Well, I too have a little experience on being on the receiving end of getting tickets and getting rid of them as I've probably had about 50 in my lifetime with about 30 of them being moving violations.

You're extremely lucky where you live because around here it is extremely rare for the officer not to show up in court. Tickets are a large source of revenue and the city/state wants to make sure that they get that money and if the cop doesn't show they know that a lot of "their" money will be walking out of the courtroom that day.

When people ask my sister about their options on quashing tickets she tells them the same thing if they decide to go to court and try and fight it, or hope the cop doesn't show, or if they want to get deferred adjudication which you can also get around here and not even show up for court.

However, not knowing his situation and the way the courts in his area take care of tickets like this I don't think it is a wise decision to tell him to just show up for court and hope that the cop isn't there. My money is going to go on the officer showing up. It is up to the judge to allow deferred adjudication/defensive driving or not and just showing up hoping to get off for free doesn't appear to be a sound game plan if it is that important to get off on the ticket.

The easiest thing to do is to pay a lawyer $100 to quash it and then you don't go to court, don't take time out of your schedule to mess with it, and just get rid of it. Also, Texas doesn't have a points system, so I don't know how that aspect of it would work out there for him.

I'd suspect that on a whole, there is a much greater percentage of cops that show up than cops that don't.

[rolleyes]

YEAH, that would be real good Ricky.  Punish citizens exercising their rights.  Whether we tie up the court system should have nothing to do with it.   You sound like you think people that are found guilty should get an extra 100-200% of punishment for not acting like a sheep and bending over.

I guess i didn't explain it to well Ricky.   Oregon has a different law concerning speeding.   I explained why i didn't think i was being unsafe under that law.   The judge didn't act like my explanation had anything to do with it.  Then when i asked for clarification of the law, the judge tells me to go to the legislature and make a special rule for motorcyclists.  If i had known i would have gotten that response, I would have plead guilty and paid $88  instead of $350 and not cared.  

But i thought the law meant something, and when i went to court i find out that it doesn't mean a thing when you are going against the system.  

Tying up what resources?  The judge would be sitting behind the desk anyway.  So would the clerk who takes the money.  The cop would either have the day off or not.

TS

Oh yes it does mean he's innocent ,if they say the sign is invalid then there was no violation to begin with.
And don't hand me that "He's beating it on a technicality." bullshit.
The laws have to be obeyed and followed by all, the courts also have to follow the law.
If some 7 dollar an hour public works employee doen't do his job and fucks up the install on the signs ,guess what?
They are illegally placed, they are in violation of the law,PERIOD!
Your arugement about murder is just trying to cloud an issue,we have traffic signs to help us know what we can do and an not do in certain area's on the road.
You might not know what a certain area is like or what the speed should be,the signs are there for your benefit to serve the public good and safety,if you don't know that murder is wrong and illegal you should be put away.
And last, the reason there are height requirements are to make the posting of signs a unifrom height and conform to studies of what is most visible for drivers and also so that some shady towns don't go around putting signs at 2 feet tall so you can't see it until you blew right through it.
Ever heard of traffic traps?

WTF are you talking about? He broke the law, he admitted it. So is this his right to break the law? Or what? He knows he is guilty and is going to fight it anyway, because it is a "bullshit ticket". [rolleyes]

Yes, the system is holding you down. Thats it. You felt you should be allowed to speed. The judge disagreed. I don't see where you got screwed. You think you were the first person to go into a courtroom and say you didn't do anything wrong? PLEASE!

Are you serious? You think that the number of judges is set independantly of their need? You think if no one went to court over this stuff there would be judges just sitting there doing nothing? Think that out for a little bit.

A speeding citation is a "bullshit ticket". I don't even think of them as tickets, but more as taxes for driving fast.

If there were no fines and only community service awarded for speeding there would be a lot less tickets handed out.

I'm much safer going 90 in a 55 than half of the blue haired little old ladies out there going 20 in a 30. Safety is only an excuse.

Who gives a shit? It is his right as a citizen of the United States of America to have his day in court, regardless of the cost.

Well that is a nice opinion. Probably true as well. But if you break the law then you have to expect some consequences. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." If you have a problem with the law, get it changed. Don't just bitch about it.

