How to beat a ticket.
10-13-05, 01:56 PM
#1
How to beat a ticket.
Best line is the last sentence, but the whole article is very informative. 
By Edmunds.com Editors
My rearview mirror exploded with blue and white lights. I glanced down at my speedometer -- I was pushing 80 mph. But the cars around me were going about the same speed. Could this cop really be pulling me over?
I carefully navigated my way across six lanes of traffic. I pulled over on the shoulder and waited, my heart pounding. Moments later the motorcycle cop's helmeted face appeared in the passenger window.
"License and registration," he said, raising his voice over the roar of the traffic.
"What's the problem?" I asked.
"You were doing 80 in a 65-mile-an-hour zone." He disappeared before I could argue the point.
Busted.
I sat there fuming, thinking of the money this would cost me, the increased insurance premiums or the cost and time to attend traffic school. And for what? Going 80 miles per hour on the 405 Freeway in Los Angeles where speeds routinely reach 80 and even soar into the 90s? No way was I a reckless driver, the kind you see threading the needle between a tractor-trailer truck and a school bus. Those guys deserved tickets, not me. Still, I was--
Busted.
When the cop returned I tried a few excuses on him.
Me: I was going with the flow of traffic.
Cop: You passed three cars while I was behind you.
Me: Maybe I was speeding, but I couldn't have been going 80 -- not in this little gas/electric hybrid Honda Insight.
Cop: I followed you for a half mile. If you had seen me and slowed down, I wouldn't ticket you.
Me: I'm vulnerable in this little car and need to keep up with traffic.
Cop: You should drive slower and more carefully in a small car.
Obviously, he'd heard it all. I signed the ticket with a shaky hand and surrendered to my fate. But wait! Other drivers at Edmunds.com had received tickets and beat them. I could do the same thing. I would fight my ticket.
A few days later, I shared this story with Walt Meyer, a friend of mine who is a freelance writer and also teaches at a comedy traffic school. I told him I was going to fight my ticket.
"You'll lose," he said.
"Why? I was going with the flow of traffic," I whined.
"Oh, so there was a road sign saying 'Go with the flow'?"
Jeez, and I thought he was my friend.
"If you really want to try to fight your ticket, read 'Beat the Cops' by Alex Carroll," Meyer said. "But you'll probably lose anyway."
I ordered the book through Carroll's Web site and read it. And for the first time since seeing those blue and white lights I felt a glimmer of hope. The book describes how the author got 16 tickets in a short time and was able to nullify 10 of them. He eventually wrote his book based on what he learned.
Even more interesting was the writer's perspective. Unlike traffic cops, who make you feel like a serial killer for speeding, the book states that the majority of tickets are issued to generate money for government municipalities. Insurance companies benefit from traffic tickets, too, raising your rates when your driving record shows a moving violation. The National Motorists Association claims that costly radar guns are donated to police departments by some insurance carriers to encourage them to write more speeding tickets.
Finally, I was getting somewhere in this process. I called Carroll and told him the details of my traffic stop.
"A speeding ticket based on pacing is the hardest kind to beat," he said.
"Pacing" is when a police officer follows you and checks your speed by looking at his speedometer. Speeding tickets can also be issued based on an officer "estimating" your speed -- this is nothing more than a cop watching you and guessing how fast you are going.
According to Carroll, there are three ways to beat a ticket:
1. The cop doesn't show up for court
2. You exploit a technicality (such as a problem with the patrol car's speedometer)
3. You have a good argument for extenuating circumstances (you are speeding to get your pregnant wife to the hospital)
This reminded me of a story a friend told me. He was driving down a canyon road when he struck a bird, which became lodged under the windshield wipers. His daughters were in the car with him and they began screaming hysterically. He sped up to dislodge the bird and, at that moment, was pulled over for speeding. When he told this bizarre story to a judge, the ticket was dismissed.
My pacing ticket didn't fall easily into any of Carroll's three categories. The only technical angle to exploit was to prove that my speedometer was malfunctioning. I spoke to Edmunds.com's technical editor and he told me the speedometer might in fact be wrong. My heart jumped. "I think it's actually a little low," he said.
Another tactic Carroll describes is to delay the trial to a time when the ticketing officer can't come to court. He suggested I call the station house where my California Highway Patrol officer was based and find out when he was on vacation, or what his days off were. This could be done by calling over a number of days to find out when he was working. Then, when I extended my court date, try to schedule it for a day that he wasn't on duty.
Other strategies might include requesting the officer's notes written on the back of the ticket hoping there is something there which is inaccurate.
I decided to extend the date of my trial to increase the chances the officer wouldn't appear in court. As I attempted to do this I made an alarming discovery. You can request only one postponement (called an "extension") and it must be requested 10 days before your trial date. This is stated in very small print on the ticket, and it doesn't really make sense. I mean, you're more apt to have a scheduling conflict arise at the last minute rather than 10 days earlier. But this is the way the law is written so I was committed to the assigned trial date.
However, I still had one ace in the hole. If the ticketing officer did show up, and my defense was falling on deaf ears, I could quote California Vehicle Code 41501 allowing me to attend traffic school. But -- and this was important -- I should make a photocopy of the law because some judges weren't familiar with it.
"If it looks like you're going to lose, say, 'Your honor, I see that you're very busy here. I will cite CVC 41501 and take traffic school,'" Meyer told me.
With this backup plan in mind I set about creating a reasonable sounding argument. But I had to get busy. My court date was in three days.
On the day of my trial for a speeding ticket I arrived outside traffic court in West Los Angeles to find about 30 people milling around, waiting for the doors to open. At the other end of the corridor, the police officers who had issued the tickets had gathered. I noticed that these two groups didn't mingle at all.
