$3550 Speeding Ticket

[LeeEJ]

Again, in principle I agree, at least on motorways and rural roads. But then shouldn't drivers have the right to drive at the limit

Which is different from:

or if the deem it prudent, for example bad weather below it? - should they be forced to drive illegally or dangerously merely because it's an inconvenience to others who want to drive faster regardless of risk? Look at fog or heavy rain, people drive like idiots, speed being only one factor, the results are predictable.

It's not a "right"; it's a responsibility to drive more safely in all conditions, and that includes going with the flow of faster traffic in clear weather. And, yes, everyone should drive slower in bad weather.

Choosing to go slower than everyone else is just as bad, IMO, as choosing to go faster.

(side note: we don't have a requirement for rear-facing fog lights in the US. Instead, in rainy or foggy conditions, you'll see regular-brightness taillights, flashing hazard lights, and even no lights at all -- and these are all moving vehicles. It's fucking confusing, and it's even more dangerous than it should be.)

Again, I don't disagree, after all as you say that's why there limits, not every driver has the ability to properly and safely control a vehicle at high speed - high speed being rather subjective of course.

...

Many modern cars have better performance than 'race/rally' cars of 20-30 of years ago but driving standards seem to be steadily declining, many of today's cars out perform their drivers, they are crammed with safety devices that can lull drivers into a false sense of over confidence.

On the flip side look at Autobahns, some are unrestricted yet have lower accident rates than some restricted roads. Modern vehicle safety, effective traffic management when coupled with high quality road construction and maintenance probably leading to reduced delay induced frustration must be factors there.

One big factor that you didn't mention: driver education. Here, it sucks. Really, it sucks. It's an embarrassment. Driver education is awful, and it does nothing to teach drivers what will really happen with their car. It also does nothing to teach the many true "rules of the road" that, at the moment, are only learned after a decade or more of experience.

The ability to drive a car is not genetic predisposition, it's a skill. And, just like any other skill, it's learned, which means that it must be taught correctly and thoroughly.

The Germans, after much difficult training, earn their place on the unrestricted sections of their autobahn, but most US drivers would lose their minds instead. We -- unfortunately, IMO -- view driving as a "right", and tend to make it as easy as possible to obtain a license. My own driving test was basically a drive around the block, with no time given to evasive maneuvering, high-speed highway driving, or snowy or icy weather. It even took me a long time to discover the best way to set my rear view mirrors.

It's my belief that if drivers thoroughly understand the consequences of their actions they will be much less likely to drive dangerously. Traffic fines only create fear & loathing. However, as they say, "knowledge is power", and once people begin to understand the responsibility they have to drive correctly and enable the smooth and safe flow of traffic, things just might improve.

 

[dong20]

It's in no way irrelevant. In the kangaroo court of Fairfax maybe, but not in respect to fairness. If it was really SO unsafe to drive 41 mph on that road, then why does every cop car go 50 mph when they are on the same road? The fact that there were other cars on the same road at the same time going the same speed doesn't just feel unfair it is unfair.

I meant irrelevent in the conext of you being ticketed - that's down a combination of bad luck, police predjudice and of couse you actually speeding. Had they picked someone else no doubt they would say the same, fairness isn't an effective argument when the offence has been commited.

I didn't mean irrelevant in that the speed limit may be artificially low, hence causing habitual 'speeding' sorry, yes I should be been clearer.:smile:

The fact that they can hand out tickets at all on that road for going that speed is not just unfair it's illegal. If you call VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) and get copies of the engineering surveys done on Stone you'll see that the 85th percentile of free flowing traffic is moving well above 35 mph and closer to 50. This is where the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the federal standard, dictates the limit should be posted, because speed traps are supposed to be illegal. There aren't supposed to be roads where cops can sit around all day long and issue ticket after ticket after ticket after ticket.

How are limits enforced then? If a ticket is based on illegal enforcement methods how can it be enforced? In the UK it's assumed the limit is 30 mph unless posted otherwise, though I agree it's a pain when it's unclear.

Because most people drive at what they feel are reasonably safe speeds. Posting limits so low that you CAN do this opens up the possibility for arbitrary abuse because that cop can single out anybody he feels like... because they're black or young or male or they drive a shiny car he can't afford.

