Speeding ticket

[adam14 182]

The canton of Vaud requires any car stopped at a red light to turn off the engine if there are more than two cars in the queue. There are timers at the lights telling you the time until they go back to green. I explained to the officer that I was no longer a local and was unaware of the law. His response was a ticket, and a copy of the motor code. The Swiss don't mess around.

Haha I lived in Vaud, and its kinda scary how strict they are about driving, but also about how good kids are at driving. I would much rather drive with any of my 18-19 year old friends living in Lausanne than with my 18-19 year old friends that live in ontario.

[Drewhunz 3]

Haha- were you in Montreux?

[adam14 182]

My school was in Vevey, so I was in Montreux quite frequently, especially in the spring/summer. I actually lived above Lausanne though.

[The Mafia Line 0]

Europe has insanely high speed limits, if there even is a speed limit and they have less crashes than in the states.

I'm assuming your talking about Germany primarily here, because Germans have the reputation of being the best drivers. German drivers get in less crashes because they are FAR better drivers. Here in Michigan, a 16 year old kid can get a license after 30 hours of class time, 6 hours of driving with an instructor, and 50 hours with a parent, for under $300. In germany, an 18 year old gets a license after two years of extensive training that costs the equivelant of $2,500. They are also much stricter about driving in the right lane and passing on the left. You won't find people riding in the left lane on the Autobahn. Tickets and fines are also much stiffer than here in the US, so they serve as more of a deterrant and less of an acceptable inconvenience.

I was referring to Germany, but actually I was thinking more of Italy. I was driving in Italy at like 150kph (90-95mph) and continually cars were flying by me like I was standing still. It was sick. Maybe they are better drivers, I can't comment, but 65 mph on interstates in the US is insanely low. Not to mention, that passing little bumble fuck towns where 10 "state troopers" decide how many miles over 65 is "speeding". Its confusing as hell. In NYC the speed limit is 50mph but every driver knows it's really 70. 70 your good, 71 your getting a ticket.

The American state of mind regarding how we interact with the legal system is very different than what you'd find in mainland Europe, and our courts reflect it. Mistakes of law and procedure are taken very seriously here, whereas these types of things are often overlooked by European courts. The crux of the issue is individual rights vs. state interests. The US was founded on the legal prinicipal that individual rights outweigh state interests. The European systems come down on the side of state interests more often than not. As a result Americans come to the table in court proceedings, whether it's a speeding ticket or serious criminal charge, with a typical combative attitude towards government authority and demanding nothing short of full due process of law. Europeans might be tolerant of the state kicking the ball in the hole, but here the American sense of accountability includes a healthy dose of holding the state accountable to correct procedure. I have a serious problem with a cop that's too lazy to make sure a speeding ticket is filled out correctly. If that lack of attention to details carries over into other areas of police work far more dangerous people than speeders could beat criminal charges.

Little by little it's changing in america. Look at all the people that say "just pay the ticket". We have the right to fight for our innocence. Everyone excuses the cop for making a mistake on the ticket. Not me, Identify me correctly please. If not how can you say I was driving. Everyone then excuses the cop for shooting the innocent man. "well it's a tough job to protect the people". What if it were your innocent father shot? Little by little people are just throwing away and giving away our individual rights and the government would love nothing more than to take it from you. look at the patriot act. Obama criticized the hell out of the patriot act and not only did he not abolish it, but is now using it himself. sorry for the rant.

[kredmore 2]

Europe has insanely high speed limits, if there even is a speed limit and they have less crashes than in the states.

I'm assuming your talking about Germany primarily here, because Germans have the reputation of being the best drivers. German drivers get in less crashes because they are FAR better drivers. Here in Michigan, a 16 year old kid can get a license after 30 hours of class time, 6 hours of driving with an instructor, and 50 hours with a parent, for under $300. In germany, an 18 year old gets a license after two years of extensive training that costs the equivelant of $2,500. They are also much stricter about driving in the right lane and passing on the left. You won't find people riding in the left lane on the Autobahn. Tickets and fines are also much stiffer than here in the US, so they serve as more of a deterrant and less of an acceptable inconvenience.

I was referring to Germany, but actually I was thinking more of Italy. I was driving in Italy at like 150kph (90-95mph) and continually cars were flying by me like I was standing still. It was sick. Maybe they are better drivers, I can't comment, but 65 mph on interstates in the US is insanely low. Not to mention, that passing little bumble fuck towns where 10 "state troopers" decide how many miles over 65 is "speeding". Its confusing as hell. In NYC the speed limit is 50mph but every driver knows it's really 70. 70 your good, 71 your getting a ticket.

