Let me start by insisting that I am asking for purely theoretical reasons only. I am not actually in the situation I am about to describe, nor is a friend. This is just a what-if scenario that occasionally crosses my mind.
Here’s the situation: I have a very nice sports car that handles very well and goes very fast. That’s why I bought it, and I regularly take it to racetracks for driving events known as High Performance Driver’s Ed. This is not racing or competition, but a safe and legal way to learn race-driving techniques. It’s great fun. I’ve been doing it for more than three years and my instructor at the last session I attended was very complimentary about my abilities.
For the most part, these events give me all the opportunity I need to go really fast, so I don’t often speed excessively on the public roads. But of course, like the rest of us I occasionally creep up over the legal speed limit. I haven’t been ticketed in the new car yet (really!), but I sometimes ponder what I might say in traffic court if I were caught speeding.
If I happen to be feeling full of myself and my excellent driving skills, I toy with the idea of telling the judge about my track experience as a mitigating circumstance. Yes, your honor, I was speeding, but I’m a better driver than 99% of the populace, so it wasn’t as bad or dangerous as when other people speed.
Then my practical side chimes in with: Idiot! Tell the judge you like to drive really fast on the track, and he’s going to conclude you’re a madman who should be tossed in jail immediately.
I suspect my practical side is right about this. But are there any lawyers or judges here who believe there’s any merit at all to the first strategy?
Ok, I don’t know if this is true or not, looked it up on Snopes.com and couldn’t find anything, so I’ll take that as a good sign.
I remember hearing about a case in Texas where a police officer gave a ticket to a racecar driver for speeding. The ticket was for driving at an unsafe speed, and the racecar driver augued that what was safe for him was a higher speed then what would be safe for anyone else.
Now, remember, I don’t know if this is true or not. Hopefully someone here might be able to confirm or deny this. Oh, and remember that I am not a lawyer, and if you get put in jail for using this auguement, don’t come looking for me.
"Because you maybe have the feel of the adhesion limits of your car and how to push said limits to the outer envelope. And keep the car balanced on that fine line between understeer and over steer without scrubbing off speed.
How to execute proper trail-braking, know theories of weight transfer and how that plays into braking/cornering/acceleration.
Doesn’t give you license to play like Mario Andretti in MY jurisdiction. TWO MONTHS IN THE CLINK,1 YEAR SUSPENDED LICENSE* :THUD:
I’m not a lawyer or a judge, but I’m quite confident that arguing that it’s okay for YOU the break the law ( = the law shouldn’t apply to you) is going to go over like a turd in the punchbowl. It’s never going to get to any specific reasons, like your driving ability, in the judges mind. The arrogant concept that you’re above a law that applies to (nearly) everybody else ain’t gonna fly.
Like what Gary T says. On the other hand, if you leave out the arrogance and explain that you weren’t endangering anyone else or yourself at the time (not 'cos your better than anyone!), you could get a dismissal or lenience.
You can certainly argue out of “dangerous driving” tickets. Someone here got a speeding ticket and a dd ticket. He argued since he was an experienced driver with a new, recently tuned high end car, and it was later at night with few cars on the road, that his driving was not necessarily dangerous. Judge agreed.
He didn’t argue that speeding ticket thought; I wouldn’t have either.
I read once that some racers have a “racing licence” that lets them go faster. Don’t know if it was BS or not. :-/
You might get leniency if you were racing your pregnant wife to the delivery ward, but I don’t think the “I’m better than anyone else” defense would carry much weight.
Spend some time listening to actual excuses, then you’ll realize that of all the lame-ass reasons people give for speeding are just as lame-ass as yours.
Your defense starts with the officer, by being polite, honest and humble.
If you make it to the judge, and you admit you were speeding, you pretty much created a situation where the judge would rule against you, since you admit to speeding.
Without alot of lawyering, the only thing really negotiable after you admit to speeding are things like points, which can be waved if you introduce mitigating circumstances, such as a speedo that was wrong, a women in labor, or something else that can be documented.
Listen to the practical side chiming in. Tell a judge why you’re special and the law shouldn’t apply to you absent mitigating circumstances (on the way to the hospital, etc., and even that’s not guaranteed) and you’ll get to see fire shooting out of his or her nostrils.
That’s what worked for me, kind of. I offered no excuse whatsoever, and while I didn’t get off scott-free, I got off with a perfectly clean record. Sure, the administration fee of $100 was exactly the value of the ticket, but not having the points nor the record was well worth it, especially considering I was guilty of the crime. This goes a long way next time you’re pulled over, because you have a clean record and the police officer may just let you off without a ticket.
I think there were about 20 minutes of offenses before me, including one DUI with his lawyer. Most of them were speeding or other lightweight civil infractions. We were given three options – pleed not guilty, guilty, or guilty with an explanation. The officers weren’t present in the room, but the judge indicated that anyone who plead innocent would be held over until everyone else was out of the way, and at that time the officers would be present (don’t know the truth of that, though). No one plead guilty (why bother showing up?) nor innocent to my recollection. Everything was “guilty with explanation.” The judge didn’t let anyone off at all, but in some cases reduced the fine or the charge. When my time came, I likewise plead, and didn’t offer an excuse. “Your honor, it was late at night; there was no other traffic; and I was’t endangering anyone else or myself.” Of course I didn’t sound as confident in real life as it’s written here (unfortunately), but I was the only one whose case was “dismissed.” Still had to pay court costs, though.
The thing is, though, it was a humble approach. Had I said the same thing, but added that I was a trained driver and I damn well knew what I was doing and there’s no justice in my being there, I’d’ve probably had to pay the fine, the court costs, and have the points.
Thanks for the insights. I hadn’t considered the “dangerous driving” charge issues, since I’ve never been stopped for that. Although I think that in some cases driving more than a certain amount over the speed limit (25 or 30 mph) automatically includes a reckless driving charge.
I’m always amazed by the ignorance of people in traffic court: it seems that the only people who understand what “innocent until proven guilty” means are the lawyers there with people who are really in trouble. The rest seem to think that pleading is sworn testimony and that a not guilty plea could get them charged with perjury or something. The cop has to prove you were breaking the law, folks, and if he/she’s not there, you walk!
Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts. As I said, fortunately, I don’t need this as practical advice.
It depends on the law you’re accused of violating.
In Virginia, speeding - driving over the posted speed limit - is an offense. There is no element of recklessness or danger to the offense. The mere fact that you exceed the speed limit is enough to find you guilty. (There are defenses such as justification or duress, which we’ll ignore for the moment).
But there are also such charges as reckless driving, that provide that irrespective of the maximum speeds permitted by law, driving recklessly or “…at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person…” is illegal.
It is possible that a finder of fact could infer from a driver’s specialized training that even though a particular speed was illegal, the action was not reckless.
But there is no guarantee that a finder of fact would make that inference. In fact, a judge is more likely to see that claim as arrogance, and be less favorably inclined towards the accused, than otherwise.
I think that you’d also have to deal with the fact that regardless of how good a driver YOU are, your speed could very easily scare or startle other drivers on the road and an accident could result - that sounds like one definition of “reckless driving” to me.
On more than one occasion I’ve witnessed people whipping along the highway much faster than anyone around them and it’s pretty damn scary. There’s no guarantee that somebody won’t change lanes right in front of them, or get scared and veer to get out of the way, leading to a crash.
In this strictly hypothetical situation I’d say play it safe and keep in on the track.
Seriously, they have heard every story, every variation. If you try to weasel out of something you really did, you’ll just piss them off.
And at least in some CA jurisdictions, you won’t even get a “real” judge! We have a shortage on the bench (especially in lame areas like traffic court), so you will get a “commissioner” who is actually an attorney making a couple of extra bucks in a bad job. And he really doesn’t want to hear your BS.
And yes, they tell you they aren’t really judges at the beginning. You then stipulate that it’s ok, or not. Everybody does, for the most part.
Lawyers in traffic court are uncommon, but some people use them. You can have your lawyer do everything if you want- make the appearances, pay the fines, etc.
I seem to recall a story that in one of the Western states where the speed limit (pre-1975) was a “reasonable and prudent” speed, there was a case where the defendant convinced the judge that for that time, place, conditions, driver, and vehicle, a speed of (I forget what, call it 100MPH) was “reasonable and prudent”.
Just remember, 80% of drivers consider themselves “better than average”. The cops and judges have got to have heard the “I’m good enough to pull that off” bit before.
In California there are three ways to get a speeding ticket.
[ul]
[li]Go over the posted limit. [/li][li]Go over a Prima Facia limit (school zones are 25, even if not posted)[/li][li]Violate the basic spped law (drive faster than it is safe)[/li][/ul]
So what happens if you try to use the I’m highly trained driver defense with these three types of violations?
Over the posted limit “Your honor I was doing 85 in a 65 zone, but I’m highly trained driver.” Remember the line about anything you say can and will be used against you? You just copped to 20 over the speed limit. Guilty
Prima Facia limt “Your honor yes I was doing 85 in that school zone, but the kids were not in any danger becasue I’m highly trained driver.” Same as #1 you are dead meat
Basic speed law Here you might, maybe have a chance. If you were cited for violation of the basic speed law, but were not in violation of either a posted limit or a prima facia limit, then you might be able to argue that with the training that you have, and the equipment that you were using made your speed safe. Needless to say this is a long shot.
IANAL, above is based my extensive experience, getting speeding tickets in my youth.