Yes it does, but surely you're not so naive as to believe it wasn't going to. It happened to me enough so I know what it's like.

What's worse: YES, I could ALWAYS go the speed limit (though 6 over... at speeds that low... that's nothing... that's like if I farted and the air from my ass wafted down and depressed the pedal a little bit. If I tap the pedal in my car I'm going 80... anyway..).. I could make sure I was always at least 1 mph under what's posted... but if I did that that would be less safe. Everyone else on the road would be zooming past, because the speed limits everywhere are posted stupidly low to keep profits up. The disparity in our relative speeds would create a condition on the road where a collision was more likely than if I was just going along at roughly the same speed as everyone else. These aren't even the only reasons it's unfair but a couple anyway.

I've been pulled for doing 81kmh in an 80 kmh limit, that's outside the accuracy of the speedo. It was a shakedown of course so I tend to keep 5km below the limit in the areas I know there will be traps. I feel the same about speed cameras here, for fear of drifting a few mph over the limit you can spend more time looking at the dash than the road, and yes that's dangerous. Generally it's 10% + 2 here, I don't know what leeway you get in the US.

If you feel the limit is too low or you have been targeted based on your car, that's one thing and surely there are channels available to you to voice that complaint, ineffective perhaps but there? But, and here's the thing I don't really understand; you knowingly break the limit and complain when you get caught, and ticketed.

 

[LeeEJ]

I meant irrelevent in the conext of you being ticketed - that's down a combination of bad luck, police predjudice and of couse you actually speeding. Had they picked someone else no doubt they would say the same, fairness isn't an effective argument when the offence has been commited.

Here's the thing, though --

I fully believe that NIC could've been singled out even after being passed by minivans and family sedans. When he's talking about staying with the flow of traffic here, he means that he's staying with the other 200-300 cars per mile on the roadway. There are a lot of other vehicles, probably traveling even faster than NIC, that didn't get pulled over.

If you want to drive fast with near-impunity, you get a minivan. A Viper (or even a lightly modified Honda Civic like mine) will get microscopic-level attention from the cops.

The argument of "you were speeding, so of course you'd get pulled over regardless of traffic" helps reinforce my own point, which is that speed limits, at times, don't make any safe, practical sense, and can be used by law enforcement to arbitrarily and discriminately choose which car to pull over.

Again: if the posted limit is 60, but everyone's driving 75, are you really going to stay at 60 and risk getting rear-ended?

Remember, when the engineering & design of our interstate system was underway, one of the goals was to make it passable by typical cars traveling at 70 mph. Realize, too, that those cars were in the 1950's, which were much less capable than even today's econoboxes.

 

[LeeEJ]

How are limits enforced then? If a ticket is based on illegal enforcement methods how can it be enforced?

It depends on the officer.

Sometimes, they single out the person who's going 10-15 mph faster than everyone else and weaving through traffic. That's good.

Usually, though, they'll just sit there until they finish their donut & coffee, turn on the radar, watch several hundred "speeders" go by, and pick out the first red car that they see, even if it's in the slow lane getting passed by a soccer mom and a landscaping truck.

If you try to fight it, you're the "dangerous speed demon who obviously doesn't care about killing innocent families and has no regard for the law" going up against the word of a police officer or state trooper who's "sworn to serve and protect while upholding the letter of the law." The judge won't go against the law as written, so you'll be lucky if you gain any progress at all.



Key point: the law "as written". Laws aren't set in stone, obviously. It's the act of changing them to make more sense that's really difficult.

 

[LeeEJ]

Key point: the law "as written". Laws aren't set in stone, obviously. It's the act of changing them to make more sense that's really difficult.

Which reminds me of the original point of this thread:

Virginia flat-out said that they're imposing these huge penalties to create revenue.

This barely has anything to do with reducing speeding violations; it has everything to do with making money.

And, as long as posted limits are artificially low, they're not going to change, because that will reduce the revenue that they want.

 

[dong20]

It's not a "right"; it's a responsibility to drive more safely in all conditions, and that includes going with the flow of faster traffic in clear weather. And, yes, everyone should drive slower in bad weather
Choosing to go slower than everyone else is just as bad, IMO, as choosing to go faster.