The American state of mind regarding how we interact with the legal system is very different than what you'd find in mainland Europe, and our courts reflect it. Mistakes of law and procedure are taken very seriously here, whereas these types of things are often overlooked by European courts. The crux of the issue is individual rights vs. state interests. The US was founded on the legal prinicipal that individual rights outweigh state interests. The European systems come down on the side of state interests more often than not. As a result Americans come to the table in court proceedings, whether it's a speeding ticket or serious criminal charge, with a typical combative attitude towards government authority and demanding nothing short of full due process of law. Europeans might be tolerant of the state kicking the ball in the hole, but here the American sense of accountability includes a healthy dose of holding the state accountable to correct procedure. I have a serious problem with a cop that's too lazy to make sure a speeding ticket is filled out correctly. If that lack of attention to details carries over into other areas of police work far more dangerous people than speeders could beat criminal charges.

Little by little it's changing in america. Look at all the people that say "just pay the ticket". We have the right to fight for our innocence. Everyone excuses the cop for making a mistake on the ticket. Not me, Identify me correctly please. If not how can you say I was driving. Everyone then excuses the cop for shooting the innocent man. "well it's a tough job to protect the people". What if it were your innocent father shot? Little by little people are just throwing away and giving away our individual rights and the government would love nothing more than to take it from you. look at the patriot act. Obama criticized the hell out of the patriot act and not only did he not abolish it, but is now using it himself. sorry for the rant.

I understand your points. But I'm confused...help me out.....how is he innocent if he admits to speeding? I would think that would make him guilty.

[Hockeyman11385 1]

Europe has insanely high speed limits, if there even is a speed limit and they have less crashes than in the states.

I'm assuming your talking about Germany primarily here, because Germans have the reputation of being the best drivers. German drivers get in less crashes because they are FAR better drivers. Here in Michigan, a 16 year old kid can get a license after 30 hours of class time, 6 hours of driving with an instructor, and 50 hours with a parent, for under $300. In germany, an 18 year old gets a license after two years of extensive training that costs the equivelant of $2,500. They are also much stricter about driving in the right lane and passing on the left. You won't find people riding in the left lane on the Autobahn. Tickets and fines are also much stiffer than here in the US, so they serve as more of a deterrant and less of an acceptable inconvenience.

I was referring to Germany, but actually I was thinking more of Italy. I was driving in Italy at like 150kph (90-95mph) and continually cars were flying by me like I was standing still. It was sick. Maybe they are better drivers, I can't comment, but 65 mph on interstates in the US is insanely low. Not to mention, that passing little bumble fuck towns where 10 "state troopers" decide how many miles over 65 is "speeding". Its confusing as hell. In NYC the speed limit is 50mph but every driver knows it's really 70. 70 your good, 71 your getting a ticket.

The American state of mind regarding how we interact with the legal system is very different than what you'd find in mainland Europe, and our courts reflect it. Mistakes of law and procedure are taken very seriously here, whereas these types of things are often overlooked by European courts. The crux of the issue is individual rights vs. state interests. The US was founded on the legal prinicipal that individual rights outweigh state interests. The European systems come down on the side of state interests more often than not. As a result Americans come to the table in court proceedings, whether it's a speeding ticket or serious criminal charge, with a typical combative attitude towards government authority and demanding nothing short of full due process of law. Europeans might be tolerant of the state kicking the ball in the hole, but here the American sense of accountability includes a healthy dose of holding the state accountable to correct procedure. I have a serious problem with a cop that's too lazy to make sure a speeding ticket is filled out correctly. If that lack of attention to details carries over into other areas of police work far more dangerous people than speeders could beat criminal charges.

Little by little it's changing in america. Look at all the people that say "just pay the ticket". We have the right to fight for our innocence. Everyone excuses the cop for making a mistake on the ticket. Not me, Identify me correctly please. If not how can you say I was driving. Everyone then excuses the cop for shooting the innocent man. "well it's a tough job to protect the people". What if it were your innocent father shot? Little by little people are just throwing away and giving away our individual rights and the government would love nothing more than to take it from you. look at the patriot act. Obama criticized the hell out of the patriot act and not only did he not abolish it, but is now using it himself. sorry for the rant.

It would be different if he wasn't actually speeding but he is freely admitting that he was. Not admitting your mistakes and avoiding the consequences is also a new American tradition that needs to be stopped.

[MorePower4me 0]

^ That.

