Seriously, fight every ticket...

[VTEC_Inside]

Some of you may recall that I got a ticket for 118kph in a 70kph (48kph over) last August.

Had my trial date today. I get there and my name isn't on the docket, wtf??

I go up to the admin office and find out that the officer requested an adjournment May 2. I never got the notice. I had a feeling she wouldn't show, she didn't seem too sure of herself at the time of the ticket.

Anyways, new date was NOVEMBER 11!!!!, over a year from the offence. So I meet with a prosecutor again and he says well, I'll give you 29kph over and 3pts instead of the 48kph over and 4pts ($160 vs $350). I asked about my right to a prompt trial (has to be within 8 months here) and was told that its still up to the court to decide at the time, so I said to hell with it and took the 29kph over.

Chances are she may not have even shown up in November, but I was looking for a conclusion today, so...

I was only doing 25kph tops at the time, but it just wasn't worth it to put it off to November over 4kph and continued uncertainty about the outcome.

In the end I did get what I was trying for at my first attendance meeting. I suggested 29kph over then but no go. I needed the 29kph over to get it down to a 3pt ticket which is a "minor" offense, not a "major".

Insurance companies here will let 2 "minor" offenses slide, but 1 major and you are f'd.

Just glad thats over with.

Also took a 2008 Civic Si Sedan for a test drive today... Stay tuned for my review including my thoughts that 172kph looks faster when its written than it does on a dial :P

[James Young]

I disagree with the acceptance of a reduced violation just to get rid of a pending item.  What is wrong with dragging out a citation for over a year (or 2 or 3)?  Nothing should show on your record of an accusation, which is all a citation is, util it becomes a conviction, which is what pleading to a reduced charge is.  I once got a cite from a Chippie, contested it (as always) and she couldn't shop up for court about a year later because she was in a mental hospital (according to a Chippie wanna be).

[VTEC_Inside]

I disagree with the acceptance of a reduced violation just to get rid of a pending item.  What is wrong with dragging out a citation for over a year (or 2 or 3)?  Nothing should show on your record of an accusation, which is all a citation is, util it becomes a conviction, which is what pleading to a reduced charge is.  I once got a cite from a Chippie, contested it (as always) and she couldn't shop up for court about a year later because she was in a mental hospital (according to a Chippie wanna be).

I know what you are saying, and I did contemplate it for a bit. I even considered that I could file for an adjournment myself come November and stretch it out even longer.

However, as I said, had I gone on the stand (which I realize I wouldn't have HAD too), I would not have been able to testify to a considerably slower speed anyway.

I was fully prepared with a page of questions to nail her with too. Spent 2hrs on it last night.

In the end I still won IMO. Maybe not as clear and concise a victory as I could have, but I just wanted it over with...

[NomisR]

Hey, so if we couldn't show up to court, we automatically lose, if they couldn't show up to court, they could postpone it as many times as they want and we would still have to go to court every time to find out they postpone it.  So basically we have to waste A LOT of time, and time = money, so a lot of money, to fight this ticket.  And we're based on a guilty until proven innocent in this situation as well.  So how is any of this suppose to be fair?  They allow for this is just because they know people may just end up paying instead of wasting their time and they make the money? 

This is really screwed..

[Lebowski]

I fight all my tickets, but I just hire a lawyer to do it.  Something like $70 and they guarantee no points, but I still usually end up paying the ticket.  That's fine, I just don't want the points.

[VTEC_Inside]

Hey, so if we couldn't show up to court, we automatically lose, if they couldn't show up to court, they could postpone it as many times as they want and we would still have to go to court every time to find out they postpone it.  So basically we have to waste A LOT of time, and time = money, so a lot of money, to fight this ticket.  And we're based on a guilty until proven innocent in this situation as well.  So how is any of this suppose to be fair?  They allow for this is just because they know people may just end up paying instead of wasting their time and they make the money? 

This is really screwed..

Technically I could have filed an adjournment same as she did. Of course if I did it and then went to trial I'm sure they'd find a way to use it against me.

Could I have done better? Probably. Given the effort it required, I still feel pretty good about it overall.

