I got nailed

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by ohioboxster

Quote.Here in MN, you can subpeona all the maintenance records on the Radar Unit and ask, at the scene, for a calibration readout of the equipment. The Officer presses a button on the Radar and the readout must return to 0MPH, any other number and the unit is off.

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

Jim, lets face it. You go to court hoping the cop doesnt show up. I have to tell you thats not how you check the calibration of a radar unit. Radar units work off the doppler effect and are checked using tuning forks. Just wanted to give you a heads up.

Hi,

I've never had a Speeding Ticket or any moving violation. I did sucessfully argue two of them in court though. The point is, these things are subject to Human Error and you should have the right to defend yourself. We authorize the Police to enforce the Law, I do not think that authorization should extend to Private Corporations just to make the Cops' lives or work easier, so they can get to the Doughnut Shop an hour earlier. If their job is hard, so be it, if you don't like it, don't be a Cop. No Taxpayer money is being used to make my job easier for me...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Perfectlap]

funny I've been driving cautiously since I have been without my lazer detection for a few days after the clip broke holding my v1 to the windshield. The K and Ka still work though.

these speed sensor things are all over Europe. I think Austria has really cracked down Road & Track attempted a road test and said the speed sensing cameras prevented them from going all out on a nice twisty road with one car.

I kind of like this concept. If you are going to sincerely try and get people to drive slower then this is the way. Setting an artificialy high speed limit and then arbitrarily picking people off never gets anything accomplished. People keep on doing 90mph in minivans. It's a very flagrant cover to just rake in more municipal funds.

yeah always fight your tickets. I've done it many many times. They don't even put up a fight just ask me for more dough and tell me they'll drop the points. SOLD.

now where to get that license plate spray...

[Rail26]

My two cents:

1. I was speeding...I got caught. I just think I should be caught by a cop sitting there on the side of the road and face the whole accuser thing.

2. I have a good radar detector. This thing does not work on radar.

3. With no signs being posted....what if I drove that road for two weeks straight and didn't get any tickets because I don't live there and when I get home there is 14 speeding tickets waiting for me?

4. Finallly, I got caught. In reality, all I have to do is take a class and it gets expunged, I don't have to pay the ticket and my insurance even goes down. I just don't like being caught by a box with no warning. I also think deer hunting should be accomplished with bare hands...give the hunted a chance.

[ohioboxster]

Mnboxster,

Im not sure how to quote your statements but, I dont believe a photo speed enforcement system makes a cops life any easier. As a matter of fact I know quite a few that absolutely cant stand that system. Its stupid comments like "so they can get to a donut shop an hour earlier" that just irritate me to no end. You have TRULY shown your ignorance and I will refrain from responding to your replys on this topic.
You said,"I did sucessfully argue two of them in court though." and you have no idea how radar works? Flag on the play Jim.

[myeboxsters]

Not sure if this will work or not, as I've never tried it and don't know anyone who has. I seem to recall, from law school, something about being able to beat any photo-ticket under the "confrontation clause" of the federal constitution. generally, you have the right to confront (cross examine) witness against you and since you can't cross examine a camera, the evidence should be OUT.

[ohioboxster]

In Ohio its considered a civil matter, if you dont pay it you dont get points on your license but it will go on your credit report as an unpaid bill. I should add if you dont pay it. Its pretty new here and Im not sure if anyone has tried to fight it to date. I would have to say the therory of not being able to cross examine a camera would be incorrect. Im sure there is records you could subpoena regarding the calibration of the equip.

[eslai]

I'm with Jim on this one. Bruce, your logic basically amounts to "the ends justifies the means". You were breaking the law, so who cares how they caught you!

That opens FAR too many doors.


But, one thing I can say is that if there's no one manning these things, then there's no one to write me up for having a device that defeats it. I'm sure there will be a market for that soon enough. No technology is bulletproof.

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by eslai

I'm with Jim on this one. Bruce, your logic basically amounts to "the ends justifies the means". You were breaking the law, so who cares how they caught you!

That opens FAR too many doors.


But, one thing I can say is that if there's no one manning these things, then there's no one to write me up for having a device that defeats it. I'm sure there will be a market for that soon enough. No technology is bulletproof.

I still don't follow YOUR logic. Where is it written that the police have to employ some particular methdology to enforce speeding laws? In the very old days, they just tailed you. Later they set up radar traps. Then, well, you get the picture.

Using your logic, police should not be able to use any superior technology catch other criminals as well. This would not be "sporting of them" I guess. At the same time, we should be able to buy all of the latest detectors, right?

