My Speeding Ticket Trial

[barcotta]

I recently took a speeding ticket to trial and wrote up a synposis to share with some folks who helped me. Since I already had it written, I thought I would post it here too in case it was of value to anyone--particularly in California.

[rickyjo]

Oh my goodness, you are totally my hero. cheersmate

[KyleH]

Based on that, I have the sneaking suspicion that almost anybody can get out of a ticket if they ask questions long enough. hilarious Great job with all the preparation, though.

[blu2blu]

I recently took a speeding ticket to trial and wrote up a synposis to share with some folks who helped me. Since I already had it written, I thought I would post it here too in case it was of value to anyone--particularly in California.

Is this a joke? Did you really expect a big dramatic trial for your minor traffic violation? And do you really think the fact that the officer could barely remember you means anything at all? That is what documentation is for. I recommend you go on a ride along with an officer one night. They deal with a great many people everyday and many situations that are far more memorable than a simple traffic stop. Watch a cop take a report from an emotional victim or tell a mother that her son just died and you will understand why his encounter with you did not stick out in his mind. Watch some firefighters use the jaws of life to open up a car like a can of spam and pull out the bloody bag of meat that use the be the driver and you will understand why officers enforce safe driving laws.

Your entire goal was to play the system and get a favorable result by exposing possible flaws in how you were issued a ticket, you did not argue innocence because you knew you were guilty. You wasted taxpayer time and money. The judge most likely dismissed the charge because he was sick of your ridiculous arguments and had hundreds more people to see that day.

As ridiculous as this all is I'm still glad you got your day in court. This is America and that is your right. Though it should be noted that court exists to allow wrongfully charged individuals the chance to defend themselves, not for guilty folks to try to scam the system.

[MomOfMany]

You were speeding.
You were driving at an unsafe speed.

You got off on a technicality bc the officer didn't write what made it unsafe, though it was obvious given the locale and your speed.

The officer was likely being nice by giving an unsafe speed ticket vs exceeding speed limit ticket. In my state there's a big difference and you would have gotten one heck of a ticket for exceeding the speed limit by that much. Bet he won't be nice again for a while.

I don't know about CA, but where I live if an officer is staked somewhere like that for a several weeks, it's likely bc the neighbors have called in complaints or the station has noticed it has a problem, such as crashes.

Personally, I think you are lucky the judge didn't get annoyed and decide to give you the max penalty he could. He must have been in a really good mood!

[barcotta]

Is this a joke? Did you really expect a big dramatic trial for your minor traffic violation?

Ummm, no--and I don’t think I even suggested that. I went to trial on this ticket because I really didn’t have a choice. Since I received two tickets in such close proximity, I HAD to get rid of one or else I would’ve had a point on my license.

But--I think I should quickly address some of your comments. First off--let me try to guess what line of work you’re in……ummm…….I don’t know……I’m thinking…….law enforcement maybe????

Well, I live in Santa Clarita, CA, where members of law enforcement probably outnumber regular citizens two to one. I have several brother-in-laws in law enforcement and I discussed my predicament with some local sheriffs and highway patrol people. About half espouse your viewpoint and the other half view it as more of a sport.

I have great respect for law enforcement and would want them to respond and protect me if my family was in danger--and they would. That’s why traffic enforcement has been, and still is, so tough for me to reconcile. I look at law enforcement as being on my side--to a fault--except every so often they turn around and poke me in the eye--hard!

But, let’s first look at the undisputable facts. The system of financially penalizing individual alleged offenders does little to increase compliance with the rules of the road or make our roads safer over the long term. How can I be so sure? Well, as you stated yourself, there were probably HUNDREDS of people for the judge to get to. If this system worked, why would it still be so backed up with offenders after DECADES of implementation? And what about all those violations we all see EVERY DAY on the road? Then, on top of it, they’ll make something like talking on your cell phone a violation with NO SUPPORTABLE EVIDENCE THAT ITS DANGEROUS AT ALL. How can you possibly maintain that talking on your cell phone is appreciably more dangerous than eating a sandwich, putting on makeup, arguing with your kids in the back seat (or talking to anyone IN the car)--or even shifting your manual transmission while driving?

Now--some of you may have never given much thought to all this so give it a moment to sink in.

I mean--if you were responsible for creating a system that would produce the most compliance and the safest roads, would you do it this way? Of course not! If that was the goal, wouldn’t it look more like this:

• Persistent, obvious law enforcement presence (as opposed to hiding behind the bushes)
  
• Radar speed signs that display your speed , particularly in sensitive areas
  
• A progressive warning system for motorists that is fair and not profit-driven
  
• A handful of important rules and laws truly based on safety that are enforced fairly and consistently as opposed to a myriad of nonsense rules that are enforced haphazardly and inconsistently
  

So--while some, such as yourself, can equate going 10-15 mph over the speed limit (while otherwise driving completely safely) with collisions that require the jaws of life--I simply can‘t see it that way--because it isn‘t real. The speed component of a tragic accident regarding a reckless driver is very different from veering over the speed limit while driving with caution and alertness.