How so, if I choose to drive down a road with a 30 mph limit on a blazing hot sunny day at 30 mph who gives anyone the right to say I can't....remember if I don't then I am commiting a moving traffic offence. Do I not have a right not to do that. People have been proscuted for driving too slowly, also failed tests for failing to make proper progress through traffic.

I didn't say it couldn't be irritating but that's another issue altogether.

(side note: we don't have a requirement for rear-facing fog lights in the US. Instead, in rainy or foggy conditions, you'll see regular-brightness taillights, flashing hazard lights, and even no lights at all -- and these are all moving vehicles. It's fucking confusing, and it's even more dangerous than it should be.)

It's just as mad here, some people put their fog lights on for a light drizzle, others drive in 50 metre visibility at dusk with sidelights.

One big factor that you didn't mention: driver education. Here, it sucks. Really, it sucks. It's an embarrassment. Driver education is awful, and it does nothing to teach drivers what will really happen with their car. It also does nothing to teach the many true "rules of the road" that, at the moment, are only learned after a decade or more of experience.

Not explicitly, but poor driving standards are a direct (de)evolution from driving education. From the complaints I here, I think it's OK here, but then I took my test years ago. There are some restrictions on what newly qualified drivers can and can't drive etc for up to two years.

The ability to drive a car is not genetic predisposition, it's a skill. And, just like any other skill, it's learned, which means that it must be taught correctly and thoroughly.

A lesson soon forgotten if what I see on the roads is any indication.

The Germans, after much difficult training, earn their place on the unrestricted sections of their autobahn, but most US drivers would lose their minds instead. We -- unfortunately, IMO -- view driving as a "right", and tend to make it as easy as possible to obtain a license. My own driving test was basically a drive around the block, with no time given to evasive maneuvering, high-speed highway driving, or snowy or icy weather. It even took me a long time to discover the best way to set my rear view mirrors.

I know, I alluded to this in passing "various factors" but it was too far off topic to go into.

It's my belief that if drivers thoroughly understand the consequences of their actions they will be much less likely to drive dangerously. Traffic fines only create fear & loathing. However, as they say, "knowledge is power", and once people begin to understand the responsibility they have to drive correctly and enable the smooth and safe flow of traffic, things just might improve.

I agree, although undertanding does not necessarily imply acceptance, but you're not saying anything ground breaking. The only thing I have tried to say here (but keep getting sidetracked) is if these fines are illegal no one has offered substantial evidence (nic sort of did) to back up that assertion and that if one knows the penalties then committing the offence rather weakens one's right to whine afterward, IMO.:biggrin1:

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

How are limits enforced then? If a ticket is based on illegal enforcement methods how can it be enforced?

Because it's impossible to get a fair trial. Like I mentioned in the thread I started, many judges are under enormous pressure to get as many convictions as possible. Each courtroom in traffic court every morning in Fairfax County will have a dockett with a hundred or so defendants waiting for their fastfood style hearing. Without an appeal, which is potentially expensive in addition to being a time consuming hassle, you are pretty much fucked. Further, most people don't want to bother with court, they just prepay online or through the mail, or if they go at all they have no idea what their rights are and it wouldn't really matter anyway.

We have those photo tickets here in the States too. I know they're more common in Europe. Those are also pretty much illegal here. It's your right here to be able to question the ticketing officer. In the case of a photo ticket, there is no ticketing officer. If you go to court and bring this up there's actually a decent chance the ticket will get thrown out, but once again, most people just mail in their $50.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

If you want to drive fast with near-impunity, you get a minivan. A Viper (or even a lightly modified Honda Civic like mine) will get microscopic-level attention from the cops.

.

This is true. I drive just as fast in my mom's Windstar minivan as I usually do in the Viper. I have no had a single ticket in the Windstar in ten years. and I used to drive that POS all the time.

Generally it's 10% + 2 here, I don't know what leeway you get in the US.

The standard rule is 5 mph over in unenforceable, and along most major interstates, some of which have absurdly low 55 mph limits posted, people routinely do 10 or 15 mph above the posted speed limit. but I've known people to get ticketed for doing 1 over. I also got a reckless driving ticket one time with no exact speed attached to it. The cop didn't get me on radar and he easily caught up to me. He said it looked like I was going fast.

