WOW what a thread....hum...

 

You're right Tim.

It's because we all have opinions.

The red light cameras and photo radar have affected some people, the people in charge say if it saved one life or slows down people to reduce fines/collisions,then it is doing its job.

Then they could also say: "we DON'T know why it doesn't affect the people that still run red's or speed, except maybe they think the law & rules of the road doesn't apply to them.

That's why I state: "People Don't take driving seriously enough"

The study that was linked by Polar bear is proof of that..


For most people, driving is a just a means of conveyance from one point A to point B

For people like trucker's,their livelihood depends on what happens behind the wheel

The new guy Sayno2rice wrapped up the whole situation in a, Common Sense reply.

 

man just fight the insurance aspect. ive gotten 2 tickets, each in different trucks. i was doin 47 in a 35 and the fine was 168. the other time i was doin 52? in a 35... the ? was b/c i know i was cruising, but not that fast. maybe 47 or so, but the speedo is 10 mph off above 45 mph. personally man, just accept the fine and fight any point or insuracne aspects. the judge can (in Pa at least) anull all points. 3 more months and no more points for me!!!

 

when I would see that radar detecter thing I didn't even want to hear it you got one so you can speed and not get caught sign on the line bud you are done.

 

I just knew they gave out bonus points for detectors!

 

I do agree that if you break the law, you put yourself in a position to face the consequences if you are caught. My problem is with the laws. Which is more of a potential hazard to the public: A loaded 30 year old dumptruck running 55 in a 55, or a sports car with 14" brakes, ABS, and traction control running 60 in a 55?
I realize that there is a human factor that no level of technology can fully compensate for. but come on. The whole idea of having speeding laws is to enhance the safety of the public. Does the sports car really present a hazard? could it not evade or avoid a bad situation on the road better than the dumptruck? I seem to think that if public safety is reason behind these laws. the laws should address more than just the speed of a vehicle. The public would be better served if law enforcement officers had more discretion in interpreting the laws to an individual situation.
I once recieved a ticket for improper lane usage on my motorcycle. A mufler fell off of the car in front of me. I do check my mirrors on bike and I know what is around me. A crown vic was a little closer to my bac end than I liked, sio I chose not to lock down the brakes for fear of being run over by the Crown Vic. The muffler slid at an angle to got in the ditch on my right side, so I moved to the left of my lane to give me more room to evade it. Before the muffler made it to the edge of the road, it changed course and started spinning and sliding towards the lweft side of my lane, where I was riding. With no oncoming traffic I chose to veer quickly into the oncoming lane using countersteering techniques that I learned in a Motorcycle Safety Foundation school. I immediately got back into my lane and was checking my miror to see if the Crown Vic would hit the mufler. He ran directly over the muffler and then some blue lights came on in the grill of his car. He immediately closed the distance between he and I to about 10 feet or less. He wrote me up for reckless op and improper lane usage. I had to pay the fines but thee ws no way to put common sense into the equation. We need more realistic laws with the ability to be a litle flexible from time to time.

 

7dF-250... some of us r poor as dirt and cant afford a radar detector as i am a college student LUCKY to be able to pay for gas in my baby. all of my tickets have been on back roads. Only State boys (in PA) are allowed to use radar. the locals use Vascar or a clocking system bt 2 fixed points. the only thing i run with is a CB for highway and that gut feeling.

 

Dennis hits it on the head. Germans takes driving very seriously. Spend a few thousand bucks to learn to drive and you will too. It's aggrivating because people don't understand driving is a serious responsibility. Course, seems like responsibility is hard to find..that's another topic

One of the first things my stepdad said when i got my license was "you have a license to kill." Opened my eyes to really what potential danger there is if we aren't careful.

 

Based on training and experience with CA laws (I don't know about your local laws) and some common sense of course...things to consider:

1.Check to see if the area being patrolled by radar has been "surveyed"
for radar enforcement by your state dept of transportation and if so what speeds were recommended. If the posted speeds contradict the DOT recommendation then subpeona the info and use that in court to your advantage.

2.Check to see how often the dept policy requires that the radar enforcement be calibrated and if it was done, where it was done and by whom...all have checklists....and from the sounds of it the radar in question may have been a "Hawk" radar....he could have also been clocking someone else at 58 and just chose to pop you two for driving the same type of car. Remember,
radar gives out a reading but doesn't have a air traffi controller designator screen. The cop has to look and put two and two together.

3. Check to see if the officer's training is optimal for that radar use....more often than not, officers take over new units without proper training....this is all public info and you are entitled to know or even subpeona it for court use.

4. have your car's calibration checked to verify you weren't inadvertedly speeding to rule speedo error out.

5. use your friend's tesimony as to his 58 to your clocked speed. If he (cop) can't get that right how can he supposedly correctly enforce speed laws?
You would have ineed been rear ended by your friend.....if his (cop) judgement was correct.

6.If the court asks for continuance...argue that it would violate the right to a speedy trial. 9 times out of ten they will throw the case out.