So why, then, does this system still exist? Well--the method I proposed would COST a lot of money to implement. The method in use today MAKES a lot of money. A LOT of money. That’s why they’ll pass on folks like me. The statistic most often cited, which appears to be corroborated by my brief experience, is that 95% of the population plead guilty and take the fine and traffic school if eligible. The vast majority of that 95% pay their fine via the mail or on-line.

Frankly, I’m pretty conflicted about the whole thing because on one hand I want to respect authority and model respect for authority for my kids. And, believe it or not, our pastor at church today talked about honor (in general) and devoted about five minutes to honoring people in authority as a way to honor God. The example he gave? A police officer issuing a traffic ticket. Now if that’s not divine intervention, I don’t know what is. On the other hand, the method of enforcement and severity of the punishment is so wildly disproportionate to the actual offense in cases like mine that it’s difficult to take lying down.

What’s interesting about the system in use today is that it capitalizes on everyone’s feeling of guilt because we all know we sometimes go a little too fast or push it on the yellow light, therefore, we DESERVE to be punished. But--as we know from the numbers--it doesn’t change the behavior--or if it does, it’s not for long. I will, and have, try to slow down and watch my speed more--but it’s foolish to believe that taking my eye off the road more frequently to check my speed is actually making me a SAFER driver. It is, in fact, making me a more COMPLIANT, but LESS SAFE driver.

Finally, you characterized my ticket as a “minor violation.” If it’s minor, why then is the penalty hundreds of dollars and THREE YEARS WORTH OF INCREASED INSURANCE PREMIUMS??? That is just plain wrong, disproportionate and unfair. Honestly, if the officer feels comfortable handing out a penalty that severe, then it’s not too much to ask for him to be able to recall and defend his actions in court, in my opinion. Otherwise, he could--and should--choose the eminently more fair and equally effective enforcement stop with a warning only.

[blu2blu]

Wow. That rambling reply was pretty ridiculous. I'll just a hit a few key points here...

Then, on top of it, they’ll make something like talking on your cell phone a violation with NO SUPPORTABLE EVIDENCE THAT ITS DANGEROUS AT ALL.

This one is way too easy. In most states it is illegal to talk on a phone/text while driving, and for very good reason. Ten seconds of googling led me to this, read up! Car Accident Cell Phone Statistics & Driver Text Message Facts Be sure to visit the sources they use, great reading.

I won't even ask you to prove the rest of your comments about how screwed up the system is.

I'll concede that reading, putting on makeup, and eating while driving can be just as dangerous, that does not making talking on the phone any LESS dangerous though.

Now this persistent law enforcement presence you would love to see would be called a police state by some. Then people would complain about the insane taxes they are paying to maintain such a large force. So no more tickets for reckless driving but go ahead and hand over another 25% of your paycheck to big brother, comrade. Good times.

You were going 24 MPH over the limit in a residential area but argue that it is ok because you were alert and attentive. Laughable! You were wrong, the cop was right, and you should have payed up. Drive the limit next time and this won't happen.

I'm in the Navy by the way, I do electronics.

[barcotta]

Then, on top of it, they’ll make something like talking on your cell phone a violation with NO SUPPORTABLE EVIDENCE THAT ITS DANGEROUS AT ALL.

This one is way too easy. In most states it is illegal to talk on a phone/text while driving, and for very good reason. Ten seconds of googling led me to this, read up! Car Accident Cell Phone Statistics & Driver Text Message Facts Be sure to visit the sources they use, great reading.

[SIZE="3"]You're right. I was too loose with my language. While you, unfortunately, missed the key points, talking on your cell phone while driving is, in fact, dangerous. What I wrote with regard to other forms of distracted driving was accurate and I should have left it at that.

I won't ramble like the jumble of statistics you cite above, but I will post something I found with double the amount the amount of time spent searching google (20 seconds) from January of this year to set the record straight and I will leave it at that with the "key point" highlighted below.[/SIZE]

[SIZE="1"]Ten days after a national study found that cellphones and texting were to blame for 28 percent of crashes, a report released Friday concludes that hands-free cellphones are no less distracting than those held to the ear.

"Insurance collision loss experience does not indicate a decrease in crash risk when hand-held laws are enacted," said the study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "There is no evidence that bans on hand-held use by drivers has affected . . . collision claims."

As the larger issue of distracted driving has gained traction, with U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in the vanguard of an effort to address it, behavioral testing in laboratory settings indicates that hands-free cellphone conversations are just as distracting as the hand-held variety.

The Insurance Institute study advances that premise beyond the theoretical. Using actual crash statistics, it shows there was no significant difference in the number of accidents in the District, California or New York in the months before and after hands-free laws went into effect.

"Our concern with hand-held bans has been that these laws are encouraging drivers to go hands-free, which is just as risky," said Jonathan Adkins of the Governors Highway Safety Association. "We need more research and data to determine whether or not hand-held bans should be implemented across the country."