[bing_oh]

Hey, so if we couldn't show up to court, we automatically lose, if they couldn't show up to court, they could postpone it as many times as they want and we would still have to go to court every time to find out they postpone it.  So basically we have to waste A LOT of time, and time = money, so a lot of money, to fight this ticket.  And we're based on a guilty until proven innocent in this situation as well.  So how is any of this suppose to be fair?  They allow for this is just because they know people may just end up paying instead of wasting their time and they make the money? 

This is really screwed..

Sounds like the exact opposite of every court I've ever been in, actually. It's impossible to find a person guilty of an offense in absentia in the US, so the accused has to be there. The court will postpone the proceedings until those arrangements can be made (including holding the person in jail with a bench warrant until the scheduled hearing to make sure they appear). However, if the state (prosecutor) or arresting officer screws up and misses a scheduled hearing, most courts will automatically dismiss the charges. The courts tend to be much more leaniant with the defendant rescheduling hearings than with the state.

Btw, fighting every ticket just contributes to judicial backlog that's already out of control. How about you encourage people to actually take responsibility for their actions and man up when they're wrong and they get busted?

[Rupert]

I view fighting tickets as a form of protest, at least to some extent.

[James Young]

Btw, fighting every ticket just contributes to judicial backlog that's already out of control. How about you encourage people to actually take responsibility for their actions and man up when they're wrong and they get busted?

What you want is for drivers to take punishment for their perfectly reasonable actions.  What kinds of fools want to punish people for doing the right thing?  How about making the law reasonable in the first place?

[Middle_Path]

Btw, fighting every ticket just contributes to judicial backlog that's already out of control. How about you encourage people to actually take responsibility for their actions and man up when they're wrong and they get busted?

[dazzleman]

I view fighting tickets as a form of protest, at least to some extent.

That's a pretty empty-headed idea -- the idea that somehow, 'protest' is a good thing in and of itself.

But it isn't.  Like many who glorify 'protest,' you have attempted to elevate something that is self serving into something higher.  You're kidding yourself.

If you do something that really is wrong, there's no glory in 'protesting' your punishment.  That doesn't make you a crusader for justice; it simply makes you a self-interested weasel.

The idea of protest as a high ideal is only valid if it is used in pursuit of a truly good cause (which isn't the case all that often).

I view the whole thing a bit more practically.  In this society, just about everything, including justice, is subject to negotiation.  Sometimes, it is worth fighting a ticket in order to lessen the price you have to pay for it, the same way a person negotiates to lower the price of a car rather than pay full sticker price.  Other times, it's not worth it to negotiate.  I have contested some tickets I've gotten in order to lower the fine and points, while in other cases I've just mailed in a check.  It all depends on the potential benefit of contesting the ticket (the extent of the possible reduction in fine/points) versus the potential cost (how much time/travel must be invested in fighting the ticket).

I've never looked at contesting a ticket that I rightfully got as a form of 'protest' because that implies that my having received the ticket was a form of injustice, which it was not in any case that I've experienced.

I think that people who conjure up the idea of 'protest' and 'injustice' in cases where it doesn't really exist, in order to serve themselves, take away from the ability to fight real injustice.  They become like the boy who cried 'wolf' when it wasn't really there, so that when it really is there, nobody believes him.

[dazzleman]

Sounds like the exact opposite of every court I've ever been in, actually. It's impossible to find a person guilty of an offense in absentia in the US, so the accused has to be there. The court will postpone the proceedings until those arrangements can be made (including holding the person in jail with a bench warrant until the scheduled hearing to make sure they appear). However, if the state (prosecutor) or arresting officer screws up and misses a scheduled hearing, most courts will automatically dismiss the charges. The courts tend to be much more leaniant with the defendant rescheduling hearings than with the state.

Btw, fighting every ticket just contributes to judicial backlog that's already out of control. How about you encourage people to actually take responsibility for their actions and man up when they're wrong and they get busted?

I think you're right -- I've never heard about people being convicted in abstentia, except in very special cases.  In traffic cases, the charges just remain pending until the person is actually caught in person, which often doesn't happen, since bench warrants for traffic offenses aren't high priority.  The idea that traffic violators are terribly abused by the system is a real fallacy; if anything, the system isn't tough enough on serious violators.

As for people 'manning up' when they get busted, that's a very foreign concept to most people today.  Still, the reality is that most people do pay their fines rather than show up in court because going to court is a real hassle.  Personally, if I'm not really pressed for time, I actually find traffic court entertaining, and don't mind showing up to respond to a ticket (though I rarely get ticketed any more).  Traffic court is always good for a few funny stories.