I think the terrorists must read these boards and laugh their butts off.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

I still don't follow YOUR logic. Where is it written that the police have to employ some particular methdology to enforce speeding laws? In the very old days, they just tailed you. Later they set up radar traps. Then, well, you get the picture.

Using your logic, police should not be able to use any superior technology catch other criminals as well. This would not be "sporting of them" I guess. At the same time, we should be able to buy all of the latest detectors, right?

I think the terrorists must read these boards and laugh their butts off.

Hi,

To be sure, it's a complex issue with many gray areas. But, I do think that the Police should not have many of the things available to them at the moment, including this technology. For one thing, what's next? Legislation which prohibits manufacturers to produce a car which will exceed the speed limit or some arbitrary upper limit? This technology is also already on the shelf, but wait, then the State could not profit or produce revenue from scofflaws... I guess that one's safe for now. A Free Society cannot impose so much constraint on it's Citizens that it effectively ceases to be a Free Society - no one thing accomplishes this, but every little thing, such as these technologies, inch us closer to that day.

And let's face it, exceeding the speed limit is not the only way a motorist can break the law. Much more revenue could be had were the Police to crack down on those not signalling turns, driving with burnt out bulbs, rolling stopsigns, not using seatbelts, using cell phones, driving on bald tires, and any number of other infractions, which in sum may impose a greater threat than a few speeders. But these are much more difficult to catch (there'd need to be more Police actually doing their jobs rather than waiting for a Radio Call to action).

And, for OHBoxster, I was able to successfully argue that the speed trap which caught me doing 34MPH in a 30MPH zone was entrapment as the Motorcycle Officer used a Radar Gun at the bottom of a steep hill. A nearly blind curve leads to this decline and I was driving my wife's late Lincoln Continental. I argued that the car travelling the proper limit would pick up speed naturally on this decline and that even if the motorist saw/felt the increase in speed and attempted to apply the brakes, that the car could have easily increased 4MPH in speed and that the Officer would have no indication whatever from in front of the car whether the Driver was attempting to limit his speed as the brake lights would not have been visible. The Judge asked if I was an Attorney, when I said I wasn't, he said I should be, that I had clearly made my case and ruled the Officer acted inappropriately in selecting the sight for the trap and in issuing me the citation, despite protests from the Officer, and the citation was dismissed. There were however over a dozen citations given on this day at that sight and they were not dismissed, most I assume were simply paid...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Brucelee]

"A Free Society cannot impose so much constraint on it's Citizens that it effectively ceases to be a Free Society - no one thing accomplishes this, but every little thing, such as these technologies, inch us closer to that day."

I am not buying it.

If the society says that it is OK to drive 75 and you drive 90, you are breaking the law.


You just don't want to pay the consequences for your actions.

C'mon, lets be honest. You want the radar detector but you don't want the cops to respond in kind.

[Grizzly]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

To be sure, it's a complex issue with many gray areas. But, I do think that the Police should not have many of the things available to them at the moment, including this technology. For one thing, what's next? Legislation which prohibits manufacturers to produce a car which will exceed the speed limit or some arbitrary upper limit? This technology is also already on the shelf, but wait, then the State could not profit or produce revenue from scofflaws... I guess that one's safe for now. A Free Society cannot impose so much constraint on it's Citizens that it effectively ceases to be a Free Society - no one thing accomplishes this, but every little thing, such as these technologies, inch us closer to that day.

And let's face it, exceeding the speed limit is not the only way a motorist can break the law. Much more revenue could be had were the Police to crack down on those not signalling turns, driving with burnt out bulbs, rolling stopsigns, not using seatbelts, using cell phones, driving on bald tires, and any number of other infractions, which in sum may impose a greater threat than a few speeders. But these are much more difficult to catch (there'd need to be more Police actually doing their jobs rather than waiting for a Radio Call to action).

And, for OHBoxster, I was able to successfully argue that the speed trap which caught me doing 34MPH in a 30MPH zone was entrapment as the Motorcycle Officer used a Radar Gun at the bottom of a steep hill. A nearly blind curve leads to this decline and I was driving my wife's late Lincoln Continental. I argued that the car travelling the proper limit would pick up speed naturally on this decline and that even if the motorist saw/felt the increase in speed and attempted to apply the brakes, that the car could have easily increased 4MPH in speed and that the Officer would have no indication whatever from in front of the car whether the Driver was attempting to limit his speed as the brake lights would not have been visible. The Judge asked if I was an Attorney, when I said I wasn't, he said I should be, that I had clearly made my case and ruled the Officer acted inappropriately in selecting the sight for the trap and in issuing me the citation, despite protests from the Officer, and the citation was dismissed. There were however over a dozen citations given on this day at that sight and they were not dismissed, most I assume were simply paid...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

