Conference quark::human_relations-v1

Do you feel that the estimated speed was accurate?

I got a ticket a number of months ago, and although I when I was told what the
limit was and where the sign was (sometimes they can be hard to find) I can't
deny that I was over the speed limit, I felt that the speed that the officer
reported on the ticket was greater than what I was doing.  He advised me that
if I contested it, that the fine would probably be lowered.  So, I decided to
contest it, I haven't heard since!  I suspect that eventually I will hear, and
end up paying a fine.

Rich

    
    If you weren't speeding, fight it!
    It isn't just the cost of the ticket you'll pay, but you'll
    also be charged with auto insurance surcharges for a few years.
    
    								Hank

    
    	Well, I fought, lost and am currently serving my sentance of
    4 weeks without a licence for 3 speeding tix in 1 year's time.
    
    	I got my 2nd going 44 in a 30, in my car. Yeah, I probably was 
    going that fast, so I just paid it. The officer showed me the reading...
    
    	The very next day, I got an estimated "70" on 495, on my
    motorcycle. I contested it before a judge, on the grounds that it was 
    "estimated", and was basically laughed out of the courtroom. The judge 
    simply was not sympathetic toward me and "my story". And, that was that.
    
    	The woman ahead of me got off of her speeding ticket however;
    she had a baby with her, and explained that her old junky car just
    couldnt *go* that fast and she even tried doing her charged speed
    again in the same location, and because it was up hill...The judge
    was quite sympathetic toward her and "her story". And, that was that.
    
    	My advice, based on this experience, is that if you have a good
    reason to believe you weren't going/doing what's on the ticket,
    by all means contest it. If you think you're going to challenge
    the "estimate" simply on the grounds of it being a cop's best guess,
    forget it. The judge will side with the officer. You're better off
    going to see the magistrate and taking his offer of "a lesser speed"
    and accepting the ticket record and corresponding lesser fine.
    
    	Joe

    
    I don't know about this "estimated" stuff....but
    a big problem with speeding tickets in MA is they're so expen$ive. 
    
    The fee goes like this:
    $50 for the first 10 miles an hour over the speed limit
    $10 for EACH MILE PER HOUR over that
    
    So if you're going 75 mph on the freeway or something, it's
    $50 for 55-65 miles per hour plus
    $100 (10$ for each mph between 65-75)
    grand total of $150.
    
    -Jody
    
    

    The question that sticks out in my mind is: How can he have gotten you
    on radar if you had just come around the corner?  Or maybe there had been
    a car in front of you that turned before you went around the corner,
    and THAT is the car he clocked.
    
    Also, I've had two incidents where I've almost hit a policeman standing
    in the road.  The first time was on a side street.  There were kids
    playing everywhere so I was keeping an eye out in case they ran towards
    my car....I turned the corner and he was standing right in the middle
    of the street.  (I pulled over and told HIM he shouldn't be playing in
    the road!)
    
    The second one was on a highway.  As I came over the top of a hill they
    were standing in the road pulling people over.  Good thing (in both
    cases) I was able to stop in time!
    
    Maybe we should start a group to Keep Police Off The Streets (K-POTS)!
    
    Good luck,
    Jackie 

The fine quoted in .4 does not include the insurance surcharge, that 
can be several times that much.

These tickets aren't about traffic safety, or even law enforcement. 
They're about finding new ways of separating the public from it's
money. In other words: legalized highway robbery. 

Fight it. If you lose, you will wind up paying the same fine you
would be paying anyway, if you do nothing. If you fight, you've lost
nothing but your time and even that is not a loss - if enough of us
did it, it would send a message to corrupt politicians. Your time
will be well spent in the service of the public, as an upstanding
citizen. You've done your little something to improve this world...

-- Ron

    Re .-1
    
    I agree totally. Fight it. You stand a good chance that the magistrate
    will reduce the charge or change it to a warning. If you don't like
    that take it to court. I wish more people would fight tickets and jam
    the court system up totally. Then perhaps somebody would get it into
    their thick heads that the whole concept of revenue collection from
    motorists is fundementally flawed or costing more than it is
    collecting. Then perhaps the courts could be put back to their intended
    purpose of dealing with real criminals. If you take it to court you'll
    force the ACTUAL cop to turn up. You might hit it lucky and find he has
    retired or moved. If so and he doesn't turn up you get off. After that
    you can appeal it to jury court and that takes ages to schedule.
    
