$300 speeding ticket

[Provost Harrison]

Well if you are clever, you may be able to blame speedo error, but you would have to only be doing a small amount above the speed limit, which they probably wouldn't nick you for anyway...

[DinoDoc]

I think 1 was just tired of tired of being a whipping boy for coming here whining about getting caught and wanted to turn the discussion in another direction.

[1]

Oh please, get off the moral high horse and admit you live like a normal human being. Don't speed....my @$$

[DinoDoc]

The difference, 1, is that I don't whine like a moron about getting caught speeding.

[Ming]

Originally posted by 1
Oh don't pin this on me Ming! Your radical views of being a police fanboy, pushed this thread off from the ticket issue. =P

Police fanboy



You'll say anything to help distract people from the facts here... and the facts are simple... your friend got pulled over for speeding, and was indeed speeding... and you are whining about it

Now you want to change the subject hoping people will forget how whiney your first post was.

She broke the law... she got a ticket... no big deal.

[Provost Harrison]

Well it seems one hell of a fine for a simple speeding offence...there must have been something else there.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ming
your friend got pulled over for speeding, and was indeed speeding... and you are whining about it

I thought that he admited that he was the one that got the ticket.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Do actually know a cop?

Not personally. I don't see how that restricts me from commenting upon my observations.

One trooper explained to me that many of the troopers are *******s because they go through as tough or tougher training than the military and after all the training and time spent learning, they are put on traffic duty.

I've got an idea. Don't be a state trooper if you can't handle it.

The official quotas that you speak of do not exist. They do have quotas for what they call contacts. They must come into contact with the public a certain amount of time to show that arent pulled over somewhere eating or sleeping.

I can understand that. However, that would not justify pulling over someone either. Most people don't have time to fill time quotas.

A law was passed that forbide any city from getting more than IIRC 5% from court fees and tickets.

Well, either we don't have such a law here (definitely not rural) or, judging by the amounts from a few hours of observation, the city is spending obscene, obscene amount of money per hour if these numbers are to be multiplied by 20.

Two years later the town still hadnt complied so the State Police moved in and city police was barred by law from issuing tickets on the state highway through town.

They should have gotten a ticket.

I have been pulled over many times for speeding and have only gotten two tickets in my entire life. You know why? Because i dont start *****ing or explaining as soon as the guy walks up to me. I know I was speeding, he knows i was speeding. I then get off with a warning. Mostly verbal. I have been told a cop knows if he will be writing a ticket within the first minute of the conversation with the motorist. Most of you talk your way into a ticket with your attitude. Most of the time it's not a matter of your car going to fast but your mounth.

Well, thanks for the ranting lecture, but I have never gotten a ticket. I was pulled over once for not turning my lights on around dusk. I'll forgive you for assuming so much about me because we're not personally acquainted, but I'm quite capable of being polite, even when suffering abuse. I was in the Army, after all.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I fail to see, however, how the speed limit laws are in any way wrong. It is unjust enforcement I don't like, not the laws themselves.

Laws should be limited to restricting actions which are injurious to the rights of others. While something such as, say, driving while intoxicated inherently puts the lives of other drivers in danger, speeding does not necessarily do that. Most speed limits that I live around are not indicative of the actual danger posed by the street's environment.

[SlowwHand]

If many countries cut off the hand of a thief, why not take a cue from that, and cut off a speeder's right foot?

[Ming]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
driving while intoxicated inherently puts the lives of other drivers in danger, speeding does not necessarily do that.

Yes... intoxicated driving is a bigger risk to others than speeding... but speeding does indeed bring a risk to others.

So is there a magic formula to use on what percentage of risk should be allowed? Somebody drinking and not driving can cause risk to others (ask a bunch of battered wives)... so should drinking be outlawed as well... Just driving a car brings risk to others... intentional or not, you make a mistake, and you can kill somebody... so should anybody be allowed to drive...

It's not so black and white. While we may agree or disagree on whether speed limits are justified, they are still the law... and if you want to speed, be ready to get pulled over.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by 1
Ok, saying "you should get a ticket...because you broke the law!!!" even if its a stupid law, is a horrible argument. That's like making chewing gum illegal, then when everyone is arrested or fined, you saying "well they deserved it, they knew it was illegal!" Anyone see a hole in this logic?

aha, yet another conservative getting ready to understand the Libertarian philosophy. Funny, one of the reason I became a Libertarian was because of the inequities of traffic tickets, and more so because of mandatory insurance laws....

