Court date for the HOV lane ticket was today. The attorney just emailed saying case was dismissed. One of the chief reasons I chose to fight this one is because a city LEO was patrolling the interstate. She won't tell me the details of how she got it dismissed however so not sure if that was a factor. My employer moved to a different city recently so I no longer take the interstate so abusing the HOV lane with impunity is, sadly, no longer part of my daily repertoire. :(
Court date for the BS speeding ticket I received not two weeks after the HOV ticket is on 2/1. The attorney fighting that is actually the brother of the attorney that just beat the HOV ticket. That one will be even easier to beat IMO. Will post results as soon as I get 'em.
Congratulations.
Not sure why a city LEO patrolling the interstate would be an issue. As long as it's within the officer's jurisdiction (ie, interstate running through a city), they can legally patrol and enforce there...unless there's something in your state's laws regarding enforcement of HOV lanes by local jurisdictions.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 11, 2012, 11:28:48 AM
Not sure why a city LEO patrolling the interstate would be an issue. As long as it's within the officer's jurisdiction (ie, interstate running through a city), they can legally patrol and enforce there...unless there's something in your state's laws regarding enforcement of HOV lanes by local jurisdictions.
I have no idea if there are jurisdiction issues - I just didn't like it; as if the city has any material interest on HOV lanes on the interstate other than collecting revenue. In this particular city the interstate runs through the very south of its city limits, well away from downtown core.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2012, 12:13:14 PMI have no idea if there are jurisdiction issues - I just didn't like it; as if the city has any material interest on HOV lanes on the interstate other than collecting revenue. In this particular city the interstate runs through the very south of its city limits, well away from downtown core.
Just out of curiosity, what's a "material interest on HOV lanes?"
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2012, 12:13:14 PM
I have no idea if there are jurisdiction issues - I just didn't like it;
Well, then you're innocent. :nutty:
Quote from: bing_oh on January 11, 2012, 02:29:46 PM
Just out of curiosity, what's a "material interest on HOV lanes?"
Standing; the city has none of it.
God you're ignorant cougs.
Hmmm, we can patrol the highway and often help the State when they can't respond. :huh:
Cougs, you're as guilty as hell and it's a travesty of justice that you didn't get fined.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 11, 2012, 06:07:00 PM
Cougs, you're as guilty as hell and it's a travesty of justice that you didn't get fined.
Someone forgot to take their chill pill this evening
Quote from: SVT_Power on January 11, 2012, 06:09:04 PM
Someone forgot to take their chill pill this evening
How serious do you think I am?
Quote from: dazzleman on January 11, 2012, 06:14:40 PM
How serious do you think I am?
I dunno, but how serious do you think
I am?
Quote from: SVT_Power on January 11, 2012, 06:18:28 PM
I dunno, but how serious do you think I am?
I think Cougs should either being doing a few weekends in jail, or some community service for this. He's a flagrant violator who needs to learn a hard lesson.
It offends his sense of righteousness and personal morality, so he gets a free pass.
What makes him so right?
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2012, 12:13:14 PM
I have no idea if there are jurisdiction issues - I just didn't like it; as if the city has any material interest on HOV lanes on the interstate other than collecting revenue. In this particular city the interstate runs through the very south of its city limits, well away from downtown core.
Unless you can locate either: policy, ordinance or state statute which specifically outlines the city police have no authority to take action on that stretch of roadway then it is you, my ridiculously little friend, that has no standing with which to fight this.
Quote from: Catman on January 11, 2012, 05:39:39 PM
Hmmm, we can patrol the highway and often help the State when they can't respond. :huh:
Sure, and that's good. But the city going out of its way to patrol the HOV lane I didn't like (the LEO was positioned such that his only purpose was to patrol the HOV lane - his bike was blocked by the jersey barrier such that he couldn't get a bead on anyone via a SMD).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2012, 07:40:43 PM
Sure, and that's good. But the city going out of its way to patrol the HOV lane I didn't like (the LEO was positioned such that his only purpose was to patrol the HOV lane - his bike was blocked by the jersey barrier such that he couldn't get a bead on anyone via a SMD).
What makes you so sure you'll beat the speeding ticket?
Why does it matter? Plano police do this all the time.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 11, 2012, 06:07:00 PM
Cougs, you're as guilty as hell and it's a travesty of justice that you didn't get fined.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 11, 2012, 06:21:54 PM
I think Cougs should either being doing a few weekends in jail, or some community service for this. He's a flagrant violator who needs to learn a hard lesson.
Considering I violated the HOV lane every work day for ~3 years in theory it is a travesty. I only got caught this one time because I was leaving work early sick as hell and my concentration wasn't up.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2012, 07:43:01 PM
Considering I violated the HOV lane every work day for ~3 years in theory it is a travesty. I only got caught this one time because I was leaving work early sick as hell and my concentration wasn't up.
:lol:
You probably got off because you're lawyer is chummy with a judge or someone in the court. That's why she wouldn't discuss it. It had nothing to do with the merits of the case, or lack thereof.
It's pretty venial, but I don't like corruption that much. Justice should be as uniform as possible.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 11, 2012, 06:31:52 PM
It offends his sense of righteousness and personal morality, so he gets a free pass.
What makes him so right?
Pretty much.
Even if it wasn't the BS of a city LEO patrolling the interstate HOV lane I still would have fought it - HOV lanes are BS in that they contribute to pollution and congestion. I also don't care for traffic enforcement in general, and fight all citations. I'd much rather take my chances paying a traffic attorney ~$500 than put $150 into LE coffers.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2012, 07:49:47 PM
Pretty much.
Even if it wasn't the BS of a city LEO patrolling the interstate HOV lane I still would have fought it - HOV lanes are BS in that they contribute to pollution and congestion. I also don't care for traffic enforcement in general, and fight all citations. I'd much rather take my chances paying a traffic attorney ~$500 than put $150 into LE coffers.
Your choice, man. One way or another, you got punished for your violation. You'd have had a lighter punishment by paying the fine. The lawyers must love you.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 11, 2012, 07:42:15 PM
What makes you so sure you'll beat the speeding ticket?
The LEO got the car in front of me when he was traveling head on. When I pointed out that it was impossible to have got me on radar he said he paced me behind the car he actually did get on radar. I asked how it was possible to pace me when coming head on, and he said he saw me behind the car. Then there was awkward "damn, I just go had" sort of moment, and said that's what he'll tell the court. He also marked "SMD" (speed measurement device) on the ticket which was false/lie (there is also the "pace" option). The traffic attorney said 99% chance he'll get it dismissed; not only on the merits of the case but that that particular court he says is "not up to snuff."
Quote from: hounddog on January 11, 2012, 06:55:03 PM
Unless you can locate either: policy, ordinance or state statute which specifically outlines the city police have no authority to take action on that stretch of roadway then it is you, my ridiculously little friend, that has no standing with which to fight this.
Never said nothing about not having "authority." I just thought it ridiculous, but as stated, I think
everything about the HOV lane is ridiculous.
I had every standing to fight this; I did and I won. :huh:
Quote from: dazzleman on January 11, 2012, 07:46:55 PM
:lol:
You probably got off because you're lawyer is chummy with a judge or someone in the court. That's why she wouldn't discuss it. It had nothing to do with the merits of the case, or lack thereof.
It's pretty venial, but I don't like corruption that much. Justice should be as uniform as possible.
The particular traffic lawyer (Laconian knows of her IIRC) is very well known, and by what I hear, the courts/judges hate her as she pretty much wins all her cases and otherwise does nothing but beat them at their own game on their own turf.
She had to have won on a technicality - perhaps she played the game of moving court dates around to get paperwork lost (she moved it twice) or there was a SNAFU with the ticket, the LEO's record/standing, or who knows what.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 11, 2012, 07:53:43 PM
Your choice, man. One way or another, you got punished for your violation. You'd have had a lighter punishment by paying the fine. The lawyers must love you.
The speeding ticket will cost me $850 to fight as it was 250 miles from home. It was only a $95 ticket. But again, each and every time I'll gladly pay a traffic attorney 10x the cost of a ticket. Fight the power and all that...
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2012, 08:07:11 PM
The speeding ticket will cost me $850 to fight as it was 250 miles from home. It was only a $95 ticket. But again, each and every time I'll gladly pay a traffic attorney 10x the cost of a ticket. Fight the power and all that...
:lol:
I'd bet my bottom dollar you were guilty as hell of speeding too.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2012, 07:57:30 PM
Never said nothing about not having "authority." I just thought it ridiculous, but as stated, I think everything about the HOV lane is ridiculous.
I had every standing to fight this; I did and I won. :huh:
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2012, 05:28:11 PM
Standing; the city has none of it.
Standing; you said it.
Standing
noun
A party?s legal right to challenge the conduct of another party in a legal proceeding.
This one was mysteriously dismissed in such a way that your lawyer will not even tell you about it, you have yet another, and if you intend to challenge on standing, you should be doing some research right about now. ;)
Quote from: dazzleman on January 11, 2012, 08:09:42 PM
:lol:
I'd bet my bottom dollar you were guilty as hell of speeding too.
Probably but honestly don't know for sure - I was just following the car in front of me and as he flew by traveling in the opposite direct she hit her brakes and I slowed. Never looked at the speedo, but then again, I almost never do, as I pretty much just drive at a speed that both safe and prudent.
Quote from: hounddog on January 11, 2012, 08:17:11 PM
Standing; you said it.
Standing
noun
A party?s legal right to challenge the conduct of another party in a legal proceeding.
This one was mysteriously dismissed in such a way that your lawyer will not even tell you about it, you have yet another, and if you intend to challenge on standing, you should be doing some research right about now. ;)
I meant "standing" in a colloquial sense, and was an answer to someone's questioning of why I think it ridiculous for a city LE to patrol interstate HOV lanes. They have no business doing such a thing even if the law says they can; the only reason to do so is revenue generation.
Uh, I challenge on nothing - I hire the experts and let them win for me. :huh:
Sounds like you shouldn't had got away with it. You're in the wrong.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 11, 2012, 08:31:55 PM
Sounds like you shouldn't had got away with it. You're in the wrong.
That's completely clear.
But he spent a lot more on lawyers than hea.d have paid in fines. It's all pretty comical.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2012, 08:30:31 PM
I meant "standing" in a colloquial sense, and was an answer to someone's questioning of why I think it ridiculous for a city LE to patrol interstate HOV lanes. They have no business doing such a thing even if the law says they can; the only reason to do so is revenue generation.
Standing = authority = business
But, still, fair enough.
QuoteUh, I challenge on nothing - I hire the experts and let them win for me. :huh:
ok
Quote from: Onslaught on January 11, 2012, 08:31:55 PM
Sounds like you shouldn't had got away with it. You're in the wrong.
I will defend myself against any and all BS no matter the cost...
"Deservin's got nothin' to do with it."
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2012, 08:47:53 PM
I will defend myself against any and all BS no matter the cost...
"Deservin's got nothin' to do with it."
How can you defend yourself when you're in the wrong? If you don't like the rules then you're SOL. The world doesn't revolve around Cougs. Not even your ego has that much of a gravitational pull.
Speeding? Did you race the officer's car to prove to him that the Accord V6 is t3h pwn?
Quote from: Onslaught on January 11, 2012, 09:19:53 PMHow can you defend yourself when you're in the wrong? If you don't like the rules then you're SOL. The world doesn't revolve around Cougs. Not even your ego has that much of a gravitational pull.
Dunno...it's an awfully big ego.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2012, 08:30:31 PMI meant "standing" in a colloquial sense, and was an answer to someone's questioning of why I think it ridiculous for a city LE to patrol interstate HOV lanes. They have no business doing such a thing even if the law says they can; the only reason to do so is revenue generation.
They have every right...or "business," if you prefer...enforcing the law within their jurisdiction. Doesn't matter if you don't happen to like that particular law.
Oh, and even though we've gone over this ad nauseum in the past, tickets don't really collect revenue for most cities. The vast majority of the ticket cost goes to the state and the court, not the PD. The miniscule amount they do make doesn't even come close to paying for the officer's gas to do enforcement, let alone his salary.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 11, 2012, 09:19:53 PM
How can you defend yourself when you're in the wrong? If you don't like the rules then you're SOL. The world doesn't revolve around Cougs. Not even your ego has that much of a gravitational pull.
Is that a trick question? Ego has nothing to do with it. If I don't like the rules I break them and then try to get out of the consequences.
No, the world doesn't revolve around me but I'll be goddamned if I'll just sit there and let its BS go unchallenged.
Quote from: CALL_911 on January 11, 2012, 09:27:15 PM
Speeding? Did you race the officer's car to prove to him that the Accord V6 is t3h pwn?
Said Accord is quicker tmost anything local LE drives (Crown Vics, Impalas, Tahoes), so it was not necessary.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 12, 2012, 06:27:34 AM
They have every right...or "business," if you prefer...enforcing the law within their jurisdiction. Doesn't matter if you don't happen to like that particular law.
Oh, and even though we've gone over this ad nauseum in the past, tickets don't really collect revenue for most cities. The vast majority of the ticket cost goes to the state and the court, not the PD. The miniscule amount they do make doesn't even come close to paying for the officer's gas to do enforcement, let alone his salary.
I fully believe that in most cases tickets are not revenue generators. I've said as much many many times here. This case unfortunately is not one of them. City has no business on the interstate HOV. At best said LEO was simply bored (that particular city is a very expensive zip code and has very little crime).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 07:16:06 AM
Is that a trick question? Ego has nothing to do with it. If I don't like the rules I break them and then try to get out of the consequences.
No, the world doesn't revolve around me but I'll be goddamned if I'll just sit there and let its BS go unchallenged.
Well, it's certainly your choice, but paying $850 to contest a $95 dollar ticket is pretty stupid, IMHO. :nutty:
Not that I even believe you. :rolleyes:
Does her bill include a breakdown of court fees?
Quote from: Tave on January 12, 2012, 07:29:40 AM
Does her bill include a breakdown of court fees?
Haven't seen it yet. She said she just mailed it along with the official court documents.
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 12, 2012, 07:26:42 AM
Well, it's certainly your choice, but paying $850 to contest a $95 dollar ticket is pretty stupid, IMHO. :nutty:
Not that I even believe you. :rolleyes:
Not stupid - prudent. Rack up enough tickets in a certain period and you end up with an SR-22 filing in my state, which means a 2-4x insurance price increase.
Nah, I gotcha, if I were in your shoes I'd want to resist believing me too.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 07:19:58 AMI fully believe that in most cases tickets are not revenue generators. I've said as much many many times here. This case unfortunately is not one of them. City has no business on the interstate HOV. At best said LEO was simply bored (that particular city is a very expensive zip code and has very little crime).
Again, your not liking a particular law doesn't mean that the local jurisdiction "has no business" enforcing it. Just be honest, come out and say that you got busted, and you're miffed about it.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 09:24:22 AMNot stupid - prudent. Rack up enough tickets in a certain period and you end up with an SR-22 filing in my state, which means a 2-4x insurance price increase.
Nah, I gotcha, if I were in your shoes I'd want to resist believing me too.
If you honestly paid $850 to get out of a HOV ticket, I'd have to agree with John that you definitely lost. That's more than most DUI's in my area!
Quote from: bing_oh on January 12, 2012, 09:27:27 AM
Again, your not liking a particular law doesn't mean that the local jurisdiction "has no business" enforcing it. Just be honest, come out and say that you got busted, and you're miffed about it.
City police should have better things to do than patrol interstate HOV lanes. If they don't have better things to do, fire them, as said city has too many LEOs.
Of course I got busted. I'm don't think I'm miffed though. I will simply fight what I consider a broken system (traffic enforcement), and so far so good.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 12, 2012, 09:29:36 AM
If you honestly paid $850 to get out of a HOV ticket, I'd have to agree with John that you definitely lost. That's more than most DUI's in my area!
The HOV ticket was $350. The speeding ticket, which happened way over on the other side of the state, is $850.
That a DUI charge is less than $850 is proof positive that the (your) system is broken. LOL - you turkeys drone on with :facepalm: bitterness of me getting out of an HOV ticket while true traffic atrocities, like the pansy approach to DUI (i.e., lax consequences, which I know is not a LE area), drones on unabated. Nothing proves my point further.
I drive how I want when I want with little worry than any sort of traffic infraction will stick; I drive mostly absent the fear of the state. Sounds like win to me.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 09:53:47 AM
The HOV ticket was $350. The speeding ticket, which happened way over on the other side of the state, is $850.
That a DUI charge is less than $850 is proof positive that the (your) system is broken. LOL - you turkeys drone on with :facepalm: bitterness of me getting out of an HOV ticket while true traffic atrocities, like the pansy approach to DUI (i.e., lax consequences, which I know is not a LE area), drones on unabated. Nothing proves my point further.
I drive how I want when I want with little worry than any sort of traffic infraction will stick; I drive mostly absent the fear of the state. Sounds like win to me.
Absent of fear? Absent of cash more like.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 12, 2012, 06:27:34 AM
They have every right...or "business," if you prefer...enforcing the law within their jurisdiction. Doesn't matter if you don't happen to like that particular law.
Oh, and even though we've gone over this ad nauseum in the past, tickets don't really collect revenue for most cities. The vast majority of the ticket cost goes to the state and the court, not the PD. The miniscule amount they do make doesn't even come close to paying for the officer's gas to do enforcement, let alone his salary.
I honestly do not think Cougs fully comprehends standing, Bing. Not his fault, however, as most people do not.
How many times have I said it; KNOW your rights not THINK you know your rights.
OTOH, I would love to be his lawyer. Steady work for doing pretty much nothing at all.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 12, 2012, 11:27:10 AMOTOH, I would love to be his lawyer. Steady work for doing pretty much nothing at all.
Geeze, you ain't kidding. That kind of cash to get people off of traffic tickets?! It's no wonder this country is overrun with lawyers.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 09:53:47 AMThe HOV ticket was $350. The speeding ticket, which happened way over on the other side of the state, is $850.
That's $1200 to fight and "win" what would have costed you, what, $200 in fines? I could think of alot better ways to spend that extra grand, but you must be better paid than I am.
QuoteThat a DUI charge is less than $850 is proof positive that the (your) system is broken. LOL - you turkeys drone on with :facepalm: bitterness of me getting out of an HOV ticket while true traffic atrocities, like the pansy approach to DUI (i.e., lax consequences, which I know is not a LE area), drones on unabated. Nothing proves my point further.
I drive how I want when I want with little worry than any sort of traffic infraction will stick; I drive mostly absent the fear of the state. Sounds like win to me.
I didn't know it was "my system." :huh:
There's no bitterness about you "getting out of" (:rolleyes:) your ticket. It's more utter disbelief that you think you're getting away with something by paying outrageous amounts of money to get minor traffic citations dismissed. You somehow think you're walking away without consequences, while you're actually being punished even more severely than other people facing the same violations...all of your own volition.
As for the minor consequences for DUI's in my area, I agree...but that's my fine elected judge, not local LE. But that doesn't prove your point at all.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 09:53:47 AM
you turkeys
Have you spoken to anyone younger than 40 in the last, say, 15 years?
:huh:
Quote from: 2o6 on January 12, 2012, 11:27:10 AM
OTOH, I would love to be his lawyer. Steady work for doing pretty much nothing at all.
Did you re-enroll?
Quote from: bing_oh on January 12, 2012, 11:44:41 AM
That's $1200 to fight and "win" what would have costed you, what, $200 in fines? I could think of alot better ways to spend that extra grand, but you must be better paid than I am.
I didn't know it was "my system." :huh:
There's no bitterness about you "getting out of" (:rolleyes:) your ticket. It's more utter disbelief that you think you're getting away with something by paying outrageous amounts of money to get minor traffic citations dismissed. You somehow think you're walking away without consequences, while you're actually being punished even more severely than other people facing the same violations...all of your own volition.
As for the minor consequences for DUI's in my area, I agree...but that's my fine elected judge, not local LE. But that doesn't prove your point at all.
I win.
ComedySPIN.
WinSPIN.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2012, 07:55:58 PM
The LEO got the car in front of me when he was traveling head on. When I pointed out that it was impossible to have got me on radar he said he paced me behind the car he actually did get on radar. I asked how it was possible to pace me when coming head on, and he said he saw me behind the car. Then there was awkward "damn, I just go had" sort of moment, and said that's what he'll tell the court. He also marked "SMD" (speed measurement device) on the ticket which was false/lie (there is also the "pace" option). The traffic attorney said 99% chance he'll get it dismissed; not only on the merits of the case but that that particular court he says is "not up to snuff."
If he really lied, and said he was going to lie, that's a crime. Somehow I doubt that's exactly how it went down, because nobody is that stupid.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 11, 2012, 08:36:09 PM
That's completely clear.
But he spent a lot more on lawyers than hea.d have paid in fines. It's all pretty comical.
Maybe, maybe not. The HOV violation coupled with the speeding ticket could've added up to insurance and DMV surcharges that were more than the attorney's fees. Often, at least in New Jersey, the fine is less than all of the DMV surcharges and fees that are attached to tickets - and that's not even counting higher insurance rates.
Ha, ha! Cougs, your internetry is really going down the drain these days.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 09:44:09 AM
City police should have better things to do than patrol interstate HOV lanes. If they don't have better things to do, fire them, as said city has too many LEOs.
Of course I got busted. I'm don't think I'm miffed though. I will simply fight what I consider a broken system (traffic enforcement), and so far so good.
Did you ever think about e-mailing the chief of the department, or maybe the traffic safety supervisor, and asking him why? You'd really be surprised how often there's a very good explanation for most of this stuff, and you'd be equally surprised how many folks in law enforcement would be perfectly willing to tell you if you took the time and didn't start in with a chip on your shoulder.
Quote from: CALL_911 on January 12, 2012, 03:44:34 PM
Ha, ha! Cougs, your internetry is really going down the drain these days.
Not owning up to ones wrongdoing is a total beta move.
Quote from: TurboDan on January 12, 2012, 03:40:16 PM
If he really lied, and said he was going to lie, that's a crime. Somehow I doubt that's exactly how it went down, because nobody is that stupid.
Yes, that's precisely how it went down. I'm not sure if I'd be certain in calling it a lie - perhaps "pacing" a car based a radar measurement of another is a theoretically valid "SMD" infraction, what with official definitions of each, which I don't readily have access to.
I couldn't care less if it's a crime, and not only because it would be impossible to prove. The sin of a lie is carried by the liar.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 12, 2012, 03:43:06 PM
In what?
Uh, college (if you really want to be my lawyer).
Quote from: CALL_911 on January 12, 2012, 03:44:34 PM
Ha, ha! Cougs, your internetry is really going down the drain these days.
Really? I thought it was actually decent; look at its effect after all.
But I do find it interesting the spite and rancor over an HOV ticket. Had this been a speeding ticket would people be all up in arms? NO.
Quote from: TurboDan on January 12, 2012, 03:48:32 PM
Did you ever think about e-mailing the chief of the department, or maybe the traffic safety supervisor, and asking him why? You'd really be surprised how often there's a very good explanation for most of this stuff, and you'd be equally surprised how many folks in law enforcement would be perfectly willing to tell you if you took the time and didn't start in with a chip on your shoulder.
I didn't.
There is no good explanation for the HOV lane itself, let alone the patrolling it.
I couldn't care less what LE has to say on matters of immaterial traffic enforcement.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 05:07:21 PM
Really? I thought it was actually decent; look at its effect after all.
But I do find it interesting the spite and rancor over an HOV ticket. Had this been a speeding ticket would people be all up in arms? NO.
I mean, I guess. Your execution is way too conspicuous though. You used to be more subtle. I'd give this one a solid "meh."
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 05:05:11 PM
Uh, college (if you really want to be my lawyer).
Quote from: CALL_911 on January 12, 2012, 03:44:34 PM
Ha, ha! Cougs, your internetry is really going down the drain these days.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 09:53:47 AM
The HOV ticket was $350. The speeding ticket, which happened way over on the other side of the state, is $850.
That a DUI charge is less than $850 is proof positive that the (your) system is broken. LOL - you turkeys drone on with :facepalm: bitterness of me getting out of an HOV ticket while true traffic atrocities, like the pansy approach to DUI (i.e., lax consequences, which I know is not a LE area), drones on unabated. Nothing proves my point further.
I drive how I want when I want with little worry than any sort of traffic infraction will stick; I drive mostly absent the fear of the state. Sounds like win to me.
Sounds like you're a spoiled fool with an inflated ego to me, but, hey, that's just my opinion. :huh:
Quote from: bing_oh on January 12, 2012, 11:44:41 AM
That's $1200 to fight and "win" what would have costed you, what, $200 in fines? I could think of alot better ways to spend that extra grand, but you must be better paid than I am.
I didn't know it was "my system." :huh:
There's no bitterness about you "getting out of" (:rolleyes:) your ticket. It's more utter disbelief that you think you're getting away with something by paying outrageous amounts of money to get minor traffic citations dismissed. You somehow think you're walking away without consequences, while you're actually being punished even more severely than other people facing the same violations...all of your own volition.
As for the minor consequences for DUI's in my area, I agree...but that's my fine elected judge, not local LE. But that doesn't prove your point at all.
I don't know about Washington but here I'd pay about $150 court costs and 35 dollars for a defensive driving course and walk away with a clean record. Get a second ticket within a year? Ask for and get deferred ajudication; pay court costs and don't get a ticket for 90 days and the ticket disappears.
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 12, 2012, 07:01:13 PM
Sounds like you're a spoiled fool with an inflated ego to me, buy, hey, that's just my opinion. :huh:
Who spoils me?
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 12, 2012, 07:05:26 PM
I don't know about Washington but here I'd pay about $150 court costs and 35 dollars for a defensive driving course and walk away with a clean record. Get a second ticket within a year? Ask for and get deferred ajudication; pay court costs and don't get a ticket for 90 days and the ticket disappears.
None of those options exist in WA state. At best some courts offered deferred prosecution. Plead no contest, pay $100 court costs, and don't get a ticket within a year. If you do get ticket within a year, you also have to pay the original ticket. One can defer only once in 3, 5 or 7 years (or some such).
Quote from: CALL_911 on January 12, 2012, 05:25:01 PM
I mean, I guess. Your execution is way too conspicuous though. You used to be more subtle. I'd give this one a solid "meh."
Back to the drawing board.
I will note however the facts I've stated in this thread are true.
This really has been one of the funnier threads I've read here in a while. :lol:
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 07:13:16 PM
Back to the drawing board.
I will note however the facts I've stated in this thread are true.
Not gonna lie, you're one of my favorite posters here, but your quality has gone down in the past month or so. This shit and the "alpha vs. beta" thing are just way too conspicuous. Remember, walk amongst the crowd and fart, don't create a circle around yourself and fart.
Quote from: Northlands on January 12, 2012, 07:21:53 PM
This really has been one of the funnier threads I've read here in a while. :lol:
This is a pretty funny thread.
Delusions of righteousness and frank discussions of trolling. Hard to beat.
Quote from: CALL_911 on January 12, 2012, 07:24:20 PM
Not gonna lie, you're one of my favorite posters here, but your quality has gone down in the past month or so. This shit and the "alpha vs. beta" thing are just way too conspicuous. Remember, walk amongst the crowd and fart, don't create a circle around yourself and fart.
Yeah, I really rode that one hard and per it away wet - BetaSPIN is still spinning off into the weeds...
wow.
I can't wait to see what happens with Cougs' speeding ticket.
That court date is 2/1. Like the other attorney he too changed the court date. Perhaps that's part and parcel of the strategy...
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 08:41:44 PM
That court date is 2/1. Like the other attorney he too changed the court date. Perhaps that's part and parcel of the strategy...
Of course it is. That increases the chances that the officer won't be there, resulting in an automatic dismissal.
The LEO doesn't have to be there; he need only file an affidavit with the court.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 08:50:51 PM
The LEO doesn't have to be there; he need only file an affidavit with the court.
I guess it's different in Washington.
In any case, I hope you get CONVICTED on the speeding charge and fined $1,000 on top of the hefty lawyer's fees..... :lol:
He'll get convicted, and then throw a hissy fit, which will land him in jail.
^ Dave's fantasy
Quote from: Rupert on January 12, 2012, 09:17:59 PM
He'll get convicted, and then throw a hissy fit, which will land him in jail.
^ Dave's fantasy
Nah, I'd like him to take off from the court like a bat out of hell, and get arrested doing 100 mph right around the corner. Some dumb thing like that.
Actually, this whole thing is pretty funny just as it is. :lol:
Is there anyway we can send this to his next judge for when he gets pulled over ignoring laws? I'd like to see how much of a bad ass he is then.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 01:33:45 PMI win.
Dude, I'm gonna PM you my address. We have a poker game every tuesday. If that's your idea of "winning," you have an open invitation. Bring money...lots of money.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2012, 07:12:24 PM
None of those options exist in WA state. At best some courts offered deferred prosecution. Plead no contest, pay $100 court costs, and don't get a ticket within a year. If you do get ticket within a year, you also have to pay the original ticket. One can defer only once in 3, 5 or 7 years (or some such).
Well, a quick google search tells me courts do allow defensive driving to dismiss a ticket in Washington. Check with the court handling your case.
That's smarter than paying out close to a grand to fight a ticket with the potential to lose.
And you can get deferred finding as well, but only once every 7 years. It's up to the judge though so given your attitude you likely wouldn't be offered that break. I know I wouldn't if I were a judge. ;)
Washington State also allows deferred adjudication for traffic tickets. In WA if you have received a traffic infraction, you may be eligible for what here is termed as a Deferred Finding. You qualify for a Deferred Finding if you have not taken this option on a traffic ticket within the last seven years. Upon successful completion of the deferral conditions your ticket will be dismissed. You may defer only one moving infraction and only one non-moving infraction each seven years.You also have a third option. Avoid driving like an arrogant fool and you won't have these problems to begin with. ;)
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 12, 2012, 07:01:13 PM
Sounds like you're a spoiled fool with an inflated ego to me, but, hey, that's just my opinion. :huh:
Then again, how many spoiled people with big egos want to drive around in Camrys?
Quote from: TurboDan on January 13, 2012, 11:06:56 AM
Then again, how many spoiled people with big egos want to drive around in Camrys?
At least one. ;)
Quote from: bing_oh on January 13, 2012, 06:31:05 AM
Dude, I'm gonna PM you my address. We have a poker game every tuesday. If that's your idea of "winning," you have an open invitation. Bring money...lots of money.
Thanks, just not much of a card player (I can't actually, I get anxiety attacks over it).
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 13, 2012, 08:49:56 AM
Well, a quick google search tells me courts do allow defensive driving to dismiss a ticket in Washington. Check with the court handling your case.
That's smarter than paying out close to a grand to fight a ticket with the potential to lose.
And you can get deferred finding as well, but only once every 7 years. It's up to the judge though so given your attitude you likely wouldn't be offered that break. I know I wouldn't if I were a judge. ;)
Washington State also allows deferred adjudication for traffic tickets. In WA if you have received a traffic infraction, you may be eligible for what here is termed as a Deferred Finding. You qualify for a Deferred Finding if you have not taken this option on a traffic ticket within the last seven years. Upon successful completion of the deferral conditions your ticket will be dismissed. You may defer only one moving infraction and only one non-moving infraction each seven years.
You also have a third option. Avoid driving like an arrogant fool and you won't have these problems to begin with. ;)
Arrogant fool? Aren't you the one who said you had the E-type up to 120 mph? That is justifiably a criminal offense that deserves jail time; neither of which apply to the pittance that is an HOV violation.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 13, 2012, 05:36:34 AM
Is there anyway we can send this to his next judge for when he gets pulled over ignoring laws? I'd like to see how much of a bad ass he is then.
Be glad that the courts don't work like that...
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2012, 11:47:22 AM
Arrogant fool? Aren't you the one who said you had the E-type up to 120 mph? That is justifiably a criminal offense that deserves jail time; neither of which apply to the pittance that is an HOV violation.
Absolutely correct and if I'd been caught I'd have manned up and paid the price of whatever I couldn't talk the cop out of writing. More than once I was stopped by a cop for excessive speed and they told me "I'm not going to write you a ticket becasue I really like this car, but slow down" Do let us know if a cop ever tells you that in your Camry. :devil:
In Atlanta, they recently converted the HOV lanes (2+ occupant eligibility) to toll lanes. You put some money in an account, get a transponder and, if there are fewer than three people in the the car, money is deducted when you use the lanes. If you have three or more people, you have to change your "toll-mode" in advance to be exempt so that car pool vehicles can ride free of charge.
The toll varies according to congestion; at peak hours the price is much higher. The idea is to price the lane to keep traffic flowing at 45mph plus.
This has caused a storm of protest because congestion has got worse in the general purpose lanes. Effectively the state has taken away a lane from its original purpose as bought and paid for by taxpayers. Another (unforeseen) consequence is that the toll lanes now go unused outside rush hours, thus increasing density on the general purpose lanes.
Personally, I'm ashamed to say that I happily pay the premium because it makes financial sense for me to do so; my time is valuable and my patience short. But I understand why so many people are irritated.
Quote from: Morris Minor on January 13, 2012, 12:30:20 PM
In Atlanta, they recently converted the HOV lanes (2+ occupant eligibility) to toll lanes. You put some money in an account, get a transponder and, if there are fewer than three people in the the car, money is deducted when you use the lanes. If you have three or more people, you have to change your "toll-mode" in advance to be exempt so that car pool vehicles can ride free of charge.
The toll varies according to congestion; at peak hours the price is much higher. The idea is to price the lane to keep traffic flowing at 45mph plus.
This has caused a storm of protest because congestion has got worse in the general purpose lanes. Effectively the state has taken away a lane from its original purpose as bought and paid for by taxpayers. Another (unforeseen) consequence is that the toll lanes now go unused outside rush hours, thus increasing density on the general purpose lanes.
Personally, I'm ashamed to say that I happily pay the premium because it makes financial sense for me to do so; my time is valuable and my patience short. But I understand why so many people are irritated.
Same thing in Houston.
My wife and I used the regular HOV lanes when we carpooled before she retired. I would gleefully call Metro on my cell when I was behind a lone occupant vehicle using the HOV lane. A couple of times the cops were waiting at the exit point and pulled them over. It was quite gratifying. :lol:
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 13, 2012, 12:25:11 PM
Absolutely correct and if I'd been caught I'd have manned up and paid the price of whatever I couldn't talk the cop out of writing. More than once I was stopped by a cop for excessive speed and they told me "I'm not going to write you a ticket becasue I really like this car, but slow down" Do let us know if a cop ever tells you that in your Camry. :devil:
Yes, I've seen enough of your Internetry to grok that you would not defend yourself. Also, would it help if I posted Camry SE V6 vs. E-Type performance stats?
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 13, 2012, 12:41:07 PM
Same thing in Houston.
My wife and I used the regular HOV lanes when we carpooled before she retired. I would gleefully call Metro on my cell when I was behind a lone occupant vehicle using the HOV lane. A couple of times the cops were waiting at the exit point and pulled them over. It was quite gratifying. :lol:
The folks how own and maintain the roads and LE are two separate entities. Reporting the former is not a hotline to the latter; be thankful that your dot-connecting is a fairy tale.
Quote from: Morris Minor on January 13, 2012, 12:30:20 PM
In Atlanta, they recently converted the HOV lanes (2+ occupant eligibility) to toll lanes. You put some money in an account, get a transponder and, if there are fewer than three people in the the car, money is deducted when you use the lanes. If you have three or more people, you have to change your "toll-mode" in advance to be exempt so that car pool vehicles can ride free of charge.
The toll varies according to congestion; at peak hours the price is much higher. The idea is to price the lane to keep traffic flowing at 45mph plus.
This has caused a storm of protest because congestion has got worse in the general purpose lanes. Effectively the state has taken away a lane from its original purpose as bought and paid for by taxpayers. Another (unforeseen) consequence is that the toll lanes now go unused outside rush hours, thus increasing density on the general purpose lanes.
Personally, I'm ashamed to say that I happily pay the premium because it makes financial sense for me to do so; my time is valuable and my patience short. But I understand why so many people are irritated.
They started that as well on an interstate in my area. Here as well it's been a disaster too, as is anything to do with the HOV lane.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2012, 01:03:57 PM
The folks how own and maintain the roads and LE are two separate entities. Reporting the former is not a hotline to the latter; be thankful that your dot-connecting is a fairy tale.
A simple google search reveals that the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Houston maintains a full police force. (http://www.ridemetro.org/SafetySecurity/WelcomeMPD.aspx)
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2012, 01:01:37 PM
Yes, I've seen enough of your Internetry to grok that you would not defend yourself. Also, would it help if I posted Camry SE V6 vs. E-Type performance stats?
Post whatever you please. While you are at it post the relative values of the two cars after say, 40 years and perhaps some auction results. You might also hunt up some lists of the most beautiful cars ever built lists and highlight the relative positions of the Camry and the E-type. :rolleyes:
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2012, 01:03:57 PM
The folks how own and maintain the roads and LE are two separate entities. Reporting the former is not a hotline to the latter; be thankful that your dot-connecting is a fairy tale.
Sorry to pop your bubble sport, but down here Metro has their own police force with full enforcement empowerment.
From a Metro publication:
Hero Hotline
Motorists play an important part in monitoring the HOV lanes for proper use. Drivers are asked to report HOV lane violations such as insufficient occupancy, speeding or improper passing by calling the HERO Hotline at 713-921-HERO (4376). When calling, include the vehicle license plate number, vehicle description, date, location and time the violation occurred. All calls are confidential and violators will be mailed information regarding the proper use of the HOV lanes.From the Metro Police site:
We are a professional, full-service police agency with 191 sworn peace officers and 42 civilian personnel, providing around-the-clock professional police services to METRO customers, employees and our community.
METRO police officers are fully authorized Texas peace officers with the authority to enforce all laws. We are very much engaged with our regional partners in policing and emergency response to maximize our protection of the METRO transit system and our community. Feel free to post any other ill informed posts you can think of.
From the Houston Chronicle a few years ago.
Metro police officer Scott Ashmore parked his motorcycle at the top of the T-shaped ramp of the Northwest Freeway HOV lane at Dacoma and waited. But not for long.
A woman in a silver Hyundai topped the ramp and slowed down to make the sharp turn as Ashmore ? one of 10 Metropolitan Transit Authority motorcycle officers who enforce occupancy rules on the lanes ? waved her over to the shoulder.
The driver, in a brief conversation through the window, explained that she was pregnant.
"But the state of Texas doesn't count you as an individual until you're born," Ashmore said. He issued her a citation.
Minutes later it was a black SUV. The driver "said she had been late to work twice already and she didn't want it to happen again," Ashmore said.
Metro police took the news media along this morning to show how they enforce the lane regulations, and some of the problems they encounter.
The fine drizzle and overcast sky were "about at the limit" for doing that job, Ashmore said. If it's any darker or wetter, it's hard to see through the car windows and harder to write out a citation.
Violations tend to go up in bad weather, he said, because some violators assume the HOV patrol won't be working then. They also go up when the Daylight Saving Time starts and stops, changing commuting hours from daylight to darkness, he said.
A rough count showed about two out of three vehicles that passed Ashmore appeared to have no more than one occupant. The Northwest HOV requires three or more riders from 6:45 a.m. to 8 a.m., and two or more at other times. Fines average $125 and can be as steep as $200, Metro says.
Metro gets none of this revenue, which goes to the city or county, depending on location. "Our goal is to get compliance," said Metro Police Chief Tom Lambert.
Police allow some to slip past because they're busy issuing someone else a ticket. And officers don't want to create a jam at the HOV exit, since that can cause accidents as motorists crest the rise and encounter the stopped traffic.
Some single-occupant vehicles are driven by on-duty law officers and others who can ride the lanes alone, and others have toddlers in car seats in the back, hard to spot unless the window is opened.
"Without tinted glass and kids my job would be easier," Ashmore said.
Lambert said law-abiding users of the agency's 112-mile High Occupancy Vehicle lane system resent cheating and let Metro know they want the rules enforced. "We understand the frustration of the public," he said.
After the media demonstration, Lambert said HOV citations had soared by 54 percent from 2005 to 2006, when 10,394 were issued, large because of a change in strategy and opening of a "Hero Hotline" (713-921-HERO) for reporting violators.
Although the number of officers enforcing HOV rules stayed the same, Lambert said, Metro began targeted enforcement at specific times and places by a task force, and replaced its HOV patrol cars with motorcycles.
These are not just more maneuverable in traffic on the barrier-separated lanes, but less easily spotted by drivers. Ashmore showed two other sites where he can set up shop without being seen by drivers until it's too late for them to avoid him.
Metro statistics show nearly half of all citations were issued on the Katy Freeway HOV lane ? nearly twice as many as on the Gulf, Eastex and Southwest freeways combined. Second and third were the Northwest Freeway and North Freeway.
The Katy generates so many, Lambert said, in part because cheating has been especially common its diamond lane portion in far west Harris County. The diamond lanes have no barriers to separate HOV traffic from the main lanes, and some lone drivers enter and exit them at will.
Although Ashmore did not spot any imitation occupants this morning, he said he has found "four mannequins, one inflatable doll and lots of stuffed animals in baby seats" among the ruses that cheaters employ.
"They'll do anything to beat that traffic," he said.
Lambert said some drivers will even "fluff up some pillows and put a knit cap on top" to fool the officers.
The mannequins and their ilk are not confiscated, he said, but Metro makes a note of which violators use them and "they go into our records."
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2012, 01:01:37 PM
Yes, I've seen enough of your Internetry to grok that you would not defend yourself. Also, would it help if I posted Camry SE V6 vs. E-Type performance stats?
Just the fact that you even use the word "grok" at all tells me that you just like to use certain words to make yourself feel superior to others. You strike me as someone that grabs onto something and run with it until it's past the point of being completely played out before moving on to the next thing, and then repeat. I mean, between your OCD, your anxiety attacks, your vertigo, and not least of all your ego, I would think it's a lot of fucking work just to be your friend.
Anyway, that was my contribution to this thread.
The HOT (formerly HOV) lanes in Atlanta are not barrier-separated, which contributes to the general disorder & congestion.
I did, when driving south from Washington DC on a Saturday morning recently use the HOV lanes on I-95 (reversible direction and barrier-separated) which were open to all southbound users. This makes some sense, unlike the setup in Atlanta.
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 13, 2012, 01:34:08 PM
Post whatever you please. While you are at it post the relative values of the two cars after say, 40 years and perhaps some auction results. You might also hunt up some lists of the most beautiful cars ever built lists and highlight the relative positions of the Camry and the E-type. :rolleyes:
Don't troll on the Camry and perhaps you'll save yourself a heckuva lot of grief. :huh:
Serious post:
I'm having trouble understanding all this anxiety over the HOV lane. Is it actually anxiety over me? Is it anxiety over not using the HOV lane? It just seems like You People would be a lot happier MYOBing.
And yes, I will continue to violate the HOV lane with impunity, but as stated, alas, I no longer drive the interstate to work so will rarely have the opportunity. I can't recommend it enough for others.
Quote from: SVT666 on January 13, 2012, 01:48:42 PM
Just the fact that you even use the word "grok" at all tells me that you just like to use certain words to make yourself feel superior to others. You strike me as someone that grabs onto something and run with it until it's past the point of being completely played out before moving on to the next thing, and then repeat. I mean, between your OCD, your anxiety attacks, your vertigo, and not least of all your ego, I would think it's a lot of fucking work just to be your friend.
Anyway, that was my contribution to this thread.
Heinlein's
Stranger in a Strange Land is classic sci-fi. I'm not a huge Heinlein fan but this is for sure a standout. There ain't much in hard sci-fi elements (space travel, future tech, etc.) but it very much delves into the mystical side of things. Hard to explain without actually reading it, but I can't recommend it enough.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2012, 03:43:56 PM
Don't troll on the Camry and perhaps you'll save yourself a heckuva lot of grief. :huh:
I don't think people are trolling against the Camry at all. I think you're trying to sell people who participate on an auto enthusiast forum a car that they would never envision buying in a billion years.
Quote from: TurboDan on January 13, 2012, 03:58:46 PM
I don't think people are trolling against the Camry at all. I think you're trying to sell people who participate on an auto enthusiast forum a car that they would never envision buying in a billion years.
Q: Uh, how is it the Camry found its way into this thread?
A: MiataJohn trolled (and got himself all spun up).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2012, 04:05:03 PM
Q: Uh, how is it the Camry found its way into this thread?
A: MiataJohn trolled (and got himself all spun up).
As usual wrong again. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2012, 01:01:37 PM
Yes, I've seen enough of your Internetry to grok that you would not defend yourself. Also, would it help if I posted Camry SE V6 vs. E-Type performance stats?
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2012, 03:50:47 PM
I can't recommend it enough for others.
I drive in them, when I have someone in the car with me. If not then I stay out of them like people should. You can't pick what rules you can and can't obey.
And when I do break one I'll man up and take the hit like I should.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 13, 2012, 04:12:30 PM
I drive in them, when I have someone in the car with me. If not then I stay out of them like people should. You can't pick what rules you can and can't obey.
And when I do break one I'll man up and take the hit like I should.
I'm not really a rules-are-meant-to-broken type of person but of course I get to choose that which I obey and disobey.
Same applies to you, and pretty much every thinking, acting human being, whether you realize it or not.
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 13, 2012, 04:08:40 PM
As usual wrong again. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Time stampism is a brutal mistress:
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 13, 2012, 12:25:11 PM
Absolutely correct and if I'd been caught I'd have manned up and paid the price of whatever I couldn't talk the cop out of writing. More than once I was stopped by a cop for excessive speed and they told me "I'm not going to write you a ticket becasue I really like this car, but slow down" Do let us know if a cop ever tells you that in your Camry. :devil:
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2012, 01:01:37 PM
Yes, I've seen enough of your Internetry to grok that you would not defend yourself. Also, would it help if I posted Camry SE V6 vs. E-Type performance stats?
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2012, 05:39:43 PM
Time stampism is a brutal mistress:
Turbo Dan brought the Camry up even earlier.
Regardless of who brought it up first you're still a dick of the first order.
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 13, 2012, 05:46:00 PM
Turbo Dan brought the Camry up even earlier.
Regardless of who brought it up first you're still a dick of the first order.
Does your trolling nullify his?
And I think you're an alright cat who simply lets himself get spun up a bit about immaterial things.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2012, 06:10:03 PM
And I think you're an alright cat who simply lets himself get spun up a bit about immaterial things.
...says the guy who spends how much time every day posting about how awesome he is and trying to prove people wrong...
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 13, 2012, 06:27:31 PM
...says the guy who spent how much to dismiss a simple HOV violation ticket?
Didn't I mention that? $350 flat fee plus I comp'd her one of the products my company makes, which now has us chatting a bit (that is, outside the dealings of the case, which is now over) :facepalm:. Writing a check is a heckuva lot less "spinning" than going to court, or even mailing in a check and marking that ridiculous "guilty" box.
Oh wow, you're watching this thread like a hawk. Must be pretty obsessed with it to be able to catch that post within the 30 seconds it was up before I changed it.
I'm also quite disappointed. Your internetry is failing. You should have pointed out that an HOV fine is technically a material thing, which is why I changed it.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 13, 2012, 06:34:47 PM
Oh wow, you're watching this thread like a hawk. Must be pretty obsessed with it to be able to catch that post within the 30 seconds it was up before I changed it.
I'm also quite disappointed. Your internetry is failing. You should have pointed out that an HOV fine is technically a material thing, which is why I changed it.
Crouching Internetry.
Cougs, did you appear in court at all, or just send your lawyer?
Absent the entertainment value, having to appear can be worse than paying a fine in some ways.
If you have to appear for your speeding ticket, film it and post it on here. It would be quite entertaining.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2012, 06:42:44 PM
Crouching Internetry.
Your diction is quite uncertain. Are you implying that I'm lying close to the ground with my knees bent while browsing the internet? Or are you using the more obscure definition of "to stand at a low height", implying that my internetry is lacking? Either case would be incorrect, considering alphas always admit their mistakes and fix them as soon as possible.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 13, 2012, 08:49:08 PM
Your diction is quite uncertain. Are you implying that I'm lying close to the ground with my knees bent while browsing the internet? Or are you using the more obscure definition of "to stand at a low height", implying that my internetry is lacking? Either case would be incorrect, considering alphas always admit their mistakes and fix them as soon as possible.
Uh...
But I will give a 'B' for effort.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 13, 2012, 07:42:10 PM
Cougs, did you appear in court at all, or just send your lawyer?
Absent the entertainment value, having to appear can be worse than paying a fine in some ways.
If you have to appear for your speeding ticket, film it and post it on here. It would be quite entertaining.
No, didn't have to appear, and won't have to appear for the other ticket either.
Completely agree, having to show would probably make it not worth it (though I'd show probably show for the speeding ticket owing to its BS nature).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 14, 2012, 08:16:44 AM
No, didn't have to appear, and won't have to appear for the other ticket either.
Completely agree, having to show would probably make it not worth it (though I'd show probably show for the speeding ticket owing to its BS nature).
Here, you have to appear, as far as I know.
It was actually quite entertaining when I went to traffic court for my last speeding ticket. But I got there early so that I was at the head of the line. If I'd gotten there at the time they said, I'd have been at the back of the line and been stuck there for most of the day. That would have sucked.
I cannot understand how you would not have to appear, the ticket is yours not your lawyers.
Yet another reason why the left coast is so fucked up; no personal responsibility even in court.
Quote from: hounddog on January 14, 2012, 08:28:45 AM
I cannot understand how you would not have to appear, the ticket is yours not your lawyers.
Yet another reason why the left coast is so fucked up; no personal responsibility even in court.
In Washington, I think that traffic infractions are considered civil offenses rather than criminal, so the court procedures are different. Here, they're considered criminal offenses or infractions, albeit low level.
Not having to show is awesome - makes the process super easy - plus it's an infraction not a criminal offense.
That there is apparatchik court system devoted to traffic infractions is beyond ridiculous.
Quote from: hounddog on January 14, 2012, 08:28:45 AM
I cannot understand how you would not have to appear, the ticket is yours not your lawyers.
Yet another reason why the left coast is so fucked up; no personal responsibility even in court.
Ha, ha - you really want to make this a WA vs. MI thing? So is your daddy bigger than mine too?
Quote from: GoCougs on January 14, 2012, 08:36:38 AM
Not having to show is awesome - makes the process super easy - plus it's an infraction not a criminal offense.
That there is apparatchik court system devoted to traffic infractions is beyond ridiculous.
I wish you had to show, and that I could be there to witness it. An appearance by you in court as a speeding ticket defendant would probably be hilarious.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 14, 2012, 08:35:00 AM
In Washington, I think that traffic infractions are considered civil offenses rather than criminal, so the court procedures are different. Here, they're considered criminal offenses or infractions, albeit low level.
Here they are also civil, and you also must appear if you choose to fight them. Failure to appear to your civil hearing will cause you to;
Lose your case
Potential for Contempt of Court warrant
Potential suspension of your license
Increased fines and costs
Quote from: GoCougs on January 14, 2012, 08:46:18 AM
Ha, ha - you really want to make this a WA vs. MI thing? So is your daddy bigger than mine too?
Well, he is 6'5 and maybe 235 pounds. :huh:
Making it super easy is part in parcel of why the justice system in America is failing. One should always have to appear in court when he forces the court proceedings.
Like I said, just another representation of why the left coast is such an aweful place with this anti-responsibility kick it has been on for 20+ years. If you lose you should be required to pay 150% more in fines and costs for the courts to recover the damages you inflict on them.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 14, 2012, 08:47:07 AM
I wish you had to show, and that I could be there to witness it. An appearance by you in court as a speeding ticket defendant would probably be hilarious.
I've been in my earlier years. In high school I got a negligent driving ticket (a criminal offense) and had to go to criminal court (sitting in the benches with guys in jump suits and cuffs). Long story short, I got lucky and a social connection spoke to the LEO (knew him casually outside of work) who in turn spoke to the prosecutor just before we were called by the judge to drop the case; which he did.
Quote from: hounddog on January 14, 2012, 08:52:29 AM
Well, he is 6'5 and maybe 235 pounds. :huh:
Making it super easy is part in parcel of why the justice system in America is failing. One should always have to appear in court when he forces the court proceedings.
Like I said, just another representation of why the left coast is such an aweful place with this anti-responsibility kick it has been on for 20+ years. If you lose you should be required to pay 150% more in fines and costs for the courts to recover the damages you inflict on them.
I agree with you that defendants should have to appear. What Cougs did is tantamount to simply buying his way out of the offense. Yes, it cost more money that it would have cost to pay the fine, but he keeps it off his driving record.
Quote from: hounddog on January 14, 2012, 08:52:29 AM
Well, he is 6'5 and maybe 235 pounds. :huh:
Making it super easy is part in parcel of why the justice system in America is failing. One should always have to appear in court when he forces the court proceedings.
Like I said, just another representation of why the left coast is such an aweful place with this anti-responsibility kick it has been on for 20+ years. If you lose you should be required to pay 150% more in fines and costs for the courts to recover the damages you inflict on them.
Oh good heavens that was easier than anticipated.
So where's that list?
Quote from: dazzleman on January 14, 2012, 09:03:10 AM
I agree with you that defendants should have to appear. What Cougs did is tantamount to simply buying his way out of the offense. Yes, it cost more money that it would have cost to pay the fine, but he keeps it off his driving record.
Not at all, I worked the system the system itself put in place. Anybody can do what I did.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 14, 2012, 09:13:40 AM
Not at all, I worked the system the system itself put in place. Anybody can do what I did.
As long as they can afford to spend 3x the cost of the ticket. I don't think it's a good system. I don't blame you for that, but clearly the system sucks, and it's not just limited to a case like this.
Would you pull this shit if you have to appear in court? Or would you just mail in the fine?
Quote from: dazzleman on January 14, 2012, 09:15:40 AM
As long as they can afford to spend 3x the cost of the ticket. I don't think it's a good system. I don't blame you for that, but clearly the system sucks, and it's not just limited to a case like this.
Would you pull this shit if you have to appear in court? Or would you just mail in the fine?
In effect what your describing is no court system; no advocacy or adversarial check against state power. Sure not everyone can afford an attorney for an infraction but look at the alternative - WAY worse IMO.
As I've stated, I think both of these tickets were BS (or at least more BS than the typical ticket); not sure about the HOV ticket but I would appear for the speeding ticket despite being ~250 miles away.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 14, 2012, 09:28:55 AM
In effect what your describing is no court system; no advocacy or adversarial check against state power. Sure not everyone can afford an attorney for an infraction but look at the alternative - WAY worse IMO.
As I've stated, I think both of these tickets were BS (or at least more BS than the typical ticket); not sure about the HOV ticket but I would appear for the speeding ticket despite being ~250 miles away.
I don't advocate for no court system, just a better one. Probably an impossibility.
It would be pretty funny if you got another speeding ticket driving to your court appearance. That would make a great thread on here. :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on January 14, 2012, 09:31:27 AM
I don't advocate for no court system, just a better one. Probably an impossibility.
It would be pretty funny if you got another speeding ticket driving to your court appearance. That would make a great thread on here. :lol:
It would make a good thread; could happen too.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 14, 2012, 09:40:41 AM
It would make a good thread; could happen too.
Make it happen, Joe. :ohyeah:
:pullover:
Quote from: hounddog on January 14, 2012, 08:52:29 AM
Well, he is 6'5 and maybe 235 pounds. :huh:
Making it super easy is part in parcel of why the justice system in America is failing. One should always have to appear in court when he forces the court proceedings.
Like I said, just another representation of why the left coast is such an aweful place with this anti-responsibility kick it has been on for 20+ years. If you lose you should be required to pay 150% more in fines and costs for the courts to recover the damages you inflict on them.
I was with you until the last paragraph. Just because someone loses in court doesn't mean they were acting in bad faith or didn't have a legitimate argument behind their case. Paying a reasonable fee for court costs seems fair, not increasing the cost of the penalty. In doing that, you're essentially stripping away a person's constitutional right to confront his accuser by making it too expensive, potentially, to do so if the case results in a loss.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 14, 2012, 09:03:10 AM
I agree with you that defendants should have to appear. What Cougs did is tantamount to simply buying his way out of the offense. Yes, it cost more money that it would have cost to pay the fine, but he keeps it off his driving record.
In New Jersey, there's an automatic "buy out" you can use once every three or five, years -- I forget what it is. You can call the local court and simply request it, and they will give it to you. It's very expensive (though less than what Cougs paid) and it carries no points, no "insurance points," no nothing.
Quote from: TurboDan on January 14, 2012, 10:08:05 AM
In New Jersey, there's an automatic "buy out" you can use once every three or five, years -- I forget what it is. You can call the local court and simply request it, and they will give it to you. It's very expensive (though less than what Cougs paid) and it carries no points, no "insurance points," no nothing.
It's all about the money.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 14, 2012, 08:14:51 AM
Uh...
But I will give a 'B' for effort.
I got a 'B' from Cougs? I feel so honored. My life is complete.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 14, 2012, 11:14:42 AM
I got a 'B' from Cougs? I feel so honored. My life is complete.
Did you appear in court for your speeder?
Quote from: dazzleman on January 14, 2012, 11:15:25 AM
Did you appear in court for your speeder?
Nope. Just paid and signed up for traffic school to erase it from my record.
Quote from: TurboDan on January 14, 2012, 10:04:59 AM
I was with you until the last paragraph. Just because someone loses in court doesn't mean they were acting in bad faith or didn't have a legitimate argument behind their case. Paying a reasonable fee for court costs seems fair, not increasing the cost of the penalty. In doing that, you're essentially stripping away a person's constitutional right to confront his accuser by making it too expensive, potentially, to do so if the case results in a loss.
I was referring to a system in which you can cause court action to occur, but not have to be present during the actions.
That just smacks of feel-good law making.
Notice arrived today:
"This letter confirms that the above infraction was dismissed in the Bellevue City District Court today. The Judge dismissed this infraction because the City did not meet their burden of proof after our motions to suppress were granted."
Quote from: hounddog on January 14, 2012, 11:55:20 AM
I was referring to a system in which you can cause court action to occur, but not have to be present during the actions.
That just smacks of feel-good law making.
Ahh, ok. That I agree with 100%.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 14, 2012, 01:31:53 PM
Notice arrived today:
"This letter confirms that the above infraction was dismissed in the Bellevue City District Court today. The Judge dismissed this infraction because the City did not meet their burden of proof after our motions to suppress were granted."
Would love to know what was suppressed and why.
Quote from: MaxPower on January 14, 2012, 06:29:36 PMWould love to know what was suppressed and why.
On an HOV lane violation, it could only have been the reason for the stop. If I were to guess, I'd say one of the state's witnesses (probably the officer) didn't show for the supression hearing and the supression was granted out of hand by the court. Filing as many stupid and frivilous motions as possible is a common tactic for some lawyers, all in the hopes that a witness for the prosecution won't show for one hearing or another and the case will be dismissed. Thank laywers like that for ungodly high attorney fees and court costs.
Thank goodness we don't have ghastly HOV lanes here. Fewer lanes for individuals, and the state demanding I spend time with other people in the car at some ungodly hour of the morning with their unnecessary jibber-jabber? Yecch.
Quote from: MaxPower on January 14, 2012, 06:29:36 PM
Would love to know what was suppressed and why.
I sent her an email...
Quote from: bing_oh on January 15, 2012, 06:37:22 AM
On an HOV lane violation, it could only have been the reason for the stop. If I were to guess, I'd say one of the state's witnesses (probably the officer) didn't show for the supression hearing and the supression was granted out of hand by the court. Filing as many stupid and frivilous motions as possible is a common tactic for some lawyers, all in the hopes that a witness for the prosecution won't show for one hearing or another and the case will be dismissed. Thank laywers like that for ungodly high attorney fees and court costs.
It's a flawed and weak system that is easy for those who know it well to manipulate to their own (illegitimate) advantage.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 15, 2012, 06:37:22 AM
On an HOV lane violation, it could only have been the reason for the stop. If I were to guess, I'd say one of the state's witnesses (probably the officer) didn't show for the supression hearing and the supression was granted out of hand by the court. Filing as many stupid and frivilous motions as possible is a common tactic for some lawyers, all in the hopes that a witness for the prosecution won't show for one hearing or another and the case will be dismissed. Thank laywers like that for ungodly high attorney fees and court costs.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 15, 2012, 08:11:23 AM
It's a flawed and weak system that is easy for those who know it well to manipulate to their own (illegitimate) advantage.
So it should be a court system whereby the accused can't challenge evidence, witnesses, etc., and otherwise that the state's case is presumed irrefutable and unchallengeable? Again, you guys are implying a non-court court system.
That traffic tickets are so easy to beat doesn't show that the court system is flawed and weak IMO it shows the illegitimacy of traffic court and non-material/non-criminal traffic enforcement in general.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 15, 2012, 08:32:20 AMSo it should be a court system whereby the accused can't challenge evidence, witnesses, etc., and otherwise that the state's case is presumed irrefutable and unchallengeable? Again, you guys are implying a non-court court system.
That traffic tickets are so easy to beat doesn't show that the court system is flawed and weak IMO it shows the illegitimacy of traffic court and non-material/non-criminal traffic enforcement in general.
Did I say that? Nope. Put away your straw man and pull your hand out of my ass...I'm not a ventriloquist's dummy (not to mention I can see your lips moving).
Something like a traffic ticket will rarely need a suppression hearing. Lawyers who file motions to suppress on all violations are just manipulating the system in the hopes that a witness for the prosecution will forget to show up and the charges will be dropped and we all know it...even the lawyers who do it. Don't play it like these lawyers are just out to give their clients a fair shake and prevent judicial injustice. Even YOU admitted that you're guilty as sin. In a totally just system, you would have taken your lumps or been rightfully convicted. In the current system, you paid enough to some schyster lawyer who manipulated the system and got a guilty person (you) off of a legitimate charge.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 15, 2012, 08:40:05 AM
Did I say that? Nope. Put away your straw man and pull your hand out of my ass...I'm not a ventriloquist's dummy (not to mention I can see your lips moving).
Something like a traffic ticket will rarely need a suppression hearing. Lawyers who file motions to suppress on all violations are just manipulating the system in the hopes that a witness for the prosecution will forget to show up and the charges will be dropped and we all know it...even the lawyers who do it. Don't play it like these lawyers are just out to give their clients a fair shake and prevent judicial injustice. Even YOU admitted that you're guilty as sin. In a totally just system, you would have taken your lumps or been rightfully convicted. In the current system, you paid enough to some schyster lawyer who manipulated the system and got a guilty person (you) off of a legitimate charge.
Yes, you did say that - you don't want a two-way court system - you want an unchallengeable administrative (i.e., non-court) system that all guilty are convicted. In case you don't realize (my hunch is that you do though) this is why those who enforce the laws have zero bearing on these things.
Of course I'm guilty as sin and I got off Scot free, and 95% chance my current and future citations will go the same way. Again, the system ain't broken, the premise is (traffic tickets/enforcement).
I'm not really too fond of city police pulling people over on the interstate. Where I live in the south the town's jurisdiction may butt up against the interstate, the town will generally annex about a 1/4 mile or so on the other side of the interstate. That way they pull people over who are on the interstate because the town technically has jurisdiction on both side of the interstate. It might be only a quarter mile on the other side but it's still their right.
This is the kind of $@#% that really damages a town. People aren't going to go to a gas station in a town that police are predatory on people driving through even if laws were broken. It's bad for the town's reputation
The second problem is the police pulling people over creates an additional distraction, in addition to being generally nearby where people get on and off the interstate. A driver has to greatly slow down or move over
Now Coug's situation is his own and he'll have to deal with it. I can see where there's unjust laws but we still have to obey those laws. Now I believe it wrong to speed (within limits) and disobey the law, it's also true the people enforcing the law aren't always doing it for the best interest of the people.
Now for leo's here don't get you drawers in a wad. There's just always things done a certain way and sometimes its not right.
Quote from: sparkplug on January 15, 2012, 05:49:20 PM
This is the kind of $@#% that really damages a town. People aren't going to go to a gas station in a town that police are predatory on people driving through even if laws were broken.
They will if they are really low on gas. :huh:
Quote from: hounddog on January 15, 2012, 05:57:23 PM
They will if they are really low on gas. :huh:
True gas stations rarely go out of business, but restaurants, and everything else but motels will be locals only.
That said it doesn't happen very often but you know when a law enforcement does this purely for revenue generation, you see it.
This thread is hilarious.
Quote from: sparkplug on January 15, 2012, 05:49:20 PMI'm not really too fond of city police pulling people over on the interstate. Where I live in the south the town's jurisdiction may butt up against the interstate, the town will generally annex about a 1/4 mile or so on the other side of the interstate. That way they pull people over who are on the interstate because the town technically has jurisdiction on both side of the interstate. It might be only a quarter mile on the other side but it's still their right.
This is the kind of $@#% that really damages a town. People aren't going to go to a gas station in a town that police are predatory on people driving through even if laws were broken. It's bad for the town's reputation
The second problem is the police pulling people over creates an additional distraction, in addition to being generally nearby where people get on and off the interstate. A driver has to greatly slow down or move over
Now Coug's situation is his own and he'll have to deal with it. I can see where there's unjust laws but we still have to obey those laws. Now I believe it wrong to speed (within limits) and disobey the law, it's also true the people enforcing the law aren't always doing it for the best interest of the people.
Now for leo's here don't get you drawers in a wad. There's just always things done a certain way and sometimes its not right.
But I'll bet if you're in a crash or broken down on the interstate on a cold, icy, snowy January night and your options are a 45 minute response time from the State Police or Sheriff's Office compared to a 5 minute response time by the local PD, you'd be happy that the local PD has jurisdiction. People want to have their cake and eat it too.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 15, 2012, 08:48:49 AMYes, you did say that - you don't want a two-way court system - you want an unchallengeable administrative (i.e., non-court) system that all guilty are convicted. In case you don't realize (my hunch is that you do though) this is why those who enforce the laws have zero bearing on these things.
Of course I'm guilty as sin and I got off Scot free, and 95% chance my current and future citations will go the same way. Again, the system ain't broken, the premise is (traffic tickets/enforcement).
Please feel free to support your assertion that I said this with quotes. Hell, I'll take just
one quote. If you can't, feel free to STFU.
Quote from: MaxPower on January 15, 2012, 09:03:45 AM
Cool, thanks!
"Hi Joe, I got the officer's report suppressed, after that there was no evidence."
Quote from: bing_oh on January 15, 2012, 09:34:55 PM
Please feel free to support your assertion that I said this with quotes. Hell, I'll take just one quote. If you can't, feel free to STFU.
No quote necessary; only simple logic. You have a major issue with things like motions, evidence, hearings, etc., used by defendants. Without these things, how is there a true (adversarial) court system? There isn't. Ergo, you argue for a non-court court system, and I'll be nice and say you argue for an administrative system.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 15, 2012, 09:51:34 PM
"Hi Joe, I got the officer's report suppressed, after that there was no evidence."
A report for a civil infraction ticket?
Now I know you are full of shit.
/thread
Quote from: GoCougs on January 15, 2012, 09:56:26 PM
No quote necessary; only simple logic. You have a major issue with things like motions, evidence, hearings, etc., used by defendants. Without these things, how is there a true (adversarial) court system? There isn't. Ergo, you argue for a non-court court system, and I'll be nice and say you argue for an administrative system.
No he doesn't. He has an issue with stupid technicalities and the way the court system allows the inane maneuverings to tire the other party out enough to give up. Which is what happened in your case.
1- you were guilty
2- court has to assue you are innocent until proven guilty.
3- #2 means the government has to do the
work to prove #1
4- your lawyer just uses meaningless motions or time wasting tactics to complicate #3
5- at some point the court realizes that it's not worth the time/money spent to pursue.
That is more administrative than real court.
Just like many times people or the state settle to skip the hassle and money spent lawyering through a legitimate case.
That still doesn't mean justice was done. In fact, as much as I disagree with HOV lanes, justice was thwarted in this thread. The people were injured and likely will continue to be (by current legal definition) as you keep "breaking the "law"".
Quote from: bing_oh on January 15, 2012, 09:33:08 PM
But I'll bet if you're in a crash or broken down on the interstate on a cold, icy, snowy January night and your options are a 45 minute response time from the State Police or Sheriff's Office compared to a 5 minute response time by the local PD, you'd be happy that the local PD has jurisdiction. People want to have their cake and eat it too.
I'll agree with that. I don't think you get the point. But I see discussing things here is pointless. It's is silly to argue with a man who's back his points up with handcuffs, a taser, a 40 S&W, and dozen donuts. Don't Krispy Kreme me. I just made a point, I'm not trying to argue. Here let me just walk away and you can finish chewing Coug's a new one. I won't make any more post in this thread. You can have the last word because you're so mature and grown up. Careful though I might be pulling reverse psychology on you. I haven't decided yet.
:mask: Sorry Cougs, you need a lawyer here as well. :mask:
How old are you, sparkplug?
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2012, 06:10:03 PM
Does your trolling nullify his?
And I think you're an alright cat who simply lets himself get spun up a bit about immaterial things.
No, actually I've been told that I apparently don't willingly suffer fools. This is just further proof of that. :huh:
Quote from: bing_oh on January 15, 2012, 09:33:08 PM
But I'll bet if you're in a crash or broken down on the interstate on a cold, icy, snowy January night and your options are a 45 minute response time from the State Police or Sheriff's Office compared to a 5 minute response time by the local PD, you'd be happy that the local PD has jurisdiction. People want to have their cake and eat it too.
Unless you happen to be in certain places in Oklahoma. Wait time there are as long as 45 minutes. :lol: :evildude:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on January 16, 2012, 12:09:00 AMNo he doesn't. He has an issue with stupid technicalities and the way the court system allows the inane maneuverings to tire the other party out enough to give up. Which is what happened in your case.
1- you were guilty
2- court has to assue you are innocent until proven guilty.
3- #2 means the government has to do the work to prove #1
4- your lawyer just uses meaningless motions or time wasting tactics to complicate #3
5- at some point the court realizes that it's not worth the time/money spent to pursue.
That is more administrative than real court.
Just like many times people or the state settle to skip the hassle and money spent lawyering through a legitimate case.
That still doesn't mean justice was done. In fact, as much as I disagree with HOV lanes, justice was thwarted in this thread. The people were injured and likely will continue to be (by current legal definition) as you keep "breaking the "law"".
Thank you, Autobahn. You made my point very well.
Quote from: sparkplug on January 16, 2012, 12:44:52 AM
I'll agree with that. I don't think you get the point. But I see discussing things here is pointless. It's is silly to argue with a man who's back his points up with handcuffs, a taser, a 40 S&W, and dozen donuts. Don't Krispy Kreme me. I just made a point, I'm not trying to argue. Here let me just walk away and you can finish chewing Coug's a new one. I won't make any more post in this thread. You can have the last word because you're so mature and grown up. Careful though I might be pulling reverse psychology on you. I haven't decided yet.
:mask: Sorry Cougs, you need a lawyer here as well. :mask:
I think this post goes a bit far. Bing and I are simply having a good ole row about this topic, nothing more.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 07:10:09 AM
I think this post goes a bit far. Bing and I are simply having a good ole row about this topic, nothing more.
Cougs, you need to get another ticket. These threads are hilarious.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 15, 2012, 09:51:34 PM"Hi Joe, I got the officer's report suppressed, after that there was no evidence."
How the hell do you get a report suppressed? A report isn't evidence...it's documentation for the officer, whose
testomony is evidentiary. Like I said, I'm guessing the officer didn't show for the suppression hearing and a written statement can't stand on its own without testomony (with a few exceptions). Saying that she got the report suppressed wouldn't really be accurate, though.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 07:10:09 AMI think this post goes a bit far. Bing and I are simply having a good ole row about this topic, nothing more.
I was thinking it was more of a ballyhoo. Or a ruckus. :huh:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on January 16, 2012, 12:09:00 AM
No he doesn't. He has an issue with stupid technicalities and the way the court system allows the inane maneuverings to tire the other party out enough to give up. Which is what happened in your case.
1- you were guilty
2- court has to assue you are innocent until proven guilty.
3- #2 means the government has to do the work to prove #1
4- your lawyer just uses meaningless motions or time wasting tactics to complicate #3
5- at some point the court realizes that it's not worth the time/money spent to pursue.
That is more administrative than real court.
Just like many times people or the state settle to skip the hassle and money spent lawyering through a legitimate case.
That still doesn't mean justice was done. In fact, as much as I disagree with HOV lanes, justice was thwarted in this thread. The people were injured and likely will continue to be (by current legal definition) as you keep "breaking the "law"".
Well, not only is the above a mythical layman's POV of how court works (most notably, a judge can simply choose to deny a motion if it is without merit), you can at least have solace that many join you and bing in wishing away the court system. Rue the day you get your wish, but as we all know, it ain't never going to happen.
Quote from: MiataJohn on January 16, 2012, 06:03:28 AM
No, actually I've been told that I apparently don't willingly suffer fools. This is just further proof of that. :huh:
Oh, boo, you like stepping into the ring.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 07:19:21 AM
Well, not only is the above a mythical layman's POV of how court works (most notably, a judge can simply choose to deny a motion if it is without merit), you can at least have solace that many join you and bing in wishing away the court system. Rue the day you get your wish, but as we all know, it ain't never going to happen.
Let's not kid ourselves, Cougs. Your ticket wasn't really dismissed on legal grounds. It was either a favor from the judge or prosecutor to your lawyer, or some other type of horse-trading that had nothing to do with whether you were innocent or guilty.
We don't want to wish away the court system; we just want it to function for its intended purpose.
It's not a big deal when this happens with a bs traffic ticket like yours, but when it happens with more serious cases, the consequences can be horrific.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 16, 2012, 07:11:26 AM
Cougs, you need to get another ticket. These threads are hilarious.
Yeah, this one had a lot more legs than I would have guessed...
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 07:19:21 AMWell, not only is the above a mythical layman's POV of how court works (most notably, a judge can simply choose to deny a motion if it is without merit), you can at least have solace that many join you and bing in wishing away the court system. Rue the day you get your wish, but as we all know, it ain't never going to happen.
Actually, Autobahn's description is pretty accurate. And the chances of a judge denying a motion, especially something like a motion to suppress, because he/she believes it's without merit is pretty slim...doing so would open up all kinds of doors for appeal, and no judge likes to have his rulings appealed. It's normally easier for the judge to just hear the motion.
As for wishing the court system away, you're really reaching again. I'd never wish the court system away. I happen to be a huge supporter of rights and the courts are a vital part of protecting those rights. For example, I hate the moves the the feds have been doing since 9/11 in cutting the judiciary out of issues where there should celarly be judicial review. But, I'm also a huge supporter of personal responsibility and hate how people manipulate the system...people manipulating the system is just as bad as the government doing it.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 07:24:19 AM
Yeah, this one had a lot more legs than I would have guessed...
And, the best part is, there's another ticket out there with a court date coming up. We need full details on that one, too.... :lol:
Quote from: bing_oh on January 16, 2012, 07:17:47 AM
How the hell do you get a report suppressed? A report isn't evidence...it's documentation for the officer, whose testomony is evidentiary. Like I said, I'm guessing the officer didn't show for the suppression hearing and a written statement can't stand on its own without testomony (with a few exceptions). Saying that she got the report suppressed wouldn't really be accurate, though.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 16, 2012, 07:23:52 AM
Let's not kid ourselves, Cougs. Your ticket wasn't really dismissed on legal grounds. It was either a favor from the judge or prosecutor to your lawyer, or some other type of horse-trading that had nothing to do with whether you were innocent or guilty.
We don't want to wish away the court system; we just want it to function for its intended purpose.
It's not a big deal when this happens with a bs traffic ticket like yours, but when it happens with more serious cases, the consequences can be horrific.
By extension of these two posts, had the LEO shown up things may have gone quite differently, ergo, the LEO should have shown. Sounds like a simple easy process to follow, yet the city couldn't perform. Sounds like the court system worked perfectly - no horse trading (quite the opposite as this is all this attorney does, and she is well known in the area, and if anything her equity with the courts is somewhere between zero and none) just set known rules both sides know and both sides play.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 07:33:40 AM
By extension of these two posts, had the LEO shown up things may have gone quite differently, ergo, the LEO should have shown. Sounds like a simple easy process to follow, yet the city couldn't perform. Sounds like the court system worked perfectly - no horse trading (quite the opposite as this is all this attorney does, and she is well known in the area, and if anything her equity with the courts is somewhere between zero and none) just set known rules both sides know and both sides play.
The LEO probably agreed not to show up, as part of a larger quid pro quo. That type of stuff happens all the time. Friends of mine have made deals with the LEO who ticketed them right outside the courtroom, and then the LEO either doesn't show up or develops amnesia when questioned about the case.
When you have a lawyer who's working a number of cases, it's super easy to arrange that type of scenario.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 07:33:40 AM
By extension of these two posts, had the LEO shown up things may have gone quite differently, ergo, the LEO should have shown.
Right, and in the process, the LEO would get paid OT courtesy of the taxpayers, all so he or she could be there to testify on a baseless motion that was filed for the sole purpose of hoping the LEO would not show up.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 16, 2012, 07:23:52 AM
Let's not kid ourselves, Cougs. Your ticket wasn't really dismissed on legal grounds. It was either a favor from the judge or prosecutor to your lawyer, or some other type of horse-trading that had nothing to do with whether you were innocent or guilty.
We don't want to wish away the court system; we just want it to function for its intended purpose.
It's not a big deal when this happens with a bs traffic ticket like yours, but when it happens with more serious cases, the consequences can be horrific.
Most municipal court judges are simply lawyers from the local community. Generally, they're a friend of somebody on the city council and they're appointed judge in the town so they can make a few extra bucks a week overseeing these silly traffic and low-level criminal cases. They get appointed on a yearly basis at a contracted rate.
That's where the lawyer comes in. He or she knows the judge, probably has worked with the judge before, probably sees the judge socially at county bar association dinners, etc.
Quote from: TurboDan on January 16, 2012, 12:22:12 PM
Most municipal court judges are simply lawyers from the local community. Generally, they're a friend of somebody on the city council and they're appointed judge in the town so they can make a few extra bucks a week overseeing these silly traffic and low-level criminal cases. They get appointed on a yearly basis at a contracted rate.
That's where the lawyer comes in. He or she knows the judge, probably has worked with the judge before, probably sees the judge socially at county bar association dinners, etc.
Exactly. It's a very incestuous system, and the merits of the cases have little to do with which tickets get dismissed.
This is interesting. I work in a DA's office and I'll probably be trying a few speeding tickets this semester. Doesn't seem to be the same way here as where y'all are from.
Quote from: 850CSi on January 16, 2012, 12:55:16 PM
This is interesting. I work in a DA's office and I'll probably be trying a few speeding tickets this semester. Doesn't seem to be the same way here as where y'all are from.
DA's office doesn't handle traffic tickets in NJ. They go through the local, municipal court. Even when you're ticketed by a state trooper, the case is heard in the municipal court in whatever town the highway was running through where you were ticketed. The municipal prosecutor is chosen the same way judges are - simply an annual appointment by the city council. In fact, in many towns, they'll actually solicit bids from attorneys who want to be prosecutor and the low bidder will get the job.
In NJ, the DA's office only handles indictable offenses (NJ's term for felonies), which go through Superior Court.
Quote from: TurboDan on January 16, 2012, 12:21:13 PM
Right, and in the process, the LEO would get paid OT courtesy of the taxpayers, all so he or she could be there to testify on a baseless motion that was filed for the sole purpose of hoping the LEO would not show up.
I never concerned myself with taxpayers; I'm in it for me.
If it's baseless, why does the process exist?
Quote from: TurboDan on January 16, 2012, 12:22:12 PM
Most municipal court judges are simply lawyers from the local community. Generally, they're a friend of somebody on the city council and they're appointed judge in the town so they can make a few extra bucks a week overseeing these silly traffic and low-level criminal cases. They get appointed on a yearly basis at a contracted rate.
That's where the lawyer comes in. He or she knows the judge, probably has worked with the judge before, probably sees the judge socially at county bar association dinners, etc.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 16, 2012, 07:38:15 AM
The LEO probably agreed not to show up, as part of a larger quid pro quo. That type of stuff happens all the time. Friends of mine have made deals with the LEO who ticketed them right outside the courtroom, and then the LEO either doesn't show up or develops amnesia when questioned about the case.
When you have a lawyer who's working a number of cases, it's super easy to arrange that type of scenario.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 16, 2012, 12:23:10 PM
Exactly. It's a very incestuous system, and the merits of the cases have little to do with which tickets get dismissed.
Oh, for crying out loud you guys. This is your most dour indictment yet of the court system; this is not how it works.
Also, this was in county district court (the largest county in the state, which is to say it has a robust court system).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 01:52:17 PMIf it's baseless, why does the process exist?
As the system is intended to work, such motions aren't supposed to be baseless. There are numerous legitimate legal reasons for things like motions to suppress. Over time, certain members of our legal system have corrupted these processes to their own nefarious purposes, well outside of the scope of what they were intended for. There are defense lawyers who will literally file every possible type of motion on ever little thing, even if they know these motions are totally baseless, just to bury the prosecution in paperwork, generate numerous pointless hearing where various people will have to appear or the case will be dismissed, and to create billable hours for themselves. Of course, you already know this...your lawyer is doing it, you know she's doing it any why, and you choose her because she does it and it gets you off of charges for which you're guilty. If we're gonna have a discussion, at least be honest about it.
Quote from: TurboDan on January 16, 2012, 01:04:03 PMDA's office doesn't handle traffic tickets in NJ. They go through the local, municipal court. Even when you're ticketed by a state trooper, the case is heard in the municipal court in whatever town the highway was running through where you were ticketed. The municipal prosecutor is chosen the same way judges are - simply an annual appointment by the city council. In fact, in many towns, they'll actually solicit bids from attorneys who want to be prosecutor and the low bidder will get the job.
In NJ, the DA's office only handles indictable offenses (NJ's term for felonies), which go through Superior Court.
We have a slightly different system where I live. While the municipal court still hears traffic offenses (as well as all misdemeanors), the municipal court judge is an coutywide elected position. Obviously, he was and is a lawyer and practiced in the county before he was elected, so there are plenty of connections to other lawyers. Backroom deals do get made and plenty of cases get pled out because of the connections between lawyers.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 16, 2012, 02:27:19 PM
As the system is intended to work, such motions aren't supposed to be baseless. There are numerous legitimate legal reasons for things like motions to suppress. Over time, certain members of our legal system have corrupted these processes to their own nefarious purposes, well outside of the scope of what they were intended for. There are defense lawyers who will literally file every possible type of motion on ever little thing, even if they know these motions are totally baseless, just to bury the prosecution in paperwork, generate numerous pointless hearing where various people will have to appear or the case will be dismissed, and to create billable hours for themselves. Of course, you already know this...your lawyer is doing it, you know she's doing it any why, and you choose her because she does it and it gets you off of charges for which you're guilty. If we're gonna have a discussion, at least be honest about it.
IMO, you consider these actions baseless because you don't understand the necessary philosophical underpinnings of the process (= adversarial court system whereby the duty is on the state to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove non guilt).
You're probably the same type who gets all riled up about "tort reform" and limits on medical malpractice award, also both baseless positions IMO (you irked I know a couple of medical malpractice attorneys?). The US has by far the best court system in the world, and all sides should be glad for it.
I chose her because of recommendation; I didn't/don't have a clue what she does other than she wins ~95% of her traffic cases. I couldn't care less how she wins, as long as she is not unethical or criminal about it (I checked the state bar and she had no issues).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 02:46:14 PMIMO, you consider these actions baseless because you don't understand the necessary philosophical underpinnings of the process (= adversarial court system whereby the duty is on the state to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove non guilt).
I work in the justice system, Cougs. I understand the process...both "philosophically" and the realities of it...much, much better than you'll ever hope to.
You attempt to hold some kind of moral "philosophical" high ground on this discussion is a dead end with me. We both know the truth...you just don't want to openly admit that you're playing the system.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 02:46:14 PM
IMO, you consider these actions baseless because you don't understand the necessary philosophical underpinnings of the process (= adversarial court system whereby the duty is on the state to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove non guilt).
But that's the point. The state could easily prove your guilt. I assume there's a dash cam video of you doing it. A sworn police officer pulled over the vehicle and took your valid license and confirmed you were the driver of the vehicle. Done. Proven. There's no question of your guilt. No extenuating circumstances. And I highly doubt the officer had a bias against white guys who drive boring midsize sedans.
If the justice system was as clean and neat as you believe, there would have been a speedy trial and the state would have easily proved you committed the offense. But because the system is NOT clean and neat, and is easily manipulated, it gets bogged down (at a cost to the taxpayer) and as a result, the ticket gets tossed on either a technicality or a wink-wink, nudge-nudge favor, having nothing to do with your guilt, which could have easily been proven.
Quote from: TurboDan on January 16, 2012, 03:08:50 PM
But that's the point. The state could easily prove your guilt. I assume there's a dash cam video of you doing it. A sworn police officer pulled over the vehicle and took your valid license and confirmed you were the driver of the vehicle. Done. Proven. There's no question of your guilt. No extenuating circumstances. And I highly doubt the officer had a bias against white guys who drive boring midsize sedans.
If the justice system was as clean and neat as you believe, there would have been a speedy trial and the state would have easily proved you committed the offense. But because the system is NOT clean and neat, and is easily manipulated, it gets bogged down (at a cost to the taxpayer) and as a result, the ticket gets tossed on either a technicality or a wink-wink, nudge-nudge favor, having nothing to do with your guilt, which could have easily been proven.
Of course the state couldn't easily prove my guilt; it would have if it could.
And you too want a "clean and neat" state-centric administrative system, with a bit of the surveillance state sprinkled on top. This is not a good thing.
Quote from: bing_oh on January 16, 2012, 03:08:08 PM
I work in the justice system, Cougs. I understand the process...both "philosophically" and the realities of it...much, much better than you'll ever hope to.
You attempt to hold some kind of moral "philosophical" high ground on this discussion is a dead end with me. We both know the truth...you just don't want to openly admit that you're playing the system.
No moral high ground at all - I'm only pointong out that by you what you've written here you want state-centric administrative system, and that's simply not how it works, nor will ever work.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 04:27:45 PM
Of course the state couldn't easily prove my guilt; it would have if it could.
:facepalm:
The officer pulled you over after spotting you in the HOV lane and it was most likely recorded. What would be better proof than that?
If they can't prove that, I don't trust them to make any judgement on murder cases.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 04:30:07 PM
No moral high ground at all - I'm only pointong out that by you what you've written here you want state-centric administrative system, and that's simply not how it works, nor will ever work.
Cougs, you're just not being honest here. You broke the law many times, got busted, were guilty as hell, but manipulated a weak and corrupt system (at a very high cost) to drop the charge.
Now you're trying to make it into some type of moral crusade. It isn't. You tried to weasel and buy your way out of a ticket and you succeeded, at a high cost. But that doesn't make you some type of freedom fighter.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 16, 2012, 06:18:15 PM
:facepalm:
The officer pulled you over after spotting you in the HOV lane and it was most likely recorded. What would be better proof than that?
If they can't prove that, I don't trust them to make any judgement on murder cases.
LOL - then where is this supposed recording? (He was on a bike FWIW.) For the 5th time, you guys should rue the day the surveillance state gets to that point...
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 06:57:30 PM
LOL - then where is this supposed recording? (He was on a bike FWIW.) For the 5th time, you guys should rue the day the surveillance state gets to that point...
We appreciate the fact that you've struck a blow for freedom..... :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on January 16, 2012, 06:20:14 PM
Cougs, you're just not being honest here. You broke the law many times, got busted, were guilty as hell, but manipulated a weak and corrupt system (at a very high cost) to drop the charge.
Now you're trying to make it into some type of moral crusade. It isn't. You tried to weasel and buy your way out of a ticket and you succeeded, at a high cost. But that doesn't make you some type of freedom fighter.
I'm being very honest,
brutally honest. The system is there for both sides to use, and this time, I won; it is neither weak nor corrupt.
I'm not on any sort of moral crusade - I'm in it for myself. However, I will say, if more did what I did, you'd probably see a shift of the LE from non-material traffic enforcement.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 07:03:36 PM
I'm being very honest, brutally honest. The system is there for both sides to use, and this time, I won.
I'm not on any sort of moral crusade - I'm in it for myself. However, I will say, if more did what I did, you'd probably see a shift of the LE from non-material traffic enforcement.
I don't totally disagree with you. I just find the whole thing kind of humorous. I look forward to hearing about the next ticket that you have on deck. I wish you were going to appear in court. That makes for an even better story.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 16, 2012, 06:57:30 PM
LOL - then where is this supposed recording? (He was on a bike FWIW.) For the 5th time, you guys should rue the day the surveillance state gets to that point...
It already is to that point, with police dash cameras. And I don't see anything wrong with that.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 16, 2012, 07:05:26 PM
I don't totally disagree with you. I just find the whole thing kind of humorous. I look forward to hearing about the next ticket that you have on deck. I wish you were going to appear in court. That makes for an even better story.
If he had to appear in court, the next time we would hear from him is in 7 days.
Just got notice today from HR that from here forward all offers will be contingent on a number of things (drug test, criminal check) including a DMV check of one's driving record. They call this the "onboarding process." I'm really tempted to quip about WTF does a driving record have to do with anything but so far I have resisted, and I'm 60% confident I can maintain that. Oh, so yeah, protecting one's driving record ain't just nothin.'
Quote from: GoCougs on January 31, 2012, 07:10:45 PM
Just got notice today from HR that from here forward all offers will be contingent on a number of things (drug test, criminal check) including a DMV check of one's driving record. They call this the "onboarding process." I'm really tempted to quip about WTF does a driving record have to do with anything but so far I have resisted, and I'm 60% confident I can maintain that. Oh, so yeah, protecting one's driving record ain't just nothin.'
They're probably looking for things like DUI.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 31, 2012, 07:37:17 PM
They're probably looking for things like DUI.
That would come up in the criminal check (in my state DUI is a crime not a traffic infraction). They specifically delineated between criminal record and DMV record. AFAIK no one at the company has a company-issued car, but could be wrong. I just fired off that question, plus others (do they also do a credit check).
Quote from: dazzleman on January 31, 2012, 07:37:17 PM
They're probably looking for things like DUI.
I'd guess that and a general trend of reckless behaviour and/or disregard for rules and regulations.
Got my answers back from HR. Turns out they DO issue cars to the field sales reps, and the DMV check would ONLY apply to those positions.
So BFF MiataJohn, you'll just have to suffer my continued winning in buying my way out of the punishment for "reckless behavior and/or disregard for rules and regulations."
Quote from: GoCougs on February 01, 2012, 07:09:22 PM
Got my answers back from HR. Turns out they DO issue cars to the field sales reps, and the DMV check would ONLY apply to those positions.
So BFF MiataJohn, you'll just have to suffer my continued winning in buying my way out of the punishment for "reckless behavior and/or disregard for rules and regulations."
MiataJohn has gotten his share of tickets over the years.
When is the court date for your next ticket?
Quote from: GoCougs on February 01, 2012, 07:09:22 PM
Got my answers back from HR. Turns out they DO issue cars to the field sales reps, and the DMV check would ONLY apply to those positions.
So BFF MiataJohn, you'll just have to suffer my continued winning in buying my way out of the punishment for "reckless behavior and/or disregard for rules and regulations."
So since the background check doesn't apply to you, you'll continue to buy your way out of tickets to avoid the background check...that doesn't apply to you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5wryDdEI0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5wryDdEI0)
2/8. Can't wait!
Quote from: Tave on February 01, 2012, 07:26:24 PM
So since the background check doesn't apply to you, you'll continue to buy your way out of tickets to avoid the background check...that doesn't apply to you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5wryDdEI0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5wryDdEI0)
Tave, what's going on with your Internetry? You've been trying for these wins lately and it's not gone well.
Background check is a criminal check. Traffic citations are not a criminal. Background check happens whether there is "background" to be discovered or not. Ergo, "loss."
Quote from: GoCougs on February 01, 2012, 07:30:52 PM
Tave, what's going on with your Internetry? You've been trying for these wins lately and it's not gone well.
Background check is a criminal check. Traffic citations are not a criminal. Background check happens whether there is "background" to be discovered or not. Ergo, "loss."
So since the
DMV check doesn't apply to you, you'll continue to buy your way out of tickets to avoid the
DMV check...that doesn't apply to you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5wryDdEI0
Quote from: GoCougs on February 01, 2012, 07:26:37 PM
2/8. Can't wait!
:lol:
It's not as if the stakes are very high. You can have some fun with it.
Quote from: Tave on February 01, 2012, 07:32:05 PM
So since the DMV check doesn't apply to you, you'll continue to buy your way out of tickets to avoid the DMV check...that doesn't apply to you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5wryDdEI0
$500 in legal fees for a $100 ticket -- sounds like a win to me.... :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on February 01, 2012, 07:10:59 PM
MiataJohn has gotten his share of tickets over the years.
But none for speeding for quite a while. It all boils down to knowing when you can and can't get away with it.
Quote from: dazzleman on February 01, 2012, 07:38:36 PM
$500 in legal fees for a $100 ticket -- sounds like a win to me.... :lol:
That's $850 for this one - over on the other side of the state...
Quote from: Tave on February 01, 2012, 07:32:05 PM
So since the DMV check doesn't apply to you, you'll continue to buy your way out of tickets to avoid the DMV check...that doesn't apply to you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5wryDdEI0
Duh, of course l - lots of other entities check DMV records, such as a judge during a citation hearing or a jury should I ever find myself on the receiving end of a civil suit owing to a traffic accident.
Generally speaking evidence of a prior bad act is not admissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with that act. There are some exceptions to that rule, but if your lawyer is doing his job, evidence of your driving record shouldn't get to the jury.
My guess is the judge would have a record of your previous dismissals, but maybe not.
Quote from: Tave on February 02, 2012, 01:18:40 PM
Generally speaking evidence of a prior bad act is not admissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with that act. There are some exceptions to that rule, but if your lawyer is doing his job, evidence of your driving record shouldn't get to the jury.
Civil trial.
Quote from: MiataJohn on February 02, 2012, 06:35:16 AM
But none for speeding for quite a while. It all boils down to knowing when you can and can't get away with it.
I have the same problem. We need to step up our game.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 02, 2012, 12:46:24 PM
That's $850 for this one - over on the other side of the state...
Even better.
I hope you're continuing to speed.
Quote from: dazzleman on February 02, 2012, 07:27:49 PM
Even better.
I hope you're continuing to speed.
Not so much anymore. Since the first of the year my commute is now on a two-lane country road whereby I mostly get stuck behind a POS bus or some other leviathan that refuses to do the speed limit.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 02, 2012, 07:24:42 PM
Civil trial.
I know. The Rules of Evidence apply to both criminal and civil trials. :ohyeah:
Ha, he probably lost.
Quote from: Rupert on February 18, 2012, 01:13:08 PMHa, he probably lost.
That's what I was thinking. He would have been back on here bragging about beating the system again as soon as he got home from court if he had won. I'm thinking he got the fine + court costs + the price of his expensive lawyer.
Quote from: bing_oh on February 18, 2012, 01:17:05 PM
That's what I was thinking. He would have been back on here bragging about beating the system again as soon as he got home from court if he had won. I'm thinking he got the fine + court costs + the price of his expensive lawyer.
If he did, he'll never admit it.
Quote from: bing_oh on February 18, 2012, 01:17:05 PM
That's what I was thinking. He would have been back on here bragging about beating the system again as soon as he got home from court if he had won. I'm thinking he got the fine + court costs + the price of his expensive lawyer.
:lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on February 18, 2012, 07:32:34 AM
What happened?
My attorney delayed the trial again - till some date in April! He said he had subpenaed two state witnesses - the person who maintains the radar guns and someone else (can't remember who) - and that is the only time both can be in court on the same date.
If I do lose I'll still have the moderate satisfaction that I cost the state a minor if not moderate sum of money and otherwise clogged up the works of their machine. So, it's WinSPIN for me no matter how this shakes out.
I do believe that's the most douchebaggish attitude I've ever heard in all Carspindom.
Cougs, you're a fucking tool.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 18, 2012, 10:14:03 PM
My attorney delayed the trial again - till some date in April! He said he had subpenaed two state witnesses - the person who maintains the radar guns and someone else (can't remember who) - and that is the only time both can be in court on the same date.
If I do lose I'll still have the moderate satisfaction that I cost the state a minor if not moderate sum of money and otherwise clogged up the works of their machine. So, it's WinSPIN for me no matter how this shakes out.
I love the attitude..... :lol:
Jesus, you two (not Dazzle of course), it's just some guy on the Innernet...
When the court loses money and time, it just causes more havoc for all the rest of the people who have to deal with the system. So that attitude is incredibly selfish.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 18, 2012, 11:10:38 PM
I do believe that's the most douchebaggish attitude I've ever heard in all Carspindom.
That is quite an, achievement, too!
:lol:
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 19, 2012, 09:25:28 AM
When the court loses money and time, it just causes more havoc for all the rest of the people who have to deal with the system. So that attitude is incredibly selfish.
Good. Clog the works. Starve the beast. Perhaps the system will catch a clue and get to the business of rational and logical traffic enforcement. Until then? It's Selfish Town.
Nice try. Court fees and/or taxes will just increase to cover the extra cost.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 19, 2012, 10:11:17 AM
Good. Clog the works. Starve the beast. Perhaps the system will catch a clue and get to the business of rational and logical traffic enforcement. Until then? It's Selfish Town.
No amount of douchebaggery will fix the system.
May I remind you how immoral compulsory taxes are, and you are PURPOSEFULLY expending your own funds/energy to
necessitate more tax collection, for an illegal act on your part.
Anyone with a 100% REAL conscience would try to live the law in a manner to lessen the tax expenditures. And then they would legally and lawfully work to change the laws they felt were immoral, unjust, or inefficient.
(disclaimer- I don't have a 100% REAL conscience, I don't care enough to ever get involved in civics or government, I barely even vote. So is it hipocritical of me to judge? sure. But I try to live the laws that make sense, (not get caught speeding or rolling on redlight-right-turns,) and wouldn't brag about "clogging" the very system that I rant about the lack or morality of... )
Cougs, I'm sure your attorney doesn't want you running around the internet admitting guilt and bragging about abusing the court system. Sure nothing will probably come of it, but it's better not to tempt fate. Courts are becoming increasingly sensitive to internet communications, and judges can be real vindictive bastards if they feel you're flouting the law behind their backs. It's happened before on sites like Facebook. Obviously, this is a lot more private environment, but why even take the chance?
Quote from: ifcar on February 19, 2012, 10:18:44 AM
Nice try. Court fees and/or taxes will just increase to cover the extra cost.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 19, 2012, 10:19:02 AM
No amount of douchebaggery will fix the system.
May I remind you how immoral compulsory taxes are, and you are PURPOSEFULLY expending your own funds/energy to necessitate more tax collection, for an illegal act on your part.
Anyone with a 100% REAL conscience would try to live the law in a manner to lessen the tax expenditures. And then they would legally and lawfully work to change the laws they felt were immoral, unjust, or inefficient.
(disclaimer- I don't have a 100% REAL conscience, I don't care enough to ever get involved in civics or government, I barely even vote. So is it hipocritical of me to judge? sure. But I try to live the laws that make sense, (not get caught speeding or rolling on redlight-right-turns,) and wouldn't brag about "clogging" the very system that I rant about the lack or morality of... )
Perhaps a civics lesson is in order?
Quote from: Tave on February 19, 2012, 11:57:23 AM
Cougs, I'm sure your attorney doesn't want you running around the internet admitting guilt and bragging about abusing the court system. Sure nothing will probably come of it, but it's better not to tempt fate. Courts are becoming increasingly sensitive to internet communications, and judges can be real vindictive bastards if they feel you're flouting the law behind their backs. It's happened before on sites like Facebook. Obviously, this is a lot more private environment, but why even take the chance?
First, I have not admitted guilt.
Second, I am not abusing the court system.
Third, that judges are RVBs is a sin that that judge carries alone, and a profound flaw in the court system.
Fourth, did you really just make a case for endorsing defacto state monitoring of the Internet?
Quote from: GoCougs on February 19, 2012, 12:16:05 PM
First, I have not admitted guilt.
Second, I am not abusing the court system.
Third, that judges are RVBs is a sin that that judge carries alone, and a profound flaw in the court system.
Fourth, did you really just make a case for endorsing defacto state monitoring of the Internet?
Not at all, I'm just suggesting that you cover your own ass and leave the legal work to your lawyer rather than blabbing about your case to complete strangers on the internet.
btw I could care less if you legally challenge the law, even if you were in the wrong. My d-bag comments are regarding the attitude displayed on this page, compared/contrasted to the general attitude about taxes and government you've maintained on this forum previously.
Quote from: Tave on February 02, 2012, 11:40:54 PM
I know. The Rules of Evidence apply to both criminal and civil trials. :ohyeah:
Sorta... I can think of one trial in my personal life which was decided entirely despite the evidence.
Quote from: Tave on February 19, 2012, 01:48:17 PM
Not at all, I'm just suggesting that you cover your own ass and leave the legal work to your lawyer rather than blabbing about your case to complete strangers on the internet.
Thanks, but suggestion rejected for the obvious.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 19, 2012, 03:14:08 PM
btw I could care less if you legally challenge the law, even if you were in the wrong. My d-bag comments are regarding the attitude displayed on this page, compared/contrasted to the general attitude about taxes and government you've maintained on this forum previously.
:huh:
Quote from: GoCougs on February 19, 2012, 05:18:30 PM
:huh:
Ha. Depending on what that means, I might have to reverse some of my opinion of you..
I can see the letter home now.
"Well mom, I won my court case. Cost me about a grand in legal fees plus a couple of hundred in other expenses and court costs , but I sure showed them. Aren't you proud?"
Response: "No son, you're a douche bag."
:-)
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 19, 2012, 09:46:47 PM
Ha. Depending on what that means, I might have to reverse some of my opinion of you..
It means I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 20, 2012, 11:46:59 AM
It means I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Never mind then. :huh:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 20, 2012, 02:56:22 PM
Never mind then. :huh:
Actually, I like Cougs' "Cool Hand Luke" approach to the whole thing. As long as he's continuing to speed and use the HOV lane whenver possible, it's cool. It's a lot better to be like that than to be the dude who cries like a little bitch over his tickets.
Quote from: dazzleman on February 22, 2012, 02:56:50 PM
Actually, I like Cougs' "Cool Hand Luke" approach to the whole thing. As long as he's continuing to speed and use the HOV lane whenver possible, it's cool. It's a lot better to be like that than to be the dude who cries like a little bitch over his tickets.
"Stick it to the Man" :rastaman: Everyone is a hippie at heart :lol:.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 23, 2012, 05:48:11 PM
"Stick it to the Man" :rastaman:
Everyone is a hippie at heart :lol:.
That's right, man. Got to keep that rebel streak.... :rockon:
I like Cougs' attitude that it's "winSPIN" even if he pays his lawyers a ton of money plus gets hit with a full fine and court costs. Of course it's bravado, but we should NEVER admit that a penalty hurts in the least. It's much better to project that bravado than to be a whiny bitch, complaining about the penalty and afraid ti repeat the offense. Fuck that. I wouldn't blow all that money on a lawyer for a minor offense if it were me, but in terms of attitude, Cougs has the right idea.
One on level it's fun and funny. However, given his "taxes are immoral" attitude, it's totally douchey.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 24, 2012, 05:49:55 AM
One on level it's fun and funny. However, given his "taxes are immoral" attitude, it's totally douchey.
I don't really think the two are connected. As long as he maintains his "winSPIN" stance, and keeps speeding, I don't think he's any different than the rest of us who laugh off our tickets and continue to speed.
Unless we were all complaining and complaining about taxes- and the taxmoney that is spent on our court system and policeforce...
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 24, 2012, 08:32:46 AM
Unless we were all complaining and complaining about taxes- and the taxmoney that is spent on our court system and policeforce...
But he's calling it winSPIN even if he has to pay a full fine and court costs. That makes him a cash cow for the government. It seems to me that his instinct to man up and refuse to admit that the penalty hurts wins out over anti-tax bitching. That scores points with me.
If he has to pay the full fine PLUS his lawyer's fees, Sweet! But he was saying "win" because he's "clogging up the courts".
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 24, 2012, 10:59:18 AM
If he has to pay the full fine PLUS his lawyer's fees, Sweet! But he was saying "win" because he's "clogging up the courts".
Haha, that's a fig leaf of bravado to cover what would be a real thrashing. Not to be taken seriously, IMO.
BTW, I thought of Cougs on the way home from the airport tonight. The road I was driving on had an HOV lane for a while.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 24, 2012, 05:49:55 AM
One on level it's fun and funny. However, given his "taxes are immoral" attitude, it's totally douchey.
It's just the Innerrnnetts.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 24, 2012, 05:33:37 PM
It's just the Innerrnnetts.
:lol:
You sound like a real country boy now, Cougs. I can hear (in my head) some of my dad's family using that term.
Had my court date yesterday. The attorney had twice delayed the date to work the speed measurement device angle. He said he was successful yet the court would only allow a non-moving violation in its place - switched to a $250 infraction for no registration.
Though I'm 2-0, it's just a ridiculous system. It shocks me that WtP tolerate it. Imagine all the time and money poured into the state's dealing with infractions and yet the profound errors still exist (see Morris Minor's thread of the girl receiving a $50 ticket after killing someone because of DWT).
Dude, you still lost.
WinSPIN personified IRL.
Interesting, as this second ticket was beatable on the merits of the instance and the HOV ticket (which got tossed wholesale) the exact opposite. The system is ridiculous, but it's not a system I built but it is a system I will work within for my own self interest.
Not too bad an idea as since I bought the G (which itself has ~30% higher insurance than the Accord).
Quote from: GoCougs on April 12, 2012, 12:32:11 PMHad my court date yesterday. The attorney had twice delayed the date to work the speed measurement device angle. He said he was successful yet the court would only allow a non-moving violation in its place - switched to a $250 infraction for no registration.
Though I'm 2-0, it's just a ridiculous system. It shocks me that WtP tolerate it. Imagine all the time and money poured into the state's dealing with infractions and yet the profound errors still exist (see Morris Minor's thread of the girl receiving a $50 ticket after killing someone because of DWT).
Quote from: GoCougs on April 12, 2012, 12:44:00 PMWinSPIN personified IRL.
Interesting, as this second ticket was beatable on the merits of the instance and the HOV ticket (which got tossed wholesale) the exact opposite. The system is ridiculous, but it's not a system I built but it is a system I will work within for my own self interest.
Not too bad an idea as since I bought the G (which itself has ~30% higher insurance than the Accord).
If your lawyer was "successful" and the ticket was "beatable on the merits of the instance," then why did you pay $250 + court costs + lawyer fees? :rolleyes: You lost, dude...even more than you would have if you had just paid the fine, as I'm sure the cost of the lawyer added significant expense. Call it a "win" all you want. Even with the attemped delaying tactics (which is what your "uber-lawyer" was trying by delaying "to work the speed measurement device angle"), you still couldn't weasel out of this one.
I wasn't there so I don't know how things went down. My point was, LEO #1 didn't lie when issuing me the HOV citation but LEO #2 did lie (or in the least was not too smart + devious) when issuing me the speeding citation.
True I couldn't weasel out of a citation but I beat a lousy system for my own purposes (-> non-moving violation, which is now fairly important now that I drive a vehicle with a "high performance" surcharge), called out a devious LEO, and WinSPIN'd myself.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 12, 2012, 02:48:00 PM
If your lawyer was "successful" and the ticket was "beatable on the merits of the instance," then why did you pay $250 + court costs + lawyer fees? :rolleyes: You lost, dude...even more than you would have if you had just paid the fine, as I'm sure the cost of the lawyer added significant expense. Call it a "win" all you want. Even with the attemped delaying tactics (which is what your "uber-lawyer" was trying by delaying "to work the speed measurement device angle"), you still couldn't weasel out of this one.
Depending on the effect the tickets could've had on his insurance rates, he may have come out ahead.
Quote from: dazzleman on February 19, 2012, 03:57:15 AM
I love the attitude..... :lol:
Except, it is total and utter bullshit.
I will leave Cougs to figure out why it is bullshit, mostly because he does not know....
Quote from: GoCougs on February 19, 2012, 10:11:17 AM
Good. Clog the works. Starve the beast. Perhaps the system will catch a clue and get to the business of rational and logical traffic enforcement. Until then? It's Selfish Town.
Narcissitic thinking at best, moronic diatribe at worst.
Do you really think the court will;
a) care that your little traffic situation is delayed out of the tens of thousands they see?
b) miss the $150-200 from your pockets for a couple weeks?
Dude, stop looking in the mirror so much. ;)
Quote from: GoCougs on April 12, 2012, 04:02:20 PM
WinSPIN'd myself.
How much did you enrich the lawyer????
I've only been to court one time- pled not guilty, only because I was late for showing up (rushed my AP english test, still got a 4. They might have just dismissed it that day.)
So I showed up for the court date and prosecutor took me aside to discuss it, then calls in cop to discuss it, told them
I hadn't run the stop sign, had 3 friends in the car who were all going to testify to the same. They pow-wowed a minute then told me to drive more safely. Friends were disappointed they couldn't actually go into the courtroom with me....
Me= no lawyer fees. No fine. No ticket.
How much did this whole episode with these two tickets cost you Joe, all in? About $1,000?
I consider the outcome of any ticket a win, as long as you enjoyed what you did to get it.
Now you need to start working on the next one, man...... :evildude:
Quote from: hounddog on April 12, 2012, 05:35:45 PM
Except, it is total and utter bullshit.
I will leave Cougs to figure out why it is bullshit, mostly because he does not know....
I admire Cougs' attitude a lot more than the people who moan and cry like little bitches when they get nailed. He tried to knock down his punishment, but in the end, calling it WinSPIN means he's taking it like a man.
Yeah, guys, it's just the InnerWinSPINs...
All total was ~$1,300 for both tickets.
Yes, now that I'm 2-0 it's back to business; reality is I've been doing my "business" all along but owing to my new commute I rarely get the opportunity to drive "prudently and safely."
so long as you keep payin your lawyer s'all good...
Quote from: GoCougs on April 12, 2012, 06:09:39 PM
Yeah, guys, it's just the InnerWinSPINs...
All total was ~$1,300 for both tickets.
Yes, now that I'm 2-0 it's back to business; reality is I've been doing my "business" all along but owing to my new commute I rarely get the opportunity to drive "prudently and safely."
Dude, you did get hosed for a lot of money. I admire the fact that you're taking it so well. When you were in the frat, did you have to do that "thank you sir, may I have another?" hazing ritual? I imagine you were pretty good at it.... :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on April 12, 2012, 06:48:28 PM
Dude, you did get hosed for a lot of money. I admire the fact that you're taking it so well. When you were in the frat, did you have to do that "thank you sir, may I have another?" hazing ritual? I imagine you were pretty good at it.... :lol:
:rockon:
Quote from: dazzleman on April 12, 2012, 05:59:14 PM
I admire Cougs' attitude a lot more than the people who moan and cry like little bitches when they get nailed. He tried to knock down his punishment, but in the end, calling it WinSPIN means he's taking it like a man.
I would tend to agree, Dave, were it not for it being untrue.
Even in the unlikely event it is true, losing ≠ winning when you pay more for an anti-culpae poena par esto plea bargain which actually favors the state.
Quote from: hounddog on April 13, 2012, 08:28:39 PM
I would tend to agree, Dave, were it not for it being untrue.
Even in the unlikely event it is true, losing ≠ winning when you pay more for an anti-culpae poena par esto plea bargain which actually favors the state.
Never mind all of that. I'm just hoping he gets another ticket soon..... :devil:
Not sure what you're saying is untrue, though. Cougs is claiming a win rather than complaining. I'd rather a person who does that than a whiny bitch. That's all I'm saying. Whether it's an actual 'win' or not is totally subjective, depending on how much enjoyment Cougs got from his speeding and HOV lane defiance. Very often, people will deem penalties to be worth it because of their enjoyment of the infractions they've committed.
Quote from: hounddog on April 13, 2012, 08:28:39 PM
I would tend to agree, Dave, were it not for it being untrue.
:clap:
That it's in some way admirable to pay more for a ticket than its original amount after trying unsuccessfully to game the system. What we have here is "denial," not "win."
Quote from: ifcar on April 14, 2012, 07:39:08 AM
That it's in some way admirable to pay more for a ticket than its original amount after trying unsuccessfully to game the system. What we have here is "denial," not "win."
Sometimes the two are synonomous. And denial serves a purpose.
I didn't say it was an actual win. I just said I'd rather a person who calls it that, as opposed to playing victim.
Quote from: ifcar on April 14, 2012, 07:39:08 AM
That it's in some way admirable to pay more for a ticket than its original amount after trying unsuccessfully to game the system. What we have here is "denial," not "win."
Nah, which I think you know; hounddog is saying that I didn't get the two traffic citations dropped and otherwise the whole of the situation isn't true. Suffice it to say he's still vested in the system for various reasons (which is kinda disturbing, but not surprising).
Between the higher premiums (now sorta big deal with the new car) and other issues like having problems renting cars (which I do/did a lot of) there was material benefit to beating these two citations. Beating a broken system (and knowing I probably will in the future) has mega WinSPIN benefits too.
Some people will always stand up for themselves; most won't. Which do you want to be? Take it from me - you can WinSPIN too. It's not that hard really, if you can afford it. Until then, stay turned for my next WinSPIN event (or maybe yours?).
Quote from: GoCougs on April 14, 2012, 10:24:51 AM
Nah, which I think you know; hounddog is saying that I didn't get the two traffic citations dropped and otherwise the whole of the situation isn't true. Suffice it to say he's still vested in the system for various reasons (which is kinda disturbing, but not surprising).
Between the higher premiums (now sorta big deal with the new car) and other issues like having problems renting cars (which I do/did a lot of) there was material benefit to beating these two citations. Beating a broken system (and knowing I probably will in the future) has mega WinSPIN benefits too.
Some people will always stand up for themselves; most won't. Which do you want to be? Take it from me - you can WinSPIN too. It's not that hard really, if you can afford it. Until then, stay turned for my next WinSPIN event (or maybe yours?).
Ifcar doesn't need to WinSPIN, at least when it comes to traffic citations, since he never drives over 30 mph..... :lol:
Quote from: GoCougs on April 14, 2012, 10:24:51 AM
Nah, which I think you know; hounddog is saying that I didn't get the two traffic citations dropped and otherwise the whole of the situation isn't true. Suffice it to say he's still vested in the system for various reasons (which is kinda disturbing, but not surprising).
Between the higher premiums (now sorta big deal with the new car) and other issues like having problems renting cars (which I do/did a lot of) there was material benefit to beating these two citations. Beating a broken system (and knowing I probably will in the future) has mega WinSPIN benefits too.
Some people will always stand up for themselves; most won't. Which do you want to be? Take it from me - you can WinSPIN too. It's not that hard really, if you can afford it. Until then, stay turned for my next WinSPIN event (or maybe yours?).
To be fair Cougs, it's pretty clear you deserved both tickets, and should have paid a fine and had them held against your driving record. You basically spent more money to keep your driving record cleaner. Who ever said justice is not for sale?
Quote from: dazzleman on April 12, 2012, 06:48:28 PM
Dude, you did get hosed for a lot of money. I admire the fact that you're taking it so well. When you were in the frat, did you have to do that "thank you sir, may I have another?" hazing ritual? I imagine you were pretty good at it.... :lol:
Well, what other choice do I have? It is a bit disturbing though that it shows how ridiculous the system is.
And wow, good memory on my college days - but yeah, they can write me all the tickets they want - I'll do what I do.
Quote from: dazzleman on April 14, 2012, 10:26:44 AM
Ifcar doesn't need to WinSPIN, at least when it comes to traffic citations, since he never drives over 30 mph..... :lol:
Psh, the state of Maryland has photographic proof that I once drove as fast as 47 in a 35. If only I'd thought to hire a lawyer to WinSPIN it for me instead of just paying the $40.
Quote from: dazzleman on April 14, 2012, 10:26:44 AM
Ifcar doesn't need to WinSPIN, at least when it comes to traffic citations, since he never drives over 30 mph..... :lol:
I think ifcar IRL is a bit different - a real dynamo I'm guessing.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 14, 2012, 10:28:14 AM
Well, what other choice do I have? It is a bit disturbing though that it shows how ridiculous the system is.
And wow, good memory on my college days - but yeah, they can write me all the tickets they want - I'll do what I do.
I have a bit of the "Cool Hand Luke" within me. I admire people who will take punishment without flinching, and refuse to bend to it. As long as you're not doing anything really harmful to anybody..... :rockon:
Quote from: ifcar on April 14, 2012, 07:39:08 AMThat it's in some way admirable to pay more for a ticket than its original amount after trying unsuccessfully to game the system. What we have here is "denial," not "win."
The only person "winning" is his lawyer, who's laughing all the way to the bank and looks forward to the next time Cougs walks through the door.
Quote from: ifcar on April 14, 2012, 10:29:14 AM
Psh, the state of Maryland has photographic proof that I once drove as fast as 47 in a 35. If only I'd thought to hire a lawyer to WinSPIN it for me instead of just paying the $40.
Photo tickets don't count because they don't go on your license.
47 in a 35 -- weak, man. You can do better than that..... :evildude:
Quote from: GoCougs on April 14, 2012, 10:30:10 AM
I think ifcar IRL is a bit different - a real dynamo I'm guessing.
That's hard to picture.... :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on April 14, 2012, 10:31:46 AM
Photo tickets don't count because they don't go on your license.
47 in a 35 -- weak, man. You can do better than that..... :evildude:
Remind me when you last got a ticket. Before I was born?
Quote from: dazzleman on April 14, 2012, 10:27:45 AM
To be fair Cougs, it's pretty clear you deserved both tickets, and should have paid a fine and had them held against your driving record. You basically spent more money to keep your driving record cleaner. Who ever said justice is not for sale?
The HOV ticket clearly. The real problem I had is that in my state it is a moving violation (LOL) and that this occurred on a brand new barely-used HOV-only on-ramp onto the interstate patrolled by a city LEO (which has no business on the interstate), built just a mile from a horrifically overcrowded non HOV on-ramp. But even if none of this were true I'd still have fought it - the HOV lane is ridiculous and irrational.
The speeding ticket not really. The LEO lied about getting me on radar. He also created a FAR more dangerous situation pulling us two drivers over, by stopping traffic in both directions, on a desolate two-lane country road with limited sight lines.
But I didn't create the system nor endorse the ridiculous method and manner of traffic enforcement. However, that won't ever stop me from using the system for my own selfish ends.
As to the money aspect of it, imagine if it weren't for sale? WAY worse.
Quote from: ifcar on April 14, 2012, 10:38:04 AM
Remind me when you last got a ticket. Before I was born?
:lol:
No. But please don't remind me that it's been 13 years. What an embarrassment that is. :facepalm:
Quote from: GoCougs on April 14, 2012, 10:38:05 AM
The HOV ticket clearly. The real problem I had is that in my state it is a moving violation (LOL) and that this occurred on a brand new barely-used HOV-only on-ramp onto the interstate patrolled by a city LEO (which has no business on the interstate), built just a mile from a horrifically overcrowded non HOV on-ramp. But even if none of this were true I'd still have fought it - the HOV lane is ridiculous and irrational.
The speeding ticket not really. The LEO lied about getting me on radar. He also created a FAR more dangerous situation pulling us two drivers over, by stopping traffic in both directions, on a desolate two-lane country road with limited sight lines.
But I didn't create the system nor endorse the ridiculous method and manner of traffic enforcement. However, that won't ever stop me from using the system for my own selfish ends.
As to the money aspect of it, imagine if it weren't for sale? WAY worse.
Are you saying you weren't actually speeding when you got busted? What speed were you written up for, and what do you contend you were actually doing?
Kinda long story - it'll be on the first couple of pages. The LEO said he "got me at 70" but when I stated that that is not possible because he couldn't have gotten a bead on me (traveling in the opposite direction, based on a car he had radar'd in front of me) he then said he "paced" me. When he wrote the citation he marked that he got me on radar.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 14, 2012, 11:03:01 AM
Kinda long story - it'll be on the first couple of pages. The LEO said he "got me at 70" but when I stated that that is not possible because he couldn't have gotten a bead on me (traveling in the opposite direction, based on a car he had radar'd in front of me) he then said he "paced" me. When he wrote the citation he marked that he got me on radar.
What speed were you actually going?
Quote from: GoCougs on April 14, 2012, 10:24:51 AM
Nah, which I think you know; hounddog is saying that I didn't get the two traffic citations dropped and otherwise the whole of the situation isn't true. Suffice it to say he's still vested in the system for various reasons (which is kinda disturbing, but not surprising).
And that you cannot see the forrest for the trees. :ohyeah:
Quote from: dazzleman on April 14, 2012, 10:45:57 AM
:lol:
No. But please don't remind me that it's been 13 years. What an embarrassment that is. :facepalm:
The last ticket you got was before I was even old enough to drive. Before C/D. When there was a 19 in the date. More than a decade. A kid born on the day you got your last ticket would be an angst-ridden teenager, rebelling against his own parents, who themselves are a decade younger than you.
Damn, dude.
Quote from: Rupert on April 14, 2012, 04:12:30 PM
The last ticket you got was before I was even old enough to drive. Before C/D. When there was a 19 in the date. More than a decade. A kid born on the day you got your last ticket would be an angst-ridden teenager, rebelling against his own parents, who themselves are a decade younger than you.
Damn, dude.
Must you rub it in? :lol:
Yes, I must. :lol:
Quote from: Rupert on April 14, 2012, 04:14:19 PM
Yes, I must. :lol:
:rockon:
Keep the pressure up, man. I need motivation.... :pullover:
If you have enough time to post here on a weekend, you have enough time to go find a place you can drive 100 mph for a while. Eventually, they'll catch you. No grey hair and BMW will save you then!
Quote from: Rupert on April 14, 2012, 04:28:09 PM
If you have enough time to post here on a weekend, you have enough time to go find a place you can drive 100 mph for a while. Eventually, they'll catch you. No grey hair and BMW will save you then!
:rockon:
Do it!
Quote from: Rupert on April 14, 2012, 04:52:36 PM
Do it!
I rarely drive just for the sake of driving anymore. But I do serious speeding when I take a road trip, and I'm amazed that I've never gotten a speeding ticket on at least one of the many trips I've taken to Boston in the past 6 years.
Quote from: hounddog on April 14, 2012, 11:57:12 AM
And that you cannot see the forrest for the trees. :ohyeah:
Hounddog takes trip #254 to LoseSPIN. :(
Quote from: GoCougs on April 14, 2012, 07:25:51 PM
Hounddog takes trip #254 to LoseSPIN. :(
Joe, how much is your car insurance per year?
$1300 for two tickets isn't all that bad. Two moving violations can cost you way more than that in the long run. To me, any time you speed, get caught, and get no points you're coming out ahead. I say this as someone negotiating these pleas on behalf of the State of North Carolina many many times a week. :lol:
Quote from: 850CSi on April 15, 2012, 12:09:44 AM
$1300 for two tickets isn't all that bad. Two moving violations can cost you way more than that in the long run. To me, any time you speed, get caught, and get no points you're coming out ahead. I say this as someone negotiating these pleas on behalf of the State of North Carolina many many times a week. :lol:
I agree. Not only does keeping the points off potentially save a lot in insurance, but it keeps the slate clean and protects your license in case you get more tickets. Cougs could possibly have gotten the same result spending less money, but maybe not. A lot depends on the locality. If he's happy with the outcome, then it's a win for him.
Quote from: dazzleman on April 14, 2012, 09:15:16 PM
Joe, how much is your car insurance per year?
$114/mo (was $86/mo for the Accord). No clue on deductibles and coverages, but it's a fairly high end policy.
Once I heard that an HOV citation was a moving violation, that set me off big time. What a racket the points thing; and especially letting private entities have unfettered access to personal information.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 15, 2012, 09:54:39 AM
$114/mo (was $86/mo for the Accord). No clue on deductibles and coverages, but it's a fairly high end policy.
Once I heard that an HOV citation was a moving violation, that set me off big time. What a racket the points thing; and especially letting private entities have unfettered access to personal information.
Not too bad, man. Mine is similar.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 14, 2012, 11:03:01 AM
Kinda long story - it'll be on the first couple of pages. The LEO said he "got me at 70" but when I stated that that is not possible because he couldn't have gotten a bead on me (traveling in the opposite direction, based on a car he had radar'd in front of me) he then said he "paced" me. When he wrote the citation he marked that he got me on radar.
I chuckle when drivers tell LEOs that they couldn't have seen them, or couldn't have gotten a radar reading. It's silly because drivers don't know when the cop saw them. They don't know when the cop got a radar read. They just know when they saw the cop (which, quite often, is when the lights come on).
Quote from: MaxPower on April 15, 2012, 11:23:20 AM
I chuckle when drivers tell LEOs that they couldn't have seen them, or couldn't have gotten a radar reading. It's silly because drivers don't know when the cop saw them. They don't know when the cop got a radar read. They just know when they saw the cop (which, quite often, is when the lights come on).
I'm sure Cougs was guilty as sin for the speeding charge he got written up for.
Quote from: MaxPower on April 15, 2012, 11:23:20 AM
I chuckle when drivers tell LEOs that they couldn't have seen them, or couldn't have gotten a radar reading. It's silly because drivers don't know when the cop saw them. They don't know when the cop got a radar read. They just know when they saw the cop (which, quite often, is when the lights come on).
Um, except he admitted to it when I called him out:
LEO: I got you at 70.
Me: So how did you get a bead on me at 70 coming head on with cars in front of me?
LEO: <shrugs, gets a pit pissy> I got the car in front of you, and you were behind that car. I paced you behind that car.
Me: How can you pace me coming head on?
LEO: I asked the driver if you'd been behind her since xxxx town (5-7 miles back.) (I almost lol'd at this answer, but being respectful I did not, but I did smile a bit knowing he knew I got 'em.)
Me: That's not true - I bypassed that town and took the (well known) cutoff (which was true - doubt he asked the other driver).
LEO: Well that's what I'm putting on the affidavit to the court. (The citation was marked "SMD" (speed measurement device).)
So in this instance I was correct - he didn't get a bead, came up with two stupid answers, and then lied on the citation (or, if I'm more generous, mistakenly did not mark "pace"). WinSPIN.
Quote from: dazzleman on April 15, 2012, 11:47:33 AM
I'm sure Cougs was guilty as sin for the speeding charge he got written up for.
But that's not relevant really; it's only if it can be proven. It also goes to show the inherent irrationality and anti-liberty (and even more sad, counter productive) paradigm of modern traffic enforcement - why should a citizen accept as sole "proof" the statement of a vested state agent relying on technology purposefully held from the public's purview?
Quote from: GoCougs on April 15, 2012, 11:58:26 AM
Um, except he admitted to it when I called him out:
LEO: I got you at 70.
Me: So how did you get a bead on me at 70 coming head on with cars in front of me?
LEO: <shrugs, gets a pit pissy> I got the car in front of you, and you were behind that car. I paced you behind that car.
Me: How can you pace me coming head on?
LEO: I asked the driver if you'd been behind her since xxxx town (5-7 miles back.) (I almost lol'd at this answer, but being respectful I did not, but I did smile a bit knowing he knew I got 'em.)
Me: That's not true - I bypassed that town and took the (well known) cutoff (which was true - doubt he asked the other driver).
LEO: Well that's what I'm putting on the affidavit to the court. (The citation was marked "SMD" (speed measurement device).)
So in this instance I was correct - he didn't get a bead, came up with two stupid answers, and then lied on the citation (or, if I'm more generous, mistakenly did not mark "pace"). WinSPIN.
God you're a liar. Anyone who's ever had training in speed measurement devices - or any doppler radar- understands how they work.
Quote from: rohan on April 15, 2012, 02:11:53 PM
God you're a liar. Anyone who's ever had training in speed measurement devices - or any doppler radar- understands how they work.
YoufailedtoreadproperlySPIN.
Yeah- right. because that's how radar works and that's really what happened. :rolleyes:
You're stupid and you're a liar.
Quote from: rohan on April 15, 2012, 02:18:15 PM
Yeah- right. because that's how radar works and that's really what happened. :rolleyes:
You're stupid and you're a liar.
You didn't know that SMDs can get a vehicle coming in the opposite direction???
Quote from: GoCougs on April 15, 2012, 02:23:26 PM
You didn't know that SMDs can get a vehicle coming in the opposite direction???
I'm a Michigan Speed Measurement Task Force certified radar and lidar instructor- I think I got it covered. ;) The problem is what you don't know about them is coming through loud and clear.
Quote from: rohan on April 15, 2012, 02:26:06 PM
I'm a Michigan Speed Measurement Task Force certified radar and lidar instructor- I think I got it covered. ;) The problem is what you don't know about them is coming through loud and clear.
You don't have it covered, or you can't understand what has been written.
I beat the system twice and you simply have to accept it. No amount of HateSPIN is going to change that. :huh:
Your "explenation" of what happened is both unlikely and implausible. Any first year radar operator can tell you why. ;)
Quote from: rohan on April 15, 2012, 02:44:37 PM
Your "explenation" of what happened is both unlikely and implausible. Any first year radar operator can tell you why. ;)
:facepalm:
Perhaps you guys need to buy more modern equipment...
what I did was winspin. Cougs got PaySpin'd.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 15, 2012, 02:50:37 PM
:facepalm:
Perhaps you guys need to buy more modern equipment...
yeah uh- modern radars can track anywhere between 6 and 10 cars at once targeting anything from the three fastest to just one or even all of them. They can even track several targets behind moving tractor trailers now. ;) DSP makes them faster- easier to use- and more reliable than ever before and you have no idea what you're talking about. Again. ;)
Quote from: dazzleman on April 15, 2012, 10:15:29 AM
Not too bad, man. Mine is similar.
Same here. The LR2 comes out to $90-something per month, but I pay it in one shot when the policy is up every year.
Quote from: rohan on April 15, 2012, 03:07:55 PM
yeah uh- modern radars can track anywhere between 6 and 10 cars at once targeting anything from the three fastest to just one or even all of them. They can even track several targets behind moving tractor trailers now. ;) DSP makes them faster- easier to use- and more reliable than ever before and you have no idea what you're talking about. Again. ;)
Please reread the above; or, do you not understand things like aspect ratios and sight lines? No amount of fancy will read through ~3,500 lbs of metal, plastic and rubber. He was coming head on - he physically was unable to get a bead on my car as there was a car in front of me. When I called him out on this fact he admitted it - he only got the car in front of me and "paced" me behind it.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 15, 2012, 03:15:33 PM
Please reread the above; or, do you not understand things like aspect ratios and sight lines? No amount of fancy will read through ~3,500 lbs of metal, plastic and rubber. He was coming head on - he physically was unable to get a bead on my car as there was a car in front of me. When I called him out on this fact he admitted it - he only got the car in front of me and "paced" me behind it.
You are so out of your element here.....
From what I understand, the radar is simply a "backup" when it comes to speeding tickets. What actually counts is the certified expert testimony of the police officer who has been trained to visually detect the speed of a vehicle.
Now, I'm not arguing that this line of thinking is particularly fair to the defendant, but to my knowledge that's how it works.
Quote from: TurboDan on April 15, 2012, 03:17:41 PM
From what I understand, the radar is simply a "backup" when it comes to speeding tickets. What actually counts is the certified expert testimony of the police officer who has been trained to visually detect the speed of a vehicle.
Now, I'm not arguing that this line of thinking is particularly fair to the defendant, but to my knowledge that's how it works.
Not so much, at least in my state. Apparently unbeknownst to rohan, many cruisers have in-car systems that can determine speed of cars coming in both the opposite direction of travel of the cruiser and coming up behind a cruiser traveling in the same direction. In both instances, owing to aspect ratios, it is impossible to accurately (within 10-20%) visually detect speed. My state also has its fair share of aerial enforcement in which the same issues apply (impossible to accurately determine speed thousands of feet from the speeding vehicle without objective means; in this case, SMDs or stop watches and known distance markers).
This is actually a good thing. Relying on subjective measurements is by definition the tool of tyrants. SMDs are at least objective, and thus can be objectively challenged.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 15, 2012, 03:34:36 PM
Not so much, at least in my state. Apparently unbeknownst to rohan, many cruisers have in-car systems that can determine speed of cars coming in both the opposite direction of travel of the cruiser and coming up behind a cruiser traveling in the same direction. In both instances, owing to aspect ratios, it is impossible to accurately (within 10-20%) visually detect speed. My state also has its fair share of aerial enforcement in which the same issues apply (impossible to accurately determine speed thousands of feet from the speeding vehicle without objective means; in this case, SMDs or stop watches and known distance markers).
This is actually a good thing. Relying on subjective measurements is by definition the tool of tyrants. SMDs are at least objective, and thus can be objectively challenged.
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/rohowssgt/laughing6-hehe1.gif)(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/rohowssgt/blahblah1.gif)
How does directional speed measurement have anything to do with oppositional speed measurement? Do you even begin to understand how Doppler Radar works? Do you understand the basic principles of digital signal processing?
LOL @
you
being
totally
out
of
your
depth
.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 15, 2012, 03:48:06 PM
:facepalm:
rohan takes his second trip to LoseSPIN today; scary given the subject - both in fact and in context.
TL;DR - I beat the system twice - ha, ha!!! Next?
Quote from: GoCougs on April 15, 2012, 03:34:36 PM
Not so much, at least in my state. Apparently unbeknownst to rohan, many cruisers have in-car systems that can determine speed of cars coming in both the opposite direction of travel of the cruiser and coming up behind a cruiser traveling in the same direction. In both instances, owing to aspect ratios, it is impossible to accurately (within 10-20%) visually detect speed. My state also has its fair share of aerial enforcement in which the same issues apply (impossible to accurately determine speed thousands of feet from the speeding vehicle without objective means; in this case, SMDs or stop watches and known distance markers).
This is actually a good thing. Relying on subjective measurements is by definition the tool of tyrants. SMDs are at least objective, and thus can be objectively challenged.
http://www.radartest.com/article.asp?articleid=1064
http://radartest.com/article.asp?articleid=5000
yeah, you're so knowledgable.
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/rohowssgt/regularfail.jpg)
Quote from: rohan on April 15, 2012, 02:44:37 PM
Your "explenation" of what happened is both unlikely and implausible. Any first year radar operator can tell you why. ;)
Feel free to fill us in, chief. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Rupert on April 15, 2012, 03:49:46 PM
Feel free to fill us in, chief. :rolleyes:
He's not quite getting it; deconstructing the discussion into the technology of SMDs is a diversion. He went for a pre-emptive WinSPIN but did so too soon (i.e., without reading/understanding that the LEO was traveling in the opposite direction) and this is the result. It was impossible to get both the me and the car in front of me; I was masked as I was blocked; the LEO admitted this.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 15, 2012, 03:58:54 PM
He's not quite getting it; deconstructing the discussion into the technology of SMDs is a diversion. He went for a pre-emptive WinSPIN but did so too soon (i.e., without reading/understanding that the LEO was traveling in the opposite direction) and this is the result. It was impossible to get both the me and the car in front of me; I was masked as I was blocked; the LEO admitted this.
Yeah - and you have no clue as to how radar works- at all. Oppositional speed measurement is about as hard as tossing a baseball to another person from 3 feet away. ;) Keep deflecting. The LEO never admitted such a thing because it's no longer a problem- being behind another car does NOTHING for protecting you even if you were right on the bumper. You still have reflective surfaces showing at different distances from the car in front which give you two targets- and modern radars as I said can track more than two targets at once- which gives you this.
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/rohowssgt/eea7891252a4092b0701a931686395221-1.png)
I LOL'd.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 15, 2012, 04:15:18 PM
Oh, Jesus, we're in for a treat...
And yet you've done nothing to counter with anything that actually resembles knowledge of radar on any level whatsoever- and- you've done nothing more than "He did so say it." You're a liar on several levels plain and simple. :huh:
I was gonna say- even *I* know that radar can pick up more than one object at a time. Otherwise those air traffic towers and C-RAM systems would never ever work.. (Counter rocket and mortar- it's a gatling gun that shoots inbound InDirect Fire (IDF).)
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 15, 2012, 04:27:56 PM
I was gonna say- even *I* know that radar can pick up more than one object at a time. Otherwise those air traffic towers and C-RAM systems would never ever work.. (Counter rocket and mortar- it's a gatling gun that shoots inbound InDirect Fire (IDF).)
Duh. But can't pick it up if it can't see it. Rohan still ain't getting that the cruiser was heading in the opposite direction with a car in front of me. The LEO admitted that he did not get a bead on me. It's a non issue, at least in my situation.
He doesn't like I beat the system and in fine semi-literate, bully, and childish form, simply has no option but to call me a "liar." One wonders why he spends time here as this is pretty much all the does. Dude needs a hobby (other than burning 'SPIN bytes that is).
And your too fucking stupid to understand that it's all but impossible to be hidden from modern radar- even though your bumper is hidden you still have visible relective surfaces that are... visible. How is it that you're not able to grasp that incredibly simple fact? And forgive me if I doubt your less then honorable words- you've gotten caught lying on this site many times. ;)
Quote from: rohan on April 15, 2012, 04:36:05 PM
And your too fucking stupid to understand that it's all but impossible to be hidden from modern radar- even though your bumper is hidden you still have visible relective surfaces that are... visible. How is it that you're not able to grasp that incredibly simple fact? And forgive me if I doubt your less then honorable words- you've gotten caught lying on this site many times. ;)
D'oh! And I thought we had you trained on the proper use of "you're" vs. "your."
Mega LoseSPIN for doing so in the very same sentence in which you called someone stupid. Ha, ha!
Quote from: GoCougs on April 15, 2012, 04:42:57 PM
D'oh! And I thought we had you trained on the proper use of "you're" vs. "your."
Mega LoseSPIN for doing so in the very same sentence in which you called someone stupid. Ha, ha!
Deflecting.....again. And yet- nothing to substantiate your "knowledge" of radar in any way. Shocking. Just admit it- you're a fraud on every single level.
:popcorn:
You guys could argue about anything. Joe, you need to get another speeding ticket, so we can stop arguing over this one.... :pullover:
Quote from: dazzleman on April 15, 2012, 07:08:21 PM
:popcorn:
You guys could argue about anything.
No we can't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Quote from: J86 on April 15, 2012, 07:18:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
:lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akbflkF_1zY&feature=relmfu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akbflkF_1zY&feature=relmfu)
This thread of full of derp.
:popcorn:
Rupert and I are the only ones making useful contributions here! :lol:
Quote from: GoCougs on April 15, 2012, 02:42:55 PM
You don't have it covered, or you can't understand what has been written.
I beat the system twice and you simply have to accept it. No amount of HateSPIN is going to change that. :huh:
Beat it :rolleyes: to the tune of $1,300 lighter. :lol:
Just who beat who is open for discussion.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_E-4d6l_7SXg/S13fSHjSQ7I/AAAAAAAAAGM/qhPZJJrbpWw/s1600/gahanwilson.jpg)
Quote from: dazzleman on April 14, 2012, 07:42:28 AM
I just said I'd rather a person who calls it that, as opposed to playing victim.
Every person who gets a speeding ticket is a victim of an unjust system that favors revenue generation over actual traffic safety.
Quote from: MiataJohn on April 16, 2012, 09:10:10 AM
Beat it :rolleyes: to the tune of $1,300 lighter. :lol:
Just who beat who is open for discussion.
Nah, complete WinSPIN, and I'm not even talking about rohan's disgraceful performance yesterday.
Quote from: Raza on April 16, 2012, 12:09:54 PM
Every person who gets a speeding ticket is a victim of an unjust system that favors revenue generation over actual traffic safety.
But what about those who plainly drive too fast? Despotism is bad, anarchy is bad too. At some point there has to be traffic enforcement WRT to speed but it has to be logical.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 16, 2012, 12:39:51 PM
But what about those who plainly drive too fast? Despotism is bad, anarchy is bad too. At some point there has to be traffic enforcement WRT to speed but it has to be logical.
I will concede that those driving dangerously (though I will not concede that speed is the only factor) should be dealt with; but as you said, the enforcement has to be logical, which it is not currently.
Quote from: Raza on April 16, 2012, 12:40:58 PM
I will concede that those driving dangerously (though I will not concede that speed is the only factor) should be dealt with; but as you said, the enforcement has to be logical, which it is not currently.
What would 'logical' speeding laws look like, in your opinion?
Quote from: 850CSi on April 16, 2012, 03:18:35 PM
What would 'logical' speeding laws look like, in your opinion?
Perhaps speeding could only be charged if it is an aggravating factor to another violation, or perhaps as a tack-on to a "catch all" charge such as Careless Driving (for use in situations such as speeding in heavy traffic, poor driving conditions, etc.).
This only applies to highway driving, of course. I don't believe speed limits on local/residential roads should be curtailed.
You know, I have been driving alot lately, and what I have realized is that while some stretches of roadway are fairly smooth and comfortable even those stretches are ruined by things such as connections of bridges where the surfaces are uneven and extremely rough.
Very few bridges are smooth across the entire surface, and at speeds over 80 or 90 are unsafe. The problem is that is the norm not the exception.
The roads in the US are just not good enough to travel at speeds much higher than we do. Our infrastructure is just not set up for traveling at high speed, and as such, speed alone can make driving unsafe.
In fact, we do not even come close to building roads the way the Germans do, or, even as good as we used to build them. An example; there is a stretch of I-69 from Charlotte, Mi to Ft. Wayne, In. The stretch was first installed around 1961 and lasted, in good condition, until it was replaced in 2002. Since then, that stretch of freeway from Charlotte to the Indiana border has been replaced twice due to degredation of the road surfaces.
In fact, the state is planning on replacing the entire road surface yet again in 2015 because it is already falling apart.
If we ever decide to build roads which would last as we used to, the freeways as I understand it do not extend below the frost line as they used to, or as the Germans do unlimted speed should be ok. Until then, our roads are just not safe enough for no, or limited, speed enforcement.
Quote from: hounddog on April 16, 2012, 04:17:54 PM
The roads in the US are just not good enough to travel at speeds much higher than we do. Our infrastructure is just not set up for traveling at high speed, and as such, speed alone can make driving unsafe.
Generally speaking, the standards between the U.S. Interstate system and the Autobahn are almost identical. In some categories (such as rural design speed, grading and shoulders) the Interstate system standards are actually superior.
Quote from: TurboDan on April 16, 2012, 05:10:14 PM
Generally speaking, the standards between the U.S. Interstate system and the Autobahn are almost identical. In some categories (such as rural design speed, grading and shoulders) the Interstate system standards are actually superior.
Aren't the autobahns all concrete, and built to a better spec? I didn't think Germany repaved the 'Bahn every 2 years due to potholes and such.
Quote from: hotrodalex on April 16, 2012, 06:33:55 PM
Aren't the autobahns all concrete, and built to a better spec? I didn't think Germany repaved the 'Bahn every 2 years due to potholes and such.
Pretty sure it's a combination depending on the region. Wims, AutobahnSHO, care to confirm?
Also, a lot of our interstates are concrete. When I lived in Florida they were all concrete. In the northeast it's mostly asphalt, though, purportedly due to improved snow/ice melting.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=26464.msg1704489#msg1704489 date=1334599794
Every person who gets a speeding ticket is a victim of an unjust system that favors revenue generation over actual traffic safety.
:cry:
Quote from: TurboDan on April 16, 2012, 05:10:14 PM
Generally speaking, the standards between the U.S. Interstate system and the Autobahn are almost identical. In some categories (such as rural design speed, grading and shoulders) the Interstate system standards are actually superior.
I admit I am no civil engineer, but, I do believe the Autobahn base concrete/pavement is below the frostline while most "modern" US builds are not due to cost.
I was also saying that our infrastructure is not good enough, meaning, our general maintanence and overall state of repair on our freeways is not up to par for that type of speed. Next time you take a drive somewhere pay attention to the connection between roadway and bridges, particular attention to what it might feel like to hit them at 100 to 150 to 200 mph.
Not to mention what it would do for oil consumption. ;)
The deserted freeways I drive a lot are usually in pretty decent shape.
Quote from: hounddog on April 16, 2012, 08:01:00 PM
I admit I am no civil engineer, but, I do believe the Autobahn base concrete/pavement is below the frostline while most "modern" US builds are not due to cost.
I was also saying that our infrastructure is not good enough, meaning, our general maintanence and overall state of repair on our freeways is not up to par for that type of speed. Next time you take a drive somewhere pay attention to the connection between roadway and bridges, particular attention to what it might feel like to hit them at 100 to 150 to 200 mph.
Not to mention what it would do for oil consumption. ;)
Oh yeah, on that I agree. Here in New Jersey we have a bridge that's literally been closed for like four years because the state says it's too expensive to fix.
Of course, what it would cost to repair that bridge is about what they spend on the Newark school district every 4 hours.
Quote from: TurboDan on April 16, 2012, 05:10:14 PM
Generally speaking, the standards between the U.S. Interstate system and the Autobahn are almost identical. In some categories (such as rural design speed, grading and shoulders) the Interstate system standards are actually superior.
And you can't judge the whole country by what you find in the frost-rust belt east of the Mississippi.
Long stretches of Interstate highways in the West are easily capable of supporting speeds of 80-90 MPH in perfect safety, traffic and driving skills permitting. The same holds true for many US and state highways I've been on.
I think you guys are being a bit generous on the ability of the US "system" supporting 90+ mph. Don't forget that there are millions of 15-20 year old jalopies on the road, plus full-size pickups and SUVs, that have no business doing 90 mph. Also don't forget the American Dream (= unwarranted entitlement) which back feeds into the way we drive and the way we punish (or lack of) truly bad driving.
Many things would have to happen to rationally enable 90+ mph speeds it's actually asking for MORE state control and involvement in the affairs of law abiding citizens (not to mention a lot of cost) - far stricter licensing requirements and tests, graduated licensing, graduated vehicle approbation, traffic studies and much improved road construction. Not saying that that isn't the answer but that is the only way I'd ever want to drive on a road with a 90+ mph speed limit.
Quote from: 850CSi on April 16, 2012, 03:18:35 PM
What would 'logical' speeding laws look like, in your opinion?
Mostly after-the-fact, with some environmental factors. You can usually tell dangerous driving when you see it, and 95% of people don't engage in dangerous driving, regardless of the speed limits. There's a reason that the natural speed of traffic on a highway is closer to 70 or 80 than the 55mph limit most of them have. Generally, people know what's safe and what isn't.
Quote from: dazzleman on April 16, 2012, 07:42:52 PM
:cry:
Make light of it if you will, but what you're doing is accepting injustice by doing so. If you didn't see something wrong with the way "speeding" is enforced in this country, you wouldn't think it fun to break speed limits and you most certainly wouldn't make a game out of paying fines.
Quote from: Rupert on April 16, 2012, 10:44:58 PM
The deserted freeways I drive a lot are usually in pretty decent shape.
And the freeways in northern Michigan are as well.
In my own experience, they are the exception rather than the rule, unfortunately.
I would say I can pretty safely drive 120 on our "I" and "US" freeways up here, road surface wise, until I hit M-10 which is about half way down the lower penninsula. Once there, the change in road surface condition is pretty noticable and dramatic.
Even with the surfaces being good up here you still have to consider bridges when crossing them because they are not very even or smooth.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=26464.msg1705210#msg1705210 date=1334678181
Mostly after-the-fact, with some environmental factor. You can usually tell dangerous driving when you see it, and 95% of people don't engage in dangerous driving, regardless of the speed limits. There's a reason that the natural speed of traffic on a highway is closer to 70 or 80 than the 55mph limit most of them have. Generally, people know what's safe and what isn't.
55mph limits must just be locational. All of ours except for some very urban areas such as Detroit and US-131 in Grand Rapids, MI, are all 70mph zones. Or are you specifically talking about urban areas?
I would be OK with them being raised to 80, but, then you have people like most women and young drivers, which neither should be going that fast as a general rule, hitting speeds many would normally be uncomfortable with.
I will say this, the one thing I noticed when speeds were changed from 55 to 70 here, the big fear was people would end up doing 80 as the norm but that never really panned out. Most folks were, and still seem to be, happy just to be able to hit 70.
I have often wondered if that happens to be a speed most are simply comfortable with or what might be the reason. As a traffic enforcement I noticed that the % of speeders went down drastically from just about everyone to maybe 1:10. ???
Quote from: hounddog on April 17, 2012, 10:43:57 AM
And the freeways in northern Michigan are as well.
In my own experience, they are the exception rather than the rule, unfortunately.
I would say I can pretty safely drive 120 on our "I" and "US" freeways up here, road surface wise, until I hit M-10 which is about half way down the lower penninsula. Once there, the change in road surface condition is pretty noticable and dramatic.
Even with the surfaces being good up here you still have to consider bridges when crossing them because they are not very even or smooth.
Yeah, except I drive
all the freeways in the northwest. I5, I90, I84, I80, I15, and I82.
Quote from: hounddog on April 17, 2012, 10:49:05 AM
55mph limits must just be locational. All of ours except for some very urban areas such as Detroit and US-131 in Grand Rapids, MI, are all 70mph zones. Or are you specifically talking about urban areas?
I would be OK with them being raised to 80, but, then you have people like most women and young drivers, which neither should be going that fast as a general rule, hitting speeds many would normally be uncomfortable with.
Seriously?
Holy gay jesus, I didn't even catch that. 0_0
Quote from: 2o6 on April 17, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
Seriously?
You're really going to tell me you haven't noticed that female drivers are generally worse drivers than male drivers?
That's a far cry from saying women shouldn't be allowed to drive as fast as men.
OMG THE CAR IS TOO FAST THE ESTROGEN IS MAKING ME FOCUS ON MY BREASTS IM GOING TO CRASH
Quote from: CALL_911 on April 17, 2012, 09:38:04 PM
You're really going to tell me you haven't noticed that female drivers are generally worse drivers than male drivers?
So we should have a sex-oriented speed limit?
Quote from: 2o6 on April 17, 2012, 09:57:37 PM
OMG THE CAR IS TOO FAST THE ESTROGEN IS MAKING ME FOCUS ON MY BREASTS IM GOING TO CRASH
:whatshesaid:
Quote from: 2o6 on April 17, 2012, 09:57:37 PM
OMG THE CAR IS TOO FAST THE ESTROGEN IS MAKING ME FOCUS ON MY BREASTS IM GOING TO CRASH
Well, those titties
do get in the way of the wheel...
Quote from: hounddog on April 17, 2012, 10:49:05 AM
55mph limits must just be locational. All of ours except for some very urban areas such as Detroit and US-131 in Grand Rapids, MI, are all 70mph zones. Or are you specifically talking about urban areas?
55mph was the national speed limit at one time, and many highways still have that. Much of I95 in the northeast, for example has a 55mph speed limit. My old 50+ mile stretch between my house and office was 55mph. Actually, I think it's 55mph in all of Pennsylvania. And much of the PA turnpike is 55mph as well, but partly because it's under money wasting construction quite a bit.
Quote
I would be OK with them being raised to 80, but, then you have people like most women and young drivers, which neither should be going that fast as a general rule, hitting speeds many would normally be uncomfortable with.
Teenagers and women are already driving that fast. I was doing 90-100 everywhere I could when I was a teenager. Even still I brush three digits when the conditions permit.
Quote
I will say this, the one thing I noticed when speeds were changed from 55 to 70 here, the big fear was people would end up doing 80 as the norm but that never really panned out. Most folks were, and still seem to be, happy just to be able to hit 70.
I imagine this would be the case, or possibly the opposite. There's road in my old town that had a 45mph limit and was a standard 60-70mph road. They raised the limit to 55mph (it's a four lane divided highway that's sort of between limited and unlimited access) and it seems like people started to drive slower after the limit raised. Seems like 55mph is hard to reach most of the times. Could be population change that I'm not accounting for, or gas prices, because it seems like everyone slowed down once the prices crept over $3.00.
Quote
I have often wondered if that happens to be a speed most are simply comfortable with or what might be the reason. As a traffic enforcement I noticed that the % of speeders went down drastically from just about everyone to maybe 1:10. ???
I believe this is the basis of the 85th percentile theory. People drive at the speeds they are comfortable, mostly without regard to the speed limit.
Quote from: Rupert on April 17, 2012, 09:12:51 PM
Holy gay jesus, I didn't even catch that. 0_0
I decided to just leave it alone.
Quote from: CALL_911 on April 17, 2012, 09:38:04 PM
You're really going to tell me you haven't noticed that female drivers are generally worse drivers than male drivers?
Actually it's just the oppposite.
http://www.sirc.org/publik/driving.pdf
Wanna' be a better driver? Have a sex reassignment operation. :lol:
As to the "safe" aspect of being a "good" driver, women are better than men. They didn't evolve to be (as) aggressive beings as men.
As to the "control" aspect of being a "good" driver, women are worse than men. They didn't evolve to be (as) visual, spacial beings as men.
I think without a speed limit... the speed most are comfortable with is what speed the rest of traffic is going.
Without speed limits or other traffic I'd be cruising at about 50mph in the Miata and about 100mph in the Mustang.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 18, 2012, 12:39:46 PM
As to the "safe" aspect of being a "good" driver, women are better than men. They didn't evolve to be (as) aggressive beings as men.
As to the "control" aspect of being a "good" driver, women are worse than men. They didn't evolve to be (as) visual, spacial beings as men.
I think this is true.
What if you're MtF, so you have the natural visual spacial abilities of a man, but you have transformed to act as a passive female?
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on April 18, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
What if you're MtF, so you have the natural visual spacial abilities of a man, but you have transformed to act as a passive female?
The boobs would be a novelty and therefore distracting.
Quote from: Laconian on April 18, 2012, 07:30:46 PM
The boobs would be a novelty and therefore distracting.
Yeah, but... yeah.
Quote from: Laconian on April 18, 2012, 07:30:46 PM
The boobs would be a novelty and therefore distracting.
Cleavage would be a great place to stick the cell phone when you weren't yakking away on it. ;)
Quote from: MiataJohn on April 18, 2012, 10:37:49 AM
Actually it's just the oppposite.
http://www.sirc.org/publik/driving.pdf
Wanna' be a better driver? Have a sex reassignment operation. :lol:
This is not entirely representative of drivers in the US because it is based on drivers in the UK.
I believe that we have been seeing a steady rise in women at fault crashes across the country for roughly a decade. Remember, that men do crash more, however, they also drive far more miles thusly increasing the chances of being involved in crashes.
I was not, by the way, saying all women are poor drivers since I used the word "most".
However, how many women who are out there driving today do you believe would be safe drivers at 100 or 150mph? We already know that young drivers cause the majority of crashes, that is not in dispute. I was just saying that most women would not be safe drivers at high speeds.
That a couple of you locked onto that one point is laughable.
Quote from: Raza on April 18, 2012, 08:18:28 AM
55mph was the national speed limit at one time, and many highways still have that. Much of I95 in the northeast, for example has a 55mph speed limit. My old 50+ mile stretch between my house and office was 55mph. Actually, I think it's 55mph in all of Pennsylvania. And much of the PA turnpike is 55mph as well, but partly because it's under money wasting construction quite a bit.
Appreciate this BFO part of your post.
:lol:
QuoteTeenagers and women are already driving that fast. I was doing 90-100 everywhere I could when I was a teenager. Even still I brush three digits when the conditions permit.
Teens, yes.
But, I drive a fair bit and I rarely see women traveling more than maybe 10mph over the limit. Yes, I realize it happens, but not terribly often because most are just uncomfortable with high speed.
QuoteI believe this is the basis of the 85th percentile theory. People drive at the speeds they are comfortable, mostly without regard to the speed limit.
That and 70ish is still a fairly economical speed for most cars, much faster then that and they start going backwards.
Quote from: hounddog on April 19, 2012, 12:24:29 PM
This is not entirely representative of drivers in the US because it is based on drivers in the UK.
I believe that we have been seeing a steady rise in women at fault crashes across the country for roughly a decade. Remember, that men do crash more, however, they also drive far more miles thusly increasing the chances of being involved in crashes.
I was not, by the way, saying all women are poor drivers since I used the word "most".
However, how many women who are out there driving today do you believe would be safe drivers at 100 or 150mph? We already know that young drivers cause the majority of crashes, that is not in dispute. I was just saying that most women would not be safe drivers at high speeds.
That a couple of you locked onto that one point is laughable.
I can still see my wife the first time she dove the E-type, shifting from third to fourth as she ran past 80 mph on the ramp entering the interstate between Dallas and Houston. She turned to me with a huge smile and exclaimed "I really like this car". So, overall I can think of one woman who could probably outdrive half the guys on this forum. :lol:
Well, thats one....
Quote from: hounddog on April 19, 2012, 12:24:29 PM
This is not entirely representative of drivers in the US because it is based on drivers in the UK.
I believe that we have been seeing a steady rise in women at fault crashes across the country for roughly a decade. Remember, that men do crash more, however, they also drive far more miles thusly increasing the chances of being involved in crashes.
I was not, by the way, saying all women are poor drivers since I used the word "most".
However, how many women who are out there driving today do you believe would be safe drivers at 100 or 150mph? We already know that young drivers cause the majority of crashes, that is not in dispute. I was just saying that most women would not be safe drivers at high speeds.
That a couple of you locked onto that one point is laughable.
Wow dude. This is a ridiculous post. Usually you try to backtrack in these situations, but here you've pretty much gone for the nose dive. Even in the face of objective evidence, UK or not.
To answer your question, about as many as there are men who would be safe drivers at 100-150 mph, duh.
Quote from: Rupert on April 19, 2012, 09:41:59 PM
Wow dude. This is a ridiculous post. Usually you try to backtrack in these situations, but here you've pretty much gone for the nose dive. Even in the face of objective evidence, UK or not.
To answer your question, about as many as there are men who would be safe drivers at 100-150 mph, duh.
What is ridiculous is that you and a couple others locked onto one single phrase out of an entire post.
And, love your objectivity.
Seek medical help immediately. ;)
Your once phrase was ridiculous. :huh:
A; sdkob fzdibgadf;vibadv'o pzdjv;db vosdj vpadbnv; jkiad bnfv'ad jfvadn vl'SDvlo adbvk;badfj vj sdkfn aswo asfoiah seofihseofhi shfoshejfio o[swfho weoifho;s as;kdjfbsdk;jfn slkfh s;eklfh iohf owifhj wEOFJ SOEFH economy is the jews fault wAGUI;PASD GHURO; ASDGHOA S UDBGHA SIPFBGSADVBHSK;DVB;askVN HSOD VB SKDVBN;S OVNSDK VBDS;KVJB
^ Pretty much your post.
I don't think women are worse at driving, but I think females may be more apt to be "distracted drivers."
Quote from: TurboDan on April 19, 2012, 10:52:27 PM
I don't think women are worse at driving, but I think females may be more apt to be "distracted drivers."
I'd agree after thinking about the number of women I see every morning "putting on their face" while on the freeway.
Quote from: Raza on April 16, 2012, 12:09:54 PM
Every person who gets a speeding ticket is a victim of an unjust system that favors revenue generation over actual traffic safety.
Not true. Our department is utilizing a enforcement system which is not based on revenue generation but on safety- I'm not going to repost what we're doing because I already spent a good deal of time on it in another thread in the D&L section. We're still working the kinks out but we're moving towards a safety minded proactive traffic enforcement model and we're adapting it for regular patrol as well. Well that's the goal anyway.
Traffic enforcement is not a particularly lucrative exercise. Between salaries, OT, court staff, and ancillary costs such as vehicle maintenance and equipment, it's probably a money-loser. At least in my state, about 80 percent of the fines go to the state anyway. The local police department does not materially benefit from giving out moving violations whatsoever.
Revenue is generated through things like parking tickets and nonmoving violations. And even then, it's not THAT much.
I don't really buy, and have never really bought, the revenue generation motive for traffic enforcement either. The mechanics simply say there is no "profit" motive. The reality is more complicated and much harder to redress - misplaced political emphasis, overly powerful police unions and over-funded LE departments, being the chief reasons.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 22, 2012, 02:21:10 PMI don't really buy, and have never really bought, the revenue generation motive for traffic enforcement either. The mechanics simply say there is no "profit" motive. The reality is more complicated and much harder to redress - misplaced political emphasis, overly powerful police unions and over-funded LE departments, being the chief reasons.
What do police unions have to do with traffic enforcement? My union has absolutely zero say about how or when we do traffic enforcement. And the concept of "over-funded LE departments" in this day and age is a huge joke...we're in the longest stretch of LE budget cuts and layoffs in this country in recent memory. Many departments have been lucky to just keep minimum staffing levels in the last 5-7 years. You're talking out of your ass on this, Cougs.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 23, 2012, 11:17:18 AM
What do police unions have to do with traffic enforcement? My union has absolutely zero say about how or when we do traffic enforcement. And the concept of "over-funded LE departments" in this day and age is a huge joke...we're in the longest stretch of LE budget cuts and layoffs in this country in recent memory. Many departments have been lucky to just keep minimum staffing levels in the last 5-7 years. You're talking out of your ass on this, Cougs.
It's a stretch, but the police unions have gotten a number of state legislatures to mandate a police officer and marked car do details at road jobs. Granted, it's under the guise of "safety" but the unions love it because they get a piece of the action from the OT payments (at least in NJ).
Quote from: bing_oh on April 23, 2012, 11:17:18 AM
What do police unions have to do with traffic enforcement? My union has absolutely zero say about how or when we do traffic enforcement. And the concept of "over-funded LE departments" in this day and age is a huge joke...we're in the longest stretch of LE budget cuts and layoffs in this country in recent memory. Many departments have been lucky to just keep minimum staffing levels in the last 5-7 years. You're talking out of your ass on this, Cougs.
Unions = giving inordinate power (or at least much more than would otherwise be possible) to police departments (i.e., blunts the feedback process).
Plenty of police departments the country over have anything from aerial equipment (i.e., planes) and the latest "DSP" speed measurement device equipment.
Quote from: TurboDan on April 23, 2012, 12:42:47 PMIt's a stretch, but the police unions have gotten a number of state legislatures to mandate a police officer and marked car do details at road jobs. Granted, it's under the guise of "safety" but the unions love it because they get a piece of the action from the OT payments (at least in NJ).
The only department in my area that I know of that does safety details at road construction is the OSHP...and they do get a pretty penny working those details. Calling those details "traffic enforcement" in any way is a joke, though. They sit at the beginning of the construction site with their lights on and watch TV for the entire shift (and, yes, I'm jealous...they make very good money doing it). To actually make a stop is extremely rare.
EDIT...
I should probably mention a couple things. First, those troopers at construction sites are being paid for by the construction companies, not the taxpayers. And, second, those same troopers with their cushy OT details have had mandatory unpaid furlough days for at least the last 5 years because of budget cuts. Just interesting points.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 23, 2012, 01:04:52 PMUnions = giving inordinate power (or at least much more than would otherwise be possible) to police departments (i.e., blunts the feedback process).
Please. As a union member and union rep, I wish the unions were as powerful as you believed. They're not. Hell, my union is in the middle of a fight over a dispatcher's job who got laid off for no reason. If we were so powerful, why are we having to fight?
Anyway, you still havn't made any logical connection between police unions and traffic enforcement...and I'm confident you won't, since there is none. Unions do not dictate policy and procedure on things like this.
QuotePlenty of police departments the country over have anything from aerial equipment (i.e., planes) and the latest "DSP" speed measurement device equipment.
Once upon a time, yes. Some really large departments still do. But many of those programs are being or have been cut for budgetary reasons. You're making statement without having the knowledge to back it up. Ask any cop today if his department has faced budget cuts and, chances are, he'll sat "yes." You'll probably get the same response if you ask him if his department has laid off officers or contemplated such a move. Those who say "no" will probably at least tell you of long-term hiring freezes. LE departments are in dire straits today.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 23, 2012, 09:25:14 PM
Please. As a union member and union rep, I wish the unions were as powerful as you believed. They're not. Hell, my union is in the middle of a fight over a dispatcher's job who got laid off for no reason. If we were so powerful, why are we having to fight?
Anyway, you still havn't made any logical connection between police unions and traffic enforcement...and I'm confident you won't, since there is none. Unions do not dictate policy and procedure on things like this.
Once upon a time, yes. Some really large departments still do. But many of those programs are being or have been cut for budgetary reasons. You're making statement without having the knowledge to back it up. Ask any cop today if his department has faced budget cuts and, chances are, he'll sat "yes." You'll probably get the same response if you ask him if his department has laid off officers or contemplated such a move. Those who say "no" will probably at least tell you of long-term hiring freezes. LE departments are in dire straits today.
The point being, police unions are too powerful (as all unions are under the guise of pro-union thug law) which compels and reinforces delinked behavior; oer emphasis and irrational traffic enforcement is a byproduct.
Your comment about fighting a layoff is a classic example - I don't want to devolve this into union bashing, but welcome to the real world the rest of us work in - we can be fired at any time for any reason (or no reason at all).
Budget cuts doesn't mean the department isn't still over funded.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 23, 2012, 11:17:18 AM
What do police unions have to do with traffic enforcement? My union has absolutely zero say about how or when we do traffic enforcement. And the concept of "over-funded LE departments" in this day and age is a huge joke...we're in the longest stretch of LE budget cuts and layoffs in this country in recent memory. Many departments have been lucky to just keep minimum staffing levels in the last 5-7 years. You're talking out of your ass on this, Cougs.
I laughed for about ten minutes over the "over-funded police departments" baloney and another ten for the "over powerful police unions."
When it comes to actual LE knowledge on anything, as Rohan so poignantly stated, Cougs is out of his depth.
Quote from: TurboDan on April 23, 2012, 12:42:47 PM
It's a stretch, but the police unions have gotten a number of state legislatures to mandate a police officer and marked car do details at road jobs. Granted, it's under the guise of "safety" but the unions love it because they get a piece of the action from the OT payments (at least in NJ).
I have a hard time even imagining this.
Here they get monthly dues and nothing else. In fact, in Michigan police are statutorily prevented from belonging to a "union" and instead are represented by "associations."
When Jenni "Two-penny" Granholm was governor she tried to force all LE into the UAW but was unable since they were statutorily prohibited. She did, however, manage to get all state employees shoved forcefully into the UAW. It was all quite disgusting with how the UAW was able to buy more members.
Hound, everyone (including those who live here) have a hard time imagining the nonsense behind many of our state's policies. We give 60 percent of all our education aid to 31 school districts out of 590, and the average property tax bill is more than $8,000 because of a lack of state school aid to municipalities. ;)
As for the union connection in road details, here's how it works: State passes law that says there has to be an off-duty officer at essentially every road construction site after the unions lobby the majority Democrats into it. So let's say your town is doing some road construction. Under the law, the construction company doing the job is obligated to hire off-duty sworn officers through the local union shop (which would be the PBA, in most cases in NJ). The PBA then pays the town a fee for the use of a marked car "rental" for the day, as well as a token fee to "use" the off-duty officer. The officer is paid the OT rate under the collective bargaining agreement for the town, but from the construction company, and it all flows through the PBA and they get a piece of the action.
In the end, of course, the taxpayers pay for the OT. Even though the construction company doing the job is paying for the officers, the taxpayers are paying the construction company. It's really just another hidden union tax.
The level of legalized bribing and corruption on every level of government is just sickening.
Quote from: hounddog on April 24, 2012, 07:04:00 PM
When it comes to actual LE knowledge on anything, as Rohan so poignantly stated, Cougs is out of his depth.
Lately, Cougs has been tripping up a lot. He's proving himself to be out of his depth on many issues.
We have an overfunded department here in Mt Home. Seems like one of every 10 cars is a cruiser. Rediculous.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on April 26, 2012, 06:10:12 PMWe have an overfunded department here in Mt Home. Seems like one of every 10 cars is a cruiser. Rediculous.
You do realize that your observations and perceptions don't necessarily support your conclusion, right? There could be numerous reasons for you preceiving that there are an inordinate number of curisers in an area. There could be changes in patrol times and patterns for a specific purpose. There could be multiple agencies patrolling an area for a particular reason. You could simply be noticing LE presence more because of a personal perception reason. The list goes on and on.
Let me give you an example. We have had (I believe) 8 fatalities in less than 3 weeks in my county from vehicle crashes. All but one has been on a single major state route. Because of the high numbner of fatalities, the Sheriff's Offie and the OSHP have increased patrols. The state route is also one of the major roadways through my city, so you frequently see cruisers on it on normal patrol or enroute to calls. None of those three departments have any kind of increses in funding (all three departments are, in actuality, dealing with funding limitations and shortages)...it's all a matter of targeting patrol frequency and routes of units already on the road to address a specific issue. So, while people driving on that state route might perceive a higher number of cruisers and believe exactly what you've stated, the perception does not reflect reality.
This was just an issue in my town. The verdict was that it's much, much, much better to have more patrol cars that aren't used during every single shift than a few cars that are. Capital costs of vehicle replacements are WAY lower if you limit the use of patrol cars than if you beat all of them into the ground in short order.
In my town, cars are used for two of three shifts per day.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on April 26, 2012, 06:10:12 PM
We have an overfunded department here in Mt Home. Seems like one of every 10 cars is a cruiser. Rediculous.
I don't mind seeing a lot of cruisers. I'd love to see cruisers come down my block more often.
Quote from: TurboDan on April 26, 2012, 11:10:33 PMThis was just an issue in my town. The verdict was that it's much, much, much better to have more patrol cars that aren't used during every single shift than a few cars that are. Capital costs of vehicle replacements are WAY lower if you limit the use of patrol cars than if you beat all of them into the ground in short order.
In my town, cars are used for two of three shifts per day.
That was pretty much accepted practice for many departments until the recent financial cutbacks in many municipalities. Now, administrators looking to quickly cut budgets have slashed the purchase of new cruisers while the older ones are staying on the road until they flat-out die or become extreme safety hazards. The problem becomes that these older, higher-mileage cruisers have rapidly escalating maintenance costs, many times for high-ticket repairs that only extend the life a relatively short time. In reality, it would be more cost effective to buy new cruisers than to dump the money into repairing older ones that have only a limited time left on the road...but the quick cost savings of slasing replacement cruisers is too tempting for administrators and their political masters. Of course, when a cruiser
does die or becomes a safety hazard, it's not replaced, meaning that the remainder of the fleet has to be on the road that much more to take up the slack...it becomes a spiraling maintenance/repair scenario that costs more in the long run.
Quote from: dazzleman on April 27, 2012, 04:40:57 AM
I don't mind seeing a lot of cruisers. I'd love to see cruisers come down my block more often.
If they are after or out for criminals, to an extent, sure some presence is good.
If they are sitting on he side of the road manning a speed trap with the latest "DSP" speed measurement devices, not so much (= over funded).
Quote from: dazzleman on April 27, 2012, 04:40:57 AM
I don't mind seeing a lot of cruisers. I'd love to see cruisers come down my block more often.
They really do need start cracking down on all them hoodrats in Fairfield.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 26, 2012, 09:25:15 PM
You do realize that your observations and perceptions don't necessarily support your conclusion, right? There could be numerous reasons for you preceiving that there are an inordinate number of curisers in an area. There could be changes in patrol times and patterns for a specific purpose. There could be multiple agencies patrolling an area for a particular reason. You could simply be noticing LE presence more because of a personal perception reason. The list goes on and on.
Let me give you an example. We have had (I believe) 8 fatalities in less than 3 weeks in my county from vehicle crashes. All but one has been on a single major state route. Because of the high numbner of fatalities, the Sheriff's Offie and the OSHP have increased patrols. The state route is also one of the major roadways through my city, so you frequently see cruisers on it on normal patrol or enroute to calls. None of those three departments have any kind of increses in funding (all three departments are, in actuality, dealing with funding limitations and shortages)...it's all a matter of targeting patrol frequency and routes of units already on the road to address a specific issue. So, while people driving on that state route might perceive a higher number of cruisers and believe exactly what you've stated, the perception does not reflect reality.
I've lived in 3 other areas, and I see way more cruisers rolling around town here than anywhere else. Easily twice as many per car as any other place I've been, night or day, and for the whole 2 years I've been here. The town gets a lot of money from the Air Force presence, but it's still a small town.
There was one time I passed 3 cruisers on my way to Walmart at about 10pm, and this is a town of 11,000.
Jeez, do all the Boisians go there to buy speed or something? I figured they went to Meridian for drugs...
They're looking for hot airforce chicks.
Otherwise known as "army mattresses". ba dum dum! :lol:
Lol. Should really go for Marine women. They are the most attractive. AF girls are just sluts.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 27, 2012, 09:55:26 AM
If they are after or out for criminals, to an extent, sure some presence is good.
If they are sitting on he side of the road manning a speed trap with the latest "DSP" speed measurement devices, not so much (= over funded).
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y229/babamulon/smileys/laughing-smiley-007.gif)
DSP = digital speed processing = small computer = all radar guns purchased since about 1994 != some great master electronic gizmo of remarkable scarcity
Quote from: bing_oh on April 26, 2012, 09:25:15 PM
You do realize that your observations and perceptions don't necessarily support your conclusion, right? There could be numerous reasons for you preceiving that there are an inordinate number of curisers in an area. There could be changes in patrol times and patterns for a specific purpose. There could be multiple agencies patrolling an area for a particular reason. You could simply be noticing LE presence more because of a personal perception reason. The list goes on and on.
Let me give you an example. We have had (I believe) 8 fatalities in less than 3 weeks in my county from vehicle crashes. All but one has been on a single major state route. Because of the high numbner of fatalities, the Sheriff's Offie and the OSHP have increased patrols. The state route is also one of the major roadways through my city, so you frequently see cruisers on it on normal patrol or enroute to calls. None of those three departments have any kind of increses in funding (all three departments are, in actuality, dealing with funding limitations and shortages)...it's all a matter of targeting patrol frequency and routes of units already on the road to address a specific issue. So, while people driving on that state route might perceive a higher number of cruisers and believe exactly what you've stated, the perception does not reflect reality.
Mt Home:Full-time law enforcement employees in 2010, including police officers: 36 (28 officers).
Officers per 1,000 residents in Mt Home:
2.28
Idaho average:
1.78
Fayetteville, NC: Full-time law enforcement employees in 2010, including police officers: 518 (366 officers).
Officers per 1,000 residents in Fayetteville, NC:
1.76
North Carolina average:
2.40
Rome, NY:Full-time law enforcement employees in 2010, including police officers: 80 (76 officers).
Officers per 1,000 residents in Rome, NY:
2.31
New York average:
3.23
Looks like it's not far from average. dunno what to say... this is the only place I regularly see at least 2 cruisers everytime I got out, and I've lived in places with more population....