Posted: 7/28/2010 9:22:19 AM EDT
|
I got moy first speeding ticket in about 12 years ......... I thought i knew the drill when he handed me my ticket I grabbed a pen off my dash and got ready too sign the ticket he did not ask for a signiture, just said take it easy and slow down. Are we no longer required to sign the tickets ? looks like it might be an out on a technicality? thanks for the advice
BTW it was 61 in a 35 ouch didn't think i was going that fast  and too top it off my ins card was expired (new card in wifeys purse )
|
|
Jeannie Muckleshoot specializes in speeding tickets. ETA: whoops ... http://www.mucklestone.com/ |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
First ticket in 12 years? Sounds like a good chance to defer it. ding, ding, ding winner winner chicken dinner May want to check on the court's policy for defered findings. 20+ mph over the speed limit does not qualify for the defered finding in Pierce County, at least in my case. This was back in 2005 though. |
|
It used to be that you were required by law to sign as proof that you received the ticket. If you refused (and many people do) then you could actually end up being arrested.
The courts decided that requiring people to sign a ticket was unnecessary and over-reaching. Under the court ruling people could still be asked if they wanted to sign, but no one in LE ever liked trying to get people to sign anyway, so the new tickets don't even have places for signatures. If you have insurance you can just bring proof with you to court in most cases. They sometimes charge a small fee, (like 5 bucks) but they will drop the much bigger fee for not having it with you when you were stopped, so it's definitely worthwhile. If you have a spotless driving record otherwise you will probably have good luck with a mitigation hearing. Also, that's going to be a pretty big ticket so it may well be worth the money to get a traffic lawyer and see if you can get it dropped altogether. That can also save you a few bucks in insurance rates. There are all kinds of tricks and technicalities the lawyers use that most of us have never heard of. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the queen must need a new pair of shoes. 61 in a 35...that's a little fast for a warning in my book. I probably would have written it at 45+ in a 35 to keep the $ down though. Thought 20 over was jail time nah, 112 in a 35 is my personal best and I got it dropped in court, no lawyer. Took the cop a few miles to catch me too :-( T |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Also, CDL holders cannot defer findings since 2005. If you have a CDL, you're fucked. If you have a CDL, I would suggest you consult an attorney. my wife has a cdl...and just got a deferment. 32 in a 25 though...officer made a mistake on the ticket It's better to be lucky than good. 
|
Yipes. Be careful, dude.|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the queen must need a new pair of shoes. 61 in a 35...that's a little fast for a warning in my book. I probably would have written it at 45+ in a 35 to keep the $ down though. Thought 20 over was jail time No jail time speeding that I am aware of. Speed could certainly be a factor in reckless or neg driving though. |
|
Quoted:
Jeannie Muckleshoot specializes in speeding tickets. ETA: whoops ... http://www.mucklestone.com/ Just got a letter from them this week stating the court has dropped my "texting while driving" ticket from the morning of the the last ARFCOM Whidbey GTG/Shewoman man-hating spinning wheel faire.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Also, CDL holders cannot defer findings since 2005. If you have a CDL, you're fucked. If you have a CDL, I would suggest you consult an attorney. my wife has a cdl...and just got a deferment. 32 in a 25 though...officer made a mistake on the ticket It's better to be lucky than good. yeah.......it was a questionable ticket anyway. |
| If your not going to defer it, then definitely hire this guy. http://speedinginseattle.com/ |
deferment likely after talking too a few officer friends of mine they said cdl does not disqualify a deferment I was reading the responces and was like 35 
where are they getting that from My bad
|
If the citation shows the officer noted you possess a CDL, the only way you'll get deferment is if the court makes a mistake.
The rule excluding CDL holders from using deferment is a state law. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.63.070 Yes, unfortunately, police officers can give incorrect info, unless they have some information that you haven't given us here. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
nah, 112 in a 35 is my personal best and I got it dropped in court, no lawyer. Took the cop a few miles to catch me too :-( T 
95 eclipse turbo GST, passed him as he was leaving chevron on argone getting his morning coffee, caught me at the VW dealer on appleway. Hell I hit 85 today in a 35 on my way to work.....but I'm riding the chainsaw right now. T |
|
Quoted:
Just don't hurt anyone else... Why do you feel he needs to be reminded of that? Why do you feel you should be the one to do it? Safety nazis are retarded. Too many meddling busybodies...unfortunately, our government has been raising "Narc On Your Neighbor" citizens subjects for over a generation now. 
|
|
Something about a Lawyers website who has typos and missing information makes me want to run away from it. just saying...  |
|
He can do whatever the fuck he wants. I'd hate to be around if something went wrong. Murphy hides everywhere.