7. take note of traffic conditions, weather, lighting conditions, here you were clocked and where you were pulled over.....at times speed limits change dependng on where you are on the road....as you leave town...so keep that in mind.

Get a table of velocities drawn out and get times of when you were clocked
where you were pulled over and make some calculations....of distance covered from time you were clocked....see if you can get radio transmissions from dispatch. if you were going the speed determined argue you would have been at another spot further down the road.

In order to beat one you have to have been one.

 

If everyone were to obey the law, then there are a number of towns, cities, and states that would go bankrupt very soon because of a sudden loss of substantial income. You can bet that the bureaucratic bean counters of this world do NOT see traffic violations as a public safety device, but rather a revenue device. To say otherwise borders on ignorance, IMO.

It's a fact that's been proven time and time again - intersections that have red light cameras have a substantially higher number of car accidents at them. Again, it's not about safety. It's about money. Another interesting point that someone brought up earlier that bears repeating is that the contractor (in most cases, it's Lockheed Martin) that installs the traffic cameras gets a large percentage of the revenue generated. Hmmm... can we say, "Conflict of interest"?

I get kind of irked at the people here who say that if you get a ticket for going 31 in a 30, then you deserve it because you did the crime, and you have no business pleading not guilty to the ticket. The last time I checked, in this country anyway, you are innocent until proven guilty. Doesn't anyone remember that anymore? Some people seem to have the attitude that just because someone in authority THINKS you did something, you're guilty. That's a dangerous attitude to have.

 

Very good post. Most people just seem to fall in line now days. I think everyone should plead not guilty to any ticket they ever get. The traffic cop has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did commit the crime.

And if you ever get railroaded in a municipal court do not be affaird to appeal to a district court. Make them earn their revenue.

 

Some good advice in here. Your court clerk will be able to tell you what you need for your discovery motions. Odds are you won't get much info back but you can use that for your benifit in court.

 

A GREAT book is "How to beat your ticket" I forget who published it, but you should be able to find it in any library. I used it and when I fought the ticket, the cop showed up and I STILL won. In fact, His Honor said that mine was the most well put together defense he had seen in a while by a non-lawyered citizen. The cop was so pissed he dropped his coat on his way out of the court room and said "Fudge!"
The Judge said "Excuse me officer?" I Laughed sooo hard! Serves him right! I wasn't speeding and he knew it....My next ticket I lost on but I WAS speeding, so I deserved it....
Bottom line...If you speed, you deserve the ticket, but fight it and you might get off....IF (big iff there) you get the ticket dropped, LEARN from the experience and dont do it again....Save the speeding for the race track.

 

I have yet to hear of a place where the prossecution has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". MOST of the time, the y have to prove "beyond a preponderance of the evidence" that you commited the infraction. "Preponderance of the evidence" is a LOT more laxed than "beyond reasonable doubt". With beyond a preponderance of the evidence, they only have to show that it is MORE LIKELY THAN NOT that you commited the crime (of speeding in this case). Most of the time, the cop can do just that pretty easily...Your best bet is to go to court with a witness who saw your speedometer when you got pulled over...within a day or so of being pulled over, have your vehicles speedometer checked for accuracy at a reputable shop. This way, you MIGHT win....but again, get the book I suggested above in my previous post.

 

Quote Andym:

I get kind of irked at the people here who say that if you get a ticket for going 31 in a 30, then you deserve it because you did the crime, and you have no business pleading not guilty to the ticket
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I didn't notice anyone here was talking about 1 mph over the maximum.

The photo radar ticket usually has a 9 -11 kmph or 7 mph leeway before the fines are handed out.
In playground & school zones it can be set at 7 kph or 5 mph over.

This is Leeway > which means No fine.

This is so there can't be ANY dicrepancy about whether one was speeding or not.
Of course you were speeding,the photo radar doesn't count any vehicle until they are REALLY speeding.

Why am I adamant about this ?
I lived in the middle of a playground zone on a connecting street between 2 main routes.There was a school across the street with 3 playgrounds on the property.
People came flying through sometime at 80kph, obviously because they figured rules don't apply to them.
I always had the feeling someone is going to be crashing into our cars & trucks parked on the street.

One week we had the PR in the zone Mon-Fri.
One guy got 5 tickets that week, each one for at least $150.00.
$750.00 in fines & 3 weeks later he creeps through the zone.

the PR enforcement worked on him after he got caught so many times.
I have noticed in my private life ,the people who I talk to that consider this a revenue generator are the worst drivers.

To me it isn't, I don't get these tickets

Police officers can only be at ONE place at a time.
It doesn't matter what municipality one lives in.
There are NEVER enough police bodies to cover everywhere.
The philosophy is :
There are Photo Radar cameras & Red Light camera there to CATCH people who break the law,
It is The Criver's choice to either abide by it or break it ..no one else's

Calgary is almost at a Million People now,
There are 2.2 vehicles per family in this city.

It



Again, People don't take driving seriously.
They use their vehicle to go from point A to point B without considering HOW important driving a vehicle on a roadway is.