When the doors finally opened (45 minutes late) we all filed into the courtroom. The police officers sat on one side of the room while the ticketed motorists sat on the other.
I had prepared for my day in court in several ways:
I wore a coat and tie
I had read several books about presenting cases in traffic court
I had drawn a diagram of the area where the traffic stop occurred
I had copies of the California Vehicle Codes relevant to my case
The only thing I was lacking was a compelling argument to prove that I wasn't speeding. I mean, I was speeding and there were no real technicalities I could exploit to contradict that. My strategy was to wait until the last possible moment, hoping the ticketing officer didn't show up, and then, if he did make an appearance, invoke California Vehicle Code 41501 stating my right to go to traffic school.
The judge finally appeared and told us that he would be reading off our names. If we were prepared to proceed to trial, we should respond by saying, "Ready." The judge sternly warned us that this was our last chance to opt for traffic school. If we went to trial and lost, there would be points on our license. If we took traffic school now our sins would be forgiven.
Surveying the room, the judge then said to one of his clerks, "You know, I saw a lot of officers downstairs. Let them know we're starting now." The clerk disappeared. This, and several other comments showed that the judge was trying to scare us into taking traffic school rather than tying up the court with a trial.
The judge then began reading our names. In several cases, the defendant answered, "Ready," and the police officers responded by saying, "The people are ready." The judge set these case files to one side for trial. But in over half of the cases there was no response from the police. In other cases the police responded by saying, "Officer doesn't remember," and the case was dismissed.
In one case, the judge got no response when he called the police officer's name. He told his clerk, "Check downstairs. I know I saw the officer down there." This case file was set to one side, and the defender slouched in his seat, muttering an obscenity. The people whose cases were dismissed usually said, "All right!" and left the courtroom with a spring in their step.
When my name was called I responded with a confident, "Ready!" The judge then called out the police officer's name. I held my breath. He called it again. No response. The judge glanced over the case and said, "People unable to proceed. Case dismissed. Watch your speed." I left the courtroom feeling a load was lifted, and joined the other celebrating ex-offenders in the corridor.
As I walked back to my car I realized that I had won in a number of ways:
The charges were dropped and my $77 fine would be returned
No points would be put on my license
My insurance premiums would not go up
I wouldn't have to spend the money or time on traffic school
All of these benefits were the result of taking the time to go to traffic court.
Several days later a friend of mine had a different experience in court. So far this year my friend has beat two tickets and lost two. The two tickets he successfully challenged were for speeding based on radar and were given to him by California Highway Patrol; the two he lost were from city police departments for non-speeding moving violations. In this particular case he was ticketed for failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. He went to court in West Los Angeles and waited for the entire afternoon for the chance to argue his case.
My friend reported that the judge in his courtroom was like a flamboyant game show host. When he ruled in favor of the driver, he seemed to share in the excitement of the moment by boisterously proclaiming, "Looks like you won't be going to traffic school! And we'll even be mailing you your money back!" But when he ruled against the motorist he became sarcastic and abrupt.
The order of the events in the trials were:
The officer described the circumstances under which he issued the ticket
The judge asked the officer follow-up questions about the case
The defendant told his or her side of the story
The judge questioned the defendant and referred further questions to the officer
In some cases, the defendant was allowed to tell his story only to discover that the officer had shot a video of the traffic stop. These cases always went against the driver.
When my friend was stopped he had asked the police officer: "Are you saying that I blew off the stop sign completely?" The officer said, "No. You just rolled through it." But in court the cop told a different story.
The officer described the location where he was parked and stated that he had an unobstructed view of the intersection. He then told the judge that my friend had gone through the stop sign at 15 mph. The judge then asked, "What's the error factor in your speed estimation certification?" The officer said it was "plus or minus 3 mph."
When it came time to issue a ruling, this judge used this fact against my friend. He said, "Assume for a minute that the officer had been having a bad day. That still means you were going at least 9 mph. Suppose he was having a really, really bad day. That still means you were going 6 miles an hour."
My friend felt that he had learned an important lesson from this trip to court. Since the police officer presents his side of the story first, you should try to anticipate what he will say and create your strategy accordingly. Clearly, this officer had presented what he thought would be an ironclad story to refute someone trying to say that they didn't "roll" through the intersection. If he had said that my friend had gone through the intersection at 5 mph without stopping, that 3 mph variation in his speed estimation certification would be cutting it pretty close.
This brought up another important point. Walter Meyer, a traffic school instructor and freelance writer who lives in San Diego, Calif., said that if the case hinges on your word versus the police officer, the judge will usually rule in favor of the officer. This is because police officers are perceived as experts in traffic rules. Furthermore, Meyer said, "The judge knows that he can walk out the door of the courthouse and find a dozen people breaking the traffic laws." This leads to an attitude of "guilty until proven innocent" — at least in traffic court.
This was echoed by my friend who had some advice for anyone going to try his or her case in traffic court: "Make sure your case is based on concrete evidence and don't rely strictly on what the officer said at the time of the traffic stop. Don't just go in there and say, 'I didn't do it.'"
For example, one woman who successfully challenged her ticket convinced the judge that the stop sign she supposedly ran was resting on a concrete pylon that was too low to see. She brought photos to court to show the judge and her case was dismissed.
Although my case was dismissed, I still had one important step. Experts advise that you contact the DMV and get a copy of your driving record to make sure your dismissed case hasn't inadvertently wound up on your license. While the clerical error is the court's fault, you could be the one spending a night in jail.
