Speeding tickets!

Drivers licenses should be issued by the auto manufacturer and not the state. Ferrari, Porsche, BMW etc...are well equipped to decide if I can handle their machine, not some stipend cashing apple polisher.

 

No. Rights are granted by The US Constitution and derive from an authority higher than the state or The State. I asked you to demonstrate where driving as a right is couched. Don't quibble. Make your case.

 

The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under the Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public roadways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added) See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by texasmr2
Ok let's get real, your just angry because you were caught speeding!! What was the MPH over the POSTED LEGAL SPEED limit you were charged with? Any MPH over the Posted Limit is an infraction and ignorance of the law is not a defense in court when said rules/reg's are clearly posted.

Pay your fine and pay more attention while behind the wheel, driving is a priveledge so never forget that!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF? Are you for real??? You know, this is a Ferrari forum.......sigh........

X2

 

Wow, this is quite unbelievable. How is it possible that you could have so completely missed the irony of this statement?? Sir, you have incredibly poor judgment. God forbid should you be in any sort of position of authority.....other than congress, that is.

 

You are quibbling. Read the quotation once more. The defeat of your argument is contained in the quote.

 

You are pedantic. Just lay it out there for us so we can be amazed by your command of statist ideology.

 

Not to derail this fascinating philosophic discussion but

Is there a good answer to the question "do you know how fast you were going?"

 

I don't think I was going THAT fast.

Never been given a Miranda Warning for a traffic violation. Why not?

 

So you admit that you don't know how fast you were going?

 

I'd like to see the readout on your equipment, Officer.

 

Yes. "I wasn't looking at the speedometer, I was looking at the road."

 

Great answer.

 

I'm not sure that the officer would agree.

Seems that there are four possibilities.
Admit that you don't know how fast you were going. Which leaves it up to him. Not good.
Admit to your speed and get a ticket. Not good.
Lie. Get caught in a lie. Not good.
Deflect.

I don't imagine any of our LEOs have an opinion.

 

In essence, "I was looking at the road" translates to "No, officer I do not know how fast I was going." What we don't know are the specifics of this instance, which would alter this response accordingly. Since a good deal of the discussion has centered on speeding, I'll use that law to illustrate some relevant info. I'll speak only to California law, but it generally holds true in most other states.

Speed limits are derived from the Vehicle Code, and CA is a "basic speed law" state. That means you can only drive a speed at which you are safe, which means you might only be able to drive 15mph on a 65 mph freeway if the roadway is obscured by fog or similar elements. Beyond the basic speed law, certain areas are regulated specifically, with a default of 65 mph as the maximum speed you can drive (70 mph in some open roadway areas), which includes passing other vehicles. School zones are 25mph, alleys are 15mph (as are railroad crossings). No matter what speed you are driving, you have to be able to justify the speed was safe for the conditions present. BTW, no speed over the max State speed is lawful, passing or not. I don't disagree with the contention it might be safer to pass quickly, etc., but the law does not recognize it, so you're left to the discretion of the officer who sees it. In almost all cases, speeds more than 20mph above the max speed law will get you a hefty fine.

The other speed limits you see are most commonly posted subsequent to a speed survey done by that jurisdiction's traffic engineers. They track speeds at varying times of the day and week, and then calculate an "85% speed" at which that percentage of cars is traveling at or below. The closest round figure in 5's or 0's is the speed limit. Except as it relates to the basic speed law, radar (and laser) can only be used on roadways where the survey has been certified within a 5 year period prior to that.

Long answer short, in suburban, urban and freeway areas, you are generally not dealing with a bumpkin, but someone who knows speeds very well, understands the mechanics of the doppler effect, and can also usually do collision reconstruction from vehicle damage and roadway evidence. In radar training, they also don't pass unless they can routinely visually estimate the speed of a vehicle within 3 mph, which really isn't as tough as it seems. They also usually know what else on your car might be legal or not (exhaust, lighting, glass, etc.) so the presence of aftermarket parts could translate to added scrutiny of the items you have installed. You're in their wheelhouse, just like if you went to court and represented yourself for serious crime. Your only advantage might be using your radar detectors (but not Laser/Lidar detectors) to help make you more aware of their presence.

Regarding what you might say to the officer, the law isn't really overly interested in why you were speeding (or running a red light, or making an unsafe lane change) but whether or not you were, and that objective evidence is admissible to that extent. Most cops refrain from asking the TV and movie questions of "do you know how fast you were going" because they know you'll either feign ignorance, provide a lowball or confess (possibly). I'd recommend not responding if you're asked. That does not mean they won't write down your statement of "holy crap, I knew those phone poles were whizzing by pretty fast".