Adkins said his group continues to urge states to pass texting bans but to hold off on addressing other cellphone use "until some clarity is achieved." [/SIZE]

[SIZE="2"]Therefore, it is clearly arbitrary, unfair, and wholly unsupportable to enact laws against hand-held cell phone use while driving.[/SIZE]

[MomOfMany]

The system of financially penalizing individual alleged offenders does little to increase compliance with the rules of the road or make our roads safer over the long term. ... there were probably HUNDREDS of people for the judge to get to.

Nothing alleged about it. You broke the law.
Hundred out of thousands is not all that bad actually.

they’ll make something like talking on your cell phone a violation with NO SUPPORTABLE EVIDENCE THAT ITS DANGEROUS AT ALL.

Actually there's plenty of support that it is at least as dangerous as anything else that takes one hand off the wheel. I don't think it should be a violation simply bc there is already reckless driving laws in every state that address this situation. Take your hand off the wheel to put a CD in the stereo and have a fender-binder and you get reckless driving.

None of which has anything to do with you speeding.

I mean--if you were responsible for creating a system that would produce the most compliance and the safest roads, would you do it this way? Of course not! If that was the goal, wouldn’t it look more like this:

• Persistent, obvious law enforcement presence (as opposed to hiding behind the bushes)
  
• Radar speed signs that display your speed , particularly in sensitive areas
  
• A progressive warning system for motorists that is fair and not profit-driven
  
• A handful of important rules and laws truly based on safety that are enforced fairly and consistently as opposed to a myriad of nonsense rules that are enforced haphazardly and inconsistently
  

That is precisely what is done in my city/state. And we still have hundreds of people in traffic court. It might reduce the tickets some, but there's always folks such as yourself that think it shouldn't apply to them. You were speeding and you knew it. Would seeing a radar sign telling you so have made any more difference to your blatent speeding that the black and white sign? If so, why?

So--while some, such as yourself, can equate going 10-15 mph over the speed limit (while otherwise driving completely safely) with collisions that require the jaws of life--I simply can‘t see it that way--because it isn‘t real. The speed component of a tragic accident regarding a reckless driver is very different from veering over the speed limit while driving with caution and alertness.

A cautous, alert driver does not go 10-15 miles over the posted speed limit in a residental area. And an accident is tragic because someone is seriously hurt or dead, you would be very surprised at how often this happens and people are not even speeding.

That’s why they’ll pass on folks like me. The statistic most often cited, which appears to be corroborated by my brief experience, is that 95% of the population plead guilty and take the fine and traffic school if eligible. The vast majority of that 95% pay their fine via the mail or on-line.

Well yeah. because they WERE GUILTY!

On the other hand, the method of enforcement and severity of the punishment is so wildly disproportionate to the actual offense in cases like mine that it’s difficult to take lying down.

You know what? I think the penalty for you obviously was not enough. You knew you were speeding. And after the ticket, you did it again and got another ticket. So hearing you whine about how harsh the penalty was is just ... not too convincing to say the least.

What’s interesting about the system in use today is that it capitalizes on everyone’s feeling of guilt because we all know we sometimes go a little too fast or push it on the yellow light, therefore, we DESERVE to be punished.

10 - 15 over posted speed limit is considered a "little" by you??? (nevermind that you were going more than that.) I don't know anyone that would consider that a litte too fast. Maybe 5 pmh.

it’s foolish to believe that taking my eye off the road more frequently to check my speed is actually making me a SAFER driver. It is, in fact, making me a more COMPLIANT, but LESS SAFE driver.

oh wow. you are really trying hard to convince yourself on this one aren't you? If you are such a horrid driver that you have to constantly take your eyes off the road to maintain a safe speed, then you shouldn't be driving.

Finally, you characterized my ticket as a “minor violation.” If it’s minor, why then is the penalty hundreds of dollars and THREE YEARS WORTH OF INCREASED INSURANCE PREMIUMS???

Minor as in, you pay a fee and get over yourself bc no physical damage was done and you didn't need jail time.

That is just plain wrong, disproportionate and unfair.

oh boohoo.

he could--and should--choose the eminently more fair and equally effective enforcement stop with a warning only.

Which wouldn't have done a danged bit of good because a week later you did it again even with a more severe punishment. Frankly I wish he had remembered you so he could point that telling fact out to the judge too.

I think you got off light. If my son got a ticket like that the first time - I take his license for a month. If he did it again, I'd take it for 6 months. It is reckless endangerment.

And no, if he didn't see the reduced speed limit sign or was only going a little over on the highway, I'd just make him work off the cost and chalk it up as a mistake. But if this was his driving habit or attitude? It would be a very long time before he drove again.

I will have him read this thread so he can read just one example of why I tell him the most dangerous thing on the road is other drivers.

And no, I'm not in law enforcement.

Edited for strong language. *blush*

[blu2blu]

Wow MomOfMany really said everything I was thinking. Good work! What were you trying to prove with the cell phone study? Hands free is just as bad as hands on. Ok you'll get no argument from me, they are both dangerous because they are distracting. Nowhere in your post was there any evidence that using a phone is not dangerous AT ALL, it simply said that hands free devices don't make using a phone while driving any less dangerous.

So you are an attentive driver, excellent. But an attentive driver operating their vehicle at unsafe speeds is no better than a driver doing fiver under and talking on their phone...