I'm far too pissed with some of you right now to delve too deeply into this issue, but I at least have to address Jim's successful court case. (OHBoxster, I'm with you. The doughnut cracks, pork smell, etc. are completely uncalled for. We're talking about a speeding ticket for Christ's sake)

Jim was successful in court because the judge was an idiot. Plain and simple. The speed limit in this case was 30 mph, not 30 mph unless you were going down hill...not 34 until you get it slowed down to 30. 30. Period. Whether the driver was attempting to limit his speed or not was of no consequence. The fact of the matter is that the driver did not limit his speed and was clocked in excess of the legal limit. Guilty. Should Jim have expanded his argument to contend that he was unable to limit his speed, though he was on the brakes, he should have received additional citations and equipment repair orders for his faulty brakes.


I find it very interesting that Jim feels that the Police have a lot of equipment available to them that they shouldn't have. Why? 'Cause they might catch him f**cking up? Should someone break into his home, steal his property and scare his family, would he be pissed when the Evidence Unit showed up with every modern method available to them to solve the crime, arrest the criminals and safely return his property? Would he be pissed that the same camera he complains about above caught a useable picture of the mopes who did the crime? No, he wouldn't. He would expect it. In fact, he would scream and holler and jump up and down at the inefficiency and injustice should it turn out any differently. But, should the Police use the latest technology to catch him speeding, well then they've just gone too damn far. You can't have it both ways. The Police have to enforce all the laws. Yes, they should certainly put more effort into the pursuit of of say homicide suspects than they do traffic violators, but if the Police let the rules of the road get out of hand, how long before your children begin getting mowed down in the street while riding their bikes or walking home from school.

Rail26 was speeding and got caught. It sucks, but it happens. As for a sign Rail, I hate to tell you dude, but the warning sign is posted about every quarter mile. It says "Speed Limit 65".

[prOk]

Not really siding one way or another, but many people do win 'entrapment' arguments and get out of tickets because the cop hid a little too well.. what does that mean for automated ticketing where there is no cop at all and you don't know you're potentially being clocked? Does that negate the entrapment argument for all?

[Grizzly]

I completely agree with Z12358. Don't get me wrong, I don't like driving 55 or 65, and I believe that with the improvements in vehicles and roadways over the past few decades, that our speed limits could be raised considerably. However, you have to keep in mind that if we're permitted to drive at say 85, so will the SUV driving soccer mom who's refereeing a fist fight in the back seat, while talking on the phone, applying eyeshadow, changing the Barney DVD and scrubbing Lucky Charms out of her upholstery. The SDLL thing annoys the crap out of me, but many states, including the one I live in, don't even have laws governing slow traffic moving right. The Police in those states couldn't smooth the flow of traffic if they wanted to. I imagine they are as frustrated as the rest of us when they're trying to get somewhere and they come up behind said soccer mom, who will not move right, and is not legally responsible to do so.

pr0k, I know that many have successfully argued entrapment, but the argument is ridiculous. The definition of entrapment:




ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

So, unless the Officer was in the driver's passenger seat calling his mom names and daring him to speed, there is no entrapment.

[Brucelee]

BTW-

I never said that I favored a particular speed for enforcement. From my point of view, the recent move to increase speed limits on major highways is a good thing and the data seems to bear out that 75 or so is better than 55 if you look a fatalities per mile.

Having said that, if the limit is 75 and I choose to do 90, I am fine about getting a tix irrespective of how this tix is issue (assuming the technology is actually accurate).

Don't do the crime and then whine about it, simply pay up and shut up.

Now, if the cops were free to then go after the BAD DRIVERS at any speed, well, that would be great.

We have TONS of them on the CA freeways.

Would love to get them off the road and on the train where they belong.

[Brucelee]

Nice try Jim, trying to tie this to Freedom and Liberty!

Hey, you are talking to a genuine LIBERTARIAN.

Having said that, it is an established fact that driving is NOT a right, but a privledge, said privledge being withheld for all sorts of reasons.

So, if in fact, businesses can sell us all kinds of gizmos to try and avoid a speeding ticket, do you then believe that the police cannot follow suit in order to legally give a ticket to my sorry ass as I knowingly break the law?

C'mon guys, this is not a libertarian issue, you just don't like getting caught and you should just fess up and say so. This "facing our accuser crap is funny I think!"

BTW-

I do NOT have a radar detector and have not had a speeding ticket since 1970.

Hey, how do I do that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!