    So go for it,
    
    Dave
    
    PS My guess is that the moderator will probably shoo us away if this
       string goes on too long. There is a good discussion of revenue
       enhancement through fleecing motorists in the CARBUFFS notesfile.
       Look for the topics "Speeding Soapbox", "Speed Traps" and "Radar
       Detectors"

RE .7
 "If you take it to court you'll  force the ACTUAL cop to turn up."

I wish this were true. I was stopped for a loud muffler the day after inspection
ended. However, the day before inspection ended I had my car inspected and
a reject sticker installed. I had not been able to get the parts for the muffler
until the morning I was stopped. I showed the officer the date on the reject 
sticker and the date on the sales slip. No go he wrote me up. I went to fight 
it and he didn't show up. However, two detectives from the town of Weston were 
in court and insisted the the case be brought on existing evidence. The judge
agreed to hear it. I presented the reject sticker which I had the garage save,
the sales slip for the parts, and evidence the car had been passed. The
good inspection sticker was issued within five days of the rejection sticker 
and two of those days were weekend days. The judge asked them what the problem
was and they said, "The vehicle has ten days WITHIN THE INSPECTION PERIOD to
pass after it is rejected." Since they had stopped me after the inspection 
period ended I was guilty. The judge was as surprised as I and refused to
issue a finding because she found there was no intent on my part. But by
the same token she did not find me innocent.

    
    
    First of all, it really makes me sick to see people like in .8 have
    to go to court, and still lose when they had a good cause... I got 
    caught for speeding in Lancaster.. and it was the LAST day that I 
    had ever had to travel on that road!  The cop wrote me up for $150.00
    said I was going 50 in a 30.. which I admit to speeding but on a
    country bumkin road I KNEW it wasn't 50.... so I was told to fight it,
    I sent in my ticket, but made a photo copy for my records... when the
    day came to show up in court.. I showed my copy to a guy in my group
    who is surposed to be an expert in fighting tickets ;-).. he was
    shocked at what a JERK the cop was for covering his own butt on the
    ticket.. he checked off radar, and estimated.. and then wrote in
    estimated 40-50 miles per hour... when I went to the Magistrate, he
    showed up.. the whole day was HIS day in court.. I had the afternoon
    shift, and there were at least 10 of us fighting tickets.. so I can
    imagine how many morning people there were... needless to say, because
    of how he wrote the ticket up.. covering all grounds.. I lost, and had
    to pay it!.... You might just as well fight it.. they allow more time
    for payment that way, and it doesn't cost any more. however, if you go
    to court, I was told that there is the chance of losing and having to
    pay for the ticket, plus paying the court cost which could run up to at
    least another $50.00.... I could be wrong though....   Then after
    speeding to get to work on time, and getting my ticket in the mean
    time.. I still received 'dirty' looks from my manager when I walked in
    the door that morning :-) later then usual :-).
    
    Kelly

    .0
    
    Your note does not give any indication about how fast *you* think you
    were going.  I personally do not fight tickets if I know I am guilty
    of the offense as stated.  If I believe the officer has made a mistake,
    I fight it.
    
    Mary

    BTW,  the surcharge $$ go to the state, not the insurance company. 
    Another reason moving violaton tickets are big business to the stae
    coffers.
    

    > BTW,  the surcharge $$ go to the state, not the insurance company. 
    > Another reason moving violaton tickets are big business to the stae
    > coffers.
    
    Are you sure this is true?  I thought the surcharges were divided among
    the drivers in the state with clean driving records.
    
    K.

Re: .11 by HYSTER::DELISLE,

>    BTW,  the surcharge $$ go to the state, not the insurance company. 

So I hear (except for the merit discounts to "good" drivers). On the 
other hand, the unbelievable zeal they show in trying to collect and 
going after the vict... I mean, the insured, leads me to suspect 
they have a significant vested interest.