I think that Kolat can hold his own around here, no need for you to jerk a knee in this direction. I may come off like a safety nazi, but unless I stayed in bed and never left the house, I'm a damn far from safe, and I know it. If anyone wants to go 80+ in a 35 zone, rock on, but don't cry to me or anyone else if something goes wrong while your doin it, and if you hurt someone else in the process, you reap whatever problems you sow. Running around at any speed you want would be perfect if it weren't for all the other people and things that could fuck it up for you. Cars, people, trucks, people, pets, people, kids, people, people in cars, people in trucks, people with pets, people with kids, other people's kids, cops, people, people that are cops, people, ... I think the main problem could just be other people and all their shit. People can be difficult to deal with at 80+mph in a 35, especially if they get in your way. |
|
Quoted:
I think that Kolat can hold his own around here, no need for you to jerk a knee in this direction. Not trying to defend him. Just pointing out that some people can't resist jumping in "for the safety of the children". 
and if you hurt someone else in the process, you reap whatever problems you sow.
We agree. Running around at any speed you want would be perfect if it weren't for all the other people and things that could fuck it up for you.
Again, why are you assuming he doesn't know that? If you're not assuming that, then why comment about it at all? And THAT'S my point. Why is it that people feel compelled to speak out "in the name of safety" when their safety is not even involved? I can see why someone would pipe up if another person is being unsafe around them. But when they're not even involved, the whole thing smacks of entitlement and condescension. And both of those are a great way to get people to tune a safety nazi out. 
|
|
Quoted:
And both of those are a great way to get people to tune a safety nazi out. Short answer: Then it tune it out. You will read anything you want into it, and I can't stop you. Either Kolat hasn't seen it yet, or he's handling the situation a lot better than you are. I just don't wnat to hear about someone getting hurt while having fun if it was easy to avoid it. That's all. Sorry that you think I'm trying to mommy anyone. Long answer: For the AMA sportbike races outside of SLC, Utah, the UT HP set up a check point that they claimed was completely voluntary. It sure didn't seem that way to the hundreds of bikers that were waived off of the road into an area where they recieved a lecture. Want something like that here? http://www.amadirectlink.com/news/story.asp?id=2017 How about the police stop every Eclipse and check out the driver? How about they stop every sport bike and check out the rider? How about we give the police as many reasons as they possibly need to infringe on our rights in the name of safety? Think the WSP and local agencies won't do it? They went for an entire summer stopping sport bikes on WA 14 in the Columbia River Gorge for the most minor of infractions in the name of their safety, and no one seems to have lifted a finger over that. Do you think the general public would mind every sports car and motorcycle being stopped for their own good? I don't think they would mind at all, figuring we did something to deserve it, or we would have if we weren't stopped. On the WA side of the Columbia River Gorge, the cell phone and 911 have been the weapon of the masses, and they wield it freely. |
|
The road I speed on is a nice windy very rarely traveled back road to the office. I'm pretty sure a certain poster in here has seen me top 120, I used to speed a LOT and my driving record reflected it. Now I very rarely speed and only have a ticket for 5 over on my record. Top speed I've done on a bike was 172 indicated. Car is mid 140's. It all really feels the same after 130ish. I did achieve spokane to just outside issaqua in 2.5 hours with a couple friends on bikes....they had a roadblock setup for us and were watching us on the pass cameras, whoops.
Atgatt Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
So your lecture is not a lecture because someone else's lecture is more "severe". Nice red herring.