He does have the right, and I never said he did not. But if found guilty of the crime (which he is btw) then he has the privillege of paying for it. Why the hell should everybody else pay for his, or my for that matter, arrogance. Going to court to prove your innocence is one thing. Going to court guilty and trying to get out anyway that you can is another.

I think what you are forgetting is that the laws of the United States were written to protect the innocent, not give the guilty a free ride.

I've been driving for about 40 years and have had 1 ticket.

Have you ever wondered [u]why[/u] you get so many tickets?  Maybe you ought to try obeying traffic laws?

Just a thought.

Don't be silly Painless, it is the systems fault.

Something to keep in mind:

Judges like honesty.

This is not the OJ trial.  You will be before him on the issue of whether you were speeding.  The officer is not on trial for his penmanship, and the highway dept is not on trial for how well they hang signs.

(BTW:  Hanging signs is not an exact science.  Code dictates a range.  For example, 7 ft plus or minus 7 inches, and I'd like to point out,  at 71 mph you passed quite a few signs.  Only one has to be correct)

Most judges in Municipal court have a MASSIVE case load. Start a song and dance and things will not go well.

Don't get me started on curbside lawyers.  

I'm very serious.  Everywhere I've gotten a ticket the judge would have been there whether I had received a ticket or not.  Yes, judges would be sitting there regardless of need, excepting some major metropolitan areas.  

TS

Didn't think about the rural areas. That makes sense. Every courthouse I have ever been in has many many judges, and they are added by need.

I apalled at how many of you are saying "you broke the law, just pay up"  

The speed limits are the biggest bullshit scam in the country.  Where do you goody-goodies live? I have driven all over the country- and NOBODY drives the posted limit.  Therefore it is unjust that we should be fined when traveling the same speed all all the other traffic.  The "deserve to be punished" crowd should be ashamed.  It's all about the money, people, nothing more, nothing less.

It's not a "BULLSHIT SPEEDING TICKET"....

It's a "REVENUE EXTORTION RECEIPT".

Please make a note of this change.

Yep, it's a scam......it's about the $$.

But there's no "quota's" right?

No. It doesn't take a rocket scientist.




I'd just a soon drive fast, take the ticket and pay my tax.

No, it's the "I don't give a shit about some piddly ass little speeding ticket" 's fault. And since you're so concerned, I never go to the courthouse and clog up the system when I try and weasel out of them. I have somebody do it for me. [:)]

Where are you in Colorado? And how many tickets have you recieved? Up and down the front range you have to be doing some serious speeding to net a ticket. The only ticket I have ever recieved was a ticket for 4 mph over, marked down from 28 over. Most policeman are by and large fair if you treat them with respect and answer honestly.

[:D] That is good.

Computerguy, I’d say hire a pro.  

My cousin got ticketed in a speed trap on US-26 west bound going up the hill and he was not speeding.  He, in a Dodge Ram and a Suburban of the same color went through the trap at about the same time.  He got nabbed.  First the office issuing the ticket did not observe him speeding.  Second, the officer issuing the ticket had it ready to go the first trip to the window.  No questioning, no nothing.  Did not even ask to see insurance or anything.  Just license number, here’s your ticket.  Third, traffic goes out of sight for many hundreds of feet between the observation post and the ticket force.  Lastly the officer showed up in court and perjured himself.  He outright lied to the judge.  Despite all these facts the judge hit him with the stated fine.  I was the guy speeding in the other truck.  I should have got the ticket.  I wanted to appear in court but my cousin would not let me.  He thought logic would prevail.  What a joke.  Hire a pro.  

For those of you on your soap box about not speeding; surprise, you still get tickets when your not speeding. The system is corrupt.  

That is correct, there is no quota.   I do it for the pleasure in stopping a butthead from being an butthead,  not because I HAVE to.

I haven't been a regular patrol officer for some years now, but I still write tickets, and I ALWAYS show up for court.

Like them or not, speed limits are there for safety reasons ...not revenue generation.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is likely just bitter at having received one "unjustly" at some point.  And anyone who thinks they're safer driving 90 than 55 is delusional.

He broke the law, he's admitted it ...it doesn't get any simpler.  Suck it up, go to court, be honest, and hope for the best.

