Exactly. Just look at the new jaywalking enforcement downtown. The cops have to hold back a snicker when they say they're doing it to save lives.
so should we get rid of speed limits entirely? and, no..it's not just your word against theirs. lawyers beat tickets for clients all the time. people beat tickets on their own without attorneys, all the time. everytime i've been ticketed, i've known i was speeding. it didn't surprise me to get a ticket. i was speeding.
I received a ticket last summer, fought it, and won. I pleaded not guilty, went and spoke with the asst D.A., and had the ticket thrown out. I wonder why...maybe because I was actually innocent.
This is a two sided issue. Do I follow traffic laws? Absolutely. Do I get incredibly pissed when I see someone run a red light? Absolutely. But legislature and council have made me more irritated with tickets than with the lawbreakers.
The way it works in my area is different, which I just found out two weeks ago, If you decide to contest the ticket, you go to a court hearing first. The judge asks what you want to plead. If not guilty is pleaded, then he sets a court trial date of your convenience (by that it means you agree to appear). He also "kindly" reminds if you want to bring any witness during the trial. So I assume the cop will show up. I agree with fattie on the the decision by the local government to include court fee in the fine. This is simply atrocious, indicative of corruption.
i understand that feeling..particularly related to the new jaywalking enforcement. but i don't know what the alternative is, because i'm not real interested in saying there should be no speed limits, nor am i interested in locking people up for speeding.
I agree that court fees should not be so jacked up if you don't show up to court. Just keep in mind that court fees also includes the paperwork and processing to clear your name in the books. Maybe it's just added incentive not to speed. Do I speed? Occasionally. I don't know many people (except FFB) that don't. But I never speed in residential areas.
My problem with tickets is that you don't know when they're going to enforce it. If the speed limit's 70, why do most cops let you drive to 78 or so before pulling you over? If you're going to pull me over for going 78, I have every right to be pissed that they didn't pull over the guy going 77.
My thinking is if a cop promises to show the evidence but later couldn't produce it, then it's a sign of sloppiness of police work, which could potentially implies his untrustworthiness on top of incompetence.
It works that way everywhere I would assume. Your first court date is the arraignment, which is done for every criminal case in the US as far as I know.
I've been told by both city police and state troopers that they won't pull you over for 10 mph on the freeways, but in residential areas, 10 mph makes a big difference.
I never said it was. I'm just saying if you were speeding, step up and take it like a man. It's really not too hard to understand.
Also, don't ever pass a cop that is going at the speed limit. The 8-10 MPH buffer is out the window in those cases. I learned that one the hard way earlier this year.
meeting quotas at the end of the month by pulling over rush hour traffic is the worst. this only creates bottle necks b/c people all of a sudden put on their brakes after seeing red and blue lights flashing which leads to possibly more accidents. if the speed limit is 60 and drivers are going 70, but are keeping traffic flowing smoothly, there's no need to dick around by "meeting quotas".
BTW...try that in court just for ****s and giggles. While the officer tells the judge you were clocked at 40+ over in a residential area, you tell him that you are invoking your 5th amendment right and not going to say how fast you were going. See what happens and let us know the outcome.
But why are you assuming I was speeding, by quoting the 5th Amendment part? The very first of your post shows your biased opinion. It is not too hard to say your mind is predetermined, is it?