-- Ron

    I recieved my second ever speeding ticket about a year ago. The
    officer said I was doing 44 in a 35 (I know  I was doing about 35-37mph
    but no more (my 1st ticket I got about 15 years ago out of state
    and didn't want to travel to fight it) but this time I knew I was
    right. I went to court. 
    RE.7 The officer that writes up the ticket "DOES NOT" have to be
    in court anymore, as long as they have a rep there. In my case they
    also had Estimated and Radar. I ask the judge to explain, he had
    the cop tell me that they estimate your speed, then they turn the
    radar on????? I explained that I don't speed ( I do 55 even on rt
    2, but I think I'm the only one??) and that that day I felt that
    the radar caught the "truck" going up the hill the other way.
    I then told him I was slowing down and hitting my brakes at the
    time. He jumped all over that so I told him the reason I was slowing
    down was because the limit just before the speed sign was 40mph
    (the cop was sitting just a few ft pass the new sign. Anyway I won
    because they agreed that it could have been the truck and not me.
    I still didn't like the tone of the Judge when He Warned me do drive
    slower in the future......But Right was on my side........
    
                                                      Bob

    
    The previous reply was half right. City/town police MUST be present
    when the ticket is contested. If they're not and you present "the
    facts" well, chances are the ticket will be thrown out.
    
    The Massachusetts State Police have a legal representative (essentially
    a lawyer in a State Troopers uniform) for each district. The Rep. takes
    the deposition of the officer who issued the citation and presents the
    facts based on that deposition. Staties don't like writing tickets and
    when they do, it's usually for an obvious violation. 
    
    You should know;
    
    To be clocked, the officer MUST have you in clear view and be traveling
    at your speed for a minimum of 1/4 of a mile.
    
    You're entitled to see the display on the radar unit AND the
    certificate of calibration (ON THE SPOT).
    
    If you receive a ticket that notes "estimated speed", it's likely to
    be BS because the officer is PO'd at him/herself for note getting you
    on radar.
    
    Good luck!
    
    Tim Theo 

     FYI: You do not pay a surcharge if it is your first ticket.  I got
    a ticket on Rte 140 in West Boylston a couple of years ago (right
    at the junction of 190 and 140 near the Sterling Nursery).  Cop said
    he got me on radar and estimated.  My ticket said 55+ MPH.  I was
    probably going about 40 (which, BTW, is the speed limit in the 
    section until you cross over the West Boylston line and then it
    becomes 35).  I drive that road everyday to work and I know the 
    places the cops generally are so there is NO WAY I was going that
    fast.  Well, I contested it and it was about 8 months before I got
    a court date.  The Magistrate was going to charge me $100--the fine
    was orginally $150.  I said "no" and that I wanted to go before the
    judge because I was not going that fast and paying ANY fine would be
    an admission of guilt.  Boy, am I naive sometimes!  Oh, the cop (how
    he could remember any details after 8 months is beyond me) had written
    where he was when he got me on radar and I never noticed it until the
    court day.  I said he was not where he said he was (why would I lie
    about where he was?), but that he was on Stillwater St.  He said no
    he wasn't and the clerk said to him "Well, if you were where she says
    you were, could you have gotten her on radar?" and guess what his
    answer was?  You got it--"NO".  So, folks he lied as to where his
    car was parked and lied as to how fast I was going, but the judge still
    believed him and I had to pay the full $150.  Was I pissed when I left
    that courthouse!  Unfortunately, justice is not always served.  The
    only positive was it delayed me having to pay the ticket for 8 months
    and I CRAWL when I drive through that area now.  
    

    Laws vary by state.  Results by who's behind the bench and what side of
    the bed they woke up on.

    The last ticket I tried to fight was one where I was totally guilty (to
    the point of rear-ending a semi right in front of the police officer). 

    My defense?  I was the 6th accident at the intersection since the
    officer had showed up, and while I was waiting for the ticket (and the
    tow truck), another 6 accidents happened at the same intersection
    (total of 13 accidents in about 20 to 30 minutes).

    The judge listened to my explanation, laughed and joked (as he did with
    everyone else in front of me that day), and then sentenced me to the
    maximum fine.  Of the nine people who saw the judge before me that day,
    only one got of scott free (and she was a knock-out).

    The previous time I tried to fight a ticket, I showed up in a suit and
    tie (I was still in college).  The judge laughed, joked, and dismissed
    everyone's ticket.  Except mine.  This judge prefered poor people.

    My advice.  If you are going to fight it, find out which judge will be
    hearing your case.  Before you go for your case, go and watch one day. 
    See what the judge's mannerisms are.  Does he like rich people?  poor? 
    middle-class?  clean? dirty?  Those that talk a lot?  Those that don't?
    Etc.?  

