Cops - can they do this?

Great Debates
41

I beg your pardon, Rachelle, but by your logic, you would be safe from ever receiving a ticket. If you got a warning, it wouldn’t appear on your driving record… so six months from now, if you ran a red light, the cop would check your record, find you with ten years and six months worth of clean driving, and issue you a warning. Six months later, when you pass in a no passing zone, the cop checks your record, finds you with eleven years of a clean record… and issues you a warning!

I am not suggesting you would do all those things, of course. But I am trying to highlight the idea that ten years of good driving merits a automatic warning is untenable as a system for issuing tickets.

  • Rick
42

I would be safe from ever getting a ticket because I’m a good/safe driver. I don’t run red lights, or pass in a no passing zone, or speed, or run stop signs (except this once). So I wouldn’t be getting pulled over in 6 months or a year. And given the circumstances that night and my record… I think I should have received a warning. Like I said earlier, I understand that I broke the law but I don’t think it warranted me getting this ticket.

That John Denver’s full of shit man!

43

Rachelle,

So are you suggesting the system should be that you, Rachelle, receive a warning if you have a clean record, but that no one else does?

I guess I am asking you what rules you believe the cops should follow with respect to issuing warnings?

I tried to point out that if the rule is, “You get a warning if you have a clean record,” then no one with a clean record could ever get a ticket.

So - what’s your proposal for the system cops should follow? I’m very confused.

  • Rick
44

I’m not even saying that everyone with a clean record should only receive warnings. If I had been speeding, say going 75 in a 55, I would have expected a ticket because that’s dangerous. When I went through this stop sign there wasn’t a car in sight (not that that makes it o.k.) No one was in danger of getting hurt when it happened. He could have given me a warning and just told me to make sure I came to a complete stop from now on.

That John Denver’s full of shit man!

45

Oh good GRIEF!

You BROKE THE LAW.

You ARE GETTING FINED (assuming you don’t avoid the consequences somehow).

You GOT WHAT YOU DESERVED.

Your prior record, your apparently relatively minor deviation from the law, etc., do not entitle you to anything else. I, personally, don’t think an officer should EVER allow an offense to result in lack of a citation; that practice encourages people to think they can break the law without consequence; it also raises questions of favoritism and its converse, discrimination.

I have a simple solution for avoiding another ticket: don’t roll through a stop.

If you REALLY need to hear it, I can give you some cogent reasoning for why it shouldn’t be up to individuals to decide when it is ok to violate the law, but, really, I think you know that, you just are frustrated at being caught. :slight_smile:

46

A few things about speeding tickets…

ALWAYS contest them. NEVER just send in the money.

Reasons: speeding tickets began as a public-safety campaign, but now it’s just a way to enhance revenue. If they were interested in getting people to slow down, the police would be as visible as possible; visible police presence is the most effective means of making people drive sanely. Hiding with their lights off is contrary to the purpose of speeding laws; no one will slow down if they don’t see the police car.

So, screw them. All they’re after is money, not public safety. Very few tickets are contested. If half the people who got tickets contested them, the system would choke on cases and grind to a halt. Make it cost more for them to give you the ticket than they’ll get in return by taking up time on a court calendar.

Also, at least 1 in 3 people who contest a ticket win and have the ticket dismissed. I suspect the dismissal rate is closer to 80%. In many cases, the officer who issued the ticket doesn’t show up. Let me relate my own story:

In August of 1997, I got a speeding ticket near Post, Texas. I think he pulled me over because I still had New Mexico plates, having not yet converted the registration to Texas. Easy mark, thought he, nab the tourist. Little did he know I lived about 30 minutes away.

I contested the ticket. When I received the first letter about the court date, I asked for a continuance. A continuance puts the trial off for a while. It messes up their scheduling and increases the chance that the officer won’t appear and, if he does show up, increases the chance that he won’t remember anything about the stop.