[red]You are correct about the officer and incorrect about the highway sign dept., if they hang it the wrong height then it's null and void, you are a cop and not a lawyer, your knowledge of this area is wrong[/red]




[red]Oh yes it most certainly does have to be the exact height,thats why the code reads 7 feet from the point at which the sign post enters the ground to the bottom of the sign,I would like to see where you got the "give or take 7 inches" bullshit, and it is just that, very convenient of you to post that answer about the 7 inches with no link or proof.
Where do you practice law to type that out right lie about only one of the signs you pass need be correct height?
what about stop signs officer? need only one in a whole town be the correct height?
You cops always get pissed when someone applies the law as written to you.
Here's a clue ,it's not a loop hole ,it's the law and what is stated you have to go by and that pisses you off that someone could actually use the law beat you and rightly so if the sign is wrong[/red]

Ricky, your out to lunch on this one.  You brought up you thought it was fair if the judge posted maximum fines just because you wanted to have your day in court.   That is what we were talking about in this thread within the thread


NO it is not his right to break the law.  IT IS his right to a day in court.  people should not be punished with the maximum fines jsut because they exercise that right.  IF he had been doing it with flippant disregard for other people, that would warrant a max. fine.  I think he was going pretty close to flow of traffic, so i don't think that applys here

THAT is what the day in court is to decide-if he is guilty or not  YA KNOW, EVER HEARD OF INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?  He didn't sign the "guilty" plea on the back of the ticket, he is not guilty until the court finds that he is.  

Oh, and if you are going to be so law and order that if he broke the law he is guilty pay the fine, etc etc.  be fair and be law and order if someone didn't do something right then he is not guilty.   Just because everyone thinks someone did it, and it gets thrown out on  a "technicality" guess what?i t got thrown out ie he was not guilty.  Policemen and the other system workers don't get to just do whatever they want and fine us for it,  they got to follow the rules.  Following those rules are generally what protects our rights.

Danny

Zip up your pants! Your lack of reading comprehension is showing!

Well, we can all be glad you are not a revenue procurement person, i mean traffice judge, now, can't we?

Traffic court has to be the biggest revenue of all the courts, most people just send the money in.  The ones that don't get a short day in court and a much bigger fine.  But didn't they do the same crime?  
the ones that get reduced by a lawyer usually still pay court fees, so the courts still getting paid.   It was just a question of money, not points on your liscense (unless you are negligent, or dangerous, whatever)

I think  this is like a parking ticket- in my town there are no automated meters, but you are limited to 2 hours.  If the sign is not clearly posted regarding parking regulations, or a tree branch is hanging over it, guess what?  the ticket gets thrown out.  If you prove the ticket writer's timepiece doesn't have accurate time, the ticket gets thrown out.   Doesn't that equate to signage on the highway and whether or not the radar gun was working?  If the tickets/ tax for going fast was only a $ punishment, who would care?   those that wanted to go fast would pay sometimes, and those that didn't wouldn't.  I don't think this has anything to do with safety-  That is what the Oregon law is about- it found that  there are less accidents if people are allowed to drive above the speed limit, but not recklessly so.   Most people would cruise around 70-80 if there was no limit, and have much fewer accidents than if you have people driving 55.

Samuel Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Old Sam recognized that for a Republic to "work", the average citizen needed to respect and obey the laws.  All the laws.



You are mistaken  The correct quote is "A man is [u]presumed[/u] innocent until proven guilty".  That doesn't mean he is innocent, only that the [b]court system[/b] assumes his innocence.

If a man murders another person, he is immediately guilty of murder.  He is only [u]presumed[/u] innocent by the courts.  But he is guilty as soon as his victim dies.




Nope.  If it is "thrown out on a technicality", it only means that a guilty man has gotten off without paying society for his crime.  He is still guilty.

And some day, he will stand before His Creator and answer for his crime and sin.

Hike up your skirt ...no one was talking about you.

Look guys!  a typical JRZY post!.
 

Police since 1983,  6 years as a traffic cop. I've never lost in court, traffic or otherwise.