 

[B_Marius567]

people here in missouri goto court to have there speeding ticket turn in to a parking ticket but it cost a lot of money about 300.00 its a good deal the court makes money the lawer makes money and the driver is happy too.

 

[LeeEJ]

How so, if I choose to drive down a road with a 30 mph limit on a blazing hot sunny day at 30 mph who gives anyone the right to say I can't....remember if I don't then I am commiting a moving traffic offence. Do I not have a right not to do that. People have been proscuted for driving too slowly, also failed tests for failing to make proper progress through traffic.

Firstly, 30 mph isn't a fair scenario because roads with 30 mph limits normally need to be kept that slow for a variety of reasons.

But anyway --

No, you shouldn't have a "right" to be driving significantly slower than the rest of the traffic. I don't care how legal you are -- you're being unsafe by being a clog of cholesterol. As a driver, it's your responsibility to go with the herd. Remember, there are idiots out there who will make fools of themselves when they try to get around you. If you go with the flow, there will be no problems.

Again, driving is not a right -- it's a responsibility. The first responsibility is safe, easy, predictable traffic flow. Accidents are much worse than tickets. If, out of a thousand cars, you're the only one that's going 20 mph slower than anyone else, you're being unpredictable and, therefore, dangerous.

So, really, why not go with the flow of traffic? Why go faster or slower?

 

[LeeEJ]

Normally, when I'm alone on the road, I drive at or near the posted limit.

It's when traffic dictates otherwise that I drive at a different speed.

Now -- don't know why I didn't think of this before -- what about flipping it around? What if the traffic has gotten slower than the posted speed limit? Do you still want to try driving at the speed limit? I mean, you're legally entitled to do so, even if it means that your 60 mph is twice as fast as everyone else going 30 in a 60 mph zone.

Oh that's right... it's dangerous.

 

[dong20]

Here's the thing, though --

I fully believe that NIC could've been singled out even after being passed by minivans and family sedans. When he's talking about staying with the flow of traffic here, he means that he's staying with the other 200-300 cars per mile on the roadway. There are a lot of other vehicles, probably traveling even faster than NIC, that didn't get pulled over.

So do I, but I believe I already said this. Look around, unfairness abounds.

The argument of "you were speeding, so of course you'd get pulled over regardless of traffic" helps reinforce my own point, which is that speed limits, at times, don't make any safe, practical sense, and can be used by law enforcement to arbitrarily and discriminately choose which car to pull over.

It's not an argument so much as a simple fact. Although the "regardless of traffic is an addition of yours, not mine. The motivation behind the pull may be dubious but the offence is real regardless. Now, should sensible discretion be applied in such cases, yes of course but that's largely out of our control.

But, you're rather missing my point which isn't about the right or wrong of the limits per se, (that's a different argument) but merely that they exist and if one knowingly breaks them, consequences may result. That's surely not hard to grasp, is it? I just want be sure we're clear about what is being 'argued'.

Again: if the posted limit is 60, but everyone's driving 75, are you really going to stay at 60 and risk getting rear-ended?

Pull over, maybe and let them pass? That's what I do if I have some idiot tailgating me, how hard is that? Not always that easy of course, I accept that.

Remember, when the engineering & design of our interstate system was underway, one of the goals was to make it passable by typical cars traveling at 70 mph. Realize, too, that those cars were in the 1950's, which were much less capable than even today's econoboxes.

Yes, that's true and I think I mentioned the changes in vehicle technology and the benefits of good management etc on Autobahns. Again, your arguments appear based around the injustice of the limits and their enforcement and again I agree with many of your points.

I'm going round in circles here, and have stated my views on that three times at least. The merit or not of speed limits is probably too wide ranging to acheive more than a token agreement on basic principles, which I think we have already done.

My argument has been about their legality in the context of the this and the other thread and that accepting them as 'fair' or not is somewhat incidental to the simple fact that if we speed and get caught, pouting is not a credible defence.

 

[LeeEJ]

Pull over, maybe and let them pass? That's what I do if I have some idiot tailgating me, how hard is that? Not always that easy of course, I accept that.