If you have a mitigating issue that is relevant to your driving, you may want to consider divulging it (I swerved to avoid that kid running out between two cars, etc.). You do not want to tell that great story someone told you are a bar-b-que you "know" the cop will believe. He or she has heard that story in various forms at least a thousand times, and it only confirms (most times) you would not learn from a warning and need a ticket. They do appreciate a truly novel answer, but those are few and far between IMHO.

If you have the misfortune of being stopped for driving at a fun-to-drive speed, take a look at who stopped you. If it is a motorcycle officer, or if they have an insignia or patch with wings and wheels, you are going to get a ticket. These are the folks who write tickets for a living, always show up in court, and who can anticipate pretty much anything you might use as a defense. For them, a warning is when they pull up alongside you, look over, and mouth the words "slow down". If they take the time to stop you, they're pretty much going to issue you a citation. If they are doing their jobs as they should, they generally work areas with higher frequencies of reported collisions and reported violations, so the ticket is a tool used to help lower those figures (and yes, the data shows consistently that writing tickets for the violations that cause accidents in areas where those accidents occur does reduce the frequency and severity of collisions).

If it is a patrol cop, and you are congenial & not a pain in the butt, you stand a chance of being warned for your driving and sent on your way. If you're driving an F-Car, and are respectful, feel free to advise you understand why you were stopped and that you would really appreciate a warning (and that you will stop doing whatever you did to get there in the first place), you might be surprised. It might feel good to give the cop your five cent's worth. That usually means you'll have another chance to fill out the dime when you see him again in court (for which he is getting paid as a part of his job, and for which you are usually taking time away from work to sit with a really cool variety of interesting people in traffic court).

Re driving competence, in my experience, almost everyone thinks they are a good driver. Folks on this board in many cases actually are, so I'm not pointing fingers. In truth though, numerous surveys show that two-thirds up to 90% of drivers say they are above average drivers. This illusory superiority is what sometimes gets people into trouble when they drive over their heads and beyond their ability. For instance, the most common action by a motorcyclist with less than a year on a bike prior to a collision is to...do nothing. Almost 90% of new riders just drive into the collision without taking evasive action. They had the illusion of knowing how to ride, but not the experience to respond to the unusual.

Lots of folks in lanes on both sides of you text routinely, drive intoxicated (15% of people report doing it) or driving when nearly asleep. The greatest virtue of the F-Car is to stop quickly, maneuver well and accelerate out of the path of danger. Those tools, used reasonably, will result in less damage and fewer chats with the cops that you would otherwise.

Nothing here is intended to defend issuing bogus tickets, using the law inappropriately (as in the Texas speed traps) or to say the cops can't make mistakes. You have the right to keep them on their toes, to ensure an engineering survey was used, the cop was trained, and that the equipment was working properly. Exercise your rights

 

I asked a well known defense attorney that question in Boulder, many years ago....his answer always sticks with me:

"Officer, I believe you are about to tell me."



as far as a person's right to travel: Agree, a great aspect of our citizenship. Another is that powers not enumerated by the Constitution are left to the States. Many states provide, by constitution, powers to smaller municipalities, towns, villages etc. to enact their own laws or regulations, such as speed limits. The argument that the right to travel somehow means you can travel in any manner you deem fit despite what society says (and has codified) smacks of "I can do whatever I want." Though they deny it and often can't seem to see defeat staring them in the face, Sovereigns, Posse Comitatus etc. tend to get readily shot down in court when they say that the law does not apply to them.

"Petitioner has raised one new argument in that he claims because his name is in all capital letters on the summons, he is not subject to the summons. As to this argument, this Court will follow the Eighth Circuit when it responded to an argument of similar merit when it stated “[t]hese issues are completely without merit, patently frivolous, and will be rejected without expending any more of this Court’s resources on their discussion.” Russell v. United States, 969 F. Supp. 24, 25 (W.D.Mich. 1997), United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir.1992).

Are there speed traps? Yep. Bothers me. Is there speed enforcement, yep, does not bother me. Now..... the Supremes saying that DNA swabs are protected searches upon arrest ........ that DOES bother me.

 

Thanks.
I hope not to be testing it out anytime soon.

 

Thank you for this valuable commentary. I agree with everything you said. When I said, "... if you know what you are doing," I meant if you really know, not just think you know. If you have had lots of experience on racetracks, as many Ferrari drivers have, I think you can consider yourself capable of handling a car.