You go into a court and say,  "Your Honor,  the sign was 3/4"  of an inch too tall, therefore I'm not guilty of travelling 71 mph in a 55 mph zone" and expect people to take you seriously?  

Dude, you need help.

No quota here.  However, the # of tickets written are used as one way to measure whether you're working or piddling.  There are guys that write 2 a month, when they could EASILY do that in an hour almost anywhere in the city.  Most officers here do between 8-10 per month.  So, there's no quota, but you don't want to be the one that had the fewest tickets on a regular basis.  (not that # of tickets written accurately reflect how many people you stop anyway)

Plus, we usually don't stop anyone unless they're doing at least 15 mph over (MOST speed limits are too low IMO).  It has a lot to do with how you're driving (swerving between cars or just out there on an open stretch by yourself).
CR

That is exactly how i felt, not that i was caught, didn't get away with it and had to pay the fine.

Well the only reasonaable advice here is to get in touch with a lawyer or somebody knowledgeable about your jurisdiction

For those from other states a quick glance at this may help explain some of the variables.  Look at the footnotes.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/stspdlaw98/orspeed.htm

Otherwise go in straight up and ask for traffic school.  

However, if you want to become one of the most remembered folks for a long time, go in and tell them that some guy from New Jersey told you on the internet it was bogus because the sign was too high or too low.  When you measure the signs park where you won't get a ticket for parking (the way your luck has been going).  When they stop laughing over that, you can get them laughing again when you pull out your list of signs that are incorrectly posted that you passed.  Better include the properly posted signs too.

there is a Uniform Traffic Control Devices Standards from the Federal DoT.  Most states have signed on to it and incorporate it into the state laws.  It defines a variety of things, including sign colors, placement, distance between signs, distance before construction and other temporary or permanent locations, etc etc etc.  I have a copy somewhere but I think you'll find that it gives recommended ranges if it even addresses heights for road side signs.  this is because different locations have different profiles, (drainage ditches, roak walls, pavement, ad infintum) so a given height is very unlikely to be included as mandataory.  Like I said it will be good for a laugh.

OK, i was wrong on the "presumed" innocent part.  I admit it.

On a separate issue, don't you think you are muddying the waters comparing a speeding ticket to murder?   Oregon recognises that IT WOULD BE SAFER to let people drive faster than the limit, if people do it resposibly.  Does that make you question whether it is a just law?  If the speed limit was raised, there would be less accidents.   i quote this verbatim from
[url]http://www.odot.state.or.us/traffic/speed.htm[/url]
"These studies show that traffic moving at a speed that is reasonable for the road and weather conditions results in fewer accidents. Drivers are more patient because a reasonably uniform speed allows progress with less passing, less delay, and fewer rear-end collisions.   "

If there is an unjust law, and you violate it, do you really think God will hold you accountable for it?   Also, show me what crime he committed.  Just broke the law?  that is the crime?   You ever thought that there might be some exception to laws, that they are not absolute?  I think this is a case where it is not an absolute law, it cannot address every issue ie speeding to the hospital (not an ambulance)   I don't think Comp guy was doing some heroic thing while speeding, I just don't see that he was doing anything evil



edited to clean up links, format, etc

Good luck without a lawyer.

I tried to fight a completely BS ticket once:

I pulled out of a gas station and turned right. I had the CC receipt with a time stamp and address on it.

Just to the right (south) of this gas station is an extension of the stations building (a bar), and a fence, then two apartment buildings, and a road. The total distance from the gas station to the road (which had a moto-officer supposedly radaring me) was about 200yds. (I'm being conservative with the distance... as I don't have all my exact measurements handy right now)

I pulled out in the right lane, and a granny in a green car was in the left lane ::going faster than me:: as I sped up. And by no means was this granny going fast.

By the time I made it about halfway to the street, the officer stepped out in my lane of traffic and waved me onto the side street. I immediately braked and turned in.

The officer approached and asked the usual, licence, ins, how fast I thought I was going (to which I replied I wasn't sure, as I was speeding up from turning onto the street). I regret (for this instance) that I was polite to the officer during the stop, and also was polite at the court hearing.

The officer cited me for going 49 in a 35. And no, I couldn't see his radar, thank you very much.