[Drewhunz 3]

Seconded

[RecLeagueHero 0]

There's a rather large difference between being innocent of something, and being found not guilty. In fact, it's why juries find a person guilty or not guilty, and not guilty or innocent. American jurisprudence has consistantly held that being actually innocent of the offense you were accused in no way compels the courts to release you from prison if you were found guilty. The courts would view it as the job of the executive at the state or federal level to issue you a pardon if there was no compelling mistake of law to act upon in your case. In much the same way, having done the thing of which you are accused does not make you legally guilty if the state cannot make their case in a court of law. Which includes full procedural due process as provided by our constitution. In this case part of that is the officer of the court (the cop) needs to fill out the ticket fully and correctly. Any statements he/she makes on the ticket also need to be true and correct. You have a right, not to mention the common sense of the thing, to act in your own interests in a court of law. Which means if the state makes mistakes of procedure you have every right, and always have, to get out of a ticket based on those mistakes. Confessing and compromising one's rights when the state fails to live up to their legal obligations is frankly quite stupid. But hey, if you want to pay fines you wouldn't otherwise be legally obligated to then be my guest. That's another great thing about the USA, you've got a right to be stupid and not act in your own best interests.

[Master P 0]

Go to your court date for the ticket. When they ask you how you plead, just say "guilty, I just ask to have it reduced". Don't give them some long winded answer, no "what had happened was.." story. They don't care and don't want to hear it. This will usually reduce the charges and points. Since your speeding ticket isnt bad, they will cut you a break.

[kredmore 2]

There's a rather large difference between being innocent of something, and being found not guilty. In fact, it's why juries find a person guilty or not guilty, and not guilty or innocent. American jurisprudence has consistantly held that being actually innocent of the offense you were accused in no way compels the courts to release you from prison if you were found guilty. The courts would view it as the job of the executive at the state or federal level to issue you a pardon if there was no compelling mistake of law to act upon in your case. In much the same way, having done the thing of which you are accused does not make you legally guilty if the state cannot make their case in a court of law. Which includes full procedural due process as provided by our constitution. In this case part of that is the officer of the court (the cop) needs to fill out the ticket fully and correctly. Any statements he/she makes on the ticket also need to be true and correct. You have a right, not to mention the common sense of the thing, to act in your own interests in a court of law. Which means if the state makes mistakes of procedure you have every right, and always have, to get out of a ticket based on those mistakes. Confessing and compromising one's rights when the state fails to live up to their legal obligations is frankly quite stupid. But hey, if you want to pay fines you wouldn't otherwise be legally obligated to then be my guest. That's another great thing about the USA, you've got a right to be stupid and not act in your own best interests.

I think you should go to court and quote the above..... :P

[Master P 0]

I think you should go to court and quote the above.....

I would also tell them.. "We didn't land on Plymouth rock. Plymouth rock land on us"....

[gxc999 7]

No need for getting all lawyer-tastic on this one. Waste of time and money. The best option is almost always traffic school or whatever it's known as in your neck of the woods. It usually removes the point damage done to your license, and is viewed as a positive if anything should arise in the future. One thing I've learned from experience, common sense is often the best solution to an ostensibly legal problem. Nobody ever really has fun in court.

[raganblink 82]

So i never heard of a points system, what the hell is this?

Anyways, i always go to court, plead non-guility, than some dude will come out typically asking instead of fighting it, would you like to agree to a lesser charge (usually drop 5MPH) and im like yeah and i don't pay as much. But, since its so far away, just pay it, forget it, and move on. Insurance shouldn't be affected. wasn't ridiculously fast, like my 52 in a 25 was :P

[The Mafia Line 0]

I COMPLETELY AGREE with RecLeagueHero. But more so, in my case when it comes to speeding, why would I plead guilty to a speeding when I don't believe there should be a speed limit, or at least such a low speed limit. I understand that I have to follow the law as written, but the US constitution allows me to argue my point.

Technically speaking, when fighting a law you disagree with is one of the best ways a single person can change the law. "criminal" cases have been pushed all the way to the US supreme court and the country has been changed. Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade and thousands of other Landmark cases have all been pushed to the US supreme court and laws were changed. Maybe one day, speed limits will change in specific states due to state supreme court cases.

Please if someone doesn't believe Murder should be illegal, I respect their RIGHT to kill someone and try to push their case to the supreme court and over change the law. It won't happen but it's their RIGHT.

[eric42434224 1]

I COMPLETELY AGREE with RecLeagueHero. But more so, in my case when it comes to speeding, why would I plead guilty to a speeding when I don't believe there should be a speed limit, or at least such a low speed limit. I understand that I have to follow the law as written, but the US constitution allows me to argue my point.

