I got nailed

[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.

[eslai]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

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.

While that is true, the problem I have is with the idea of automated law enforcement. I don't see how you can't see that not having an actual person held accountable for the accusation against you is a dangerous thing.

I don't mind radars and all that. But anything where there isn't someone there to say "yes, I saw that man do such-and-such things" makes me nervous. Technology is there to assist us in our endeavors, not replace us or pass judgement over us.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hi,

No not at all... People are getting the wrong impression that I don't want them catching me. There's nothing to catch - I do not speed intentionally EVER on a City Street, occasionally on the expressway, but then usually only matching the Traffic Flow - my life is simple and I'm never in that much of a hurry.

I have only been pinched twice in 38 years and over 1 million miles and both of those were unintentional and dismissed. Whatever Thrill-Seeking I have unsatisfied after spending 8 years being shot off of and landing on a 300' Carrier Deck I confine to the Track or the Bedroom. I own one Car specifically for this purpose - the Track, not the Bedroom I have never owned a Radar Detector because I do not need one.

I think people who speed on Public Roads make it unsafe for all of us. I want the Cops to catch everyone of them, but I am against the use of unmanned technology to do so. I want more Cops out there doing the work of Cops. I'd much rather my not inconsiderable Tax dollars were spent on this than for counseling unwed Mothers how not to habitually hook up with guys who beat and abuse them, or $75,000 Government Grants to Biologists to determine whether a Sunfish is more agressive if intoxicated on Vodka or Gin (an actual Gov't Grant and winner of the fabled Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire's Golden Fleece Award).

So, to be clear, I am against people disregarding the Traffic Laws, but also against ever-increasing use of Technology (in whatever form) by Government to invade our Privacy. Younger people may not realize how much the Gov't has incurred on our lives as opposed to when I was young. We should always err on the side of the rights of the Citizens, not away from them...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Perfectlap]

having worked in federal law enforcement I can tell you that handing out speeding tickets is NOT the work of cops.There are violent crimes that need to prioritized. Too many go unstopped, unpunished and unsolved.

I also think that if a cop gets fat he should be put on foot patrol. A cop should be as fit as soldier going to war.
Speeding tickets should totally be done by cameras.
Either we want people to drive slower or we don't. Technology can
drastically cut the average speed of traffic.
I dread the idea of sticking to the speed limit but the number of bone heads
driving SUVs and minivans going warp speed really is out of control.
I probably have 8X's the driving skill of the average driver yet I'm usually the slow one. What's wrong with that picture?

If state troopers want to hunt down speeders who may be trafficking in drugs well fine by me! but don't just sit there waiting to catch one because he's tripped the radar. Cameras should be noting when someone is going mach whatever, and radio to the trooper that someone is in an apparent rush. Police should also be looking for cars that look sketchy and pull them over. Cars should always have two cops as well.

[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".

[Rail26]

Dude, you are absolutely right. I definately did not think I was going to start this debate. I actually just wanted to ******************** and get a little sympathy. Thats all.

Originally Posted by Grizzly

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".

[eslai]

Originally Posted by Rail26

Dude, you are absolutely right. I definately did not think I was going to start this debate. I actually just wanted to ******************** and get a little sympathy. Thats all.

You wanted sympathy from these guys over a speeding ticket?! LOL I already tried that game and was denied. The boys here aren't very empathic.

[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.

[Perfectlap]

btw, I don't think there should be ANY speed limit on highways and interstates.
Setting a speed limit only encourages weaving.There should be a stiff penalty for people who weave in out of traffick.
or
there should be speed minimums/limits for certain lanes
if you drive 55 in a 75 you get a summons.
Everyone should be driving the limit of their lane or move to the right
where the slower lanes are.

on city street and local roads the speeds should be enforced by camera.
if you are in residential area no driving over 30mph.
During wee hours of low traffic to zero traffic the limit can be lifted.



Also there should be different colored license plates for different levels
of driving skill. The color would be dependent on routine testing and
advanced driving schools. People in younger age bracketts should have
a probabtionary color for their first couple years. Older folks should have
old folks colors and not be allowed to drive in lanes above 55mph unless
they can pass certain tests regarding reaction times.

[eslai]

It's obvious that we aren't going to convince each other either way. Many of you guys amaze me with your hard-headedness about "do the crime do the time" as if the police are all angels and we're all criminals because we drive five miles over the speed limit and we deserve to be writing petty checks out to the government for this Oh My God Crime. I don't know what fantasy world everyone here lives in where everyone drives the speed limit all the time and every ticket is well-deserved, but remind me not to visit it if I ever start getting the urge.

Idealism is great, but tempering it with reality is even better... I would think...?

If speed limits were reasonable in Southern California, I bet I'd never have a problem. The only place I ever get tickets is on the freeway. If they DID get some automated system in place that started ticketing the entire population for speeding, I would probably drive slower, as I usually am going at the speed of traffic.

But if they're going to go that far, wouldn't you guys just prefer to see speed limiters in vehicles? Let's tie it to GPS, make the computer have a database of what the speed limit is on each street and not allow the vehicle to go any faster than the posted speed limit at any given time. For safety's sake, we should probably make sure that it limits speed around corners too--as just because the speed limit is 25 MPH doesn't mean that any given corner is safe at 25 MPH.