So, I brought this to court, along with some compiled facts on such things as the speed and distance a FAST sportscar could possibly pull off, then compared these facts to my 4cyl ranger.

All in all, I think I figured that in the distance traveled, even if the officer was radaring me AS HE STEPPED INTO MY LANE OF TRAFFIC (which he wasn't), I would have to be able to drive my ranger faster than any streetlegal vehicle is capable of. (looking up now, a mclaren f1 can hit 50mph in 121 feet...).

Before presenting my case, I asked the officer in court if I was laying rubber the whole way... he said he didn't recall that... no skid marks, no smoke, etc. I also was prepared to show pictures of the scene showing there were NO tiremarks... but didn't need to.

After I had presented what I thought was a case that ANYONE could clearly see something didn't add up... the judge told me that unless I could prove his radar detector (which he wouldn't show me) was defective, that I was guilty. [rolleyes]

On every other occasion that I've had a speeding ticket, however... I knew I was wrong and paid up. Just this once, when I know there was NO WAY ON EARTH I could have been doing what the officer said... I was still "guilty" of speeding. That ticks me off.

I haven't had a speeding ticket in probably 5 years or so, but I have now decided that I am taking ANY ticket to court, regardless of whether I know I was wrong or not, just to waste their time. I know it will never make a difference, but oh well.

On the plus side... Thanks to my decision to take tickets to court, I had an expired tag/expired license ticket that got tossed out (not even a court fee) because the guy I went to talk to wanted to get to lunch quick. That in and of itself paid for more than the cost of the BS speeding ticket.

Well, well.  Here is something rare on this forum.  Congratulations, danonly, you are in a mighty small and select company.  Those rare folks that can admit that they are wrong.



I was making an exaggerated comparison to make a point about violating a law.  Obviously murder is more serious than speeding.  But the point is, they are both violations of the law.



I agree that in some areas, speed limits are too low.  We should vote for legislatures that will change the laws.  I think most 55 mph limits are silly.  But if that is what is posted, that's what I do.



An interesting subject.  I would say that it depends on the law, but that is too much of a hijack and I won't go there on this thread.




That is correct.  When you break the law it is called a "crime".  That is what a crime is.



I don't think he was committing an evil act either.  But, by his own admission, he was breaking the law.  Therefore, he should just pay the fine and either drive the speed limit, or, like Ponyboy suggested, just speed and pay the fines.

If he doesn't think the speed limits are reasonable, he should run for office and change them.  But until then, they are the law and he (and you & I) should obey the laws.  It is what makes us different from animals.

Radar IS NOT very accurate at all.  But good luck finding a judge that unerstands tech-talk.

While serving jury duty for traffic court, some idiot tried this defense.  He quized the officer on radar, on how a radar worked, etc.  He made the officer look really stupid.  The officer didn't know the definition of "probable cause" (small town).  His main defense was that there was no posted speed limit from the point he turned onto the highway to where the police officer radared him going 70 mph in a 55 zone.  Therefore, he was innocent.  This went on for over an hour.  The jury promptly found him guilty of speeding and DOUBLED the fine he would have ordinarily paid.

For the record I have used this at least 5 times in the last 15 years and I have never lost,mostly I think because prosceutors are afraid to open a can of worms in front of 200 people who just might want to find out if they have a legal excuse for not obeying the traffic sign, most of the tickets I recieved were just dismissed,but thats OK too.

And last ,The way this works is you show the judge the proof the sign is not valid then he agrees that the sign is invalid,then he dismisses the ticket because the sign you are accused  of violating is itself invalid,sort of like a defective warrant gets the evidence thrown out.

Yeah, and your infintile use of giant red letters lends you tons of credibility.

Gotcha.
Here's another one: "It's not _my_ fault! The other driver made me do it! Waah! I should be getting a medal for being so brave! I was going faster than allowed, but the ticket is bullshit."
Yada yada yada. I'm not saying speedlimits are a good thing, but if you decide to drive faster than the posted speedlimit, than you should accept the possible consequences. It was YOU behind the wheel, and YOU were speeding. Suck it up.

The big red letters are bacause Johninaustin always seems to make these kinds of claims without posting a link to any proof what so ever and then walking away.
The big red letters are there to emphasize this fact, thanks for helping out.