Technically speaking, when fighting a law you disagree with is one of the best ways a single person can change the law. "criminal" cases have been pushed all the way to the US supreme court and the country has been changed. Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade and thousands of other Landmark cases have all been pushed to the US supreme court and laws were changed. Maybe one day, speed limits will change in specific states due to state supreme court cases.

Please if someone doesn't believe Murder should be illegal, I respect their RIGHT to kill someone and try to push their case to the supreme court and over change the law. It won't happen but it's their RIGHT.

A persons "right" to murder someone. Now Ive heard it all.

[team50 20]

So who's life are we going to sacrifice in the name of changing the law?

[Rustpot 1]

Mafia Line;

Good luck getting a traffic ticket to the Supreme Court.

And by the way, things like Plessy v. Ferguson was during a time of social unrest for rights for a group of people to be granted. A speeding ticket is not a monumental "let's change the law!" sort of thing.

Speed kills. If you're going 55 and have 5 car lengths to the next car you have a shit load more reaction time than if you were going 80. Add in a cell phone and what do you get? Jackasses commuting at 70mph while grooming and having a teleconference. Not all speed limits are for revenue generation. There are very few spots in the world without speed limits and mainstream USA would never be able to handle it.

You do not plead innocent and lie when you know you are guilty. Pay the fine but go through the proper channels to change the speed limit if you think it's wrong.

You sound like a fool who has no grasp on the legal system or how any sort of government works but is trying to dish out advice.

[Hockeyman11385 1]

I COMPLETELY AGREE with RecLeagueHero. But more so, in my case when it comes to speeding, why would I plead guilty to a speeding when I don't believe there should be a speed limit, or at least such a low speed limit. I understand that I have to follow the law as written, but the US constitution allows me to argue my point.

Technically speaking, when fighting a law you disagree with is one of the best ways a single person can change the law. "criminal" cases have been pushed all the way to the US supreme court and the country has been changed. Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade and thousands of other Landmark cases have all been pushed to the US supreme court and laws were changed. Maybe one day, speed limits will change in specific states due to state supreme court cases.

Please if someone doesn't believe Murder should be illegal, I respect their RIGHT to kill someone and try to push their case to the supreme court and over change the law. It won't happen but it's their RIGHT.

Post of the year. This has to be a joke.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

Well, the problem here is that the SCOTUS does not exist to change the law. If you want to change the law you go through through the legislative process, either by direct means or through represenetives in state/federal congress. What the Supreme Court does is decide matters of consititutional law. You'd never get to the Supreme Court trying to argue that laws against murder violate the constitution. Equally, it's unlikely you'd ever get to the Supreme Court arguing that speed limits vioate the constitution. Jurisprudence on the matter has always indicated that there is no right to drive. At that point, the state is pretty much free and clear to impose whatever restrictions they want on driving. Even if that ever changed, and it certainly could, there is always going to be a compelling state interest in public safety. Which allows the state to establish regulations on speed and enforce them through the state's power to police. My point wasn't that you can go fight speeding laws. My point was that in our legal system you enjoy both a presumption of innocence and due process of law, whether accused of murder or speeding. You have a right to defend yourself, and to assistance of consul. If the state cannot meet is's burden then you are not legally guilty of what you were accused, doesn't matter if you actually did it or not. Holding the state accountable is an important part of preserving our freedoms.

[The Mafia Line 0]

Mafia Line;

Good luck getting a traffic ticket to the Supreme Court.

And by the way, things like Plessy v. Ferguson was during a time of social unrest for rights for a group of people to be granted. A speeding ticket is not a monumental "let's change the law!" sort of thing.

Speed kills. If you're going 55 and have 5 car lengths to the next car you have a shit load more reaction time than if you were going 80. Add in a cell phone and what do you get? Jackasses commuting at 70mph while grooming and having a teleconference. Not all speed limits are for revenue generation. There are very few spots in the world without speed limits and mainstream USA would never be able to handle it.

You do not plead innocent and lie when you know you are guilty. Pay the fine but go through the proper channels to change the speed limit if you think it's wrong.

You sound like a fool who has no grasp on the legal system or how any sort of government works but is trying to dish out advice.

I obviously understand that a traffic ticket isn't going to the US supreme court. I did say Technically. However, there is a little used way of fighting a speeding ticket by contesting the speed limit of a certain area. It's pretty hard to do so it's rarely if ever used but it's possible.

Speed limits are so low because that way almost everybody is speeding. In NYC the limit is 50. 95% of the cars on the road are going above 50MPH. Everyone is then eligible to receive a speeding ticket. I found that the unofficial limit is 70. 70 your fine 71 your getting pulled over. If the sign said 70 and it was a strict policy with stricter fines the roads would be just as safe. Remember, the speed posted is the LIMIT, you can drive slower than that if you want.