As my friend and I discussed our experiences we agreed that there was very little reason not to go to traffic court. There was some chance that the officer wouldn't show up and your case would be dismissed. If the officer did appear, you could always opt for traffic school at the last minute. Furthermore, some speeding tickets (most notably radar tickets) can be challenged on a technicality. Other tickets can be dismissed by presenting evidence such as diagrams or photographs.
It's important to take a larger view of this whole subject. The police write many tickets knowing that the motorist will simply pay their fine by mail hoping to put the whole incident behind them. Other offenders will choose traffic school. Only a small group of motorists will ask for a trial in traffic court. And an even smaller number will actually go to trial.
Clearly, if everyone went to traffic court, the system would become overburdened and collapse. So, if you feel your ticket was unwarranted, ask for your day in court — you could walk out a winner.
By Edmunds.com Editors
My rearview mirror exploded with blue and white lights. I glanced down at my speedometer -- I was pushing 80 mph. But the cars around me were going about the same speed. Could this cop really be pulling me over?
I carefully navigated my way across six lanes of traffic. I pulled over on the shoulder and waited, my heart pounding. Moments later the motorcycle cop's helmeted face appeared in the passenger window.
"License and registration," he said, raising his voice over the roar of the traffic.
"What's the problem?" I asked.
"You were doing 80 in a 65-mile-an-hour zone." He disappeared before I could argue the point.
Busted.
I sat there fuming, thinking of the money this would cost me, the increased insurance premiums or the cost and time to attend traffic school. And for what? Going 80 miles per hour on the 405 Freeway in Los Angeles where speeds routinely reach 80 and even soar into the 90s? No way was I a reckless driver, the kind you see threading the needle between a tractor-trailer truck and a school bus. Those guys deserved tickets, not me. Still, I was--
Busted.
When the cop returned I tried a few excuses on him.
Me: I was going with the flow of traffic.
Cop: You passed three cars while I was behind you.
Me: Maybe I was speeding, but I couldn't have been going 80 -- not in this little gas/electric hybrid Honda Insight.
Cop: I followed you for a half mile. If you had seen me and slowed down, I wouldn't ticket you.
Me: I'm vulnerable in this little car and need to keep up with traffic.
Cop: You should drive slower and more carefully in a small car.
Obviously, he'd heard it all. I signed the ticket with a shaky hand and surrendered to my fate. But wait! Other drivers at Edmunds.com had received tickets and beat them. I could do the same thing. I would fight my ticket.
A few days later, I shared this story with Walt Meyer, a friend of mine who is a freelance writer and also teaches at a comedy traffic school. I told him I was going to fight my ticket.
"You'll lose," he said.
"Why? I was going with the flow of traffic," I whined.
"Oh, so there was a road sign saying 'Go with the flow'?"
Jeez, and I thought he was my friend.
"If you really want to try to fight your ticket, read 'Beat the Cops' by Alex Carroll," Meyer said. "But you'll probably lose anyway."
I ordered the book through Carroll's Web site and read it. And for the first time since seeing those blue and white lights I felt a glimmer of hope. The book describes how the author got 16 tickets in a short time and was able to nullify 10 of them. He eventually wrote his book based on what he learned.
Even more interesting was the writer's perspective. Unlike traffic cops, who make you feel like a serial killer for speeding, the book states that the majority of tickets are issued to generate money for government municipalities. Insurance companies benefit from traffic tickets, too, raising your rates when your driving record shows a moving violation. The National Motorists Association claims that costly radar guns are donated to police departments by some insurance carriers to encourage them to write more speeding tickets.
Finally, I was getting somewhere in this process. I called Carroll and told him the details of my traffic stop.
"A speeding ticket based on pacing is the hardest kind to beat," he said.
"Pacing" is when a police officer follows you and checks your speed by looking at his speedometer. Speeding tickets can also be issued based on an officer "estimating" your speed -- this is nothing more than a cop watching you and guessing how fast you are going.
According to Carroll, there are three ways to beat a ticket:
1. The cop doesn't show up for court
2. You exploit a technicality (such as a problem with the patrol car's speedometer)
3. You have a good argument for extenuating circumstances (you are speeding to get your pregnant wife to the hospital)
This reminded me of a story a friend told me. He was driving down a canyon road when he struck a bird, which became lodged under the windshield wipers. His daughters were in the car with him and they began screaming hysterically. He sped up to dislodge the bird and, at that moment, was pulled over for speeding. When he told this bizarre story to a judge, the ticket was dismissed.
My pacing ticket didn't fall easily into any of Carroll's three categories. The only technical angle to exploit was to prove that my speedometer was malfunctioning. I spoke to Edmunds.com's technical editor and he told me the speedometer might in fact be wrong. My heart jumped. "I think it's actually a little low," he said.
Another tactic Carroll describes is to delay the trial to a time when the ticketing officer can't come to court. He suggested I call the station house where my California Highway Patrol officer was based and find out when he was on vacation, or what his days off were. This could be done by calling over a number of days to find out when he was working. Then, when I extended my court date, try to schedule it for a day that he wasn't on duty.
Other strategies might include requesting the officer's notes written on the back of the ticket hoping there is something there which is inaccurate.
I decided to extend the date of my trial to increase the chances the officer wouldn't appear in court. As I attempted to do this I made an alarming discovery. You can request only one postponement (called an "extension") and it must be requested 10 days before your trial date. This is stated in very small print on the ticket, and it doesn't really make sense. I mean, you're more apt to have a scheduling conflict arise at the last minute rather than 10 days earlier. But this is the way the law is written so I was committed to the assigned trial date.
However, I still had one ace in the hole. If the ticketing officer did show up, and my defense was falling on deaf ears, I could quote California Vehicle Code 41501 allowing me to attend traffic school. But -- and this was important -- I should make a photocopy of the law because some judges weren't familiar with it.
"If it looks like you're going to lose, say, 'Your honor, I see that you're very busy here. I will cite CVC 41501 and take traffic school,'" Meyer told me.
With this backup plan in mind I set about creating a reasonable sounding argument. But I had to get busy. My court date was in three days.
On the day of my trial for a speeding ticket I arrived outside traffic court in West Los Angeles to find about 30 people milling around, waiting for the doors to open. At the other end of the corridor, the police officers who had issued the tickets had gathered. I noticed that these two groups didn't mingle at all.
When the doors finally opened (45 minutes late) we all filed into the courtroom. The police officers sat on one side of the room while the ticketed motorists sat on the other.
I had prepared for my day in court in several ways:
I wore a coat and tie
I had read several books about presenting cases in traffic court
I had drawn a diagram of the area where the traffic stop occurred
I had copies of the California Vehicle Codes relevant to my case
The only thing I was lacking was a compelling argument to prove that I wasn't speeding. I mean, I was speeding and there were no real technicalities I could exploit to contradict that. My strategy was to wait until the last possible moment, hoping the ticketing officer didn't show up, and then, if he did make an appearance, invoke California Vehicle Code 41501 stating my right to go to traffic school.
The judge finally appeared and told us that he would be reading off our names. If we were prepared to proceed to trial, we should respond by saying, "Ready." The judge sternly warned us that this was our last chance to opt for traffic school. If we went to trial and lost, there would be points on our license. If we took traffic school now our sins would be forgiven.
Surveying the room, the judge then said to one of his clerks, "You know, I saw a lot of officers downstairs. Let them know we're starting now." The clerk disappeared. This, and several other comments showed that the judge was trying to scare us into taking traffic school rather than tying up the court with a trial.
The judge then began reading our names. In several cases, the defendant answered, "Ready," and the police officers responded by saying, "The people are ready." The judge set these case files to one side for trial. But in over half of the cases there was no response from the police. In other cases the police responded by saying, "Officer doesn't remember," and the case was dismissed.
In one case, the judge got no response when he called the police officer's name. He told his clerk, "Check downstairs. I know I saw the officer down there." This case file was set to one side, and the defender slouched in his seat, muttering an obscenity. The people whose cases were dismissed usually said, "All right!" and left the courtroom with a spring in their step.
When my name was called I responded with a confident, "Ready!" The judge then called out the police officer's name. I held my breath. He called it again. No response. The judge glanced over the case and said, "People unable to proceed. Case dismissed. Watch your speed." I left the courtroom feeling a load was lifted, and joined the other celebrating ex-offenders in the corridor.
As I walked back to my car I realized that I had won in a number of ways:
The charges were dropped and my $77 fine would be returned
No points would be put on my license
My insurance premiums would not go up
I wouldn't have to spend the money or time on traffic school
All of these benefits were the result of taking the time to go to traffic court.
Several days later a friend of mine had a different experience in court. So far this year my friend has beat two tickets and lost two. The two tickets he successfully challenged were for speeding based on radar and were given to him by California Highway Patrol; the two he lost were from city police departments for non-speeding moving violations. In this particular case he was ticketed for failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. He went to court in West Los Angeles and waited for the entire afternoon for the chance to argue his case.
My friend reported that the judge in his courtroom was like a flamboyant game show host. When he ruled in favor of the driver, he seemed to share in the excitement of the moment by boisterously proclaiming, "Looks like you won't be going to traffic school! And we'll even be mailing you your money back!" But when he ruled against the motorist he became sarcastic and abrupt.
The order of the events in the trials were:
The officer described the circumstances under which he issued the ticket
The judge asked the officer follow-up questions about the case
The defendant told his or her side of the story
The judge questioned the defendant and referred further questions to the officer
In some cases, the defendant was allowed to tell his story only to discover that the officer had shot a video of the traffic stop. These cases always went against the driver.
When my friend was stopped he had asked the police officer: "Are you saying that I blew off the stop sign completely?" The officer said, "No. You just rolled through it." But in court the cop told a different story.
The officer described the location where he was parked and stated that he had an unobstructed view of the intersection. He then told the judge that my friend had gone through the stop sign at 15 mph. The judge then asked, "What's the error factor in your speed estimation certification?" The officer said it was "plus or minus 3 mph."
When it came time to issue a ruling, this judge used this fact against my friend. He said, "Assume for a minute that the officer had been having a bad day. That still means you were going at least 9 mph. Suppose he was having a really, really bad day. That still means you were going 6 miles an hour."
My friend felt that he had learned an important lesson from this trip to court. Since the police officer presents his side of the story first, you should try to anticipate what he will say and create your strategy accordingly. Clearly, this officer had presented what he thought would be an ironclad story to refute someone trying to say that they didn't "roll" through the intersection. If he had said that my friend had gone through the intersection at 5 mph without stopping, that 3 mph variation in his speed estimation certification would be cutting it pretty close.
This brought up another important point. Walter Meyer, a traffic school instructor and freelance writer who lives in San Diego, Calif., said that if the case hinges on your word versus the police officer, the judge will usually rule in favor of the officer. This is because police officers are perceived as experts in traffic rules. Furthermore, Meyer said, "The judge knows that he can walk out the door of the courthouse and find a dozen people breaking the traffic laws." This leads to an attitude of "guilty until proven innocent" — at least in traffic court.
This was echoed by my friend who had some advice for anyone going to try his or her case in traffic court: "Make sure your case is based on concrete evidence and don't rely strictly on what the officer said at the time of the traffic stop. Don't just go in there and say, 'I didn't do it.'"
For example, one woman who successfully challenged her ticket convinced the judge that the stop sign she supposedly ran was resting on a concrete pylon that was too low to see. She brought photos to court to show the judge and her case was dismissed.
Although my case was dismissed, I still had one important step. Experts advise that you contact the DMV and get a copy of your driving record to make sure your dismissed case hasn't inadvertently wound up on your license. While the clerical error is the court's fault, you could be the one spending a night in jail.
As my friend and I discussed our experiences we agreed that there was very little reason not to go to traffic court. There was some chance that the officer wouldn't show up and your case would be dismissed. If the officer did appear, you could always opt for traffic school at the last minute. Furthermore, some speeding tickets (most notably radar tickets) can be challenged on a technicality. Other tickets can be dismissed by presenting evidence such as diagrams or photographs.
It's important to take a larger view of this whole subject. The police write many tickets knowing that the motorist will simply pay their fine by mail hoping to put the whole incident behind them. Other offenders will choose traffic school. Only a small group of motorists will ask for a trial in traffic court. And an even smaller number will actually go to trial.
Clearly, if everyone went to traffic court, the system would become overburdened and collapse. So, if you feel your ticket was unwarranted, ask for your day in court — you could walk out a winner.
10-13-05, 05:07 PM
#2
Lexus Fanatic
Now....if you want to STAY a winner.......do exactly what the judge told you to do and watch your speed.
I've heard that line many times before that the whole issue of speed enforcement is simply to collect revenue, but I disagree with it....and I'll tell you why:
If THAT were the case...just to collect money....there would be no such thing as points, license suspensions, revocals, etc.... All you would do.....if caught........ is to pay the fine , cough up the money, and then go your merry way to speed some more, come right back, cough up some more dough, and then right back to speed some more..............it would be a never-ending game of more and more fines to fatten up the state's coffers. Same with red-light-running, stop signs, etc......
No......IMO, the very fact that the system doesn't work this way PROVES that the old speed-for-revenue line is simply not true. The state doesn't WANT you to speed....it doesn't depend on fines for most of its revenue. If the state DID depend so much on fines, they would WANT you to speed....and wouldn't put points on your license for it. That way.....the more you speed.....the more they make. They wouldn't put up speed bumps, 4-way stops, traffic circles, etc.....trying to MAKE you slow down.
So....do you see my point ? The very fact that the state gives you warnings, fines, points, and eventually will take your license away means that collecting money is not the be-all and end-all in speed enforcement. Hey...just think. A guy without a license can't speed. No speed means no speed revenue.
I know some of you will disagree with me but I think I've laid out a pretty good case.
Same with insurance companies. If that were the case, they would also WANT you to speed because the more you speed and the more you get caught, the higher your premiums and the more they make. But....the fact is that insurance companies discourage, not encourage, speeding. But...I won't get into the insurance end of it too much because flipside909 is our CL insurance expert....not me.
I've heard that line many times before that the whole issue of speed enforcement is simply to collect revenue, but I disagree with it....and I'll tell you why:
If THAT were the case...just to collect money....there would be no such thing as points, license suspensions, revocals, etc.... All you would do.....if caught........ is to pay the fine , cough up the money, and then go your merry way to speed some more, come right back, cough up some more dough, and then right back to speed some more..............it would be a never-ending game of more and more fines to fatten up the state's coffers. Same with red-light-running, stop signs, etc......
No......IMO, the very fact that the system doesn't work this way PROVES that the old speed-for-revenue line is simply not true. The state doesn't WANT you to speed....it doesn't depend on fines for most of its revenue. If the state DID depend so much on fines, they would WANT you to speed....and wouldn't put points on your license for it. That way.....the more you speed.....the more they make. They wouldn't put up speed bumps, 4-way stops, traffic circles, etc.....trying to MAKE you slow down.
So....do you see my point ? The very fact that the state gives you warnings, fines, points, and eventually will take your license away means that collecting money is not the be-all and end-all in speed enforcement. Hey...just think. A guy without a license can't speed. No speed means no speed revenue.
I know some of you will disagree with me but I think I've laid out a pretty good case.
Same with insurance companies. If that were the case, they would also WANT you to speed because the more you speed and the more you get caught, the higher your premiums and the more they make. But....the fact is that insurance companies discourage, not encourage, speeding. But...I won't get into the insurance end of it too much because flipside909 is our CL insurance expert....not me.
Last edited by mmarshall; 10-13-05 at 05:39 PM.
10-13-05, 06:59 PM
#3
Lead Lap
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: California
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice find. I work in a library and have read at few books on traffic court. They all said traffic court was almost always a good idea. I have also been in so many times that the judge and I are on a first name bases 
and no I'm not a reckless driver, I just get picked on by the local police.
and no I'm not a reckless driver, I just get picked on by the local police.
10-13-05, 07:05 PM
#4
Lexus Fanatic
Originally Posted by mmarshall
Now....if you want to STAY a winner.......do exactly what the judge told you to do and watch your speed.
Was this your own story of a ticket or someone out of Edmunds? 
Hard to tell. If not, then this comment should not have been directed at you. 
10-13-05, 08:57 PM
#5
Marshall,
I have to disagree with some of what you said. Although you stated some viable points, there are some parts I would disagree on.
Do you know how much it costs to get your license back after it is revoked or suspended? If not I will tell you - a hell of a lot more than a simple speeding ticket.
When you get points and take traffic school. The traffic school has to pay for licenses etc to run the school - with the money going to the city/state.
As for the stop signs, speed bumps etc. Come on man. These are ultimately for safety - road rules would go out the window if there were no stop signs etc.
Granted, financial gains are not the sole desire of the city for giving out speeding tickets - but they help a great deal.
Are cops really given quotas for giving out speeding tickets?? I don't know the answer but I believe so. Motorcycle cops only task are to write tickets for traffic violations. Have you ever seen a motorcycle cop pull up to someones house for a domestic disturbance?? Hell no.
Sorry if I have gone off on a tangent here - it's late
Jonny
I have to disagree with some of what you said. Although you stated some viable points, there are some parts I would disagree on.
Do you know how much it costs to get your license back after it is revoked or suspended? If not I will tell you - a hell of a lot more than a simple speeding ticket.
When you get points and take traffic school. The traffic school has to pay for licenses etc to run the school - with the money going to the city/state.
As for the stop signs, speed bumps etc. Come on man. These are ultimately for safety - road rules would go out the window if there were no stop signs etc.
Granted, financial gains are not the sole desire of the city for giving out speeding tickets - but they help a great deal.
Are cops really given quotas for giving out speeding tickets?? I don't know the answer but I believe so. Motorcycle cops only task are to write tickets for traffic violations. Have you ever seen a motorcycle cop pull up to someones house for a domestic disturbance?? Hell no.
Sorry if I have gone off on a tangent here - it's late
Jonny
10-13-05, 09:47 PM
#6
Marshall,
I would also disagree with you on this. Here why, my last 2 tickets where $87 @ 80. Yes it was painfully to my pockets and discouranging. Now a ticket for going in the carpool alone is MINIMUM $371. A ticket for littering, last I saw was $1000. All of these they don't want you to do, but which do you think they take more serious? Here my poll, who would continue to speed if it was $500 or $1000 for going 80mph? How many would go to court to challenge such a ticket?
My point is if they were serious about not wanting you to speed, I think the fine would have been much higher. If you had you reasons for speeding or wrongly ticketed you can always take it to court. There won't be many people there or in traffic school
"Speed kills". In my experience littering and riding the carpool alone doesn't.
I would also disagree with you on this.
Here why, my last 2 tickets where $87 @ 80. Yes it was painfully to my pockets and discouranging. Now a ticket for going in the carpool alone is MINIMUM $371. A ticket for littering, last I saw was $1000. All of these they don't want you to do, but which do you think they take more serious? Here my poll, who would continue to speed if it was $500 or $1000 for going 80mph? How many would go to court to challenge such a ticket?My point is if they were serious about not wanting you to speed, I think the fine would have been much higher. If you had you reasons for speeding or wrongly ticketed you can always take it to court. There won't be many people there or in traffic school
"Speed kills". In my experience littering and riding the carpool alone doesn't.
10-13-05, 11:21 PM
#7
Lexus Champion
Sure insurance companies dont want you to speed....because they know if you get into an accident at a higher speed most likely the accident will cost them to shell out more money.
Of course you eventually pay them back with increased premiums....but who wants to get paid monthly? I rather get paid at once...
Of course you eventually pay them back with increased premiums....but who wants to get paid monthly? I rather get paid at once...
Trending Topics
10-14-05, 06:16 AM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
No problem, guys.....I expected some disagreement, and you also have some points (no pun intended ) I just wanted to show there was two sides to that issue, that's all. Too often we only hear one side of it
As far as so-called "quotas" go....the cops could meet them almost anywhere if they just had the time and personnel to do it....but obviously they can't be everywhere at once.....and, of course, there are other, perhaps more serious matters for them do deal with.....like felonies.
) I just wanted to show there was two sides to that issue, that's all. Too often we only hear one side of itAs far as so-called "quotas" go....the cops could meet them almost anywhere if they just had the time and personnel to do it....but obviously they can't be everywhere at once.....and, of course, there are other, perhaps more serious matters for them do deal with.....like felonies.
Last edited by mmarshall; 10-14-05 at 06:23 AM.
10-14-05, 11:44 AM
#9
Originally Posted by mmarshall
Sorry, Stage....I may have partially misunderstood your post. Was this your own story of a ticket or someone out of Edmunds? Hard to tell. If not, then this comment should not have been directed at you.
Was this your own story of a ticket or someone out of Edmunds? Hard to tell. If not, then this comment should not have been directed at you. OT: BTW Jonny.... SWEET Sig!!!!!
10-14-05, 06:41 PM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
The flaw in the Edmunds article about recommending going to court is that also means a day off work and maybe a lot of travel if you got the ticket far from home. If you're self-employed going to traffic court may cost you a whole lot more in lost income than the ticket costs.
As far as speeding, EVERYONE speeds at least now and then. Many speed limits are RIDICULOUSLY and UNFAIRLY low (try Massachusetts for thousands of examples of this!). It's not speed that kills, it's BAD DRIVING. Driving faster than the speed limit isn't necessarily bad driving, although sometimes it is, but hey you can drive really badly BELOW the speed limit, weaving in and out of vehicles on a crowded highway for example.
Speed limits suck and municipalities clearly love the revenue from tickets and it's like shooting fish in a barrel to catch people (easy).
Going on vast boring stretches of interstate at 70, 65, or 55? Give me a break. Some divided 2 lanes a side roads through commercial areas have 35mph speed limits - GIVE ME A BREAK.
I do agree with 35 or 25 in residential areas though because children could be riding a bike out of a driveway, someone could be backing out, etc. Can't say I always obey those limits either though but I do more often than not.
Best way to avoid tickets is a radar detector, unless you live in fascist states like Virginia, Maryland, etc., that bans them. My detector has saved me THOUSANDS of dollars in tickets. Don't leave home without one.
As far as speeding, EVERYONE speeds at least now and then. Many speed limits are RIDICULOUSLY and UNFAIRLY low (try Massachusetts for thousands of examples of this!). It's not speed that kills, it's BAD DRIVING. Driving faster than the speed limit isn't necessarily bad driving, although sometimes it is, but hey you can drive really badly BELOW the speed limit, weaving in and out of vehicles on a crowded highway for example.
Speed limits suck and municipalities clearly love the revenue from tickets and it's like shooting fish in a barrel to catch people (easy).
Going on vast boring stretches of interstate at 70, 65, or 55?
Give me a break. Some divided 2 lanes a side roads through commercial areas have 35mph speed limits - GIVE ME A BREAK.I do agree with 35 or 25 in residential areas though because children could be riding a bike out of a driveway, someone could be backing out, etc. Can't say I always obey those limits either though but I do more often than not.
Best way to avoid tickets is a radar detector, unless you live in fascist states like Virginia, Maryland, etc., that bans them. My detector has saved me THOUSANDS of dollars in tickets. Don't leave home without one.
10-14-05, 07:51 PM
#12
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
The flip side... seems speeding tickets don't stop some crazy people anyway... 
Driver cited 42 times prior to fatal crash
By Angela Rozas and Joseph Sjostrom, Tribune staff reporters. Tribune staff reporters Art Barnum and James Kimberly contributed to this report
Posted October 13 2005
Two days after his daughter and grandson were killed in a three-car collision in West Chicago, Mike Donovan grieves as he pictures the bruised 4-year-old in the hospital.
"I held him, and I talked to him. It was the hardest thing I've ever had to do," he said. But along with the shock and grief, there is anger too.
One of the drivers involved in the crash, 27-year-old Matthew Lane of Wheaton, had a long history of speeding tickets and driving infractions. He had been cited 42 times in the last nine years in DuPage County, 24 times for speeding, but only had his license revoked once.
Though police have not figured out what happened in the crash, or who was to blame, Donovan wants to know why Lane was driving in the first place.
"I am really angry right now," Donovan said Wednesday, sitting in the kitchen of his Carol Stream home. "My daughter and my grandson are not just going to be another statistic. There is no way a person with 20 violations should have had a driver's license."
Donovan's daughter, Nicole Westerhoff of North Aurora, and his grandson Devon Westerhoff somehow collided with Lane and a third driver on an unlit curve on Fabyan Parkway on Monday evening. Nicole and Devon, as well as Lane, were killed. A third driver in a Ford Explorer was not seriously injured.
Driver had valid license
Police aren't sure how fast any of the drivers were going. The posted speed limit is 45 m.p.h. Lane's car, a 1995 Ferrari, split in two from the impact. It may take a week for investigators to reconstruct what happened, said Deputy Chief of Police Don Goncher.
Despite the 24 speeding tickets, Lane had a valid driver's license. Although state law requires that anyone who gets three or more moving violations in a year face suspension, the law excludes tickets in which the violator successfully completes court supervision.
Supervision, granted at the judge's discretion, means that the conviction will not go on the driver's permanent record if the driver does not violate traffic laws for a given amount of time.
Lane has only a 2002 crash for which he was not cited on his permanent driving record, according to the secretary of state's office.
The office would not disclose how many supervisions Lane received, but a check of his record in DuPage County revealed he received supervision for 18 speeding tickets, including three this year. Lane was due in court Wednesday on a speeding ticket from Addison. He pleaded guilty Sept. 30 for speeding 31 to 39 m.p.h. above the speed limit and received five months' supervision and had to serve in the Sheriff's Work Alternative Program, according to court records.
His license has only been revoked once, in 1997, according to court records, but that revocation no longer shows up on his permanent record.
Moving violations are purged from the record after 4 1/2 years, according to Beth Kaufman, spokeswoman for the secretary of state's office.
A new law signed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich on July 26, however, is intended to keep drivers like Lane from driving.
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Lisa Dugan (D-Bradley) and state Sen. Debbie Halvorson (D-Crete), goes into effect in January. It mandates that anyone who receives two supervisions in a year for driving violations cannot receive a third supervision within a year of the first one.
Last year, 3,785 drivers received court supervision for more than three offenses, 128 drivers received court supervision more than six times, and one driver received court supervision 14 times, according to the secretary of state's office. Over the last three years, 28 drivers have received court supervision 10 or more times in a 12-month period.
Court supervision was created to give people who make one or two mistakes a second chance, Dugan said.
"It was never meant so somebody could have 8, 10, 12, 14 supervisions and still get supervision in one year's time. That's ridiculous," she said.
DuPage County State's Atty. Joseph Birkett said his office is reviewing all of Lane's cases in Traffic Court to determine if his office could have done more to prevent him from keeping his driver's license.
Birkett said his prosecutors always object to a judge granting court supervision. In some of the cases, local prosecutors, hired by the towns in which the tickets were given, prosecuted the cases.
But, Birkett conceded that the court and his personnel are not always privy to the complete driving record of the 245,000 cases that pass through DuPage County each year. That's despite the fact that the secretary of state implemented a court supervision database in 1999, which was supposed to compile all of the driving records from individual courthouses, so that law enforcement, attorneys and judges could review drivers' case histories.
Birkett said because of the volume of cases--prosecutors can handle as many as 250 traffic cases a day--his prosecutors don't always have the time to look through the records. They often instead rely on the clerk's record in the courtroom.
"Oftentimes, unless the officer has done something to give an assistant a heads-up, we may not have the complete record," he said.
Although nobody has blamed Lane in this crash, Birkett said he believed the man should not have been driving.
"There is nothing I can say that's going to bring back the victims in this case," he said. "While we don't know the circumstances of this crash, this guy should not have had a valid driver's license. We're going to get to the bottom of it."
Victim planned to go to college
Westerhoff married her high school sweetheart, Harry Westerhoff, in 2001.
Nicole Westerhoff was unemployed, but had been making plans to register at College of DuPage to learn to work in rehabilitation of disabled children.
"She said just the other day, `All I need is this little boy and I'll be fine,'" Donovan said.
Donovan said he wanted to speak out for his daughter and grandson, and wanted answers about what happened to them.
"I want to see to it that people with that kind of driving record won't ever be allowed to drive," he said. "I want to raise some hell and open people's eyes. No parent should ever go through what I'm going through."
Driver cited 42 times prior to fatal crash
By Angela Rozas and Joseph Sjostrom, Tribune staff reporters. Tribune staff reporters Art Barnum and James Kimberly contributed to this report
Posted October 13 2005
Two days after his daughter and grandson were killed in a three-car collision in West Chicago, Mike Donovan grieves as he pictures the bruised 4-year-old in the hospital.
"I held him, and I talked to him. It was the hardest thing I've ever had to do," he said. But along with the shock and grief, there is anger too.
One of the drivers involved in the crash, 27-year-old Matthew Lane of Wheaton, had a long history of speeding tickets and driving infractions. He had been cited 42 times in the last nine years in DuPage County, 24 times for speeding, but only had his license revoked once.
Though police have not figured out what happened in the crash, or who was to blame, Donovan wants to know why Lane was driving in the first place.
"I am really angry right now," Donovan said Wednesday, sitting in the kitchen of his Carol Stream home. "My daughter and my grandson are not just going to be another statistic. There is no way a person with 20 violations should have had a driver's license."
Donovan's daughter, Nicole Westerhoff of North Aurora, and his grandson Devon Westerhoff somehow collided with Lane and a third driver on an unlit curve on Fabyan Parkway on Monday evening. Nicole and Devon, as well as Lane, were killed. A third driver in a Ford Explorer was not seriously injured.
Driver had valid license
Police aren't sure how fast any of the drivers were going. The posted speed limit is 45 m.p.h. Lane's car, a 1995 Ferrari, split in two from the impact. It may take a week for investigators to reconstruct what happened, said Deputy Chief of Police Don Goncher.
Despite the 24 speeding tickets, Lane had a valid driver's license. Although state law requires that anyone who gets three or more moving violations in a year face suspension, the law excludes tickets in which the violator successfully completes court supervision.
Supervision, granted at the judge's discretion, means that the conviction will not go on the driver's permanent record if the driver does not violate traffic laws for a given amount of time.
Lane has only a 2002 crash for which he was not cited on his permanent driving record, according to the secretary of state's office.
The office would not disclose how many supervisions Lane received, but a check of his record in DuPage County revealed he received supervision for 18 speeding tickets, including three this year. Lane was due in court Wednesday on a speeding ticket from Addison. He pleaded guilty Sept. 30 for speeding 31 to 39 m.p.h. above the speed limit and received five months' supervision and had to serve in the Sheriff's Work Alternative Program, according to court records.
His license has only been revoked once, in 1997, according to court records, but that revocation no longer shows up on his permanent record.
Moving violations are purged from the record after 4 1/2 years, according to Beth Kaufman, spokeswoman for the secretary of state's office.
A new law signed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich on July 26, however, is intended to keep drivers like Lane from driving.
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Lisa Dugan (D-Bradley) and state Sen. Debbie Halvorson (D-Crete), goes into effect in January. It mandates that anyone who receives two supervisions in a year for driving violations cannot receive a third supervision within a year of the first one.
Last year, 3,785 drivers received court supervision for more than three offenses, 128 drivers received court supervision more than six times, and one driver received court supervision 14 times, according to the secretary of state's office. Over the last three years, 28 drivers have received court supervision 10 or more times in a 12-month period.
Court supervision was created to give people who make one or two mistakes a second chance, Dugan said.
"It was never meant so somebody could have 8, 10, 12, 14 supervisions and still get supervision in one year's time. That's ridiculous," she said.
DuPage County State's Atty. Joseph Birkett said his office is reviewing all of Lane's cases in Traffic Court to determine if his office could have done more to prevent him from keeping his driver's license.
Birkett said his prosecutors always object to a judge granting court supervision. In some of the cases, local prosecutors, hired by the towns in which the tickets were given, prosecuted the cases.
But, Birkett conceded that the court and his personnel are not always privy to the complete driving record of the 245,000 cases that pass through DuPage County each year. That's despite the fact that the secretary of state implemented a court supervision database in 1999, which was supposed to compile all of the driving records from individual courthouses, so that law enforcement, attorneys and judges could review drivers' case histories.
Birkett said because of the volume of cases--prosecutors can handle as many as 250 traffic cases a day--his prosecutors don't always have the time to look through the records. They often instead rely on the clerk's record in the courtroom.
"Oftentimes, unless the officer has done something to give an assistant a heads-up, we may not have the complete record," he said.
Although nobody has blamed Lane in this crash, Birkett said he believed the man should not have been driving.
"There is nothing I can say that's going to bring back the victims in this case," he said. "While we don't know the circumstances of this crash, this guy should not have had a valid driver's license. We're going to get to the bottom of it."
Victim planned to go to college
Westerhoff married her high school sweetheart, Harry Westerhoff, in 2001.
Nicole Westerhoff was unemployed, but had been making plans to register at College of DuPage to learn to work in rehabilitation of disabled children.
"She said just the other day, `All I need is this little boy and I'll be fine,'" Donovan said.
Donovan said he wanted to speak out for his daughter and grandson, and wanted answers about what happened to them.
"I want to see to it that people with that kind of driving record won't ever be allowed to drive," he said. "I want to raise some hell and open people's eyes. No parent should ever go through what I'm going through."
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