they claimed was completely voluntary. It sure didn't seem that way to the hundreds of bikers that were waived off of the road into an area where they recieved a lecture. Want something like that here? Quoted:
How about we give the police as many reasons as they possibly need to infringe on our rights in the name of safety? If they are infringing on a Right, no reason is good enough. That's why it's a Right. Period. Full stop. What we both know, but you're failing to acknowledge (because it invalidates your point) is that people who choose to infringe on others rights do it willingly, knowing that they don't have a good enough reason. Quoted:
Then it tune it out. As an aside, I'd like to point out that if I chose to tune out every safety lecture, I wouldn't be participating in this conversation; I'd click ignore poster or simply move on to another thread. I really don't mind the safety reminder/lecture What I DO mind is someone who EXPECTS their message to be ignored and continues to say it anyways. This is the equivalent of the curbside prophet with a megaphone. While the presentation is tacky at best, and possibly annoying, it leaves people (me included) wondering why the person would continue to speak a message that he EXPECTS to be ignored. They say" insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results". Sounds like the curbside prophet fits that definition of insanity to a T. Likewise, the person who lectures on safety, while expecting his audience to ignore it, is pretty much fitting the same bill. Quoted:
Either Kolat hasn't seen it yet, or he's handling the situation a lot better than you are. See, I'm not handling the situation poorly. (It's possible that that's more of the same arrogance and condescencion.) Having spoken with Kolat a bit in person about traffic laws, I'm pretty sure when he does read your post, he'll roll his eyes, or something close to it. He may not post the "rollseyes smilie" on the board, but he too, realizes that safety is relative (at best, if not just an illusion). That there is no such thing as safe; because safe is too absolute, too unobtainable. Quoted:
I just don't wnat to hear about someone getting hurt... And now we get to the root of the problem. Safety nazis feel obligated to speak up, even in the face of blatant disregard for thier message, (I'd call 105 in a 35, or whatever, intentional disregard  ) in the vain hope that maybe if they keep harping/nagging everyone enough, that the world will magically become some happy, hunky-dorky place where noone gets hurt and children ride unicorns beneath confetti rainbows of money (following the obligatory rainstorm of sugar-free, non cavity causing, candy, of course). It's not a bad trait to want better things, you just have unrealistic expectations. So unrealistic that it causes you to do insane ('member, we already defined that) things.
But one problem safety nazis are ignorant of, or choose to ignore, is that their actions often exacerbate the perceived unsafe conditions. Think about how many "minor speeders" choose to get into a car chase to avoid being pulled over. If the LEO hadn't tried to stop them, they'd continue putting along at 15 over, and not making radical sweeping lane changes or triple digit speeds. Case in point: Last LCR, I intentionally chose to place myself in an unsafe condition. I'd been planning to do it all day, even mentioned it to others beforehand, and when I got a chance, I stepped into the bonfire. Originally, I had only planned to step in long enough to lay claim that I'd been there. But when the moment came, a particlar member of the audience (who is an intelligent and nice enough lady) began yelling demands about how I HAD to climb out of the fire. THAT acton (the assumption that I was not aware of the severity of the danger simply because I'd had "a few" drinks) is what caused me to stand dance around in the fire for...I dunno...15-25 seconds. Although my sense of time was imperfect then, I was in the fire long enough to melt my boots until they stuck to the wood, my shoe laces melted so I couldn't untie them, and my clothing caught on fire. She had no way of knowing that I had planned the event beforehand and wore thick boots with long pants intentionally as protective equipment (both of which I considered disposable), or that I have a little bit of experience climbing into the fire. All she knew was a guy who'd been drinking climbed into the fire. So she made a mildly arrogant assumption that I didn't really KNOW what I was doing.
(Yes, that's me. No, it's not at LCR) You see, the entitlement mentality of "I have a right to get involved because someone else is being unsafe, even though it isn't (and won't) affect me" combined with the condescension of "they can't possibly know the danger if they're still choosing to take that action" NEVER ameliorates the intentional risk taker, but often makes it worse. So.......................knowing that your "safety briefing" either falls of deaf ears, or makes the situation worse, why would you continue spouting a message that people already know and choose to ignore? IOW, WTF is the point of being a safety nazi? |
|
BS, I just think you are a little hypersensitive about this, which I don't have any particular problem with, it's part of your personality, likely based on your viewpoints and experience, and I can respect that. There was no ill will intended or implied, and Kolat handled it *very* well. How about we just leave it alone now and act like no one is bent out of shape in any way over this?
ETA: A fine rant, too. |
|
Quoted:
There was no ill will intended or implied....no one is bent out of shape in any way Agreed. I wasn't offended (My long windedness is a conscious effort to accurately express my succinct verbal expressions) but I still don't get why safety nazis feel the need to exert their judgement on others. Quoted:
a little hypersensitive about this there is a possibility of that.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There was no ill will intended or implied....no one is bent out of shape in any way Agreed. I wasn't offended (My long windedness is a conscious effort to accurately express my succinct verbal expressions) but I still don't get why safety nazis feel the need to exert their judgement on others. I know you will likely find this hard to believe, and so be it, but I wasn't judging Kolat about his driving, really. We all cut loose every now and then. About his getting married, time will tell.
Quoted:
a little hypersensitive about this there is a possibility of that.
That's cool, we've all got a little thing we go a little over the top about. I don't need no pissed off squirrels in my life, they can tear houses apart and shit in the chicken feed. Do not want. |