Your saying that if some crazy ass cop pulls over a guy for going a painstakingly slow 51 in a 50, he should just pay the fine because he was speeding. That it insane, in my opinion. Also, speed limits should not be instituted with the idea that people will be on their cell phones or whatever because in NY and most states now, talking on your hand held cell phone is now illegal.

(I don't ever talk on cell, as I believe thats more dangerous than speeding, but if I ever did for a second and got a ticket, I'd still fight it because the constitution allows me to do it.)

As far as revenue goes, tickets are a HUGE source of revenue and that is one major reason why speed limits will never go up. Lets get real here. For years the federal government mandated that every interstate be 55mph because it saved the most gas. That has now been changed. But it was 55, not because thats what they felt was a safe speed for the people but because it saved the most gas. I think it's interesting that people really associate speed limits to public safety.

I might be a fool in your opinion, but I'm just stating my opinion and no one has to listen to me. I know the system in NYC very very well and have got to know a few traffic lawyers in the area. It's an extremely corrupt system that just wants your money. But hey, I'm just a fool who knows nothing about the legal system.

[Drewhunz 3]

Not all speed limits are for revenue generation. There are very few spots in the world without speed limits and mainstream USA would never be able to handle it.

Montana had "Reasonable and prudent" limits on it's highways until 1999 Highway fatalities have increased since a speed limit has been imposed. Flow management is a bigger issue than speed limits, but aren't argued as much except for the case of limited admittance freeways and highways. However, if a limit exists and you are ticketed for exceeding this limit- end of discussion.

[eric42434224 1]

I was in traffic court once, and this guy was arguing a traffic ticket. The cop was behind him, pacing him and clocked him at 11 mph over the speed limit. The guy went on and on about how the cop couldnt know for sure how fast he was going, that everyone goes a little above the posted limits, how the cop transposed two letters in his name on the ticket, and in his finale....he said that he was going just as fast as everyone else on the road.

The judge sat there and listened quietly, and let the guy rant. Then he asked a few questions:

Judge: Are you in fact the person that was stopped that day and given the ticket in question?

Driver: -Yes.

Judge: Were you going over the posted speed limit?

Driver: -Yes, but everybody else was goi....

Judge: Guilty. Pay the fine.

Seriously. If you were going over the posted speed limit, you were speeding. If you want to take the chance and go 9 mph over knowing the cops likely wont pull you over...fine....but you are still speeding. We are adults here. Stop acting like a child and take responsibility for your actions. Christ.

[Rustpot 1]

Mafia Line- you clearly do NOT know what you're talking about. You can't "technically" take a speeding ticket to the Supreme Court.

The posted limit and the enforced limit are two different things. If the cops of the area want to impose a different limit they damn well better be doing it off the record. Unless NY traffic law differs that much from Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio.

Distracted driving has been around much before cell phones, I was only using that as an example. You think we should have sky-high speed limits but the truth is most Americans, given the chance to do 90, would drive 100+, speeds at which things like tire wear, tire pressure, vehicle maintenance, and driver ability all come into play. There's a reason not everyone can be a race car driver, excess speed takes a lot more skill to do safely. European driving standards are well above our own, and Europeans tend to take much greater care of their cars, so it can fly there.

If you're bitchy about NY roads being 50 mph and the fact that a cop can issue a ticket for going 51 when "everyone else is doing 70" then go do something about it. You can be given a ticket for going under the posted limit as well. The fact that most everyone is speeding is a pack mentality - "they can't get us all!" - and in no way makes it legal to do so, the cops just bite the bullet and make a cutoff at 70 and let all the little fish go. I'm sure if they wanted to they could pull over everyone but there's more to being a cop than handing out tickets.

Drew- that's why I said "mainstream" America, I'm aware of Montana and what the speed limit has done.

[The Mafia Line 0]

Clearly reading isn't your strong suit, because I said, technically, fighting a law you disagree with is the best way to change a law. I understand that a speeding case will not make it the supreme court and I believe I also said that too.

My basic argument is:

A) Speed limits should be FAIR and then policed strictly. Not 90+ but not 55 either.

B) Until speed limits are fair I will fight, and encourage others to fight their speeding tickets even if they are "guilty".

Most importantly, you fight a ticket with legally sufficient arguments and not by telling the judge some sob story that everyone knows is horseshit, that even if were true, would not legally get you out of speeding. You fight a ticket by questioning the officer in the hopes that he took poor notes and forgot aspects that prove your guilt, you question his training with a radar gun, so on so forth.

BTW: There are divisions of every police force solely to give tickets. Usually called Highway Patrol.