They usually are…by judges that are pissed about their court being jammed up with such trivial matters. I’ve seen it happen.
If you’re talking the other way…not allowing the violator his day in court, then what the hell scr4? Ever heard of due process? Even a parking violator has the right to a hearing.
If you put it that way, point taken.
Although I still don’t understand why parking tickts don’t clog up the courts, but speeding tickets would. Are there already far more speeding tickets issued than parking tickets? My impression is it’s because people are far more likely to try to fight a speeding ticket than other tickets, and only because people have the notion that the speed limit is flexible, and they are entitled to break it.
I remember one time I was pulled over while riding a velomobile (enclosed tricycle). After I explained that it’s a human-powered vehicle and legally a bicycle, I still got a 5-minute lecture on why it’s unsafe to ride it on that road (a back road with little traffic, 2 lanes each way so there’s never any difficulty in passing me). His reason: “everyone drives 60 here.” The speed limit there is 40. I’ve never seen this officer - or any other - pulling a car over on that road for speeding. Why is it that even police officers who recognize the dangers of speeding have no interest in enforcing it?
No, it’s because the penalties for speeding are more severe, including life-altering penalties such as losing your driver’s license. Even a single ticket can sometimes cause your insurance to go up by hundreds of dollars a year, depending on the policy you have.
Also, parking tickets are usually pretty black-and-white. You’re either in a no-parking zone or you aren’t. Speeding is a little more vague - you didn’t see a posted limit, you think your odometer is off, you were speeding but going with the flow of traffic, etc.
If police started going around measuring wheel distance from the curb for parked cars and issuing tickets to anyone who was 1" over the legal limit, you’d see a lot of people fighting parking tickets in court.
Parking ticket disputes tend to be handled administratively and there are usually fewer issues involved. Also, there are few good defenses, the amount at stake for each ticket is usually small, and there are few other consequences of conviction (you don’t need to fight the parking ticket to avoid increased insurance premiums or loss of drivers’ license).
Surely none of these are valid reasons to break the speed limit?
well, the odometer would suggest that your intent to break the law was lacking, don’t know if it would work. The flow of traffic might suggest selective enforcement. Don’t know if that would work, either.
It doesn’t. Though some jurisdictions, like the courts here in Milwaukee County, are quick to allow one to plead guilty to a faulty spedometer rather than the speeding charge. The fine is [sometimes] lower and there are less demerit points (2 compared to 3, 4, or 6 for speeding).
The reason people will fight a speeding ticket over a parking ticket is a no brainer. Fines are expensive, insurance premiums go up, demerit points put ones license at jeopardy. Some people think it’s worth a half day off of work to have a trial. Some places even allow a jury trial (though the defendant pays the fees if found guilty).
In speeding trials the main goal is usually not to have an excuse but a defense. That means trying to impeach the main evidence: the radar (laser, vascar, etc…)
*Was it working properly?*Did the officer know how to use it?Did he actually clock the defendants car or did the officer pull over the wrong vehicleEtc.Etc.
I’ve seen people win speeding trials acting as their own attorney. Not alot, but some. And not against me.
**The preceeding were observations only. I am not a lawyer, they were not legal advice. **
By post no.18 I said the email was new to me. However it may well be a continuing hoax. My response was that the debate would go off into other directions anyway. You must learn to read. It is no cornerstone but has not been part of the argument AT ALL since the beginning. Are you drinking while you post?
No, I’m not drinking. If you want to accuse me of posting drunk, please take it to the pit. I’d gladly meet you there.
What on earth is your argument, then? All I’ve seen from you is the assertion that going 5 over the posted limit is “no” safety issue. I’ve begged for you to support that statement or qualify it, and you’ve not done so. And even if it is supportable (which you’ve failed to do, and I suspect cannot be done), you’ve not been able to support the (potential) argument that cops routinely cite folks for doing 5 over the speed limit - in fact there’s been support for the fact that they don’t.
Spell it out for me - what do you think is the debate here?
If you think driving 5 over is a safety issue. Where do you stop. Do you think driving 70.001 is more dangerous than 70. An argument can be made that it is. But that does not make it a good argument. Driving 75 on Eway that is empty at night is not significantly more dangerous than 70 . Is it more dangerous than 70 during rush hour? That bis not an argument ,it is a quibble.
you finally talk about ‘significant difference’ vs. ‘no’ difference. swell. I’ll stipulate there’s probably ‘no significant difference between going 5 over and the actual speed limit’
cool. Now, do you have any evidence that :
A. going 5 over isn’t actually breaking the law
or
B. That cops routiney anywhere cite drivers for going only 5 over? (as in, not simply writing for 5 over, but that the actual speed was just five over,keeping in mind that we’ve already had some evidence that cops don’t do that)
if you don’t have any evidence suggesting that cops actually do write folks for 5 over when all they were doing was 5 over, then , again, what is the fucking point? if it’s not happening, so the fuck what?
You think that is a winning argument.? The difference is minuscule but since it is not zero we define 5 over as more dangerous. I would feel completely comfortable driving 5 over on an empty Eway.
What constitutes speeding? - speedlimits | Ask MetaFilter There are example here of people who say they got tickets for 0-5 over.
Cheating argument again. No body said cops routinely write tickets for 0-5. They do write them though.
People saying they got written for 5 over and nothing but, doesn’t mean it happened. You get stopped and act like a jerk, I’ve no doubt that the ticket would be written. Often they’re stopping 'cause there might be something else - I’ve been stopped for missing light, whatever,but issued a warning 'cause I wasn’t drunk, was appolgetic etc.
Istill don’t know what your point is. If cops routinely wrote folks for5 over, you might have a point. but you seem to agree that’s not happening.
5 over is still over, and the cop is within their rights to cite it.
Who said routinely? That is YOUR term. I did not say it was business as usual. But it does happen. Which by your terms is a completely winning argument.
I would only care if it happens routinely. I don’t give a shit if ‘sometimes’ it happens.
so, is your point that sometimes a cop will right a ticket for 5 over? and you think they shouldn’t?
if it isn’t could you pretty fucking please with fucking sugar on top, tell me what your point is? thanks, ever so much.
My level is not what you give a shit about. It is not now and never has beenn about you… Hard to believe?