However, after getting a little older and wiser I realized:
(I'm only 25, but........ :P )
1. Be nice to the cops. It's useless to fight. The more you fight the more they get off on writing you a ticket.
If you've ver worked at McDonalds, you'll have come into contact with people who you wish you could fine $200. Well cops get to do just that to not very nice people .

2. There are far larger injustices than your traffic ticket, in fact, in a couple of years, after figuring out how to avoid them, you will ifnd they really aren't that big of a deal.

I speed all the time, never get caught, since my day my rage got the best of me........ (which happened to be the day I sent in my $182 check for a traffic ticket)

The official quotas that you speak of do not exist. They do have quotas for what they call contacts. They must come into contact with the public a certain amount of time to show that arent pulled over somewhere eating or sleeping.

They most certainly do for the Washington State PAtrol, I remember reading the Union grievences. Also, My home city tried, but it was shot down. I don't think my city was the only oone to try to implement a quota system. Luckily for the people and the police it failed, but I know there are far more conservative citites than mine.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Ming
Yes... intoxicated driving is a bigger risk to others than speeding... but speeding does indeed bring a risk to others.

I don't know about where you live, but where I live, most 35's could easily be 55's without posing a significant danger to anyone.

So is there a magic formula to use on what percentage of risk should be allowed?

You're right. It's a difficult question. I'm not prepared to throw up my hands and que sera, sera, why not let the govt make things against the law that shouldn't be?

Somebody drinking and not driving can cause risk to others (ask a bunch of battered wives)...

Not being to restrain yourself from beating your wife while drunk is a character flaw, and is not inherent to drinking. Not being able to drive well, is.

so should drinking be outlawed as well...

No, for reasons above. It is completely for possible for every person to drink without injuring others. Driving is a physical skill much more easily toyed with than being a person who doesn't beat others.

Just driving a car brings risk to others... intentional or not, you make a mistake, and you can kill somebody... so should anybody be allowed to drive...

I believe that's why you have to pass tests to obtain a driver's license.

It's not so black and white.

Then it shouldn't be the law. Because the laws are black and white, as they must be in a just country.

While we may agree or disagree on whether speed limits justified, they are still the law... and if you want to speed, be ready to get pulled over.

You're right. And I have no desire to throw my money away on the government or its workers, and that's why I obey traffic laws, and have never gotten a ticket. That doesn't mean I cannot see the injustice of bad laws and fight against them and other more serious problems of justice.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Laws should be limited to restricting actions which are injurious to the rights of others. While something such as, say, driving while intoxicated inherently puts the lives of other drivers in danger, speeding does not necessarily do that. Most speed limits that I live around are not indicative of the actual danger posed by the street's environment.

So long as you are on your property, that's one thing. But when you drive on a street or highway, you are on government property, technically, and they have a right to post the rules they wish.

Speed limits are designed for public safety. You do not have a right to jeopardize the safety of others through being needlessly reckless, and excessive speed is indeed reckless. There is therefore nothing immoral about such limits, in the same vein there are laws establishing safe occupancy rates for rooms/elevators/vehicles/etc.

[NeOmega]

So is there a magic formula to use on what percentage of risk should be allowed? Somebody drinking and not driving can cause risk to others (ask a bunch of battered wives)... so should drinking be outlawed as well... Just driving a car brings risk to others... intentional or not, you make a mistake, and you can kill somebody... so should anybody be allowed to drive...

O.K. Here in WA, the law says .08 BAL, which I think is bull pushed by the breathalyzer companies.....
(if you don't think they are a big business, Know it is WA state law now with DUI convictions you have to get a breathalyzer/ignition device on your car.

I think we should ditch breathalyzers and go with video camera and field sobriety testing. A person who can't walk straight shouldn't be driving. A person who can't drive straigth shouldn't be driving. A person going twice the speed limit is breaking the safety limitations of the road, and should not be driving.

A person going 120 mph down a 65 mph highway between Vancouver, WA. and Seattle WA. should get pulled over, if the police believe it is a safety hazard enough to warrnet patrolling that stretch of highway at 3 A.M. on a Sunday morning.

The Belgian said you automatically get a ticket in his country. I wish it were that way here. That way, no crying cheerleaders get out of it, no people who show up to court in their military uniform get out of it, everybody falls under the same law.