But it's true that people who don't mind wasting good chunks of their time can muck up the system in a bad way.  One thing that Connecticut does in cases like this is that if you contest a ticket and take it all the way to court, and you are convicted of the offense, you are charged an additional fine plus court costs, so there's a potential cost to fighting your ticket frivolously all the way through trial, over and above what you would have paid for settling it earlier.  Maybe this deters some people who know they are guilty.

I've never actually taken a ticket to trial because I can't envision myself going up on the stand to testify and lying, since I've always been fully guilty of every charge when I've gotten tickets in the past.  In some cases, I have gone to court and bargained down the fine and points with the state's attorney, and then pleaded guilty.  That's as far as I've taken it.  I think I've always gotten off more lightly than I've deserved, so I've never complained about the outcome of any of my tickets. 

Unlike some people, I never really minded getting tickets, once I got past the first one.  I was always guilty as charged, and most of my friends were getting them too.  We considered them a badge of honor of sorts, and had informal competitions over who was getting more of them.  Nobody wanted to be too much of a laggard in that category, so there were times I actually welcomed getting a ticket on some level.  I have a fairly keen sense of justice, so if I had ever been wrongly charged, I'd have been furious, but that also extends to accepting penalties that I know I deserve.

[Lebowski]

Btw, fighting every ticket just contributes to judicial backlog that's already out of control. How about you encourage people to actually take responsibility for their actions and man up when they're wrong and they get busted?

How about LEOs stop giving writing speeding tickets such a high priority?

[MaxPower]

I'm working in a prosecutor's office this summer.  Violations bureau is coming up in a few weeks.  The DA gives all the driving cases to the second-year law student interns to have fun with.  I'm looking forward to it...I'm sure there will be some great stories!

So if your prosecutor might look a little young, it's cause s/he's probably still a student!

How about LEOs stop giving writing speeding tickets such a high priority?

Where I live I don't think speeding tickets are a very high priority--cops are much more concerned about OUI.  The local newspaper actually keeps a scoreboard of each of the local PD officer's summonses.  In the entire month of April, 10 officers wrote 32 tickets, and one wrote 12 by himself.

[Raza]

Btw, fighting every ticket just contributes to judicial backlog that's already out of control. How about you encourage people to actually take responsibility for their actions and man up when they're wrong and they get busted?

Then stop handing out tickets. 

[VTEC_Inside]

Sounds like the exact opposite of every court I've ever been in, actually. It's impossible to find a person guilty of an offense in absentia in the US, so the accused has to be there. The court will postpone the proceedings until those arrangements can be made (including holding the person in jail with a bench warrant until the scheduled hearing to make sure they appear). However, if the state (prosecutor) or arresting officer screws up and misses a scheduled hearing, most courts will automatically dismiss the charges. The courts tend to be much more leaniant with the defendant rescheduling hearings than with the state.

Btw, fighting every ticket just contributes to judicial backlog that's already out of control. How about you encourage people to actually take responsibility for their actions and man up when they're wrong and they get busted?

FWIW, if you don't show up on your court date here in Ontario you are found guilty in absence.

Regarding my suggestion, I stand by it. It is your right to contest any ticket regardless. Court fees are part of the fine, you are paying for it, so why not.

Both times I've met with a prosecutor ahead of time I had the option of having my ticket reduced 15kph without even opening my mouth. Tell me why you wouldn't take advantage of that?

I'm not suggesting that one shrug off any responsibility, but that you shouldn't just bend over and take it so to speak.

In my case the officer that pulled me over simply didn't listen to me and accept the fact that she could be wrong, IMO re-enforced by the fact that she waited till May 2 to file the adjournment.

[dazzleman]

FWIW, if you don't show up on your court date here in Ontario you are found guilty in absence.

Regarding my suggestion, I stand by it. It is your right to contest any ticket regardless. Court fees are part of the fine, you are paying for it, so why not.

Both times I've met with a prosecutor ahead of time I had the option of having my ticket reduced 15kph without even opening my mouth. Tell me why you wouldn't take advantage of that?

I'm not suggesting that one shrug off any responsibility, but that you shouldn't just bend over and take it so to speak.

In my case the officer that pulled me over simply didn't listen to me and accept the fact that she could be wrong, IMO re-enforced by the fact that she waited till May 2 to file the adjournment.

I agree with you VTEC, though I also think Bing_oh has a good point.

There's a difference between accepting responsibility, and accepting the maximum possible punishment for your actions.  It's possible to accept responsibility while, at the same time, negotiating the terms of your punishment.  That is what you did, and that is what I have done several times.

I would feel pretty stupid if I were paying a significantly higher price for my actions than another person who did the same thing, and that's effectively what happens if you just mail in your ticket without trying to negotiate down the penalty.

At the same time, I do deplore people who are guilty as charged, and who try to play the victim when they get ticketed.  It's an obnoxious element of our society that we have so many people who do this.  I think it's an immature and weasely way to behave.  I guess I'm more of a defiant poker-faced type person -- I'd rather pretend a punishment didn't bother me even if it was extremely painful rather than be perceived as a whiny little bitch who can't handle a fine and a few points for an offense of which I'm guilty.

[dazzleman]

I'm working in a prosecutor's office this summer.  Violations bureau is coming up in a few weeks.  The DA gives all the driving cases to the second-year law student interns to have fun with.  I'm looking forward to it...I'm sure there will be some great stories!

So if your prosecutor might look a little young, it's cause s/he's probably still a student!

Where I live I don't think speeding tickets are a very high priority--cops are much more concerned about OUI.  The local newspaper actually keeps a scoreboard of each of the local PD officer's summonses.  In the entire month of April, 10 officers wrote 32 tickets, and one wrote 12 by himself.

Jeff, I guarantee you'll have some great stories.  Please share them as they come in.  Traffic court can be very entertaining, and you'll be a participant.

I'm not surprised that the law student interns get the traffic cases.  I imagine they're considered the garbage heap of the prosecutorial world.  Enjoy the experience...

[hotrodalex]

At the same time, I do deplore people who are guilty as charged, and who try to play the victim when they get ticketed.  It's an obnoxious element of our society that we have so many people who do this.  I think it's an immature and weasely way to behave.  I guess I'm more of a defiant poker-faced type person -- I'd rather pretend a punishment didn't bother me even if it was extremely painful rather than be perceived as a whiny little bitch who can't handle a fine and a few points for an offense of which I'm guilty.

I'm the same way. I'll take it and look like nothing is wrong at all. People who whine and complain piss me off, especially when they know they screwed up.

One time I saw this guy get pulled over for street racing. He was DEFINITELY racing, I mean he pulled up to the car in front of me and bluntly asked if the guy wanted to race. They were weaving and speeding and everything. When he got pulled over, I heard him say "that's BS I wasn't racing! How the fuck did you think I was racing?" The cop just stared at him and then took him into custody. I forget the kid's excuse, but he went to court and tried to fight it. The dude needs to learn how to buck up and take it like a man.

[James Young]

I find the term ?accepting responsibility? applied to perfectly reasonable behavior to be disingenuous at best.  The more important question is, ?Should drivers be punished for that perfectly reasonable behavior??  Several posters have equated ?accepting responsibility? to ?admitting fault and accepting punishment without whining,? and I believe that stance is silly on its face. 

If a driver was going the wrong way on a divided, limited access highway, that is egregious enough to warrant ?accepting responsibility.?  Likewise, if a driver violates a stop sign or signal (inadvertently or willfully), that should warrant ?accepting responsibility.?

However, let?s get real.  Speeding cites outnumber all others issued combined by about two to one and the vast majority of those are for perfectly reasonable and safe, albeit illegal, speeds.  We as a society gain no benefit from forcing ?responsibility? on those drivers but we do pay a very high price.  The law itself becomes a joke and that extends to more legitimate laws as well.  If speed limits are silly, why not laws against other personal behavior?  The biggest loser in this system is the organization of civil society, the thing that we call governance or government.  If that government is willing to lie to the people over something as benign as speeding, what else are they lying about?  The people lose trust in that government and whether the lie is about the bogus imminent threat of petty dictators designed to excuse a war of choice or the bogus dangers of speeding, the loser is the government that perpetrates such lies.  And when the government loses, we all lose because we are the government.

[MaxPower]

I find the term ?accepting responsibility? applied to perfectly reasonable behavior to be disingenuous at best.  The more important question is, ?Should drivers be punished for that perfectly reasonable behavior??  Several posters have equated ?accepting responsibility? to ?admitting fault and accepting punishment without whining,? and I believe that stance is silly on its face. 

If a driver was going the wrong way on a divided, limited access highway, that is egregious enough to warrant ?accepting responsibility.?  Likewise, if a driver violates a stop sign or signal (inadvertently or willfully), that should warrant ?accepting responsibility.?

However, let?s get real.  Speeding cites outnumber all others issued combined by about two to one and the vast majority of those are for perfectly reasonable and safe, albeit illegal, speeds.  We as a society gain no benefit from forcing ?responsibility? on those drivers but we do pay a very high price.  The law itself becomes a joke and that extends to more legitimate laws as well.  If speed limits are silly, why not laws against other personal behavior?  The biggest loser in this system is the organization of civil society, the thing that we call governance or government.  If that government is willing to lie to the people over something as benign as speeding, what else are they lying about?  The people lose trust in that government and whether the lie is about the bogus imminent threat of petty dictators designed to excuse a war of choice or the bogus dangers of speeding, the loser is the government that perpetrates such lies.  And when the government loses, we all lose because we are the government.

I don't think there's a sliding scale where all of the sudden you hit an arbitrary point and can begin "accepting responsibility."  You can accept responsibility for any wrong, whether it be murder or taking a cookie when mommy told you not to (punishment is another matter).  What you call reasonable behavior, driving over the speed limit, isn't considered reasonable by those who set the standards, so it's wrong (or whatever other label you want to put on it).

As I see it, instead of loosing trust in the government over artificial speed limits, the people should work change the speed limits.  There's enough democracy left in the US government that if enough people want change, it'll happen.

[dazzleman]

I don't think there's a sliding scale where all of the sudden you hit an arbitrary point and can begin "accepting responsibility."  You can accept responsibility for any wrong, whether it be murder or taking a cookie when mommy told you not to (punishment is another matter).  What you call reasonable behavior, driving over the speed limit, isn't considered reasonable by those who set the standards, so it's wrong (or whatever other label you want to put on it).

As I see it, instead of loosing trust in the government over artificial speed limits, the people should work change the speed limits.  There's enough democracy left in the US government that if enough people want change, it'll happen.

I think the real issue is that people want the speed laws to limit other people, but not themselves.  Most people have a basic hypocrisy that causes them to violate the rules that they seek to impose on other people.  We see this in many forms, such as the ultra conservative minister who turns out to have a same-sex underaged lover, and those who speed while supporting lower speed limits are one of the milder forms of this tendency.

The bottom line is that the law can never be perfect.  There are variations in weather, driving abilities, automobile capabilities, and road conditions that make it impossible to set a maximum safe speed that will apply to all drivers, and all cars, under all circumstances.

When I got my last speeder, I was driving a speed I considered to be safe, because while I was significantly above the speed limit, I was in a commercial area where all the stores were closed, and the traffic was very light.  The speed limit there is set for times during the day when cars are pulling in and out of the parking lots, and the speed I was driving at would not have been safe at that time.

Still, I didn't complain about the ticket because I made a deliberately choice to drive well above the speed limit, and I consider the speed limit to be reasonable under most circumstances.  Had I been going only 10 mph or so above the speed limit, I probably wouldn't have even been stopped.  I brought that ticket upon myself, and I think it would be stupid for me to go around complaining about the 'injustice' of getting what I deserved.

Another point I learned a long time ago -- it feels much better to accept responsibility for your actions than to blame other people and walk around with a sense of injustice.  By accepting the consequences for violating rules without rancor, you are asserting your own control over your destiny, and implicitly recognizing that it's possible to avoid those penalties if you wish.  Blaming other people under those circumstances simply nurses a sense of powerlessness that feels worse than the penalty itself.  At least that's my experience.

[Soup DeVille]

I don't think there's a sliding scale where all of the sudden you hit an arbitrary point and can begin "accepting responsibility."  You can accept responsibility for any wrong, whether it be murder or taking a cookie when mommy told you not to (punishment is another matter).  What you call reasonable behavior, driving over the speed limit, isn't considered reasonable by those who set the standards, so it's wrong (or whatever other label you want to put on it).

As I see it, instead of loosing trust in the government over artificial speed limits, the people should work change the speed limits.  There's enough democracy left in the US government that if enough people want change, it'll happen.

I refuse to adopt the idea that law defines the difference between right and wrong.

[dazzleman]

I refuse to adopt the idea that law defines the difference between right and wrong.

Fair enough, but what does?

This is one of those questions to which there is no easy answer.  Sometimes the law is wrong, and about much more serious issues than the speed limit.

At the same time, you can't have everybody just deciding their own speed.  Not everybody has the judgment to do that, and they can be a serious danger to others.

I think in general that the law should be there to protect other people from you, but not to protect you from yourself.

Under good circumstances (there is no ideal), the law is a general guide to right vs. wrong.  This is not a black and white issue, but a matter of degree.

Is it wrong to go 1 mph over the speed limit?  Usually not, but under certain circumstances, driving at the speed limit could be reckless.  There are times when it's perfectly safe to go significantly above the speed limit.

But I don't think it's tenable to argue that it's OK to substitute personal opinions for the law on a blanket basis.  There are times when the law must be disobeyed to do what is right, but speed limit issues don't fall under this category.

[James Young]

You can accept responsibility for any wrong, whether it be murder or taking a cookie when mommy told you not to (punishment is another matter).

Punishment ? the transfer of tens of billions from motorists to governmental agencies ? is what drives this whole crazy scenario.  Remove the money and enforcement would dry up faster than a sno-cone at Furnace Creek.  The people and agencies who get the money don?t care about responsibility except as puffery to excuse the theft of that money for no good reason.

What you call reasonable behavior, driving over the speed limit, isn't considered reasonable by those who set the standards, so it's wrong (or whatever other label you want to put on it).

It isn?t just me saying that; it is also 80+ million drivers who exceed those arbitrary limits every day; it is the statistics that tell us that those who espouse or excuse those limits are either ignorant or malevolent.  We have to make those judgments and we have done so with phenomenal success, evidenced by ever-improving key safety statistics.  It is those who set those ?standards? based not on scientific or engineering data but upon political whim, frequently driven by greed that are wrong, not the motorists.  For example, how many cities have to shorten yellow-light times in order to generate more RLC citations and more money before we say enough!?  How many villages of <200 people bringing in $1+ million a year before we say the standards are wrong?

Along with many others, I have challenged the proponents of low limits to prove their case and despite using phony data and public relations spinners, they have been unable to do so for 50 years.

As I see it, instead of loosing trust in the government over artificial speed limits, the people should work change the speed limits.  There's enough democracy left in the US government that if enough people want change, it'll happen.

I strongly disagree.  To my knowledge ? and, yes, I have looked ? not one single election anywhere has offered motorists a ballot choice over speed limits or RLCs or any other traffic flow question.  Money has replaced the ballot box as the currency of democracy so now special interests rule the roost and those special interests are the very organizations that make billions from ever more onerous rules that produce no benefit except to those organizations. 

Aside from the millions of drivers who protest the law by simply ignoring it, the closest thing that I have ever seen to a referendum on traffic flow is the recent London (UK) mayoral election where Boris Johnson ousted Ken Livingstone on a platform of removing all the anti-motorist legislation implemented by Livingstone

[GoCougs]

What you want is for drivers to take punishment for their perfectly reasonable actions.  What kinds of fools want to punish people for doing the right thing?  How about making the law reasonable in the first place?

Perfectly reasonable actions, such as driving 118 kph in a 70 kph (74 mph in a 45) like VTEC_Inside? That cannot be spun as anything but far too excessive, and that which absolutely deserves a citation.

My hunch is and remains that the vast majority of citations are for 10 mph+ over the posted limit. Sure there are exceptions (my pet peeve being transitions on highways/freeways way, way before the populated areas), but that IMO is quite reasonable.

Show me evidence that many or most citations are for less than 10 mph over the posted limit and my tune will change.

I find the term ?accepting responsibility? applied to perfectly reasonable behavior to be disingenuous at best.  The more important question is, ?Should drivers be punished for that perfectly reasonable behavior??  Several posters have equated ?accepting responsibility? to ?admitting fault and accepting punishment without whining,? and I believe that stance is silly on its face. 

"Taking responsibility" is taking yer lumps for knowingly breaking the rules.

[dazzleman]

Perfectly reasonable actions, such as driving 118 kph in a 70 kph (74 mph in a 45) like VTEC_Inside? That cannot be spun as anything but far too excessive, and that which absolutely deserves a citation.

My hunch is and remains that the vast majority of citations are for 10 mph+ over the posted limit. Sure there are exceptions (my pet peeve being transitions on highways/freeways way, way before the populated areas), but that IMO is quite reasonable.

Show me evidence that many or most citations are for less than 10 mph over the posted limit and my tune will change.

"Taking responsibility" is taking yer lumps for knowingly breaking the rules.

I agree with you, GoCougs.

I think that while speed limits are often set artificially low, this is compensated for by the fact that in most cases, you have to be about 15 mph above the speed limit before you'll get written up for speeding.  I've never been tagged for less than that over.

What gets lost in all this is that there are many people out there with very poor judgment, and a lack of regard for the safety of others.  I realize that speeding tickets are a big revenue for government, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong to punish those who endanger the safety of others.

Does every ticket indicate unsafe driving?  Of course not.  But I also think that many drivers aren't honest with others or even themselves about the safety of their driving speeds.

I'd much rather see good enforcement of reasonable laws, even if I myself get tagged occasionally, than deal with a situation where the roads are totally lawless, and I'm at the mercy of people with horrendous judgment and a disregard for their own safety and that of others.

[GoCougs]

I agree with you, GoCougs.

I think that while speed limits are often set artificially low, this is compensated for by the fact that in most cases, you have to be about 15 mph above the speed limit before you'll get written up for speeding.  I've never been tagged for less than that over.

What gets lost in all this is that there are many people out there with very poor judgment, and a lack of regard for the safety of others.  I realize that speeding tickets are a big revenue for government, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong to punish those who endanger the safety of others.

Does every ticket indicate unsafe driving?  Of course not.  But I also think that many drivers aren't honest with others or even themselves about the safety of their driving speeds.

I'd much rather see good enforcement of reasonable laws, even if I myself get tagged occasionally, than deal with a situation where the roads are totally lawless, and I'm at the mercy of people with horrendous judgment and a disregard for their own safety and that of others.

At times I give James Young a bit of a hard time, but I am by no means Mr. Safety or a prude on the subject as I've done plenty of stupid stuff behind the wheel.

There are literally millions of cars on the road every single day, so a line has to be drawn somewhere. but there's inherent leeway built into individual situations and IMO 10 mph+ seems to be about it, and I think it works. I know, the sin of anecdote as evidence, but the people I know/known with lots of tickets were really, really bad (read unsafe, not just fast) drivers.

[dazzleman]

At times I give James Young a bit of a hard time, but I am by no means Mr. Safety or a prude on the subject as I've done plenty of stupid stuff behind the wheel.

There are literally millions of cars on the road every single day, so a line has to be drawn somewhere. but there's inherent leeway built into individual situations and IMO 10 mph+ seems to be about it, and I think it works. I know, the sin of anecdote as evidence, but the people I know/known with lots of tickets were really, really bad (read unsafe, not just fast) drivers.

I'm not Mr. Safety or a prude behind the wheel either.  I drive pretty fast most of the time.  Today I drive on the highway and at times I approached 30 mph over the speed limit.

Still, you're right that a line has to be drawn somewhere.  I think you're right that people who get tickets constantly are bad drivers.  Most of my friends got a respectable number of tickets when were in our 20s, and some of them were bad drivers.  There wasn't always a direct correlation in the sense that sometimes, those with fewer tickets were worse drivers than those with more tickets.  But none of them got huge numbers of tickets; generally, the worst ones were getting 2-3 tickets in a 3-year period, which is not horrible at that age.

Now, I can't remember the last time any of my friends got a ticket.  I guess it's just that we're getting old.

[Raza]

"I've never looked at contesting a ticket that I rightfully got as a form of 'protest' because that implies that my having received the ticket was a form of injustice, which it was not in any case that I've experienced."

That's because you think that you can rightfully get a ticket for reasonable behavior.  Your world view is fucked up.  You see getting around the system as a sport and getting caught as simply the cost of playing.  But you accept the rules unquestioningly.  Existence isn't proof of righteousness.  It's only proof of existence.

I may be off base here.  If so, please set me straight.