I didn’t hear from the court for a year. Finally I got another letter with a date, and appeared in August 1998 and made my ‘not guilty’ plea. The trial was scheduled for that September.

Before that trial date arrived, I received a letter saying that the officer couldn’t make the court date. Ticket dismissed.

So, always fight your tickets. Always always.

47

Unless you understand the concept of “crime and punishment,” in which case you’ll cough up your money and hopefully learn your lesson, rather than trying to “stick it to the MAN” as I mentioned in an earlier post. What if some woman is trying to get a restraining order against a stalker or something and since all these people are contesting tickets they got legitimately, the courts are busy with that and officers are stuck in the courtroom and in the meantime the stalker kills the woman? Why are so many people concerned with only what effects them personally and not with the bigger picture? It’s not like laws are written with the specific purpose of annoying YOU… They’re for EVERYBODY!

Love stinks! (Yeah, yeah!)

48

You’re actually helping my argument. When the courts are faced with the possibility of speeding tickets choking the system and serious criminal matters being pushed aside, the system will change. Ta da!

49

Er – that’s different! I don’t see what’s so bad about the system that it has to be changed, but I don’t want to fight about it.

Hey, Manny! Shouldn’t you bump this to GD? (New guy’s asleep at the switch, eh?)

“Open up! It’s the pigs!”

50

I did hear of one loophole here in Toronto regarding cops and speed traps. If a police officer is parked on “private property” and conducting a speed trap, when you goto court to fight it ask this to the police officer.
“were you on private or public property while conducting this speed trap?”
Then ask him/her this.
“did you have permission from the owner of the private property to conduct this speed trap and do you have written permission to show the court?”
In nearly every case they will not have permission if they are on private property and in nearly all cases the judge will dismiss the charge.
Let me know what you think of this defense.

Please feel free to email me.
I’m not conceited, I’m convinced!
Dandmb50@aol.com
The only stupid question is the one YOU do not ask !!

http://members.aol.com/dandmb50/1.html/

51

To anyone who seriously thinks that enforcement of speed laws is done only to enhance the coffers of cities, counties and states, I offer the following scenario:

No enforcement, or terribly lax enforcement, of speed laws.

Imagine if anyone drove at what speed they felt they ought?

Why is it no one feels that enforcement of, say, robbery statutes is a bad thing, but they can’t stand to be ticketed for a speed violation? Sheesh.

52

DSYoungEsq: “Why is it no one feels that enforcement of, say, robbery statutes is a bad thing, but they can’t stand to be ticketed for a speed violation?”

Because there’s a big difference there. Robbery is actual criminal wrongdoing against a real person. Speeding is a violation of a completely arbitrary (and usually unrealistic) statute which presupposes recklessness on my part, even if I am not endangering anyone. I am perfectly capable of driving safely on highways at 75 or 80 mph. How do I know? I do this all the time, and so do the vast majority of the motorists who pass me or keep the same pace. Yet this activity, which from all personal experience is perfectly safe and not endangering anyone, is illegal. The logic of traffic laws is flawed. There is a presumption that at 66 mph I am a danger to others. I am not. Others may be. Others may be a danger to others at 38 mph, but they are not subject to criminal liability. Similarly, in this thread there is a presumption that a person who rolls through a stop sign at 1 mph after assessing the traffic situation is inherently unsafe, and a threat to everyone on the planet. That is, to me, patently ridiculous. Our society has debased the “currency” of laws by passing these restrictions which bear little correlation to safety on the road. Did you guys have a crisis of faith when most highways went from 55 to 65? The roads didn’t change, and neither did the drivers. Only the artificial limits changed.

“No enforcement, or terribly lax enforcement, of speed laws. Imagine if anyone drove at what speed they felt they ought?”

How about you imagine a world in which the traffic laws are sensibly structured, or a world in which actual malice or recklessness is required to hold someone criminally liable, rather than the artificial and arbitrary standards we have now.

53

Now, now, I’m not saying that anyone should be able to drive any speed they please. Technically, a speeding ticket is a variant of ‘reckless driving’. Certainly laws governing reckless driving should be enforced.

However, speed limits are often artificially low, sometimes intentionally so. Everyone should not be required to adhere to a number when speeds above that number are perfectly safe. If someone’s driving unreasonably fast, they should certainly be ticketed. And speed limits for areas such as school zones should be very strictly enforced.

Generally, though, people drive at reasonable speeds when left to their own discretion. Do you really think people will drive like stampeding cattle, risking life and property, if we take down those “Speed Limit 35” signs?

54

So how do we determine at what point the speed they’re driving is too high? Certainly some people drive like stampeding cattle even with the signs. So we can safely assume that at least that many will do it without them. How are we to control those people?

It seems your argument is not, “There should be no speed limits,” but rather, “The speed limits we have are too low.”

Others (presumably the ones responsible for making the speed limit decisions) disagree.

So - is there an objective way to determine the proper speed limit for a given stretch of road?

  • Rick
55

First of all, speed limits are RARELY ‘arbitrary’ (meaning set without reason or rationale). Almost all jurisdictions have either statutes or regulations governing the setting of a speed limit. Jurisdictions impose them depending on the overall parameters of the conditions present, including safety factors that might not be present all the time.

One of the things to keep in mind is that a limit may be apparently unnecessarily low at one time of day, and not so at another time of day. Similarly, the time of year can affect the situation. With very few exceptions (schools and Texas highways come to mind), limits don’t change with the time of day or time of year. So when you see open road, four lanes, and a 35 sign, don’t just think it arbitrary you can’t do 50; it may have to do with the fact the morning commute makes it much more crowded.

As for the idea of speed limits that vary according to what the conditions are, Montana had to renounce this concept just recently on its public highways. Courts dislike laws that can be applied in discretionary ‘arbitrary’ manner without a person having a reasonable chance of knowing how the rule will be applied in a given situation. Thus, the fact that one officer might think 60 is too fast and another that it is ok makes it hard to enforce ‘reasonable and proper’ limits.

As I advised in the case of the poster in another thread who complained that the limit for a certain road was too low, the solution is to find out why it is posted at that limit and then work to change it if you feel it is unreasonable. I’m willing to bet you’ll run into considerable opposition in most instances from the local public… :wink:

56

“One of the things to keep in mind is that a limit may be apparently unnecessarily low at one time of day, and not so at another time of day. Similarly, the time of year can affect the situation.”

So, you admit that people are being fined even though the are not endangering public safety in any way? And you still think people like me are wrong to resent that!? Your rationalizations reveal the weakness of the “any violation of any traffic law, no matter the conditions, is inherently evil” position. If people want low speed limits for driving during torrential downpours at midnight, then that should be in the law. I should not be punished for driving at a reasonable speed in the conditions I actually encounter on the roadway. Why do you support a system which, by your own admission is not advancing public safety?

“I’m willing to bet you’ll run into considerable opposition in most instances from the local public…”

If I could drive at a reasonable speed on the highways without fear of being hassled and fined by the police, I’d definitely put my time (which is otherwise wasted by driving too slowly) into working on a grass-roots campaign to fix the laws. :wink:

57

You will notice that the last post totally ignores the constitutional difficulties I mentioned regarding a limit that is ‘reasonable and proper’ for the time and conditions.

Speed limits aren’t intended to cover every situation precisely. A race car driver may be much better suited for driving safely on a stretch of road at 55 than a teen who has only driven for one month, yet the limit certainly doesn’t take that into account. Nor can police officers be expected to police a stretch of road attempting to take into account all sorts of extraneous factors regarding the putative safety of the speed of the drivers (or other such regulations, like stopping completely, not passing through double-yellow lines, etc.). If the rule were that an officer could ticket anyone he feels is driving unsafely, with no limits set, you’d be screaming even LOUDER when the officer tickets you because he thinks 50 is too fast.

Face it; y’all want to go as fast as YOU think is safe at any given time; fortunately for the rest of us, those whose job is to keep us safe from you make sure you don’t do it quite as often as you might otherwise!

58

Erratum Said : "I am perfectly capable of driving safely on highways at 75 or 80 mph. How do I know? I do this all the time, ".

This is only because you have never been in a position to NEED to stop, or swerve to avoid an accident. You can debate laws, but you cannot change the laws of physics. For every 10 Mph, you need one car length between you and the car in front of you-MINIMUM to safely stop in time. I speed too, and do so knowing that I am not in a position to avoid an accident. When I feel as though traffic is too heavy, or other factors come into play, I shift into the right lane, and slow down.
It doesn’t matter how good your car is, how fine your reflexes are. At those speeds you mention, your response times are cut way down. Therefore, your odds of NOT avoiding an accident at high speeds are greatly increased.
You drive at 80? It’s not just your life you toy with. Think I’m being too sanctimonious? Try driving the ambulance I drive ( In fact, I’m on duty as I write this), and clambering somehow into what’s left of cars, to try to extract the living quickly enough to keep them living. Slow down…

Cartooniverse

If you want to kiss the sky, you’d better learn how to kneel.

59

DSYoungEsq: “You will notice that the last post totally ignores the constitutional difficulties I mentioned regarding a limit that is ‘reasonable and proper’ for the time and conditions.”

And you will notice that your post tries to brush the “moral bankruptcy” of your position under the rug. The traffic laws as we have them are not the only way that things can be done.

“A race car driver may be much better suited for driving safely on a stretch of road at 55 than a teen who has only driven for one month, yet the limit certainly doesn’t take that into account.”

Weren’t you one of the ones saying that driving records were irrelevant?

“Nor can police officers be expected to police a stretch of road attempting to take into account all sorts of extraneous factors regarding the putative safety of the speed of the drivers (or other such regulations, like stopping completely, not passing through double-yellow lines, etc.).”

If police officers can’t figure out what it takes to drive safely, they shouldn’t be allowed on the roads themselves. The police would have a much easier time arresting people for other crimes if the laws didn’t actually require you to do something wrong. We shouldn’t make laws because they are easy to enforce, we should make laws because we believe that violating them is fundamentally wrong.

It still boggles my mind that you feel morally justified in saying that anybody who violates any traffic law in any way is evil or immoral or what have you, when you yourself admit that these infractions are not endangering public safety!

Cartooniverse: “When I feel as though traffic is too heavy, or other factors come into play, I shift into the right lane, and slow down.”

And I don’t?

“At those speeds you mention, your response times are cut way down.”

I can’t see why response times would change at all. Well, I suppose there are relativistic effects when travelling at higher speeds, but those are negligible. It may take me a longer distance to stop, but that isn’t the same thing, is it?

“Think I’m being too sanctimonious?”

Yes. Your post in no way explains why 80 mph is inherently unsafe an an uncrowded highway, which is definitely what you are asserting.

60

Not to get engaged in a thread destined for GD, but…

Cartooniverse mentioned reaction time. What is usually meant by this is that it takes you time to react - determine there is a problem, what it is, and do something. The faster you are traveling, the farther you will go before your reaction. That is separate from going farther from the same point of the reaction. If you begin to stop at the same place, you will go farther if you started at a faster speed. But the distance you travel between identifying the problem and reacting (hitting brakes) will also be farther the faster you are going.

That’s why the rule of thumb is the 2 second rule. There needs to be two seconds between when the car in front of you passes a stationary object and you pass that object. Notice that a speed rule has an inherent distance changing effect. That is similar to the car length for every 10 mph.

And of course that rule applies to dry pavement.

Okay, you may resume the beatings.