    Then, prepare your case.  How far was it from the corner to where you
    were pulled over.  How much time was there from the time you turned the
    corner to when he told you to pull over?  What's the speed limit on
    BOTH streets?  How fast do you think you were going?  How fast did you
    tell the officer you were going?  Do you have any witnesses?  Was the
    sun in the officier's eyes?  Etc.

    On the day you go to court, remember not to insult the judge's
    intelligence.  
    
    NEVER ACCUSE THE OFFICER OF LYING.  State that there is a discrepancy
    of facts.  That the observations made by the officer do not conform to
    the empirical data.  That you have a difference of opinion with  the
    officer (and this is why), but NEVER say the officer is lying or that
    he is a liar.

    - Dave_Who_Drives_Quite_A_Bit_Slower_Than_Before_He_Got_Married

    Thank you, for your replies.  I have decided to fight it.  It seems
    like it can not hurt.  I am not very comfortable doing this and it will
    be stressful but I am also sure that this ticket was unfair.  How fast
    do I think I was going ... probably around 35 mph.  I do not drive fast
    and had just turn on the street and was driving around this corner and
    there he was in the middle of the road motioning me to pull over.
    
    
    Thank you again, for your thoughtfulness in responding.  I will let you
    know what happens..
    
    

    
    Re: .16
    
    Is that still true today, about not paying a surcharge on your
    first ticket? I thought they'd changed the laws on that. (yet again)
    
    							regards
    
    								Hank

    
    Re:
    
>DONVAN::T_THEO "Please pass the endorphins"          26 lines  27-MAR-1991 09:44
>
>    You're entitled to see the display on the radar unit AND the
>    certificate of calibration (ON THE SPOT).
    
    Interesting. Please could you give me a statute reference for this or a
    reference to an Administrative Rule. I was told point blank by a donut
    eater that I had no right to see the radar reading. And besides "he'd
    switched it off". If can can quote chapter and verse at the judge I
    feel I can get my ticket thrown out.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Dave

         I can't quote any written rules referring to such, but I have
    motivated a Colorado State Trooper to back off by asking to see the 
    radar reading.  He hadn't turned it on, so he gave me a warning and
    drove off.
    
         One of the engineers at the last company I worked for challenged
    the accuracy of the radar gun in court on a scientific basis.  I don't
    know how valid his proof was, but his knowledge of physics and their
    lack of knowledge did the job.
    
                                       Greg

Re: .20,

In Massachusetts, the police person is NOT obligated to let you see
the gun display. I was told this by the Magistrate at the Framingham
District court. 

-- Ron

re: .15

>    You should know;
    
>    To be clocked, the officer MUST have you in clear view and be traveling
>    at your speed for a minimum of 1/4 of a mile.
    
>    You're entitled to see the display on the radar unit AND the
>    certificate of calibration (ON THE SPOT).
 

Is this really true? WHat about those officers who are parked on the median 
strip?

I recently got a ticket. Said Est. 70-75, radar 72. (How convenient...)
The guy didn't make me sign for the ticket to acknowledge that I had gotten
it. (Is he supposed to?) And he said he got me on Rt 495 East! (No such thing
as 495 east, as it happens, I was on 290 east...) But I wonder if he was not
even paying enough attention to where he was, how he can possibly be sure 
of how fast he thinks I was going. There was also a large white truck in 
the middle lane right next to me (I was in the left lane)... 

What do you think? 

-Amy.

Re: .23 by RAZBRY::ASBURY,

> And he said he got me on Rt 495 East! (No such thing
> as 495 east, as it happens, I was on 290 east...) But I wonder if he was not
> even paying enough attention to where he was, how he can possibly be sure 
> of how fast he thinks I was going.

That's a technicality, you both know where you were. but I would
bring it up in court anyway - every little bit helps... 


> There was also a large white truck in 
> the middle lane right next to me (I was in the left lane)...

That's reason enough to go to court, if the truck was passing you
(or if you can claim that it was). The truck is much larger and any
radar echo from it would completely swamp the echo from your (I'm
assuming) much smaller car. If the trooper cannot claim he actually
SAW you speeding, you're in luck. 

