The cops actually got to the point of "triage" were they could only help out at the worst accidents.

The "powder puffs" in their expensive sedans and SUV's were free to speed and drive any way they wanted because the cops didn't have any speed traps going that day for sure.

The "powder puffs" compounded the problem. With their own stupidity they just made things worse and then went on to be "outraged" that the police didn't respond to their respective fender-benders.

ponderpoint · March 2007

Come on people in this forum - you're smart!

If you want to "play" you have to "pay". Go ahead and speed but you know its a game of odds. How many times did you blow through that reduced speed zone for the last three years, and finally you got caught. What a big surprise!

Stop being a crybaby!

Kylerenfrew is right! Do you really think cops have nothing better to do than give you a ticket for something you've been getting away with for a long time and then the odds caught up with you?

You're smarter than that!

tpe · March 2007

. The cops actually got to the point of "triage" were they could only help out at the worst accidents.

Exactly what type of medical help do cops provide?

tpe · March 2007

Kylerenfrew is right! Do you really think cops have nothing better to do than give you a ticket for something you've been getting away with for a long time and then the odds caught up with you?

You should never receive a ticket for driving in a safe manner. Most tickets are issued to drivers who were driving safely albeit not in strict compliance with the law. I suspect your point of view is that if we don't like the laws then we should get them changed. How exactly do you do that? When I drive to work I'd say that 90% of the drivers on the road are going 5-10 mph over the limit. Let's consider that an opinion poll. The results are then very conclusive. The public is demonstrating through their actions that they feel speed limits should be higher on most roads. So why aren't they?

BTW, do you believe that cops have a quota when it comes to how many citations they are expected to issue. If so then the answer to your question as to whether they have better things to do is, no.

ponderpoint · March 2007

"Exactly what type of medical help do cops provide?"

Triage is NOT a medical term.

It's root is to "sort according to importance". It is indeed used quite often in medical conditions but is not restricted to that.

Police often run a "triage" response in times of great emergency or extreme conditions requiring their services... Unfortunately this seems to be happening more often.

Oh, and the "quota" thing is urban legend. Invented by people with numerous traffic offenses trying to explain away why they get so many tickets.

ponderpoint · March 2007

No..... I've never gotten a ticket. I got a warning once, but never a ticket.

I guess that makes me a freak for this forum.

I routinely drive over the speed limit also. Passed by a trap the other day and she (female cop) didn't seem to notice.

Like I said; If you want to play you gotta pay.

kylerenfrew is still right.

210delray · March 2007

People go 5-10 over because they know that's almost always the tolerance police will allow for NOT stopping anyone for speeding.

I have very little experience with 75 mph speed limits, but even next door in W. VA. where the speed limit is generally 70 on the interstates, you have lots of people going 75, 80, or higher. It gets really interesting when old "Pops McCoy" gets on the freeway to go from one exit to the next in his rattletrap pickup that can't go over 50!

imidazol97 · March 2007

>Oh, and the "quota" thing is urban legend

That's not true. If an officer is not doing "enough" traffic control, they may be evaluated lower, even if the jurisdiction doesn't have a quota, formal or informal. An officer in our fair jurisdiction quit a year ago because of the increased emphasis on traffic control. We're getting an influx of "city" drivers as people move to the burbs and our officers are having to do more moving violation work and traffic "presence" if not ticket writing. She became an elementary teacher. She had been working toward certification for years.

I'll ask another policeman friend of ours. His wife was here today but I rarely see him because he's working. I'll ask her.

ponderpoint · March 2007

My brother's a cop.

There is NO quota! They have briefings on "problem areas" that they try to concentrate on, a troublesome area of highway, but that's it.

By the way he's retiring and that's not good... He use to love giving warnings to people (so much for the quota dogma), thought that actually was better for safety. The cop that replaces him might not entertain this friendlier notion however.

Yeah, everybody hates cops until you need them. Same old song and dance.... Pathetic.

tpe · March 2007

There is NO quota! They have briefings on "problem areas" that they try to concentrate on, a troublesome area of highway, but that's it.

I've had 3 speeding tickets in 30 years of driving. I thought they were all unwarranted. One time I was driving through the middle of the desert in Nevada, going 70 in a 55. I don't know where this cop was hiding because the road was perfectly straight for as far as you could see. I guess this was one of those problem areas that he must have gotten briefed on. I personally don't see how a road could be any safer and I'm sure the limit is now 65 or 70. When I was receiving this ticket I remember thinking what a crime buster this cop was and what a valuable service he was providing society.

gasmizr · March 2007

Just found this board, interesting. I live in NY and there is "war" going on between the local judges and the state police for a while now. The state police commander has put down a guideline that there will no longer be any pleading down for tickets written so lots of them are getting thrown out by local traffic courts. One of our local magistrates just threw out over 400 tickets a few months ago.

Personally I do not trust radar or laser. Unless the cop is almost straight on and you are the only thing in sight the chances or error increase exponentially. The fact that the local judges and prosecutors plead most speeding tickets down lets you know it is all about the revenue and getting people through the system as quickly as possible.

Target people who are driving recklessly or to aggressive for traffic conditions, and people who are driving impaired. The rest should be left off with a warning at most.

I lived in Boston in the late 80's and they did a test on a stretch of road that was posted 35. People under good conditions usually drove about 45-50 at most. They raised the speed limit to 45. Guess what, people still drove 45-50 and when they raised it to 55, people still drove 45-50. They also surveyed people to ask then why they drove that speed. Answer, appeared to be safe and reasonable for the area and road conditions.

I also lived in MI when they raised the limit to 70. On those long lonely stretches of interstate people drove 75-80 when the speed limit was 55 and they still drove those speeds when the limit was raised. Most people know what is safe and prudent for road conditions and drive that way. People do not for the most part think, I am going to speed here but not here just to speed.

Another thing, try driving on I87 heading into NYC in the morning from the burbs and do 65, you will get killed with lots of dirty looks even in the slow lane. Average speed in 75-80 with people do 85-90 in the fast lane. Usually no problems till an officer shows up then all the tail lights go red and you have an accident. What you do not want is the person cutting and weaving through this traffic. That person needs a ticket and is a problem to the rest of the drivers going with the flow and and just "platooning". Police then just pick you out and you take on for the team.

izaclown1 · March 2007

My Dad also said "you drive enough, you WILL get a ticket and you will get in a wreck". Thats just the facts of life. The odds will catch up with you.

What are the chances? Since the first of the year, my wife and I have totaled out both of our cars due to someone else's fault. A Mack truck could not stop with traffic and hit her car and a guy runs a red light hits the car next to me and it hits me. We drive 20+k a year in our respective cars and for the past 20 years have only had minor bumps every 6 years or so.

tpe · March 2007

Good post. As you stated most people will drive at what they consider to be a safe and reasonable speed regardless of the posted limit. Now why would that be? Is it possible that the consequences of being in an auto accident are a powerful enough deterent? Now we've all witnessed the occasional driver who flies through traffic like a madman. I'm not condoning this but one thing is pretty clear; the law was not a sufficient deterrent to keep this from happening. Regardless, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a radar gun to identify those drivers who are creating a real hazard on the roadways.

wesleyg · March 2007

In my 31 years in law enforcement (now retired), I was in traffic enforcement for the first 8 years, and much later I actually headed up the traffic unit, patrol cars and motorcycles. It is true there is no hard and fast "quota" but at the end of each month, no officer had better come in with 0 citations. That would be a serious neglect of duty. Speaking of dedicated traffic units, these officers solely work traffic enforcement and accident investigation, of course these officers write many more citations that the average road officer since they don't respond to normal police calls.

Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles