Conference back40::soapbox

    
  >Do any of you fine folks have any experience appealing speeding tickets 
  >in court?
    
  Not me.  Jim?
    

    I would find it hard to believe that radar from 
    a moving vehicle was extraordinarily reliable.
    What kind of radar was it?
    
    Who was the officer?  Maybe I went to high school
    with him.... :-)

    
    
    Where's Zarlenga......?
    
    
    
    Read up on the subject at your library.  There are studies which show
    the inaccuracy of these devices (I believe someone mentioned them in
    here the other day).
    
    
    Mike

    
    	Yeah, check the latter portion of note 12, and search for
    	"moving" and/or "radar".
    

    
    There's always topic 355.  And ::CARBUFFS as well.
    

    
    Joel, tell the magistrate that the officer pulled you over because he
    thought you were cute.
    
    actually, I believe Dick Binder brought up the topic of the tree
    getting clocked at 85 mph.

  I never got to see the actual reading or the gun type. I know in Vt, they
bring you into the car and show you the radar reading. As far as who the
officer is, I can't make out his name. The scribble looks like N or M Row,
badge #9. Thanks for the pointers. I also question the accuracy of a radar
gun in a moving police car. 

Joel

.6 Although I would consider the cute defense if the officer was female,
this guy was older and not my type. In fact, he was probably the least
personable police officer I have ever met. I like the tree defense though.
There is a religious school there, maybe I can say he recorded some spirit
going by. 

Joel

    
    
    
    Just tell the judge that the cop must've found out about the affair you
    had with his wife and had it in for you.

    
    "He had it in for me because I had it in her..." :-)
    
    -b

    
    >Just tell the judge that the cop must've found out about the affair you
    >had with his wife and had it in for you.
    
    	As long as "his" refers to the cop and not the judge.
    
    	If "his" refers to the judge, it's been nice knowing you.  8^)
    

    
    "...was clocked at eight inches per second..."
    

    
    Look at the address where the "infraction" occured.  Was he in Clinton
    or Berlin. Did he mark the address where the infraction occured, or
    where he actually clocked you ?
    
    If he is a Clinton officer, but marked the place of infraction in
    Berlin, or falsified the infraction point to make it in Clinton,
    then argue jurisdiction.
    
    At least in Texas, if an officer from town A clocks the infraction
    in town B, he's clearly out of his jurisdiction.
    
    The radar defense ? Good luck.

    
    well Joel, you could have checked out his sense of humor when he came
    up to your window.
    
    " Yes, I'd like a cheeseburger, fries and a large coke."

    Unfortunately radar works very well in a moving vehicle, particularly
    if he is moving toward you.  It can also work moving in the same
    direction.  The caveat is that the unit must be capable of providing
    timinings under the given circumstances.
    
    I would ask the police department what type of radar units they use and
    check and see if it is capable of clocking an oncoming vehicle.
    
    Assuming the unit is capable of clocking coming toward you, ask to see
    the calibration records on the unit.  I believe these units are to be
    calibrated at each shift change or on a daily basis.  If the unit
    wasn't calibrated in X period of time, you may have a pretty solid
    defense if the speeds are close.
    

    
    Also ask for the training certificate for the officer. He must have 
    these documents with him at the court.
    
    ed

	.15s advice is good. The units need to be calibrated periodically. 

	Also "moving radar" is tied to the vehicle's speedometer. Make
	sure that you ask about the speedometer calibration as well.
	ESPECIALLY inquire as to calibration AFTER the department
	switched to snow tires. In order to use the "85mph tree"
	defense, you are ging to have to prove that this radar is
	the same make and model as the unit that had the erroneous
	readings.

	.16s advice is not so good. THe officer can testify as to
	his training and certification (under oath). This will carry
	the same weight with the magistrate as the actual documentation.

Jim

    deferred adjudication
    or
    defensive driving
    or
    appeal to a higher court, keep appealing until it gets thrown out
    
    Do not go to trial!

    Can anyone guess what I would like to say. I'm being good, no?

Dunno what it's like over there, but there's no point in contesting a speeding 
charge here.  Your options are a) accept the on the spot fine and pay them �40 
or b) contest it in court and pay considerably more.  Option b) is not very 
attractive...

Chris.

PS rather oddly I've never been stopped for speeding, must be better behaved 
when driving than I think.

 The officer wouldn't even engage in any conversation. When I tried to talk
to him, he just walked away without answering or even acknowledging that I
asked him a question. So as far as his wife is concerned, good luck to her.
I've heard the calibration arguments before. I assumed those stories were just
folklore and wishful thinking. Ultimately, it comes down to his word against
mine unless I can get him on some proceedure issue. The ticket says Berlin St.
in Clinton. I can't recall if we were still in Clinton or not. Oh well.
Thanks for all the help. I will post the results. Maybe we can start a pool.
The current fine says $120.00. I say I can get it cut in half to $60.00. I
assume there is nothing I can do about the STEP rating penalty. The 
date is Jan 22.

Joel

    
    
    
    .0 Pay the ticket, get it behind you. 
    
    Suggested reading Carbuff notes, 488.1952 and .1958
    
    

    
    Base noter:
    
    This is unbelievable. I also was stopped in Clinton, on Sterling St/
    Rt. 62 WB Clinton. The officer said I was doing 49 in a 30 MPH zone,
    and even though the area is not posted, the neighbors have been
    complaining about people speeding up the hill. The road where he 
    stopped me in is posted at 40, then goes to 45. My husband told me to 
    look to see what the last speed sign was I saw, I said 40. I travel 
    this road every Sat to go out to Berlin from Leominster. 
    
    The guy was a total jerk. He gave me a ticket for $140, which I have
    a court date to appeal.  He also marked the wrong date on the ticket,
    I was stopped on Veteran's day, which was 11/11/95 and he put 11/12.
    
    The ticket is marked with "not posted", "radar and estimate". I am to
    appear in Clinton Court on 1/29 for my hearing.
    
    Mary
    

    
    well Mary, if you can prove you were not there on 11/12, they have to
    throw the ticket out of court. It's not your fault the officer wrote in
    the wrong date.
    
    Mark

    Any defense?  Yes, don't speed.  Ummm...maybe I should try that 
    some time.   
    

    
    <----- yes, but only after a long lunch.

    Not quite; racing to leave early.

    re: "WILBER_D"
    
    Why would you pay the ticket?  
    
    You're insurance would cost more, not to mention the cost of paying the 
    ticket.  
    
    It doesn't make sense to me why anyone would just pay their ticket when
    there are so many (cheaper) alternatives...
    
    "To get it behind you" ??  How weak!!!

    
     Just do what my X does.... Cry your eyes out and tell'em you have 
    four kids and you'll lose your license if you get another ticket,
    and lose you job if you lose your license , and lose your kids if you 
    lose your job..... (Then after laugh a whole lot when they buy the
    story).
    
    
     Hey some may laugh about this but I've seen it work in action.
    I guess if probably does not work very well for men.........
    
    
    
     Seriously , go to court just in case the cop doesn't show up.
    If you think your gonna beat the radar you dreamin. You may be able
    to cut the fine down, I.E. "Your Honor"(what the hell is that anyway)
    "He said I was going 47 but I know I was going only 40. You will 
    still be found guilty but with less of a fine. 
    
     Good Luck (I think you best bet is the tears)
    
     Hack

    
    what's this about "go to court and hope the officer doesn't show up"??
    every time i have ever appealed a ticket (and i appeal them all), the
    ticketing officer has never been there...someone in his place shows up,
    who wasn't even at the ticketing.  have i been had (no smartass
    comments) or at the hearing is it ok for the officer not to be there?? 
    (massachusetts courts)
    
    

    
    	No, the officer doesn't have to be there for the magistrate hear-
    	ing.
    
    	But he does [or at least a rep from the department] have to show
    	up if you go before the judge.
    

    And if the officer does show up, you then have the option of going
    deferred...costs a little more, but doesn't go on your record...

    > Seriously , go to court just in case the cop doesn't show up.
    >If you think your gonna beat the radar you dreamin.
    
     Pinch me, then.
    
    The Doctah (who's beaten a radar ticket issued by a member of the
    Massachusetts State Police 55 Team. To the delight of everyone in the
    courtroom, I might add.)

    Details, Doctah, please!  

    If the officer who ticketed you does not show up for your trial, you
    can move for dismissal.  If there's another officer there, you can
    point out that the one who is there was not present at the incident and
    cannot therefore offer any testimony except hearsay.  (Hearsay evidence
    is not admissible in a court of law.)
    
    If the amount is over $20.00, you can demand a jury trial under the
    Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the United States Constitution.

    
    or you can always hire Johhny Cochran Jr to defend you, " if it doesn't
    fit, you must aquit"

    RE .33
    
    Your my hero....... Hey dreams come true sometimes...... 
    
    What in the world did you say to get out of the pinch?
    
    Curious George

    
    <----- he probably was talking about wine in french, and they were
    suitably impressed, hence they let him off.

     I was driving down 495 on a saturday morning. I may have been going as
    fast as 65. As I went under the 290 overpass, a cop emerged from the
    median strip and pulled me over. He claimed to have gotten me on radar
    at 70 mph, though my radar detector never went off. I asked to see the
    radar gun, and he refused. I asked him when the radar gun had last been
    calibrated, and told him I wanted to see the calibration sticker. He
    refused. I told him I wasn't going 70, and he wrote me a ticket for 70.
    So I decided to contest the ticket.
    
     The first time I went before a magistrate, and trooper Foley did not
    show up. He sent some other flunkie in his stead. We sat before the
    magistrate and I gave my side of the story. I said that first of all,
    the trooper did not have a line of sight for ther radar. And I
    explained that I wasn't allowed to see that A) he's really gotten me on
    radar and was not just making this up and B) that the radar had
    recently been calibrated. The cop said he wasn't there so he could
    neither affirm nor refute my testimony, but he saw no reason why the
    ticket should be dismissed. So the magistrate said that we'd have to
    reschedule so we could get the ticketing cop's testimony. And the
    magistrate than asked the key question: "Do you want to be heard in
    front of a judge or another magistrate?" I asked him what the
    difference was. He said that if seen before a judge, the failure of the
    officer to show up would mean a forfeiture on his part whereas he could
    continue to not show up in front of a magistrate without penalty. I
    decided to be heard in front of a judge. This is KEY, IMO, to getting
    off. Having been heard by several magistrates, I've come to understand
    that they are delighted with the tiny bit of power they wield and are
    only too happy to use it to crush those of us who are not connected.
    
     So finally court day is here. Marlboro District Court. I show up on
    time, and there's no sign of trooper Foley. Ye-ha! It's going to be
    easy! Not so. After the first reading of the list, my name isn't
    called. What the %^&*?!! So I go up to the clerk and ask her about my
    case. "Oh, you're trooper Foley's case. He's in court in Ayer." "Well,
    I'm supposed to be heard today." "Ok," she said, "I'll get you as soon
    as I can." So she sends a bailiff to call the cop and get him to shag
    down to Marlboro. 
    
     In the meanwhile, I was treated to some really amusing stuff. I
    heartily recommend that bored or curious people go to court as a
    spectator to see what's going on there. It's a real hoot. Scares you,
    though, when you realize they can all vote.
    
     Anyway, our judge was visiting from Dorchester, so he was used to even
    bigger losers than we had that day. And basically most of these people
    are total losers, so if you are able to conduct yourself in a manner
    that demonstrates differently, you are at a huge advantage, at least
    over the other defendants. And my other advantage was that the judge
    was visiting, and hence, wasn't a personal acquaintance of the
    trooper's.
    
    
     Finally, the jerk shows up, and he's as surly as ever. The judge sees
    him and now my case becomes first in line. He calls my case and I go to
    the table, and I am pretty nervous. First he calls the trooper. "My
    name is Martin T. Foley of the State Police 55 Team. On such and such a
    day, I witnessed a vehicle being driven by the defendant at a high rate
    of speed. Clocked him on radar at 70 mph, and that is the basis of the
    state's case, yerronner."
    
     So the judge calls me up to the stand. "State your name, where you
    live, and where you work." My name is Mark Levesque, I live in
    Westboro, and I work at Raytheon Radar Systems Lab." At this the
    judge's interest perks up. "So you could be considered an expert on the
    subject?" "Well, let's just say that I know a little about radar."
    (Which is quite true. A little. :-) Well, we had gotten off on the
    right foot.
    
     So I begin by giving my side of the story. That he stopped me, he
    didn't show me the speed on the radar gun, didn't show me the
    calibration sticker. I then went into a physics discussion about how
    radar works and how the way he was using the radar gun would account
    for a measurement error that would explain a reading of 70 even though
    I was sure I wasn't going that fast, etc. (My wife tells me that
    through this, you could have heard a pin drop; I was too focused to
    notice.) So then the judge gets the trooper back up for his rebuttal
    case. And he starts off by saying "well I don't know anything about
    physics...' And the judge starts questioning him. "well why didn't you
    let him see the radar gun?" "Well, it's not policy, blah, blah,
    blah..." "What about the calibration?" more blah, blah, blah. "And
    besides, I didn't want to let him get out of the car because it could
    be a danger to him." I blurted (out of turn) "What about field sobriety
    tests?" The judge held up his hand to quiet me and I shut up
    immediately. "Ok, you're dismissed," he said to the officer. The cop
    keeps chattering about how my safety would have been compromised if he
    let me out of the car to check the radar gun. "I said you're dimissed!"
    
     Then the judge leaned over and said to the clerk, "I'm going to find
    him not responsible." The he sits up and says, "I'm going to find you 
    not responsible." I could hardly believe my ears. And people in the
    courtroom are going "Yeah! Awright!" "Order!" And I look at the cop,
    and he's absolutely steamed. His face is beet red, and he's some kind
    of pissed. So I go back into the gallery to retrieve my jacket, and I
    can't repress a smile. And people are congratulating me for beating the
    ticket. And I'm grinning from ear to ear. So as we leave, the cop is
    standing in the doorway with with his dark glasses on. "You have a
    nice day," he hisses. "You too, officer! Happy hunting!" I swear steam
    came off his ears.
    
     So like I say, I hope I never run into this SOB again.
    
     I think the important part is to be heard by a judge, to dress like
    you aren't a lowlife, and to show respect to the judge. And dispute the
    key facts, especially if the road is not clearly marked. Visual aids
    are a plus. I drew pictures on a blackboard, but it is more effective
    if you have things prepared beforehand. If you do your homework, it
    will show and may be enough to sway a judge whose basic decision is who
    to believe. Don't forget that you are entitled to discovery, and you
    can force the officer to hand over relevant records. (Perhaps your
    defense is that he hands out tickets to a disproportionate number of out
    of state drivers. You can get a copy of his ticket book to make your
    case.) Do your homework and don't act like a bonehead and you'll at
    least get the fine reduced and possibly convince the judge to make it
    an equipment violation (no points.) (This was offered to me by the
    first magistrate, but I didn't bite.)
    
     Good luck.
    
     The Doctah

    'pril,
    
    I don't think they have deferred adjudication in the P.R.M.
    
    Bob

    Gee Mark, thanks for posting that, I felt like I was in the court room
    with you.

Wow.. what a nice report!

   .39
    
    Nice one Mark.  Bet the cop was a gun toting liberal:^)   It's said that 
    the better you document your case the better off you are.  You proved
    it.
    
    I have only had one speeding ticket in 20 years, and as I was going 80 
    on Rt. 95 (late for lunch) I didn't argue.  As I hadn't deliberately 
    driven the speed limit for years, I felt I was due.

    
    	Late for lunch, or late from lunch?
    

    Very impressive, Mark...
    
    Bob, what's the P.R.M.?

    Good one Mark :-)  Sounds like you bested Officer Obie on that one :-)
    
    

    
    	RE: April
    
    	The People's Republic of Massachusetts.
    

    
    <----- that similar to, let's say the People's Republic of China?

    
    	I've beaten a few tickets in front of a magistrate and one in front
    of a judge. I agree that the magistrates love what little power they
    have....they'll belittle you in a heartbeat. I had one magistrate in
    Framingham tell me that I was an irresponsible citizen, unconcerned for
    my own safety and the safety of others around me (I was driving 65,
    WITH the rest of the miles of traffic on 495). Needless to say I
    contested her decision just to piss her off....:)
    
    
    jim

    Mass is a communist state?

    
    <------ sure, just ask the Pope.

    
    	RE: April
    
    	Sometimes it seems like it, or so people think.
    

    
    .28
    
    >    Why would you pay the ticket?
    
    
    I gave a pointer to suggested reading... but in further detail.
    I believe that if your wrong your wrong. I would never recommend
    ducking responsibility.
    
    >    It doesn't make sense to me why anyone would just pay their ticket
    
    So you take a vacation day 8*pay=??
    Ever been hit with a sur-fine called court costs?
    I've seen people win and still pay court costs.
    
    Saving money? 
    
    You better be sure you in the right and prove it 
    else admitt it and forget it.
    

    
    I can prove it was the 11th of the month and note the 12th. I go to a
    riding lesson every Sat in Berlin and I write a check for it, and they
    don't hold lessons on Sunday. 
    
    That is the only time I go out that way at that time of day, my routine
    is consistant. :>)
    
    Mary
    

| <<< Note 627.54 by NETCAD::PERARO >>>

| -< No sir, I was not in Clinton then... >-

	Mary, I'm trying to figure out how you could ever be in Clinton...

                      <<< Note 627.54 by NETCAD::PERARO >>>
>                   -< No sir, I was not in Clinton then... >-

	THe officer can ammend the ticket. Don't count on the error
	in the date to get you off the hook.

Jim

    Coupla questions: Is insurance compulsory for motor vehicles in the US
    of A ?
                    : Travelling thru a town called "Clinton"..how honest
    do you expect the cops to be, after all , consider the namesake.....
    
    The reason i ask re the insurance, is that it aint compulsory in NZ
    yet..
    Y'all sing with me "land of the free.."
    
    Pierre

>    Coupla questions: Is insurance compulsory for motor vehicles in the US
>    of A ?

No. Some individual states require that motorists and vehicles be insured
while others do not.

    ask the police, when you go to court, what is the accuracy of the
    speedo on his car, then ask what the accuracy of the radar is, and then
    ask when did the police get an accurate radar system that could tell
    how fast your going other than if it was a lazar system. And ask what
    kinda system it is? Dloplar? Lazar? Then ask about the calabration and
    who does it, and when was it last preformed.
    

    
    
     A little off the subject, so shoot me.....
    
    
     So why oh why do I have to pay court costs if I already pay taxes???
    
     I don't seem to have to pay the mailman???
    
     Keith

    Dloplar?

    Lazar?

    I'm obviously falling behind with all this new fangledy technology.

    re: .57
    
    Clinton's namesake is DeWitt Clinton, not President Clinton.
    
    ex-Clinton resident

    DeWitt Clinton.  Governor of New York who got the Erie Canal dug. 
    Forward thinker.

  .39 Thanks for the first hand account. I think I would pay the fine if they
changed the infraction so that no points were assigned rather than take more
time off from work. We'll see if the guy shows. The court house is in Clinton
so I am assuming he'll be there. I was not aware they could send another
cop in his place. I thought I had a right to face my accuser, but then again,
I've never been to court. The whole family used to watch Perry Mason when I
was growing up. We'd all try and figure out who the guilty person was. That was
a great show. Anyway's, that's not much help here. 

    As far as Clinton Mass goes. My brother-law was in from Caliphonia a few
years ago. As my wife was driving him to our house in Stering, she took him
through Clinton. As they were going under the railroad bridge on Rt62, he
saw that someone had written "Clinton sucks" in spray paint. He being 
the dyed in the wool republican that he is said "Hey, glad to see that
someone in Mass felt the same way he did about Bill Clinton" When my wife
told him that they were refering to the town and not the candidate, he
thought that was the funniest thing in the world. Then again, he's a ditto
head, so we know he's humor impaired anyway.

Joel

    
    	RE: .60
    
    	For the same reason we have insurance surcharges even though we
    	pay car insurance, I guess.  Namely, you pay for the service to
    	be there, but you pay more if you actually have to use it.
    

    .64
    
    You do have a right to face your accuser in a criminal trial.  The
    claim is that violating a traffic law is not a criminal offense.  Which
    makes it a civil offense, and in that case it becomes a trial at common
    law.  If the ticket is more than $20.00, you have the right to demand a
    jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.
    
    They can send another cop in place of the one who ticketed you.  Any
    such "designated cop" cannot offer admissible evidence in court - all
    he can offer is hearsay.  But they won't tell you that his evidence is
    inadmissible.  You can point that out to the judge, but don't try to
    come off as a lawyer - just say something like "This officer wasn't
    there when I got my ticket.  He doesn't know what happened.  Isn't what
    he says just hearsay?  I thought hearsay evidence wasn't allowed in
    court."
    
    You can move for dismissal if your cop doesn't show - if you're in
    front of a judge.

>    If the ticket is more than $20.00, you have the right to demand a
>    jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

Exactly how does this work? It was my understanding that in certain states,
New Hampshire being one of them as of about 11 years ago, there was a much
higher minimum amount required in a civil matter before a jury trial could
be demanded. The case I'm thinking of involved a civil settlement rather
than a penalty, but is the $20 really a Federal limitation?

    re: .62
    
    It was an attempt at humour. Was it not obvious enough ??
    Joel, if you are implying that i am a "ditto head" because I drew a
    parrallel, for humourous reasons, between Billy the Kid & the town,
    I resemble the implication..
    
    Pierre
    

    .67
    
    There are two possibilities:
    
    1.  A traffic violation is a criminal offense.  If so, the Sixth
        Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to a jury
        trial:
    
            In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
            to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State
            and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...
    
    2.  A traffic violation is not a criminal offense.  It is then, by
        default, a civil offense and falls under the laws governing civil
        suits.  In this case, the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to
        a jury trial if the amount is $20.00 or greater:
    
            In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
            exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
            preserved...

.68 Sorry to disappoint you, but the implication was not intended ;-) I promise
    to try harder next time. Besides, wasn't Dewitt Clinton the name of a 
    train? 

.66 Believe me, the last thing I would try and do is fake being a lawyer. I
    agree with your wording on how to make the point though. This will require
    the magistrate to rule on the issue and take the virtual cop out of
    play. Thanks

Joel

.Dick>        suits.  In this case, the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right *
.Dick>        a jury trial if the amount is $20.00 or greater:
.Dick>
.Dick>            In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
.Dick>            exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
.Dick>            preserved...

So, I'll repeat my question. How is it that New Hampshire among other states
have enacted legislation prohibiting the requirement/allowance for a jury
trial in civil matters less than some much larger minimum amount? I believe
the minimum may be that above which matters pass out of small claims court 
in NH. About 12 years ago, after building my house, a subcontractor placed
a mechanic's lein on my property due to a dispute over work/payment. Part
of winning my side was the threat to put the matter to jury trial - the
$$$ in dispute were around $1K. My lawyer cautioned me less than a year
later that the NH legislature had passed bills preventing such an action
in the future, and that in order to demand jury trial, the disputed settlement
had to be in excess of $2k.

    .71
    
    Any such state laws are in violation of the Constitution.  Until
    someone make a Constitutional challenge out of one, the law will
    continue to be enforced illegally.

    Re .71:
    
    > About 12 years ago, after building my house, a subcontractor placed a
    > mechanic's lein on my property due to a dispute over work/payment. Part
    > of winning my side was the threat to put the matter to jury trial - the
    > $$$ in dispute were around $1K. My lawyer cautioned me less than a year
    > later that the NH legislature had passed bills preventing such an
    > action in the future, and that in order to demand jury trial, the
    > disputed settlement had to be in excess of $2k.
    
    New Hampshire Constitution, Part First, Article 20, says "In all
    controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or more
    persons except those in which another practice is and has been
    customary and except those in which the value in controversy does not
    exceed $1,500 and no title to real estate is involved, the parties have
    a right to trial by jury."  The amount was $500 from 1960 to 1988.  Get
    another lawyer.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

re:       <<< Note 627.73 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

OK. I was mistaken on the amount ($1.5K rather than $2K) and my lawyer was
possibly wrong in that a lein on the title was involved [if I understand
the legal-speak properly - it's not one of my strong points.]

But this appears to be, as Dick said, unconstitutional according to the
seventh, no?

>OK. I was mistaken on the amount ($1.5K rather than $2K) and my lawyer was
>possibly wrong in that a lein on the title was involved [if I understand
>the legal-speak properly - it's not one of my strong points.]

$500 according to edp.

> $500 according to edp.


???

EDP says the law used to impose a $500 limit, but now imposes a $1.5K limit,
and I mistakenly thought it was $2K.

???

You said it was about 12 years ago.  edp said it was $500 until 1988.

> You said it was about 12 years ago.  edp said it was $500 until 1988.

What can I say, Gerald? I built the house in 83 and 84. In May of 84 the
subcontractor slapped the lein on the property. In June of 84 the lawyer
pushed for the jury trial and got the case dismissed. I thought it was the
next year that he told me that they changed the law. I guess I was wrong. 
It was a few years later, not the next year. My memory isn't so good once 
we go back past last Thanksgiving . . . 

I'm still wondering why we've had an unconstuitutional law on the books
for several years without it having been challenged.

    Dont get caught in Chicago (Cook County). I was ticketed there 15 years
    ago by the local fuzz, in a town known for speed traps, every block on
    the main drag the speed limit changed from 30 to 35, then 30, etc. with
    a cop at nearly every cross street waiting. Anyway I was exiting the
    interstate to enter this town and was pulled over as soon as I got off
    the ramp and was told i was doing 20 miles over the limit coming over
    the overpass. I was NEVER on any overpass, I told the fuzz this and he
    said "I am not the judge, tell it to the judge". I told him he was the
    judge here as he made the call to ticket me, he told me "to bad son,
    tell it to the judge".
    
    When I went to court we were all informed there are 3 ways to plead,
    
    Guilty,Not Guilty, and Technical Not Guilty, this one gets you a
    greatly reduced fine and the ticket is tossed in the garbage before
    your eyes. This is how they want you to plead so they get the afternoon
    off. They tell you at the beginning of the session if your going to
    please this way make your checks out for $15.00 to the Clerk Of Cook
    County now to speed things up when your name is called.
    
    Well dummy me pleaded not guilty as was charged with contempt of court!
    Turns out if you plead not guilty in front of this judge he views it as
    calling the cop a liar and calling the cop a liar is contemp as he is
    an officer of the court. I was halled off to Cook County Jail for 4
    hours to reconsider my plea. Being the only person there wearing a suit
    was a real pleasure. I also was not allowed to make a phone call to
    inform my boss and customer I was going to be late.
    
    Once transported back the judge asked me how I pleaded, I said guilty
    and paid the fine and at the exit door, looked back and called him a
    kangaroo! and ran like hell.
    
    Never went back to that town, had the account transfered to another
    rep.
    
    Later transported back 

    
    well I live in Chicago, and I would *like* to know what town you
    are refering to. Cook County Jail, is a gorgeous place to visit..

    
    	15 years ago is a long time ... many things could have changed.
    
    	For example, maybe they run Koala Courts there now.
    

    
    If you are going to contest it - definitely go for a judge.  I had a
    friend who contested a radar ticket.  He was driving a small car and
    there was a fairly large truck behind him.  It was obvious that the
    truck would produce a bigger echo, and so that was what was clocked. 
    He presented this to a Judge who then dismissed the case.
    
    In another case, my roommate was rung up for driving without a license,
    without insurance, without registration and without a valid inspection
    sticker.  The Magistrate offered to do a deal for $600. to settle the
    case.  My roommate wanted to take the deal, but got confused and ended
    up in front of the judge (potential total fines - $1200.00).
    
    After seeing about 15-20 people who were all there on DWI
    charges or no license because of DWI my roommate gets in front of the
    judge.
    
    "Why don't you have a license?" 
    
    "They wouldn't let me renew it because of parking tickets that my
    X-wife got in my car and never told me about them."
    
    "Parking Tickets from your X-Wife? <chuckle chucle>"
    
    "Yes, she rang up over $300.00 worth and never told me.  Since the car
    was registered in my name, I have to pay them off - she refuses too"
    
    "<muttering something about a poor sucker> Turning to the police -
    What's his driving record?"
    
    Police Chief: "<Mutter Mutter> Except for a speeding ticket in '81 and
    the parking tickets he's clean."
    
    "No DWIs????"
    
    "No your Honor"
    
    "Okay, All items are recorded.  <Slam> Next case"
    
    Walking away, my roommate turns to the Magistrate - "What's that mean?"
    
    The Magistrate - in disbelief "You are found guilty, but have to pay no
    fines!!!"
    
    "What?"
    
    "Boy are you lucky.  I can't believe it - no fines."
    
    So, in both cases, the people got off a lot cheaper by contesting the
    tickets.
    
    One side note - The registry charged my roommate a $90.00
    administration fee when he when to get his license.  This fee was
    charged because the fines were too low.  Since driving is a priviledge
    and not a right, there was no way to fight this "fee".
    
    	Skip
    
    P.S. yes this was the P.R.M.

    RE : Chicago, I think it was La Grange and having a $20 paper clipped
    to my license (common practice in those days) did not work, the cop
    kept the 20 and still wrote me up!
    
    First time I tried that after moving to California I got the speeding
    ticket, a $160 fine for attempting to bribe an officer and my $20 back.
    
    6 years now in Texas I have never been stopped, threw away the radar
    detector too! they dont stop you here if they cant catch up with you
    and my pick-um-up truck can out run any Caprice they drive. (hee hee
    hee)
    

    8-O  Mike, I'm ashamed of you...

    RE: .0
    
    I know the officer who ticketed you, and he's not a "quota" cop --
    he's by the book, so I have to assume you were speeding and deserved
    the ticket.

    Re. BARBER_A
    
    Leave poor WILBUR_D alone, he or she has more important things to think
    about. Speeding tickets are known in the driving industry as "road tax"
    Road taxes, such as parking tickets and the like, are set and
    determined by one's participation in our extensive road system. That
    is, the more you drive, the more likely you will run into a 'jerkish'
    type enforcement officer, who might only be reacting to an upset
    stomach from the Big Mac he or she might have eaten. Surprisingly I
    have never had a ticket in my whole life. But then again, I dont own a
    car. Fight the system if you must; get your money back by all means;
    but at least measure the value of your actions against the value of the
    thing you are fighting. In other words, don't waste your time because
    when you do, there is good chance you will waste someone elses time in
    the process. 
    
    chris

    RE: .86

    Chris, since you don't own a car then you might not realize the "real"
    cost of a ticket.  The face value of the ticket is chump change
    compared to the increased cost of insurance (which can haunt you for a
    number of years).  Fighting a ticket is worthwhile just to avoid the
    increase in insurance costs.

    -- Dave

    Yeah!
    
    What he said.

    
    There is another problem here as well.  I realize that, since auto
    accidents is one of the leading causes of accidental death, enforcing
    the laws is important.  On the flip side, many speed limits, stop
    signs, etc are there strictly for revenue enhancement.
    
    If everyone fought a marginal ticket, the courts would be packed with
    people.  The courts would then push back on the police forcing them to
    bring in fewer cases - i.e. only write legitimate tickets.
    
    For example, the Selectpeople in my town have told the chief of police
    that his police officers must write a minimum number of tickets each
    month so the town can get that amount of money.  Otherwise the police
    budget will be cut.  Clearly if it is getting near the end of the month
    they will right more and more marginal tickets.  Also, inflating the
    speed greatly increases the take, so they have incentive to lie
    a little.
    
    I've been on the other side of the radar.  One of the reasons I quit
    was because an "officer" needed the ego boost of writing a ticket.  If
    the person was all polite and condescending, that person got a warning. 
    But if the person was at all impolite or looked bad - ticket city.  The
    level of offense was not a major criteria.
    
    I am always for the "fight" aspect of tickets.
    
    	Skip

    Of course I agree, tickets are a nasty reality. I challange the noter
    who said I might not be able to calculate the "real" cost of the ticket
    to try and calculate the REAL cost of owning a motorized vehicle. That
    is a personal transportaion vehicle capable of legally driving on city
    streets. (that should take care of the smart allecks that will try to
    insist that a John Deer ride'em lawn mower is a personal transportation
    vehicle.)

    Nothing runs like a Deere. John Deere tractor owners have the lowest
    ratio of speeding tickets than .... a  lot of other people.

    You don' wanna be condescending & polite at the same time.  Too much
    strain.
    

    Cops are nothing more than tax collectors with guns!

    If it wasn't for cops, you wouldn't feel safe in a donut shop, my son.

    RE: .90

>    I challange the noter
>    who said I might not be able to calculate the "real" cost of the ticket
>    to try and calculate the REAL cost of owning a motorized vehicle.

    So.  What's your point? 

    -- Dave

    >...since auto
    >accidents is one of the leading causes of accidental death, enforcing
    >the laws is important.
    
    I don't believe anyone can prove that there is much of a relationship
    between traffic laws and the highway death rate, except for the value
    of signs and signals and rules as guidelines for the driving public.
    
    The enforcement aspect of traffic rules has no benefit in terms of
    lowering death and accident rates.  I'd be willing to bet that the
    reason two particular traffic laws are enforced much more than all the
    rest -- speeding and DWI -- is not because they cause more accidents,
    but because technology exists to make it easy to catch violators of
    those two types of laws.  I believe the justification came after the
    technology.
    

    .89
    
    > since auto
    > accidents is one of the leading causes of accidental death, enforcing
    > the laws is important.
    
    In 1992, the US DEpartment of Transportation released the results of
    two independent studies it had commissioned.  Both studies showed that
    highway speed limits, far from promoting safety, actually tended to
    CAUSE accidents and were, on average, 10-15 MPH too low.
    
    Many people are going to drive at a given speed no matter what the
    limit is, and a 55-MPH limit causes accidents because some people obey
    it while others just cruise along at 70 - the closing speed between two
    such vehicles makes a situation that is more dangerous for both drivers
    than if both were going 70.  The studies showed that where limits were
    higher, people didn't drive as far over the limit - in fact, the
    average speed in a 55-MPH posted zone of expressway was 70.  The
    average speed in a 65-MPH posted zone of expressway was 70.
    
    "Slow down and live" is largely the cry of the bleeding-heart crowd,
    who also yammer about the way that guns jump right up and make people
    shoot others.

    Another point in regards to accidental deaths, the majority of highway
    fatalities are caused by drunk driving ... not excessive speed.

    -- Dave

    The leading cause of death on the road my be drunks but next to that is
    drive by shootings in major cities. Sometimes I feel I should be riding
    a horse rather than driving a car.

>    The leading cause of death on the road my be drunks but next to that is
>    drive by shootings in major cities.

    Is that roads or sidewalks? ;^)

    --  Dave

    >Another point in regards to accidental deaths, the majority of highway
    >fatalities are caused by drunk driving 
    
     Careful. The official line is that right around 50% of fatal accidents
    "involved alcohol." "Involved alcohol" means either the driver who was at
    fault had a nonzero BAC, the driver who was not at fault (multi-car
    accident) had a non-zero BAC, a _passenger_ of one of the cars had a
    nonzero BAC, or a pedestrian had a nonzero BAC. 

    re: .99
    
    What is your source for that statement?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Bob

re: .101

Yea, but what's a BAC???

    Blood Alcohol Content

 Blood Alcohol Content

 Kaboom!

    Well, we would all know who was at fault if they exploded on impact.

    If they exploded on impact they must have been simulacra prepared by
    the Pfhor during their assault on the Marathon.  Later on Lh'owon they
    appear to have used a lot more of them.

    
    	If Doc hadn't put that explanation it, I would have questioned
    	the validity of "most accidents being caused by alcohol".
    
    	Sure, it's a dumb thing to do, but there are far more people out
    	there who do things far more dangerous than drive after drinking.
    

    RE: .101

    Wow!  They've really skewed the numbers that badly?!?  At that point
    they're next to meaningless.

    In one of the traffic schools I attended, they made a point of stating
    that the speed was the major contributing factor the plurality (wasn't
    over 50%) of accidents; alcohol to the majority (at the time I guess)
    of deaths.

    -- Dave

    It's very similar to the way the DOJ classifies murders between
    "acquaintances." If you knew who someone was, then that's counted as an
    acquaintance, even if you've never met them. Which gives rise to such
    statistical distortions as "if you have a gun in the home, it's 43
    times more likely to be used against someone you know than a stranger"
    and other such self-serving drivel.

    >Another point in regards to accidental deaths, the majority of highway
    >fatalities are caused by drunk driving
    
    Doc is quite right -- the word they use is "associated", or "involved",
    not "caused", because they really have no idea of any causal
    relationship between drinking and driving.
    
    I have looked into this to the extent of purchasing a booklet from the
    National Safety Council in Chicago, that mentions that an accident is
    counted in the DWI stats if any driver has a BAC of .01 or more.
    
    They are obviously trying to spin the stats to justify their War on
    DWI.  
    
    And the stats themselves are meaningless by themselves.  While it may
    be true, for example, that 80% of all accidents are caused by
    right-handed people, that does not imply that right-handers are more
    likely to cause accidents than left handers.  To conclude anything, you
    would have to know what percentage of the general population was
    right-handed, and then compare the two stats.  I have neve heard any
    such figure quoted to support DWI stats.
    
    Also, if you look at the claims made by some states in recent years for
    their reduction in road deaths due to DWI, and if you believe the
    widely quoted 50% figure, then overall highway deaths would be reduced
    by a figure that supports their claims.  That is not the case.  You can
    look in any handy Info Please Almanac and see that the stats for road
    deaths have dropped at the same slow pace (per capita) ever since the
    50s, and the govt itself has concluded that that is due to safer cars
    and roads.  There are no big drops in road deaths that should appear if
    strong DWI enforcement really had any effect, as they claim it does.
    
    The big anti-DWI push in the states is just another one of the federal
    blackmail programs, and the states have to go along to get their
    highway money from uncle, whether it makes any sense or not.
    
    
    

    I beat a Nashua ticket few yrs back in court in front of a judge.
    
    We were returning home to SHR, was past midnight, no one else was on
    the road which went uphill. I had just finished making a left hand turn
    and accelerating when we passed a shopping parking lot were 2 cruisers
    were parked, nose to nose (port to port). Tthe cops were probably just
    yapping. Before I knew it, one peeled off and was on my tail, claiming
    that I did something like 50 in a 35 zone, which couldn't have been
    because I was still beginning to accelerate.
    
    Well, I showed up in court, nicely dressed in business
    casual (best dressed in fact) and declined the offer from the officer
    (yep, he was there...bummer) to drop out and simply pay the ticket.
    His "appeal" was that we were both wasting our time in court!!
    
    I went through all the reasons why I could not have sped that night,
    including that fact that I did not have good night vision.
    
    I really think my case was dismissed because I argued it rationally,
    factually and intelligently. I also think being an Asian female putting
    forth all these arguments was probably a rarity in Concord, NH! 
    
    So I just gave the cop a triumphant smile which he grudgingly 
    acknowledged. Boy, besting that snot felt good!!
    

    
    Here is some anecdotal evidence for the anti-dwi stance.  I worked with
    the Rowley MA police for almost 2 years.  Twice a month I would take a
    shift riding (as a volunteer) in the cruiser at night (this made it so
    the police we had were not alone during 'prime time').
    
    Each 8 hour shift I was on usually meant cruising around making sure no
    one was breaking into houses and stores, and answering calls.  Nine out
    of ten calls were auto accidents (about 4-6 a night).  Some were in
    other towns, some on the highway (Rt 95) and some in town.
    
    The VAST majority of the accidents involved drinking.  The few nights
    when that wasn't the case were nights when its was doing some serious
    freezing rain/icy roads.  All of the worse accidents were drinking
    related except one where a person passed out at the wheel with a mild
    stroke and ran into a guard rail.
    
    The one fatality I responded to was when a car estimated at over 90
    MPH hit the rear of another on Rt 95.  Push the other car across the
    median, accross the oncoming lane and into a cliff.
    
    But, likewise from personal experience, every single accident I have
    ever been in has been when going under 25 MPH.
    
    So - from personal experience - DWI      - Bad.
    				    Speeding - Good.
    
    	Skip

    
    
    	As an EMT I can say, if you arrive at an MVA after 1am and don't
    find a drunk, keep looking. Someone's missing...:)
    
    
    

    >They are obviously trying to spin the stats to justify their War on
    >DWI.  
    
     Absolutely; it's just the standard Washington power grab. SSDD.
    
    >Also, if you look at the claims made by some states in recent years for
    >their reduction in road deaths due to DWI, and if you believe the
    >widely quoted 50% figure, then overall highway deaths would be reduced
    >by a figure that supports their claims.  That is not the case.  You can
    >look in any handy Info Please Almanac and see that the stats for road
    >deaths have dropped at the same slow pace (per capita) ever since the
    >50s, and the govt itself has concluded that that is due to safer cars
    >and roads.  There are no big drops in road deaths that should appear if
    >strong DWI enforcement really had any effect, as they claim it does.
    
     I believe that the pace of the reductions in road deaths per mile
    driven accelerated in the 80s, when the big DWI push really got
    underway.
    
     Frankly, I find much to support in the fight to remove drunk drivers
    from the road. What I do not support is the changing definition of
    "drunk." Everybody has a different tolerance for alcohol. The "one size
    fits all" approach, while certainly a reduced burden of proof for
    prosecutors and police, is a far cry from any measure whatsoever of
    actual impairment. This fact has been compounded by the reduction in
    the BAC that constitutes being legally drunk, so now even more people
    who are not really drunk are legally drunk. Ah, but isn't that a small
    price to pay? No. While we are harassing people who happen to blow .08,
    there are people out there who have been convicted for DWI half a dozen
    times, are driving around at .20+, some of whom have ALREADY killed
    people in DWI related accidents. WHY ARE SUCH PEOPLE STILL DRIVING?
    When they solve problems of that magnitude, then we can look at the
    remaining accident problem and determine where and how the line gets
    drawn. In the meantime, the system is broken.

    I agree with you Doc.  Also, a point I forgot about before is that the
    only stats you can find easily are numbers of highway deaths.  But
    highway deaths per accident have been going down in recent years for
    many reasons -- more use of seatbelts, air bags, safer cars and roads
    -- so they do not really tell the story: how has DWI enforcement
    affected driving safety.  It would be more informative to see stats on
    the number of actual accidents, which would represent the number of
    mistakes people make on the road.  I have a problem with the word
    "accident" in this regard anyway.
    
    But I can't find any stats on the number of accidents per year, per
    state, or per capita.  Since the National Safety Council (the body that
    keeps all such stats after it collects them from the states) is
    chartered and funded by Congress, I have an idea why such stats are
    hard to find.
    
    Also, if you compare other countries -- not easy to do -- the stats
    don't add up.  In France, for instance, drinking on or off the road is
    much more common than it is here, yet their highway death rate is
    actually lower than ours.
    
    There was an article in the paper a few years ago about New Orleans,
    where drive-in daiquiri stands and a generally lax attitude about DWI
    has been the norm for a long time.  Some local group, led by a local
    lawyer, was trying to get laws passed to get rid of the stands and
    crack down on the dwi-tolerant attitudes of the local people.  The
    lawyer said, "I can't understand why, with all this dwi happening, the
    death/accident rate around here is not worse than that of the rest of
    the country".  Duh.  I think I know why.
    
    I'm not saying that DWI is a good thing.  It's stupid.  All I'm saying
    is that I do not believe it has been statistically proven to be a big
    problem, or even much of any real problem at all.  Statistically.
    
    Of course you'll have anecdotal evidence to the contrary.  And idiots
    who repeatedly get drunk and run into things and people are not always
    dealt with effectively.  But, again statistically, the vast majority of
    accidents happen in the DAYtime, not at night, on clear days on
    straight roads.  That's according to stats I have seen from the State
    of Maine government, and from some of the almanacs.
    
    The idea of giving cops lots of power in order to catch a few idiots
    may seem like a good one, but I have known friends who got incredibly
    hassled by bad cops who abused their power, and that is always the
    bigger danger as far as I'm concerned.  If we're going to get drunks
    off the road, we should find a way to do so with more surgical
    precision than a blanket set of laws will allow
    

Correlation does not imply causation.

So, every time there's a decrease in traffic fatalities (which is to say,
just about every year), every yahoo with a special interest is going to
jump up and say it's because of his favorite cause.

The truth of the matter is that no one knows exactly why, but everyone
pretends they do.

And, having personally been a long time avid "Crack down on DWIs" advocate,
I find the arguments here interesting enough for me to revise my thinking a
bit.  Thanks (seriously).

    
    	RE: "accidents"
    
    	I have the same problem with that term, I believe.  Loosely def-
    	ined, an "accident" is used correctly because it's something that
    	you don't plan on being involved in, but most "accidents" these
    	days are caused by stupidity.
    
    	Mechanical failure, medical conditions ... those are the only
    	real explanations for a true "accident".
    

    I agree -- I used the word "mistake" rather than "accident" when I was
    teaching my kids about driving, because I wanted them to be very sure
    that the responsibility was on them not to screw up, and also to avoid
    other people's mistakes if possible.
    
    There's another phenomenon that has to come into play at some point. 
    Let's say everyone is allowed one such "mistake" that results in a
    collision, in a lifetime of driving...
    
    If a driving lifetime is maybe 60 years, then in the US, with
    population of 250,000,000 or so, that would mean 250,000,000 accidents
    every 60 years, or 4,000,000 accidents a year.  I have no idea if this
    figure is anywhere near accurate, I'm interested in the principle, not
    the actual numbers here.
    
    To improve that record, you would need to do something to cause a
    significant number of people to make NO mistakes in their lifetime of
    driving.  This seems like a pretty hard thing to do, and it seems like
    there would be a lower limit to the number of accidents you could ever
    expect this country to achieve, given the complexity of piloting an
    automobile in today's traffic, and especially given the laws of chance
    that dictate that sometimes, well... "stuff happens".
    
    The point is, if we are already near that bottom limit, then there are
    two conclusions:
    
    	A. All the laws and enforcement in the world are not going to 
    	   make it better
    
    	B. All the laws and enforcement in the world can serve only one
    	   purpose:  enrich the coffers of the enforcment jurisdictions.
    
    Personally I would prefer to see the government make money honestly and
    up-front (by taxes), so we all have control over how much they take
    from us.

    
    	4M accidents/year works out to about 220/state/day.
    
    	That sounds high.
    

    could be high.  Wasn't trying for a real number, just for the principle
    that there is likely to be a minimum achievable accident rate, given
    human weaknesses and the laws of chance.
    
    Actually 4,000,000 could be a low number of yearly accidents, given how
    many of them are minor fender-benders.  Keeps the body shops and
    insurance companies rolling in it.

    
    > Actually 4,000,000 could be a low number of yearly accidents,
    
    I probably is.  In my little town where I worked with the police I saw
    several accidents each night I worked, and there were only 3000 people
    living in the town.  (Yeah, I know, many involved in the accidents were
    not residents, but it was still a small town.)  Since I usually worked
    a fairly quiet shift, this would yield about 10-20 accidents per day.
    
    If this is indicitive of the normal accident rate, then the country
    average is probably in the tens or even hundreds of millions of
    accidents per year.  Note that most are very minor, and probably don't
    even get fixed (check out many cars in Boston).  Still, the rate is
    right up there.
    
    	Skip

Just wondering:

How does the US rate of accidents (or fatalities) per vehicle mile compare
to those of European countries?  Is the problem one of higher accident rate
per mile, or more miles per person (implying more accidents per person)?

    
    I remember seeing some stat somewhere (now that's definitive) that
    showed how German drivers got in much fewer accidents than US drivers,
    the the results were more critical (what with the lack of speed limit
    on the Autobaun).
    
    Anyone else hear anything on this?
    
    	Skip

Huh.  Just did a quick cruise of NHTSA's info pages, and couldn't find
anything.

I did, however, find a rather interesting set of statistics on how many
lives have been allegedly saved by child restraints, safety belts, air
bags, motorcycle helmets and age 21 drinking laws.

I find the last category interesting for two reasons:  First, that the
lives allegedly saved by the drinking laws have been decreasing over the
last few years (while TOTAL fatalities (not per vehicle mile) have been
increasing).  Second, that I'm not entirely sure what sort of statistics
they're using to tell me how many people would have died last year without
those laws.

Maybe they have an alternate universe that they're comparing our fatality
rates against?

    I love it when they come right out and contradict themselves like that. 
    I've seen similar news articles in New Jersey and Maine.  The one in
    Maine was the funniest...
    
    After a couple of years of real crackdown on DWI, the statehouse
    released an article to the paper that congratulated the politicians for
    the stiffer DWI laws, the prosecutors for throwing the book at lots of
    people, the police for all their roadblocks etc., etc., etc.  Many pats
    on many backs.
    
    The article went on to say that the percentage of highway fatalities
    due to DWI had been reduced by 1/3, or in other words from abou 50% of
    all fatalities down to about 33%.  
    
    So far, so good.  But then right at the end of the article, almost as a
    footnote, it said that unfortunately the total number of fatalities had
    gone UP by 6%.  I checked:  the population had not gone up, nor had
    tourism during the years in question.
    
    One county in New Jersey actually claimed to have a 0% DWI death rate
    for one year recently.
    
    I think that being able to make such claims qualified them for federal
    government money as part of some anti-DWI program, so they would do
    whatever it took to generate the necessary stats.

    
    .127> I think that being able to make such claims qualified them for
    > federal government money as part of some anti-DWI program, so they
    > would do whatever it took to generate the necessary stats.
    
    I always love how the Feds are quick to take your money, but then give
    it back only after you fall in line to their "policies" such as the
    national speed limit, DWI, etc.  I guess all the political science
    courses must of ended during the discussion of the Ninth Ammendment, so
    they never did quite make it to the Tenth Ammendment.
    
    Boy was the South right to succeed over State's Rights.  It's too bad
    they didn't have better funding.
    
    	Skip

    .128
    
    secede, NNTTM.
    
    They didn't succeed.

    
    
    
    .0 your court date was today. 
    
    So what happened.
    
    

    In Nevada (I haven't tried it or checked it in other states), the
    "court date" on the ticket is the date you have to appear _by_.  This
    means that if the court date isn't to your liking, you can show up
    earlier (of course this is the court date that you either plead guilty,
    not-guilty, or guilty but with an explanation ... pleading not-guilty
    just gets you another hard and fast court date).

    -- Dave

    
    	In MA, the date is the date you appear ON.
    

    i prefer appearing OFF.

    
    Yes, we've noticed.
    

  Unfortunatly, I was unable to appear yesterday. Without going into the morbid
details, I came down with a virus from hell and spent most of yesterday on
the porcelin phone. I called to court house in the morning, and they were quite
reasonable with rescheduling. So no news yet. Maybe my paperwork will get lost
somewhere and they'll forget. Ha, fat chance. 

Joel

    
>details, I came down with a virus from hell and spent most of yesterday on
>the porcelin phone. I called to court house in the morning, and they were quite
    
    	They must have had a hard time hearing your voice, with the echo
    	and all.
    

    ...and the babbling water.

Ya, it was a close call. When she heard the babbling water, she asked if I was 
fishing, then the thought she heard me chummin, but somehow, I convinced her 
of my dire condition and she took pity. 
Joel

    
    
    
    >fishing, then the thought she heard me chummin.
    
    A common problem if you scuba dive too soon after a greasy breakfast.
    
    

    
    I had my day in court today with the Clinton Magistrate. My ticket was
    dropped. It took all of 5 minutes to have the Chief read the
    information and I then got to state my case, and then the Chief of 
    Police asked the court to find me not responsible seeing I had such a
    good driving record and my last ticket being in 1989.
    
    Mary
    

    
    	Did you bring up the "wrong date" thing?  And did that help?
    

    "I'm sorry your honor. You see, the man I was with wasn't the person I
    was supposed to be out with that night.."

    "Case dismissed!"

    {thwap}

    
    They told me I could state my case. I brought up that the last
    posted sign I saw was for 40 (the ticket said I was doing 49 in a 30
    MPH unposted area. And I noted that the officer had a Sunday date on
    the ticket when it was actually a Sat.
    
    Not sure if it helped or not, but the Chief then asked the court to
    find me not responsibile.
    
    They were actually very nice about it. The officer who stopped me was
    not in court.
    
    

    
    	Good job.
    
    	Glenn, quiet down.  8^)
    

    
    
    If the officer who stopped you was not there, you should have said "not
    guilty" and that should have been it.  The cop was the only witness.
    
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 627.145 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "be nice, be happy" >>>



| If the officer who stopped you was not there, you should have said "not
| guilty" and that should have been it.  The cop was the only witness.

	In MA the cop is usually not there, when you see the magistrate. They
usually have a single cop who shows up. Now if you go to court, the cop has to
be there I believe. I've never been, so I don't know. But I have been in front
of a magistrate.


Glen

    
    	Yeah, the cop isn't required to be there, so that's not an option
    	at a Magistrate's hearing in MA.
    

    Sure was nice of the Great State of Massachusetts to bring me 10mph
    closer to driving legal speeds on 495.  A tip of the hat to 'em.

    I thought so, too.
    
    Dukakis would NEVER have done this (he said as much.)

	I heard that 495 wasn't supposed to go to 65 due to it's not being
constructed to handle speeds like that. What happened?

    
    	So, now that we're on the 2nd day of the 65MPH limit, has the
    	carnage begun yet?  MA casualties [pun intended]?
    

    
>	495 wasn't supposed to go to 65 due to it's not being
>	constructed to handle speeds like that. What happened?
    
    
    	How can anyone say this with a straight face?  The average speed
    	on 495 is 75-80 at peak times.  If 495 weren't able to handle 65,
    	then by definition more than 50% of the vehicles travelling that
    	road every day would have an accident ... every day.
    

	Shawn... I think the key words were it was not CONSTRUCTED to handle
65. It obviously can handle the speeds. And why would I say anything with a
straight face? I like my own, thank you!

    >Shawn... I think the key words were it was not CONSTRUCTED to handle 65.
    
     Sounds like a warm pile to me.

    
    Two questions, since I wasn't living in New England at the time.
    
    When was 495 constructed and open for business?
    
    What year did the federal 55 mph speed limit go into effect (in MA)?
    

 Key questions, Andy.




 Jim

    According to the constructions standards, ALL highways built as part of
    the Interstate Highway System were designed to handle a 70-mph speed
    limit.  Some of them turned out to be unsafe at that speed because of
    congestion - the portion of 495 between Bethesda and College Park
    Maryland being a classic case.

    
    	it was nice to travel 70mph this morning and not worry about
    getting a ticket. Very nice indeed.
    
    
    

    
    	Didn't the 55MPH speed limit kick in in '73 or so?
    
    	I have a feeling 495 didn't go in until a few years after that.
    
    	I was only 7 at the time, so these are estimates.
    

I suspect like any highway of its size it opened in stages over several years.

If no one actually knows the answer(s) many of the bridges have the date
of construction embedded into them.  (but you can't read the dates well at 70)

>    	Didn't the 55MPH speed limit kick in in '73 or so?

It might have been that late, but I would have guessed 3 to 4 years earlier.
    
>    	I have a feeling 495 didn't go in until a few years after that.

That, also, may have been that late, and as I didn't live in New England at
the time, I wouldn't be the best reference, but I seem to recall that the
bulk of the Interstate system, especially major beltways, were completed
by the very early seventies.

    
    I know that 495 was there in 74 when I worked in MRO
    
    ed

 I thought the speed limits went to 55 in 74 or so.  I remember because
 I got nailed doing 65 in a 55 in California on my first date with my 
 wife-to-be which was in 74.



 Jim

    
    	It happened during Nixon's term, yes?  How long was Ford in ...
    	1/2 term or 1 1/2 terms?  '70-'76 or '74-'76?  That would mean
    	that Nixon was in from '68-'70 or '72-'74.
    

    
    
    I was thinking of that very stretch of road when I read about the
    construction, Dick.  Whereas the curves are banked at an angle such
    that would handle the speeds, it is nevertheless very windy and there
    is a lot of traffic.  People don't seem to realize that when going
    around a turn that there are certain laws of physics which come into
    play and for which compensation on the drivers part is required.
    
    
    Mike

    
>    	It happened during Nixon's term, yes?  How long was Ford in ...
>    	1/2 term or 1 1/2 terms?  '70-'76 or '74-'76?  That would mean
>    	that Nixon was in from '68-'70 or '72-'74.
    


   Yes, Nixon's term..hmm..Nixon resigned in August of '74.  Maybe it
 went into effect whilst Ford was in office.




 Jim

    
    1973
    

    Re .152:
    
    > If 495 weren't able to handle 65,	then by definition more than 50% of
    > the vehicles travelling that road every day would have an accident ...
    > every day.
    
    You define a road as unsafe only when 50% of the vehicles on it crash?

    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    	I picked a number out of my orifice, OK?
    
    	I used 50%+ to signify "majority rules" ... heck, even if you
    	dropped the number down to 1% that'd be more accidents than
    	we have now.
    
    	The point was that these roads are obviously capable of hand-
    	ling traffic at 70+MPH since it's the norm.
    

    Re .169:
    
    > 	The point was that these roads are obviously capable of hand-
    >	ling traffic at 70+MPH since it's the norm.

    The "norm" is that many people still die every year in automobile
    accidents, making it one of the most dangerous activities most people
    regularly do.  So your argument by example fails.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    RE: .170

>    The "norm" is that many people still die every year in automobile
>    accidents, making it one of the most dangerous activities most people
>    regularly do.  

    Many people die in bed every year making going to bed one of the most
    dangerous activities most people regularly do.

    -- Dave

    
    	edp, I tend to side with you most of the time, but this time
    	you're off your rocker.
    
    	People would die in accidents if the speed limit were 40MPH,
    	so does that mean that the roads weren't built to handle 40MPH?
    

| <<< Note 627.165 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "be nice, be happy" >>>



| I was thinking of that very stretch of road when I read about the construction
| Dick. Whereas the curves are banked at an angle such that would handle the 
| speeds, it is nevertheless very windy and there is a lot of traffic. People 
| don't seem to realize that when going around a turn that there are certain 
| laws of physics which come into play and for which compensation on the drivers
| part is required.

	Mike.... that was absolutely....beautiful...... I'm in awe..... :-)

    
    People died in significant numbers in accidents when there weren't any
    cars.  Hey, you know what - People Die.  What a concept.  And you know
    what else?  They will die still, even if the speed limit was 1.  Even
    if there were no cigs.  Even if they all eat exactly the right stuff
    and exercise exactly the right amount.  They will still die.
    
    Life is a fatal disease.  "Tis a bummer, but 'tis also true.  Getting
    the government involved in telling people how to live their lives does
    little except perpetuate the government and piss people off.
    
    	Skip

    there used to be a sign at a major army base in Texas back in the mid-
    late '60s during the height of the VN war (at the gate exit) that said
    "You are now entering the most dangerous area in the world, Highway...
    something or other." 
    
    Benning maybe?

    Re .171:
    
    Since it apparently was not clear to you, death in automobile accidents
    is usually caused by the vehicles and their operation.  Death in beds
    are rarely caused by the beds.
    
    
    Re .172:
    
    > People would die in accidents if the speed limit were 40MPH, so does
    > that mean that the roads weren't built to handle 40MPH?
    
    That is an inaccurate analogy because my argument was not that deaths
    in accidents means automobiles are dangerous.  My argument was that
    LOTS of deaths in accidents, at rates higher than most activities,
    means automobiles are dangerous at those speeds.
    
    At 40 miles per hour, there is likely to be a drastic reduction in
    fatalities and injuries.  Low incidences of fatalities and injuries in
    driving would result in it being judged a safe activity.
    
    So your analogy is wrong.  My claim that automobile driving is
    dangerous is correct and grounded in fact:  You can subjectively set
    the limits where an activity is deemed safe or unsafe, but automobile
    travel provides less benefit per cost in human life and suffering than
    other activities that are deemed to be dangerous.  Regarding automobile
    travel as safe while safer activities are deemed dangerous is
    inconsistent.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    .150
    >I heard that 495 wasn't supposed to go to 65 due to it's not being
    >constructed to handle speeds like that. What happened?
    
    Maybe they noticed that everyone was going 70-80 and decided 65
    wasn't such a bad idea after all. :-)
    
    Actually, it is still 55 through the Lawrence area over all those
    bridges, but everywhere else I have travelled: Rt 95 south through
    NH and Mass to 495 to Rt 3 has been changed.  
    
    I didn't really notice if Rt 3 was changed.

	I doubt rt 3 will change. I think it's mostly a 2 lane highway. 

    .178
    
    Rte 3 from MA 128 to NH 101A is a limited-access highway with two or
    more lanes in each direction.

    
    .175
    
    Ft. Hood. Killeen, Texas.

    
    Hey, I've been there!  Right next to Copperas Cove.
    
    

>>    Rte 3 from MA 128 to NH 101A is a limited-access highway with two or
>>    more lanes in each direction.                                     ^^
      ^^^^

	Where is that 'more' lanes..? 

Only now they are constructing an extra lanes from exting 4 to 8 in NH. As of 
today it's 100% 2 lanes only, and its long overdue for a 3rd lane from 128 
atleast uptil drum-hill exit

    .182
    
    > Only now they are constructing...
    
    I didn't say "more than two lanes," did I?  There is no point on Rte 3
    between 128 and 101A that has fewer than two lanes in each direction,
    and some points have three.  What I said was correct.
    
    > long overdue for a 3rd lane from 128...
    
    Talk to the PRM about that.

    
      It (Rt 3) certainly needs another lane around 495.  This has been
     tossed around for 20 years, I guess, through 5 governors of both
     parties.  The PRM is great at taking all our dough, but not so
     great at returning anything for it.  Imagine, rest areas "without
     sanitary facilities" !!!  Noplace else in the USA.
    
      bb

    Rte 495 in MA was built in sections of time.  It began I believe in the
    mid 60's (I'm trying to think what car I would have been driving at
    that time) and went from Chelmsford (? maybe to Lowell) to Rte 111 in 
    Harvard/Boxborough and the speed limit for the road was either 60 or
    65mph.  As years passed, the road was extended (I think the Lowell
    Connector happened after the original road was opened also) to the
    present size.  This included the section that was either Rte 24 or 25
    going to the Bourne Bridge.  This section is only 2 lanes until the END
    of 495 sign is where either Rte 24 or 25 begins. 
    
    RE: Rest areas: Why don't we have sanitary facilities on major roads 
    like so many of the other states? Kittery Maine's rest stop is very
    nice, always clean.
    
    Now that I'm on a roll, who inspects the repaving of the MA highways?  
    

    They repave highways in the PRM?  Couldn't tell it by my experience.

RE: .185

>    Now that I'm on a roll, who inspects the repaving of the MA highways?  
    
Ray Charles?
    

    >RE: Rest areas: Why don't we have sanitary facilities on major roads 
    >like so many of the other states? Kittery Maine's rest stop is very
    >nice, always clean.
    
     Two problems: paying to keep them clean, and issues with gays using
    them as pick-up joints and being lewd.

    
    
    The main issue I see is keeping them clean.  This is something I find
    very strange about people.  They treat a public rest room as if it were
    a pig sty.  From wiping boogers on the walls to other things far more
    repulsive.  Even here at the workplace, I've seen things in the rest
    room that I simply could not believe.  That and the fact that the
    cleaning crew believes that cleaning a toilet involves flushing it and
    that is all.
    
    
    Mike  

	I have been told, not sure though, that the Rt3 rest area in 
Billerica is a gay haven, and there have been frequent incidents of harrasment.

	The few times I had been there, I had this eerie feeling that shady
characters are always lurking around. don't know

    The State Police have staked out rest areas and have even arrested at
    least one member of the state legislature for solicitation.  The only
    time I have ever been hassled by another man was at the rest area on
    I-195 near the R.I. border.  Needed to use a tree and was approached by
    an older man looking for favors.  I held it.  

    
    I woulda pissed on him...
    

    I somehow got the impression he would have like that, Andy.  No, it was
    far more prudent to suffer for another couple of miles to a gas station
    than stick around.  

>	I have been told, not sure though, that the Rt3 rest area in 
>Billerica is a gay haven, and there have been frequent incidents of harrasment.
    
    True. (Can't vouch for the frequency, but can vouch for the fact that
    gay men will happily stick their heads into your car and make lewd
    suggestions there.)
    
    The Chelmsford or Tyngsboro rest area was such a problem that they
    ended up closing it.

    
    re: .193
    
    >I somehow got the impression he would have like that, Andy. 
    
    
      GAK!!!
    
    

 A few years ago in my wild and crazy days a friend and I were heading up
 rte 3 towards Nashua at about 2AM.  My friend had an urgent need to
 relieve himself, and we pulled off the road at a rest stop.  He exited
 the vehicle, completed the intended purpose of the stop, then proceeded
 back to the vehicle, unfortunately approached and attempted entry into
 the vehicle of another person as I sat watching helplessly.  He quickly
 realized his error and returned safely to my vehicle after which time we
 expedited our departure from the rest area.




 Jim

Took me until your next note to figger out what you meant by "held it".

    You know -- one hand for the wheel, ...

    John, I would have thought you of all people would be last to read
    anything improper or lascivious into a reply.  Go figure.

    
    >I-195 near the R.I. border.  Needed to use a tree and was approached by
    >an older man looking for favors.  I held it.  
    
    	Did you shake it for him, too?
    

    Geez Shawn, what took you so long?  

    
    	I just got out of a meeting ... sorry.
    

A meeting?  At which rest area?

>      It (Rt 3) certainly needs another lane around 495.

This would explain the justification for all the massholes who use the
breakdown lane for 50MPH travel in that locale.