-- Ron

    Actually, the 495/290 thing can be used to your benefit, depending on
    the exact circumstances. Were you exiting 290 onto 495? Where EXACTLY
    was the radar unit (which road, facing which way, etc)? The east 495 vs
    north 495 is semantics involving a highway loop which probably wouldn't buy
    you anything, but depending on the circumstances, the 290/495 might.
    
    Reminds me of a case when I was a cop (court officer that night). The
    ticket was legit, but the officer circled PM instead of AM. At the
    trial, the person who got the ticket asked the officer to read from his
    log book, what shift he was on and what time he started and ended.
    After that, she asked if he was on duty at X hours that evening. He
    said no, so she said, then how could you observe me speeding? The
    ticket got dismissed.
    
    Eric

Eric -

I was on 290 East before the 495 split. (About 1/2 way between the
Northboro entrace onto 290 (where I got on) and the first 495 exit.
I was in the left lane because  I wanted to get on 495 N and that's a 
left exit. The cop was just pulling into the center area, as if he were 
doing a U-turn from 290 W onto 290 E over the median strip. 

-Amy.

    
    	I have a question regarding a speeding ticket, and am hoping
    	someone can help me out. Yesterday I got caught in a speed trap on 
    	290, and got a ticket for going 71 in a 55mph zone. When the
   	officer handed me the ticket he told me I could either fight it or pay	
    	it. So, as I was driving away I looked at the ticket, and there was
    	no amount filled in. He left the amount due space blank.  
    	So, what I am wondering is do I have a chance of getting off 
    	without having to pay since the officer didn't fill the ticket out
    	correctly? I am not denying the fact that I was speeding, but I 
    	think I may have good chance of getting off because the officer 
    	didn't take the time to fill the ticket out properly, so it was 
    	his error.  Does anyone know if this is possible?
    
    	Thanks,
    
    	Dina
        

    
    Dina,
    
    	I beat a ticket once when the officer put down the wrong
    	route number. Hopefully, you'll be as lucky.
    
    
    						regards
    
    							Hank

    re.27
    
    Why get off you are guilty aren't you? 71 in a 55 dosen't sound like
    you were a little over or a speedometer error.
    
    -j
    

Re: .27 by OBSESS::FALLO,

>    He left the amount due space blank.  
>    So, what I am wondering is do I have a chance of getting off

No such luck. The fine may be listed on the back of the ticket or 
you can call the courthouse to get it. I doubt you can get the 
charge kicked out on a technicality that has nothing to do with the 
violation itself.

-- Ron

    
    
    RE: .29 (Jerry)
    
    > Why get off you are guilty aren't you? 71 in a 55 dosen't sound like
    >    you were a little over or a speedometer error.
    
    Who is to say?  The author of .27 never said whether they were innocent
    or guilty.
    
    I got a ticket for going 81 in a 55 in Denver one day (he said I was
    going 86)......My speedometer said approx 63.....I KNOW that because I
    was approaching where I thought the speed reduced to 55 (from 65). 
    What I didn't know was that they had moved the reduced speed limit sign
    out two miles from it's  original location.....  He nailed me
    (stopwatch, timed between two points, from an overpass), almost took my
    license away on the spot until I started listing off the inaccuracies
    of that sort of speed measurement from a Physics viewpoint (not to
    mention the fact that traffic was heavy that day, and I was moving
    at/below the speed of traffic).
    
    Charges ended up being dropped....never once did I lie, and the ticket
    was totally inaccurate.
    
    One shouldn't put so much faith in a ticket, but at the same time, one
    shouldn't lie under oath either.
    
    kath

    RE:  <<< Note 1148.31 by WLDKAT::GALLUP "What's your damage, Heather?" >>>

    >>Who is to say?  The author of .27 never said whether they were innocent
    >>or guilty.
    
         Excuse me??
    
    From .27:   <<< Note 1148.27 by OBSESS::FALLO >>>
     
    >>I am not denying the fact that I was speeding, but I 
    >>think I may have good chance of getting off because the officer 
    >>didn't take the time to fill the ticket out properly
    
          

    
    
    RE: .32
    
    Oops!  So, I missed that particular line!
    
    Anyway, my comments still hold true, about tickets that big in general
    being "off"....
    
    kat

    There may be a reason for leaving the amount blank also....
    
    In California if you are speeding more then 15 mph over the posted 
    speed limit it is considered wreckless driving and requires you to 
    appear in court regardless.  (At least that was the law in 78 the last 
    time I got a speeding ticket, it may have changed since then).  
    
    Skip

>    Why get off you are guilty aren't you? 71 in a 55 dosen't sound like
>    you were a little over or a speedometer error.

I would fight a ticket just as a way to protest!

I believe the speeding laws are unjust, unfair.  Correlation between safety 
and speed has been greatly exaggerated.   When the national 55 mph speed
limit was set, certain parties claimed massive numbers of lives were saved
because of the speed reduction.   This relation is not valid.  The speed 
limits were set to conserve fuel during a gas crisis.  During this period 
there were far fewer cars on the roads.    We don't know if highway safety
increased or decreased.

There are reasonable police officers who will not enforce speed limits
unless you exceed them by 15 MPH.  (I believe I read that the Acton police
admitted to this, and then later retracted it after people complained.)
I would hope that the police have more important things to do.

Dangerous/reckless driving laws should be enforced.   Low speed limits
are reasonable it certain areas, especially residential neighborhoods.

Speed limits do not have popular support.   I can drive 20 miles on 495 at 
70 MPH and not pass anybody.   Unreasonably low speed limits have created an 
adversarial relationship between otherwise law abiding citizens and the 
police, who have the unfortunate duty of enforcing these irrational rules.

If you want to steer this discussion back towards human relations, we could
discuss how the unpopular speed limits have affected relations between
drivers and the police. (I think someone called them "donut munchers" in
this topic.)

-Paul

    re .-1  Interesting thought... only laws that have popular support
    should be enforced?  Who defines popular?  Does that mean that laws
    that give people things (welfare, college loans/grants, etc.) should be
    enforced, but laws that require people to pay for these programs (IRS
    rules & regs) should be ignored?  I can see a real can of worms with
    that thinking.  Do way take a referendum on each law/rule to see if
    it's "popular" before we decide to obey it?
    
    	I'll admit that I speed, too... I can drive 75 on the tollways
    around here in the right lane.  But... if a law is _really_ unpopular,
    then there are ways in which it can be changed.  Write your
    congress-critter and your state and local reps.  If the law is truly
    unpopular, politicians will fall all over themselves to do the popular
    thing.

re .>Note 1148.36                 Do I fight or give in?
>
>    re .-1  Interesting thought... only laws that have popular support
>    should be enforced?
      Yes
>      Who defines popular?
      In a democracy, the majority.
>                                                 Does that mean that laws
>    that give people things (welfare, college loans/grants, etc.) should be
>    enforced, but laws that require people to pay for these programs (IRS
>    rules & regs) should be ignored?
      Correct.
      If they are unpopular then Yes ignore them. You will find however that
      few people ignore tax laws because they see the benefit to themselves of
      the tax laws. Take the poll tax in Britain. the people ignored that (in
      sufficient numbers) until it went away. I think that the last time a tax
      law was ignored in the US was in Boston and they had a tea party to
      celebrate (I can be corrected). 
      
>                                       I can see a real can of worms with
>    that thinking.  Do way take a referendum on each law/rule to see if
>    it's "popular" before we decide to obey it?
>
      In democracies, we take a referendum every 4 (approx) years where we
      decide on the popularity of the laws passed.
      
>      
>        I'll admit that I speed, too... I can drive 75 on the tollways
>    around here in the right lane.  But... if a law is _really_ unpopular,
>    then there are ways in which it can be changed.  Write your
>    congress-critter and your state and local reps.  If the law is truly
>    unpopular, politicians will fall all over themselves to do the popular
>    thing.
      speeding laws are, contrary to the opinion of the few *not* unpopular.
      The majority require/demand them.
      I was in San Francisco area in june 89, My renta car wound right off the
      speedo and I was still being passed. Speeding tickets (I believe) are
      seen in most countries as a sportsman like way of collecting tax. We
      currently have the technology to eliminate speeding as an offence. In
      the car, or through automated speed traps. 

>There are reasonable police officers who will not enforce speed limits
>unless you exceed them by 15 MPH.  (I believe I read that the Acton police
>admitted to this, and then later retracted it after people complained.)
    
Couldn't be true!  One of Acton's finest got me for 45 in a 35.