So you're saying that you're going to pull over and sit there for five hours of rush "hour" (heavy traffic in this area starts well before 3 PM and continues 'till after 8) while 120,000 vehicles fly by? Now, no offense, but that's completely stupid. Go with the flow. You'll live longer, and so will the drivers around you.

And besides, they won't be able to yell at you for being an idiot if you're keeping up with traffic. Who's dumber -- the multitudes driving at about the same speed, or the lone ranger who's intent on causing a hassle for everyone else?

 

[dong20]

Firstly, 30 mph isn't a fair scenario because roads with 30 mph limits normally need to be kept that slow for a variety of reasons.

Fair by your definition. So it's Ok to drive at 30 in a 30 but not 50 in a 50 for example because you think that's fairer?

No, you shouldn't have a "right" to be driving significantly slower than the rest of the traffic. I don't care how legal you are -- you're being unsafe by being a clog of cholesterol. As a driver, it's your responsibility to go with the herd. Remember, there are idiots out there who will make fools of themselves when they try to get around you. If you go with the flow, there will be no problems.

So, I should be forced to commit an offence merely because the person behind wants to drive faster? Let's be clear, I'm not advocating driving at 30 on a motorway or 10 in a 30, I was talking about, for example driving 70 on a motorway or 30 in a 30 in other words the maximum legal speed.

If I sit in the middle or outside lanes at that speed and slow people down then yes, I'm being an ass and possibly dangerous, but if I move to the inside and do so I'm well within my rights, people can pass if they wish.

Actually, I am in either case, at least technically but I could open myself to risk of an accident and potentially careless driving or driving without due care and attention charges. So naturally I would move over or speed up if so, accept the consequences, i.e. back to the topic.

Again, driving is not a right -- it's a responsibility. The first responsibility is safe, easy, predictable traffic flow. Accidents are much worse than tickets. If, out of a thousand cars, you're the only one that's going 20 mph slower than anyone else, you're being unpredictable and, therefore, dangerous.

You're being repetitive, where did I say it was a right?????

Yes go with the flow that's exactly right, but if that flow is doing 100 mph which should I feel I must do likewise. Remove the limit and I may well do I may well do so anyway of course and take the chance of being caught. I don't really understand how you're having trouble understanding this concept.

So, really, why not go with the flow of traffic? Why go faster or slower?

You, do appear to have problems with basic concepts;

First, I have the right to drive at whatever speed I deem safe for the given conditions, no one else can do that for me. I will not be pressured to drive faster by anyone. That makes me dangerous, yes?

If that speed is the speed limit, or even below, then so be it, I couldn't care less about the idiot behind me who wants to drive at whatever speed they do, yes, I will let them pass as soon as I can, until then they wait, end of story. They may be willing to crash and burn, that's their choice.

If that speed is in excess of the limit so be it I will speed, and often do. My whole point being that if I do so, and thus knowingly break the law and get caught, saying it's unfair may be true, but it will almost certainly cut no ice in court.

There, simple.

 

[dong20]

So you're saying that you're going to pull over and sit there for five hours of rush "hour" (heavy traffic in this area starts well before 3 PM and continues 'till after 8) while 120,000 vehicles fly by? Now, no offense, but that's completely stupid. Go with the flow. You'll live longer, and so will the drivers around you.

And besides, they won't be able to yell at you for being an idiot if you're keeping up with traffic. Who's dumber -- the multitudes driving at about the same speed, or the lone ranger who's intent on causing a hassle for everyone else?

You're ability to find things where they don't exist is quite amazing. If you actually read what I wrote, please show me where I said any of the above. You also may find, for the most part I agree with you, you clearly can't see it.

By way of example of how that comes across; Scenario thick fog at night, people are driving nose to tail at 100 mph, ask yourself, are you going to keep up with the flow?

Yet, you call me stupid.

 

[dong20]

This is true. I drive just as fast in my mom's Windstar minivan as I usually do in the Viper. I have no had a single ticket in the Windstar in ten years. and I used to drive that POS all the time.

I agree, it sucks.

The standard rule is 5 mph over in unenforceable, and along most major interstates, some of which have absurdly low 55 mph limits posted, people routinely do 10 or 15 mph above the posted speed limit. but I've known people to get ticketed for doing 1 over. I also got a reckless driving ticket one time with no exact speed attached to it. The cop didn't get me on radar and he easily caught up to me. He said it looked like I was going fast.

Really, that's a bit weak isn't it? I'd have thought a ticket for a 1 mph would be legally challengable on technical grounds alone? I suppose it's cheaper to pay the fine, which is, I accept, probably part of your argument.

That 'can't' really happen here, and as a general principle the evidence of one officer alone, without the extra evidence of another 'system', gun, nascar, camera etc is unlikely to see a courtroom, though that's not written in stone. In such cases, a warning will be usually be issued.

 

[thirteenbyseven]

I've been singled out plenty of times I think because of the car I drive. I'll be driving the same speed or slower than the traffic around me sometimes, or be driving at reasonable speeds when NOBODY is around on the road, and still get pulled over because my car is flashy. Then they see my driving record, which shows I get pulled over a lot- becauase lots of other cops also unfairly singled me out, and I get hit with another $1000 ticket. btw, I already started a thread about this.

There is little doubt that speeding citations are increasingly a euphamism for discriminatory taxation. Law enforcement, public safety groups and all the usual little 'ol ladies in white tennie pumpers will yell bloody murder with the usual "speed kills" arguments, but the truth is that revenue enhancement drives the entire fiasco. I would much rather be my 2007 ZO6 Corvette at 120 mph in trail of a Viper driven by NineInchCock than traveling the artificially low 55 mph speed limit behind a senior citizen in an Oldsmobile. Driving ability and unpredictability kills, not speed alone. And everyone including law enforcement know that unwritten axiom but continue the charade of "speed kills" because of the much-needed revenue stream.

Why can't there be a go fast sticker affixed to the bumper of someone with a high performance car who has gone through racing school and has demonstrated the competency to drive safely at speeds of (for example) 100 mph along rural interstates like I-15 from Southern California to Las Vegas? The way it is now is an elaborate game of "chicken" is played with the Highway Patrol with each side's knowledge each and every day: ninty-nine percent of the time the driver gets lucky only to get nailed on an unlucky day when he didn't spot the black & white patrol car hiding behind the sign.

If citations were only for safety what happens when police officers conduct a ticket slow-down during contract talks? Answer: havock and crises in the financial coffers of city hall. That is why it is such an effective barganing tool during contract negotiation.

Does the Highway Patrol look out for someone traveling in a red Super Wombat Mach 5 as opposed to a 1997 Toyota Camry? Damn right they do. Moreover, the police officer, the judge and the potential jury are all mentally pre-conditioned that his 11 mph over the limit was more felonious than Grandma Girdles 11 mph speed bump in her Camry. Odds are the Wombat driver won't contest the ticket becuase he has a job, his time is valuable and the expense of fighting a ticket are prohibitive; so the ticket racket continues unabated as one of the great farces in the United States law and judicial system.

 

[LeeEJ]

If I sit in the middle or outside lanes at that speed and slow people down then yes, I'm being an ass and possibly dangerous, but if I move to the inside and do so I'm well within my rights, people can pass if they wish.

You're being repetitive, where did I say it was a right?????

Look above. ^^^

And below:

First, I have the right to drive at whatever speed I deem safe for the given conditions, no one else can do that for me. I will not be pressured to drive faster by anyone. That makes me dangerous, yes?

If the given conditions deem it safest that you drive 80 mph along with everyone else, then yes, you'd better damn well drive as fast as everyone else -- otherwise you're posing a danger to those around you.

You wonder what I don't get; I don't get why you can't understand "go with the flow". Holy fuck.

 

[LeeEJ]

By way of example of how that comes across; Scenario thick fog at night, people are driving nose to tail at 100 mph, ask yourself, are you going to keep up with the flow?

Unfortunately, YES, because if I don't, I'm going to get absolutely nailed by somebody else who's going 100 mph and somebody's going to fucking die.

Either that, or I get off the road and stay away from the lunatics.

 

[LeeEJ]

Fair by your definition. So it's Ok to drive at 30 in a 30 but not 50 in a 50 for example because you think that's fairer?

Of course I didn't say that.

And you complain that I read things into your posts. x eleventybillion

:tongue: