so i got a speeding ticket in hawaii but not on my scion on my bike. i got it on 22dec and ive been waiting online to pay for it but it still hasnt shown up. does this mean im good for now. it says pay the ticket by 21 days either go to district court or mail the money or pay internet. do u think there some chance the cop didnt enter the ticket and is waiting for me to just pay it off via mail or walk-in? it does say on the ticket may take up 13 day to be posted in the internet but yea my thing is if it doesnt show up do think he threw away the ticket or just didnt want to put it in wait for me to turn in my copy? if notin shows via internet by 19th day do u think i should walk in or mail my payment still or just forget about the ticket. acouple of my buddies says they havent paid there speeding ticket for 6 months another one is trying to fight his speeding ticket. someone from hawaii please help

Of course they didn't just "forget" to enter it into the system. These ticket record systems tend to get really backed up. I guess they don't have enough people doing data entry. When I got my speeding ticket (this was about 4 years ago), it took almost 2 months for the ticket to appear in the online system so that I could pay it. The first deadline date came after 6 weeks and I had to file for an extension just so I could wait for the ticket to be entered into the system. Btw, if you're not seeing it on the internet then that usually means it's not in their system at all yet, so if you go to the court and try to pay then they will tell you to come back in a few days/weeks. All you can do is wait until someone gets around to processing your ticket, then you can take steps to pay it off.

but hawaii ticket is different from CALI i gotten ticket at cali

Doesn't matter. I'm telling you that just because you don't see the ticket online, that doesn't mean you are free to go. The cops just haven't recorded your ticket in their database yet. It will show up eventually, even if you have to request an extension on the deadline.

that's an interesting system i wish it was that easy so we dont have to go to court or mailing the ticket payment all the time. i do know that court systems are slow. it mightve not just shown up on the internet yet.

so i got a speeding ticket in hawaii but not on my scion on my bike. i got it on 22dec and ive been waiting online to pay for it but it still hasnt shown up. does this mean im good for now. it says pay the ticket by 21 days either go to district court or mail the money or pay internet. do u think there some chance the cop didnt enter the ticket and is waiting for me to just pay it off via mail or walk-in? it does say on the ticket may take up 13 day to be posted in the internet but yea my thing is if it doesnt show up do think he threw away the ticket or just didnt want to put it in wait for me to turn in my copy? if notin shows via internet by 19th day do u think i should walk in or mail my payment still or just forget about the ticket. acouple of my buddies says they havent paid there speeding ticket for 6 months another one is trying to fight his speeding ticket. someone from hawaii please help

Do not wait. And Do NOT pay the ticket. Get a lawyer. A lawyer's fees for speeding are usually only $75. They have many legal tricks to get you off, get you a reduced fine or get you deferred adjudication. Bottom line, don't just 'pay the ticket.' A quick google search will tell you that is what they want you to do so they don't have to go to court. If they don't show in court, and you do, you're off scot free.

Also, regardless of the outcome, if you hire a lawyer, chances are you won't hear anything for 6 months to a year because lawyers can post-pone court dates all they like, for no other reason than "I have another case that day, Your Honor" and it's done. I had a ticket wait for over a year before court time and then the cop was nowhere around. Off scot free for me!!!

Get a lawyer.

I wouldnt wait. You sped, now you pay. Just go to te court and pay it.

I wouldnt wait. You sped, now you pay. Just go to te court and pay it.

He "allegedly" sped. He's still innocent until proven guilty. And if the cop don't show up, it'll be hard to prove.

I have had 9 tickets since I got home from the military in '03. Curiously....NONE are on my record. ;)

My lawyer dragged my reckless driving ticket out until the officer who wrote it took leave for Afghanistan. All they have now are my friends as witnesses. They've got me cornered. :rofl:

That's how it happens. Any number of things prevent the cop from showing up. He could get transfered, fired, quit, deployed....anything. Or maybe he just doesn't feel like showing up. The system WANTS you just to pay the fine and move on. That's how the systems makes its money. But, if you FIGHT, you will almost always WIN.

I wouldnt wait. You sped, now you pay. Just go to te court and pay it.

He "allegedly" sped. He's still innocent until proven guilty. And if the cop don't show up, it'll be hard to prove.

I have had 9 tickets since I got home from the military in '03. Curiously....NONE are on my record. ;)

I believe innocent until proven guilty, but only if you are trully innocent.
I beleive in owning up to what you did. If you sped, I dont believe in getting off on technicalities.
And no where did the OP say he wasnt speeding. So he is guilty. So there is no ellegedly, if it really happened.

You were speeding on a bicycle???

I was a disabled person using an electric disability scooter. Going down a steep grade in Fishersville, VA I was pulled over for going 13 mph in a 15mph zone. Basically the cop wanted to make sure I was in control of my scooter and was aware I was close to exceeding the limit near a votech college..

I believe innocent until proven guilty, but only if you are trully innocent.
I beleive in owning up to what you did. If you sped, I dont believe in getting off on technicalities.
And no where did the OP say he wasnt speeding. So he is guilty. So there is no ellegedly, if it really happened.

How cute.

You believe in innocent until proven guilty only if you're actually innocent? Well, unless the kid was doing 100 down a freeway in heavy traffic, I'd say he's innocent. You see, speeding also includes intent. If there are other factors like.....common speed (that means everyone's 'technically' speeding) or things like someone driving like an idiot that the kid was trying to get away from.....or perhaps he was just coming down the H3 freeway and the car got away from him a lil bit.....I'd say the kid is INNOCENT until they PROVE that was and was intending to speed.

Own up to you 'allegations' and pay the ridiculous fines all you like. See you when you're walking because your license is suspended. The rest of us realize that speeding tickets are just revenue generators for the city and we choose to fight.

Don't believe me? How about the fact that in Germany, they (wisely) have no limit on the autobahn? Why is the speed limit on 'some' highways 55 and on others it's 65 and on others still it's 70 or 75?

Speed laws are arbitrary, especially here in Texas. My defense lawyer...or one of them anyway, actually discovered that there is NO LIMIT in Texas for speed. Sure they make the white signs and they write tickets, but if you look at the law books for Texas the actual wording is "fair and reasonable speed for the conditions." So, when he's actually had to go to trial for "speeding" be brings that up to the jury. And he always wins.

Because if you go by the letter of the law, and that means the letter of the law books as they are written, you can NOT convict someone for speeding in Texas unless they're doing like....100 mph in a rainstorm because that'd be too fast for the conditions.

So the point is this (and this goes back to the days when movies like Smokey and The Bandit were popular): the speed laws are mainly written for money and revenue generation and only those who wish to willingly contribute to the city in such ways (aside from taxes) should just 'pay the fines.'

Those who do not, should always fight.

To each their own, I guess its your way of sticking it to the man.

And I know very well about the autobahn, I lived there for 5 years, driving as fast as I pleased when ever I wanted to.

To each their own, I guess its your way of sticking it to the man.

And I know very well about the autobahn, I lived there for 5 years, driving as fast as I pleased when ever I wanted to.

I stick it to he who tries to stick it to me.

I used to just pay the fine. In fact, I was in hawaii for 3. 5 years and the last 6 months I was there, I got pulled over twice. Once I just paid the fine (didn't know any better) and the second time I just had the wrong insurance card with me. That one went away when I showed proof of insurance.

Speed laws are way to arbitrary to consider actual laws. Most adults, at least those who drive and actually focus on driving, know enough about it that they should be able to decide their own, reasonable operation speed. (If it works for the autobahn racers, why not here?)

We just have way to many loudmouths here (in the US) who whine and cry about what should be a safe limit on the freeways. (Perhaps if those same people actually paid attention while they were driving, speed wouldn't be an issue.)

I've gone triple digits before ni more than one state... I'm still here. I'm here because I know you can't do triple digits all the time. I'm here because I knew to use the brake when things looked unsafe. Whether I drive 80 or 70 on a freeway shouldn't matter. I believe the cops have bigger fish to fry with all the crime going on, they don't need their time wasted by people saying they need to watch for speeders.

But that's just me.

Actually, that's some cops too. I've gotten tickets where the cop writing it worded his statement to me in such a way that he was basically telling me to go to court without actually saying it. THey know their time is better spent elsewhere.

One cop pulled me over and said "I'll just write you up for 5 over and then I'll pretend I saw your current insurance card ."(Again, I had the wrong card on me).

I went to court, he was nowhere around....."Case dismissed."

They're out there on the roads because their bosses say they have to be. Much like the drug laws. I have heard MANY cops say they are wasting their time throwing a kid in jail for an ounce of weed when they could be chasing murderers.

The fact is, the cops have people who tell them what to do, same as the rest of us. Were it up to some of those cops, speed laws would be nil and so would 'many' of the drug laws.

:no: Pay it man. Non-essential governmental functions basically shut down between Thanksgiving and Valentine's Day! Unfortunately, their ineptness doesn't relieve you of your responsibilities.

Don't pay it. Get a lawyer. You'll be glad you did.

lawyer, ALWAYS. ALWAYS.

the court system is slow in inputting the tickets onto the computer...but I heard on the news a few weeks or months ago that they were hiring an outside firm to input the tickets onto the database to speed up the process....

you'd better pay, or they put a warrant out for your arrest due to the non-payment.

Yall need to understand how Hawaii is with speeding tickets... its a little bit different then what your used to the the Continental US.

Laws are laws everywhere. A lawyer knows the laws. Hence.....get a lawyer.

lol can someone from hawaii give me a reasonable answer. :nails: say i do pay the ticket how much will my insurance go up? wat if i say not guilty and keep pushing date back more and more and the cop still shows up wat then. o yea was a biker cop that got me with a laser. can i even fight that? :pray: :pray:

Were you honestly speeding?

How fast in what zone?

i was going 77 in a 55 but everyone else was going like 65-72. and i had a car on my ___ so i sped up and that car kept following. he was going same speed as me. i thought that cop was gonna pull over the car since he was a fellow biker but i was wrong once the car saw the cop he switch lane cop went after me lol. last time i got pulled over by a biker cop adn i was on my bike he just talk to me and let me go.

77 in a 55... you don't deserve to get out of that ticket. Just pay up and accept the insurance hit. You earned it.

deffinetly not to terribly fast, and I can admit to doing the same thing. But if I was caught, I would just man up and go pay it. Its part of what it is in life. You break the speed limit hoping not to get caught, but knowing if you do, that you must pay for the gamble.

lol the cop must of been a harley fan not a crotch rocket fan wat a hater haha. i should of just kick him off his bike haha and took off.

its not fair how others are speeding yet he pulls me over. hehe i bet u they do that game that me and my friends do on base. like we pick a color and type of vehicle to pull over next even if we see others making violations. hehe i usually go for the cars with the hot females. that cop must of been ___ wanted to pull a guy over.

77 in a 55... you don't deserve to get out of that ticket. Just pay up and accept the insurance hit. You earned it.

I agree!!

While its not fair its the way it works.
And usually there is a method to the madness if its amongst a group speeding people. They technically cat profile, so they have to have a way of choosing someone.

ill pay it once it show online but if its doesnt show then screw them i tried lol

ill pay it once it show online but if its doesnt show then screw them i tried lol

Don't pay it, get a lawyer. They want you to pay it. For the love of pete....get a LAWYER.

ill pay it once it show online but if its doesnt show then screw them i tried lol

Don't pay it, get a lawyer. They want you to pay it. For the love of pete....get a LAWYER.

Of course they want you to pay it, its th law.

A lawyer is to protect your rights and keep you from being wrongfully convicted and to protect you.
Not to cover up the truth and get you out of something you ADMIT to doing.

HE ADMITS DOING IT. WHY IS A LAWYER NEEDED????

He admits he was going 77. He does NOT admit to 'speeding.' Read his post again. He says everyone was going over 70 mph. That means that HE ALONE was not speeding. He was trying to keep from getting flattened.

its not fair how others are speeding yet he pulls me over. hehe i bet u they do that game that me and my friends do on base. like we pick a color and type of vehicle to pull over next even if we see others making violations. hehe i usually go for the cars with the hot females. that cop must of been ___ wanted to pull a guy over.

:no: man, if you think life is fair, then you're in for one hell of a miserable existence. :nope:

That is retarded thinking.

If everyone is raping yor mother, do you rape her as well, then tell the judge, I need a lawyer because I am innocent, everyone was doing it?

Other people are not his concern.
If you want to use your reasoning. He should get a second ticket for using thepassing lane for cruising. If you are in the passing lane and someone wants to go faster than you, you are suppose to get in the right lane and let them pass. Not speed up.

HE WAS SPEEDING ACCORDING TO THE LAW!!!

No where does he state the person behind him was almost flattening him.

its not fair how others are speeding yet he pulls me over. hehe i bet u they do that game that me and my friends do on base. like we pick a color and type of vehicle to pull over next even if we see others making violations. hehe i usually go for the cars with the hot females. that cop must of been ___ wanted to pull a guy over.

:no: man, if you think life is fair, then you're in for one hell of a miserable existence. :nope:

I agree!! Its the way it is, and hurts nothing. Everything blances out, as long as people give life an effort and abide by society. Everything comes around.

PAY IT DO NOT TAKE THIS TO COURT.

20MPH over in hawaii is a death warrent. See this is why i said Hawaii is a bit different.

State law says if you are pulled over doing 20mph over the speed limit, or 80mph, you can have your car impounded and your lisc suspended for up to a year. Hense the difference. I really hate it cuz this law came into effect after they shut the only track on oahu down to curb the street racing that resulted from it.

Your lucky as ____ing hell the cop didnt decide to say "____ you and have a nice day"

Pay it, get it over with, your insurance will spike. Depening on who you have insurance through will say how much.

That is retarded thinking.

If everyone is raping yor mother, do you rape her as well, then tell the judge, I need a lawyer because I am innocent, everyone was doing it?

Other people are not his concern.
If you want to use your reasoning. He should get a second ticket for using thepassing lane for cruising. If you are in the passing lane and someone wants to go faster than you, you are suppose to get in the right lane and let them pass. Not speed up.

HE WAS SPEEDING ACCORDING TO THE LAW!!!

No where does he state the person behind him was almost flattening him.

Oh dear. You are definitely a young airman. There is a such thing as a "common speed" law on the books.

Let me say that again hmm?

There is a COMMON SPEED LAW on the books. It states that there IS a defense to a speeding offense IF if can be demonstrated that that surrounding vehicles were going above the speed limit and failing to do the same speed would result in a traffic hazard.

Your logic fails miserably. I've been in Hawaii and I know how it is. I lived there for 3 and a half years and was pulled over TWICE. I know a lil bit about the laws there, thanks.

The point is, for traffic offenses, whether you did it or didn't do it, or whether you hopped on your hood and announced to the cop that you're guilty....you should GET A LAWYER.

If he fights this ticket and by some quirk loses, the WORST that will happen is he will have to pay the original fine. They cannot increase the punishment because someone exercised their LEGAL RIGHT to fight a charge.

I can't help but wonder how in the world so many people get misguided and ill-informed about what to do in the event of getting pulled over by the cops.

My first ticket when I got home annoyed me, because I KNOW I was singled out in a crowd of people doing exactly the same speed, simply because my car looked a lil more 'sporty' than the others.

That day, I went online and....sheesh...just typed into google "speeding ticket fight" or words to that effect.

Every

Single

One

Of the

THOUSANDS

of pages that showed up said in bold letters "DO NOT JUST PAY THE FINE!!!!! GET A LAWYER!!!"

Here guys....here's just a TIDBIT of info from one of thousands of pages that showed up when I googled "Speeding ticket in Hawaii"

Hawaii Speeding Ticket Laws

Posted by Paige

To be a law abiding driver you must be familiar with a few Hawaii Speeding Ticket Laws. I am going to share with you a few rules or the road that may help you stay out of ticket trouble. First, it is good to know the general regulations regarding speed. Hawaii Speeding Ticket Laws state that no driver may operate a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is not reasonable and prudent to current conditions. As a driver it is your responsibility to maintain a speed in between the minimum and maximum posted speed limit. If you exceed the posted speed limit by ten miles per hour of more a penalty of ten dollars will be assessed to you. Hawaii Speeding Ticket Laws require that the money collected from this fine be added to the neuro-trauma special fund.

Under Hawaii Speeding Ticket Laws those caught driving one hundred miles or more can have their license suspended for up to five years. In order for you to be convicted of a speeding infraction there must be evidence that proves you were driving in an unreasonable manner for the potential or current conditions. All forms of racing are strictly prohibited and those convicted of “drag racing” can have their license revoked and be fined $2,000 or less and may be assessed a prison term. If you manage to get three convictions of exceeding the speed limit by thirty or more miles per hour, within five years, your license can be suspended for three years and you car subject to foreclosure.

According to Hawaii Speeding Ticket Laws anyone caught speeding in a school, construction, maintenance or repair zone will be fined up to $250. It is the responsibility of those in charge of the construction or school zone to posted legible signs.

Now, I'm going to highlight the passage that a lawyer will see as 'important' (I know because the Texas law is written the same way):

"Hawaii Speeding Ticket Laws state that no driver may operate a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is not reasonable and prudent to current conditions."

This states, that even if it goes to a jury trial, the prosecution must PROVE that the rate of speed this guy was traveling was NOT reasonable and prudent to current conditions.

Let me paint a picture for you....(mind you, this is if it actually goes to trial....most never see a trial)

The defense will stand up and look at the jury. He will ask the members of the jury "Have any of you....exceeded the speed posted on the signs on the side of the road?"

Invariably some will say yes.

He will then say "did you feel you were being unreasonable with respect to the conditions?"

And very likely they will say no.

So he will then say "If you feel, that you can be above the posted limit, while still remaining reasonable and prudent with respect to driving conditions, then you have what's called reasonable doubt that my client was speeding under the letter of the law."

He will then read the 'letter of the law' to them. And he will conclude by saying, "Since you've already indicated you have reasonable doubt that my client was speeding, you can not, by law, vote to convict him. And must therefore acquit."

look down

Actaully i am rather young in the AF (5 years) BUT ive also lived in hawaii for the last 2 and a half years, and i can tell you the 20mph law was enacted recently to curb street racing. So the article you pulled while prudent, is not the most "up to date".

Its up to the officer that pulls you over weither to tow the car. But they have made the 20mph or 80mph a commonplace law in the state. Its just "selectivly enforced" like the RECON law on oahu....

Just to add an FYI since you were determined that i was "misguided" in living here with the law....

A new speeding law will go into effect starting January 1, 2007, so keep your eyes peeled and slow down. Basically, anyone who drives 30 mph over the speed limit or 80 mph regardless of what the speed limit is, could potentially be charged with a petty misdemeanor. Four things can happen if you are convicted (source KHON 2 news):

The first offense could cost between $500 and $1000
A 30 day suspension of your license
Mandatory attandence to a driver re-training course
2-5 days jail time or 36 hours community service

For a second offense, you could serve up to 14 days in jail, and with a third offense, up to 30 days in jail. Pretty harsh, but I think necessary to keep Hawaii roads safe. It is never necessary to drive 80 mph or 30 mph over the speed limit. Doing so might not only jepordize your life, but lives of others as well.


So sorry, ive been told its 20. but same difference, speed in hawaii, you will get screwed if the cop decides to pick you to enforce it.

You cant base your facts off of part of the aw, you have to read it all:

As a driver it is your responsibility to maintain a speed in between the minimum and maximum posted speed limit.

This means that you must maintain a reasonable speed within the posts maximum and minimum.

And you obviously arent a laywer, or else you would know that if he goes to court, there will be no jury.
There will just be a juge who will ask your lawyer for a plea. Then the lawyer will give his side, the cop will give his, and the judge will make a rulling.
No one will be asked if they sped. The only mention of speed will be hat the cop says you were doing, what the law says you should have been doing, then your lawyer finding a loop hole to try and get you out of it. But since you admitedly sped, that will be hard, unless you commit purgery and say you werent going over 55.

That is retarded thinking.

If everyone is raping yor mother, do you rape her as well, then tell the judge, I need a lawyer because I am innocent, everyone was doing it?

Other people are not his concern.
If you want to use your reasoning. He should get a second ticket for using thepassing lane for cruising. If you are in the passing lane and someone wants to go faster than you, you are suppose to get in the right lane and let them pass. Not speed up.

HE WAS SPEEDING ACCORDING TO THE LAW!!!

No where does he state the person behind him was almost flattening him.

Oh dear. You are definitely a young airman. There is a such thing as a "common speed" law on the books.

Let me say that again hmm?

There is a COMMON SPEED LAW on the books. It states that there IS a defense to a speeding offense IF if can be demonstrated that that surrounding vehicles were going above the speed limit and failing to do the same speed would result in a traffic hazard.

Your logic fails miserably. I've been in Hawaii and I know how it is. I lived there for 3 and a half years and was pulled over TWICE. I know a lil bit about the laws there, thanks.

The point is, for traffic offenses, whether you did it or didn't do it, or whether you hopped on your hood and announced to the cop that you're guilty....you should GET A LAWYER.

If he fights this ticket and by some quirk loses, the WORST that will happen is he will have to pay the original fine. They cannot increase the punishment because someone exercised their LEGAL RIGHT to fight a charge.

Oh dear, you must haveno clue about me. 8 years in, SSgt. Will be TSgt after testing.

The common speed law would only take affect if someone else was driving in a manner that would cause IMMEDIATE bodily injury to you, so you had to speed up. HE WAS ALREADY SPEEDING. HE NEVER STATED HE WAS IN DANGER!!
Everyone was speeding, so why would one of them be riving out of control that it would threaten his life??

The law you stated is for the lines of, I was doing 55 in a 55 and a car came out of no where and would have sideswipped me if I hadnt of sped up, THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED!!!
So your logica is correct, but fails miserably because it doesnt fi th facts that th OP stated!!

This means that you must maintain a reasonable speed within the posts maximum and minimum.

Wrong. It means 'reasonable and prudent' with 'respect to the conditions on the road at the time.

And you obviously arent a laywer, or else you would know that if he goes to court, there will be no jury.

Wrong again. I may not be a lawyer, but after fighting 9 tickets in 4 years, I know a lil something about it, especially since I ask my LAWYER all the questions I have.

You have the RIGHT to ask for a jury trial if you so chose. You can NOT be denied a jury trial if you ask for one. It is a RIGHT.

But since you admitedly sped, that will be hard, unless you commit purgery and say you werent going over 55.

Don't have to say what speed you were going, you don't even have to take the stand. You just have to say you are not guilty of the offense of speeding.

I can't help but wonder how in the world so many people get misguided and ill-informed about what to do in the event of getting pulled over by the cops.

My first ticket when I got home annoyed me, because I KNOW I was singled out in a crowd of people doing exactly the same speed, simply because my car looked a lil more 'sporty' than the others.

That day, I went online and....sheesh...just typed into google "speeding ticket fight" or words to that effect.

Every

Single

One

Of the

THOUSANDS

of pages that showed up said in bold letters "DO NOT JUST PAY THE FINE!!!!! GET A LAWYER!!!"

What would you expect the American Bar Association to say, "Hire a Plummer?" :rofl:

Oh dear, you must haveno clue about me. 8 years in, SSgt. Will be TSgt after testing.

The common speed law would only take affect if someone else was driving in a manner that would cause IMMEDIATE bodily injury to you, so you had to speed up. HE WAS ALREADY SPEEDING. HE NEVER STATED HE WAS IN DANGER!!
Everyone was speeding, so why would one of them be riving out of control that it would threaten his life??

The law you stated is for the lines of, I was doing 55 in a 55 and a car came out of no where and would have sideswipped me if I hadnt of sped up, THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED!!!
So your logica is correct, but fails miserably because it doesnt fi th facts that th OP stated!!

You really need to look up what the common speed law states. It makes no mention whatsoever of immediate danger. "Common" means "common" not "danger" it talks about how if everyone on the freeway is going 80, you go 80, not 70. Period.

What would you expect the American Bar Association to say, "Hire a Plummer?" :rofl:

I never said I looked it up on the bar association website. Change your bifocals. I said web pages.

There's only one bar association that I'm aware of. It doesn't have thousands of different sites.

.. but after fighting 9 tickets in 4 years, I know a lil something about it, especially since I ask my LAWYER all the questions I have.

.

This right here says it all, and I now realiz that there is no chaging or even talking to you about it. If you are that irresponsible to continue to break the law continually after getting caught and falling back on your lawyer, then there is no showing you common sense.

Yes lawyers have te ability to get you out of things, on technicalities, but part of being an adult is doing the right thing and owning up to your mistakes/misfortunes.
Just because you think you are above the law and have your back door way of getting out of it, doesnt mean you should.

9 tickets in 4 years!!!
Come on man, slow down.

This right here says it all, and I now realiz that there is no chaging or even talking to you about it. If you are that irresponsible to continue to break the law continually after getting caught and falling back on your lawyer, then there is no showing you common sense.

Yes lawyers have te ability to get you out of things, on technicalities, but part of being an adult is doing the right thing and owning up to your mistakes/misfortunes.
Just because you think you are above the law and have your back door way of getting out of it, doesnt mean you should.

9 tickets in 4 years!!!
Come on man, slow down.

I drive a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions of the road. Period.

I suppose you never EVER do so much as one mile over the limit, right?

Give me a break, kiddo. If we were in court, that'd be perjury.

This right here says it all, and I now realiz that there is no chaging or even talking to you about it. If you are that irresponsible to continue to break the law continually after getting caught and falling back on your lawyer, then there is no showing you common sense.

Yes lawyers have te ability to get you out of things, on technicalities, but part of being an adult is doing the right thing and owning up to your mistakes/misfortunes.
Just because you think you are above the law and have your back door way of getting out of it, doesnt mean you should.

9 tickets in 4 years!!!
Come on man, slow down.

I drive a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions of the road. Period.

I suppose you never EVER do so much as one mile over the limit, right?

Give me a break, kiddo. If we were in court, that'd be perjury.

Whats up with your demeaning crap of calling me young and kiddo? You know nothig about me. I have proved that already.

And if you ever took a moment to read the posts, you will see that I have done the same speed as the OP, but I then go onto state that speeding is like gambling, and if you get caught you have to pay the consequences. And if I was to get caught I would go straight to the courts and pay it.
My speeding is all done in the manner you state, going with the fow of traffic, this does not make it right. Just gives you a sense of security becase the odds are with you that you wont get caught.

So now dad, sit back an keep it to whats at hand and stay away from the demeaning accusations of you being so much older and more intelligent than me.

Whats up with your demeaning crap of calling me young and kiddo? You know nothig about me. I have proved that already.

Actually, this reaction just showed me all I need to know about you. You perceived an insult or 'demeaning tone' and you reacted in an inflammatory manner instead of just letting it go. Thanks for provin' my point, junior. Nice NCO material there. When I put on that 4th stripe, I distinctly recall a change in my own demeanor and a significant increase in my ability to let things go that truly don't matter. Words for example. Words are just that....words. I didn't kick your dog, I didn't slap your mom. I just said a single word commonly used to denote youth. You are younger than I am, so you are junior to me. It's that simple. Yet instead of just letting it go by, you freak out about it and call it demeaning and say to knock off the crap. You will one day reach an age where words don't matter to you. And you will be better for it. Hey, it took me awhile too. But I can tell you this....the day I looked at a marine reservist threatening to beat my @$$ over simple inter-service rivalry, and getting more and more angry simply because I wasn't getting angry....that was truly hilarious to me.

And if you ever took a moment to read the posts, you will see that I have done the same speed as the OP, but I then go onto state that speeding is like gambling, and if you get caught you have to pay the consequences. And if I was to get caught I would go straight to the courts and pay it.

This proves you are naive. Don't worry, a lot of young folks are naive. It's nothing to be ashamed of. You learn as you get older. I did too. Back when I was in hawaii, or even before that, any ticket I got, I immediately paid.

And then I learned that is NOT the way the game works. As I've stated before, speed laws are indeed like a game. The cops don't like writing tickets, they feel they have bigger fish to fry. But their bosses say they have to do it. So they do. And if you're cool with the cops, they will OFTEN give you every opportunity to beat the charge. Up to and including not showing up for court, which is an AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL.

In fact, once when I was stopped, I had my wrong insurance card on me. It was like...a week after my new one came in and I just plum forgot to change it out. The cop said to me "I'll just write you up for 5 miles over, and I'll pretend I saw your current insurance card."

He KNEW infractions like that were a waste of his time, but he was following orders and running the speed trap.

Speed laws ARE in fact highly subjective and vary wildly from county to county, state to state and country to country. They are and have always been simply a way to make money. You can choose to willingly contribute to that money-generating system, or you can choose to not.

The simplest point of this thread is this:

To the original poster: It's clear that NO ONE on this thread is a lawyer and therefore cannot advise you on what to do. Lawyers get paid to know the law and in many cases, to get you off. You can do zero harm by hiring a lawyer. It can only help you, if for no other reason than the fact that he knows more about the law than you ever will and is a wealth of information.

Do yourself a favor, at least make a phonecall to a lawyer. Those are free. He can advise you what to do after that.

Whats up with your demeaning crap of calling me young and kiddo? You know nothig about me. I have proved that already.

Actually, this reaction just showed me all I need to know about you. You perceived an insult or 'demeaning tone' and you reacted in an inflammatory manner instead of just letting it go. Thanks for provin' my point, junior. Nice NCO material there. When I put on that 4th stripe, I distinctly recall a change in my own demeanor and a significant increase in my ability to let things go that truly don't matter. Words for example. Words are just that....words. I didn't kick your dog, I didn't slap your mom. I just said a single word commonly used to denote youth. You are younger than I am, so you are junior to me. It's that simple. Yet instead of just letting it go by, you freak out about it and call it demeaning and say to knock off the crap. You will one day reach an age where words don't matter to you. And you will be better for it. Hey, it took me awhile too. But I can tell you this....the day I looked at a marine reservist threatening to beat my @$$ over simple inter-service rivalry, and getting more and more angry simply because I wasn't getting angry....that was truly hilarious to me.

And if you ever took a moment to read the posts, you will see that I have done the same speed as the OP, but I then go onto state that speeding is like gambling, and if you get caught you have to pay the consequences. And if I was to get caught I would go straight to the courts and pay it.

This proves you are naive. Don't worry, a lot of young folks are naive. It's nothing to be ashamed of. You learn as you get older. I did too. Back when I was in hawaii, or even before that, any ticket I got, I immediately paid.

And then I learned that is NOT the way the game works. As I've stated before, speed laws are indeed like a game. The cops don't like writing tickets, they feel they have bigger fish to fry. But their bosses say they have to do it. So they do. And if you're cool with the cops, they will OFTEN give you every opportunity to beat the charge. Up to and including not showing up for court, which is an AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL.

In fact, once when I was stopped, I had my wrong insurance card on me. It was like...a week after my new one came in and I just plum forgot to change it out. The cop said to me "I'll just write you up for 5 miles over, and I'll pretend I saw your current insurance card."

He KNEW infractions like that were a waste of his time, but he was following orders and running the speed trap.

Speed laws ARE in fact highly subjective and vary wildly from county to county, state to state and country to country. They are and have always been simply a way to make money. You can choose to willingly contribute to that money-generating system, or you can choose to not.

The simplest point of this thread is this:

To the original poster: It's clear that NO ONE on this thread is a lawyer and therefore cannot advise you on what to do. Lawyers get paid to know the law and in many cases, to get you off. You can do zero harm by hiring a lawyer. It can only help you, if for no other reason than the fact that he knows more about the law than you ever will and is a wealth of information.

Do yourself a favor, at least make a phonecall to a lawyer. Those are free. He can advise you what to do after that.

Dang, this is the first time I have been called naive and all for wanting to keep something in a mature adult manner. What ever gets you off at night man. If downing people is your way f being an adult and proving a point, then damn, I never want togrow and be as old and mature as you are.
If you think that by downgrading people and trying to prove their lack of inteligence is the way to lead with your stripes, then the military is a better lace without you. Because every quality tat has been instilled upon me has been those of not talking down to people, but talk to people. Something you have ZERO concept of.

And on that Im out. I am to young to converse with you and your infinate wisdom with the 2 extra years you have graced this earth. Please continue to be the great person you are and telling us young ones the flaws of our ways.

There is that better?

Dang, this is the first time I have been called naive and all for wanting to keep something in a mature adult manner. What ever gets you off at night man. If downing people is your way f being an adult and proving a point, then damn, I never want togrow and be as old and mature as you are.
If you think that by downgrading people and trying to prove their lack of inteligence is the way to lead with your stripes, then the military is a better lace without you. Because every quality tat has been instilled upon me has been those of not talking down to people, but talk to people. Something you have ZERO concept of.

You continue to prove my point. You've been told already that being young and naive is nothing to be ashamed of and continue to take offense and get agitated. Take deep breaths man, seriously. Now, if you're ashamed of being young and my pointing it out, there's nothing I can do about that. That's something you have to reconcile on your own. I never said one disparaging word about youth. I simply pointed out that you were, in fact, young and naive. Neither of those words are "insulting" words, merely factual.

Also, getting a lawyer and going through legal channels is about the most adult and mature thing you can do. You can't sit there and say "I'm mature, so I paid the fine." Because there are doctors, lawyers, even politicians who go to court rather than pay a fine. Going to court is your LEGAL RIGHT. It was set up that way for a reason. Going to court is not immature. (If you think it is, I'm sure there are several judges and lawyers who would tell you differently.)

And on that Im out. I am to young to converse with you and your infinate wisdom with the 2 extra years you have graced this earth. Please continue to be the great person you are and telling us young ones the flaws of our ways.

I will indeed continue being me. You seem to forget that the main way young people learn, is by the example or mistakes of those who came before them. I have intimate knowledge in this area and I choose to share it in the hopes that someone else doesn't have to learn the same way I did. It's that simple.

Ever heard the expression "If only I knew then what I know now?" There's a reason for that. And that reason is the fundamental basis for teaching people things. Young and inexperiences people will make mistakes, it's the way of the world. If someone a lil older and wiser can save them from some of those mistakes, then in my opinion, they should.

I'm sorry you don't feel that the older ones need to teach the younger ones. I guess I'm glad I'm not one of your troops. Must be hard to learn from a supervisor so unwilling to share his experience and knowledge.

come on now...let's all try to get along here...

alrite so i went to the internet paying site for the ticket and i read this


eTraffic Hawai`i



To use eTraffic Hawai`i, you must pay the total of the amounts stated on a citation within 21 days after receiving the citation. The court may enter a default judgment on traffic citations that have not been paid or answered within 21 days after the citation was issued. You have approximately 90 days to pay your default judgment, either via eTraffic, automated telephone (800-679-5949), mail or in person. After 90 days, unpaid judgments $500 or less are sent to a collection agency. Unpaid judgments greater than $500 are sent to the collection agency 180 days after the date the default judgment was entered.



If you are using eTraffic Hawai`i to make a payment, please enter the citation number exactly as it appears on the citation using upper case letters and dashes where appropriate.



The on-line payment system is NOT available if:

More than 90 days have elapsed since the default judgment was entered;
Your citation indicates that you must appear in court for any of the offense(s) charged;
You have appeared in court and were ordered to pay fines, fees, costs, or other monetary assessments; or
Your ticket has not been entered into the system. Since the law enforcement or other officer issuing a citation has 10 calendar days within which to file the citation with the court, it may take 13 calendar days or longer after you receive a citation for the information to be entered into the court's system. If you would like to make a payment before the ticket has been entered into the system, you may pay by mail using the pre-addressed envelope that accompanied the citation or in person at the District Court.

If you wish to use eTraffic Hawai`i, please be sure you are ready to input your traffic or parking citation number and VISA or MasterCard number.


its say the cop has 10 days only to enter it in the system. wat does that mean if its over 10 days im good rite

No, the officer probably filed the ticket at the end of that working day or at the end of that week. The backlog lies with the court system. It won't show up until the courts process it. Mine took a couple of months to show up.

BUT IT SAYS I GOT 21 DAYS TO PAY IT OLINE THEN I HAVE TO PAY IN PERSON

bike as in motorcycle or bike as in bycicle?

motorcycle lol i dont think a bicycle can reach speeds of 77

well, almost...saw a scene from CourtTV Channel of police car in Cali chasing a bicyclist..couldn't believe how fast the road bicyclist was going! I first thought it was a motorcycle!

lmao. yea cops suck and they go after you based on the way your ride looks. thats all they really care about. its stupid that the speed limit is 55 when everyone is going 65-70. but as long as you stay around 60 your good. where exactly did you get pulled over?

lmao. yea cops suck and they go after you based on the way your ride looks. thats all they really care about. its stupid that the speed limit is 55 when everyone is going 65-70. but as long as you stay around 60 your good. where exactly did you get pulled over?

H2 freeway biker cop was chilling on left side of the freeway after a blind turn

well that MIGHT be the reason you got pulled over... lol ya gotta watch. theres just some places you dont speed.

well, if you drag officers into court for a friggin ticket, do not complain when they can't show up and help when other more serious offences happen...sorry can't help you with that burglary...busy trying to prove that a dude was speeding...

If you sped, just pay the fine already. All the info you need is in the fine. Only make a case out of it if you really are innocent. Paying a lawyer for getting you off for speeding is IMO lame if you actually sped..take respoinsibility for your actions..there are no free lunches...

I would be embarrassed to drag an officer into court for a fine. When I got mine, I just called in and and paid over the phone. Took me less time than and actually cost me less than having to take off from work and go to the courts anyhow...

A.

well, if you drag officers into court for a friggin ticket, do not complain when they can't show up and help when other more serious offences happen...sorry can't help you with that burglary...busy trying to prove that a dude was speeding...

If you sped, just pay the fine already. All the info you need is in the fine. Only make a case out of it if you really are innocent. Paying a lawyer for getting you off for speeding is IMO lame if you actually sped..take respoinsibility for your actions..there are no free lunches...

I would be embarrassed to drag an officer into court for a fine. When I got mine, I just called in and and paid over the phone. Took me less time than and actually cost me less than having to take off from work and go to the courts anyhow...

A.

I am always amused by sheeple answers like this.

Attending court is part of the cop's job. They'd be there regardless. You going to say that murders and such shouldn't have cops go to court, too? Sheeesh.

Pay your fine, make money for the city, you seem to enjoy it. Those of us with knowledge of our rights and a willingness to use them will fight it every time.

Many cops have come out after retirement and said in articles on the subject that it is A) totally up to them if they ticket you or not and B) it's largely arbitrary and many factors play into it such as traffic, weather, and the way your car looks or does not look like a suped-up speed machine. With laws that arbitrary, it is our duty as citizens to fight it when we feel we have been unjustly targeted for whatever reason.

I am always amused by sheeple answers like this.


There is absolutely nothing sheeple about my answer. What I am sayin and what I mean. If you did something stand up and take what comes to you. Trying to avoid a ticket by hoping the officer will not attend is way more.

If he didn;t speed..fine lawyer up. trying to scam your way out of something is a cowards way out.


Attending court is part of the cop's job. They'd be there regardless. You going to say that murders and such shouldn't have cops go to court, too? Sheeesh.

If you pay your fine before the court date they don't have to spend the resources....and you don't have to waste yours and everybody elses time.


Pay your fine, make money for the city, you seem to enjoy it. Those of us with knowledge of our rights and a willingness to use them will fight it every time.

This statement is just about the most meaninless I have seen in a long time. If you took a chance broke the law stand up to it. It has nothing to do with "making money for the city" That is not the reason for having fines. Fines, as I am sure you know, serve as a deterrent from people who otherwise would drive reclessly.

Yes in a society you have rigths, but you also have duties. Why would you fight a fine, if you KNOW you actually committed the offense? That is not your right. It is also not your right to waste time and money. Do you really think it is worth having all these people meet up over $150? I am of course assuming the speeder does not have a legitimate case.

Actually fighting over stuff like this (if you know you have been speeding) is pretty much pathetic. You might think oh, but my insurance will increase. Tough ____. If you have a legitimate case, sure go for it.


Many cops have come out after retirement and said in articles on the subject that it is A) totally up to them if they ticket you or not and B) it's largely arbitrary and many factors play into it such as traffic, weather, and the way your car looks or does not look like a suped-up speed machine. With laws that arbitrary, it is our duty as citizens to fight it when we feel we have been unjustly targeted for whatever reason.

Again this is nonsensical. Either you committed the offense or you didn't. Nothin more nothing less. If it was up to the officer to ticket or not, again though ____..you were unlucky.
To what extent it is arbitratry? If you know you speeded it is not arbitrary. Again if you have legitimate case, sure lawyer up. If you know speeded be stand up to it. Whay too many people tries to weasel their way out of crap like this. Blaming the weather? Sheeesh, that is even worse.

I also think you need to learn the difference between random and ordered events.
If some officers measure your speed, and you are speeding somewhere, he gives you a ticket. How are you being "targeted"? If they follow you around to look for something they can take you for then you are being targeted. Anything else is just an excuse and a bad one at that.

just my 5 cents (right back at you).
A.

There is absolutely nothing sheeple about my answer. What I am sayin and what I mean. If you did something stand up and take what comes to you. Trying to avoid a ticket by hoping the officer will not attend is way more.



There is everything wrong and 'sheeple' about your answer. I'll explain as I address your other meaningless points.



If he didn;t speed..fine lawyer up. trying to scam your way out of something is a cowards way out.



Speeding is an arbitrary offense. By that I mean that the cop can choose to give you a ticket or to not give you a ticket. Also, when you're in rush hour traffic and everyone is going 10 miles per hour over, it's totally up to the cop who he pulls over. The selective enforcement and the careful wording of the speed laws by their very nature make them arbitrary.



If you pay your fine before the court date they don't have to spend the resources....and you don't have to waste yours and everybody elses time.



Wrong. There are thousands and millions who go to court every day. Not exercising your right to answer the "allegations" against you is simply stupid. I enjoy my rights and I like having them, so I use them. Also, if the cop doesn't show, I would guess that shoots a very large hole in your 'resource' argument because he's not even there anyway. It's all part of the game. The cops' jobs are to issue tickets. They could really give a rat's tail most of the time about showing up for court. That in itself shows how 'important' they think speed laws are.



This statement is just about the most meaninless I have seen in a long time. If you took a chance broke the law stand up to it. It has nothing to do with "making money for the city" That is not the reason for having fines. Fines, as I am sure you know, serve as a deterrent from people who otherwise would drive reclessly.



Actually it has everything to do with making money. That's why over the years people have had to fight with city governments over speed traps that hide right by a change in speed, nailing everyone whose brakes don't slow them down in time to not get caught by the radar.



Yes in a society you have rigths, but you also have duties. Why would you fight a fine, if you KNOW you actually committed the offense? That is not your right. It is also not your right to waste time and money. Do you really think it is worth having all these people meet up over $150? I am of course assuming the speeder does not have a legitimate case.



You would fight the fine because you felt it was the right thing to do. Just because you are going a couple of miles per hour faster than what a sign says does NOT, by the letter of the law, mean you were speeding. Again with the time and money wasted...there is none. If the cop doesn't show up, he's out doing his 'other job' and the prosecutors and judges have to be there regardless. That's their JOB.



Actually fighting over stuff like this (if you know you have been speeding) is pretty much pathetic. You might think oh, but my insurance will increase. Tough poop. If you have a legitimate case, sure go for it.

Again this is nonsensical. Either you committed the offense or you didn't. Nothin more nothing less. If it was up to the officer to ticket or not, again though poop..you were unlucky.



Again, as I have already pointed out, it's often not simply a case of if you were A then you must B. That's why they are arbitrary.



To what extent it is arbitratry? If you know you speeded it is not arbitrary. Again if you have legitimate case, sure lawyer up. If you know speeded be stand up to it. Whay too many people tries to weasel their way out of crap like this. Blaming the weather? Sheeesh, that is even worse.



Actually the reference to the weather was talking about how the speed laws are written. Most are written along the lines of "safe and prudent speed with respect to conditions at the time (ie weather conditions, traffic conditions, etc).



I also think you need to learn the difference between random and ordered events.
If some officers measure your speed, and you are speeding somewhere, he gives you a ticket. How are you being "targeted"? If they follow you around to look for something they can take you for then you are being targeted. Anything else is just an excuse and a bad one at that.



I don't know where to begin with what you need to learn. Spelling and grammar would be a good start. Followed by a government lesson or two.

There have been many cases of a group of cars all going the same speed, just a couple of miles faster than the 'posted limit' and the car that looks the most like a riced-racer gets nailed. I've seen it myself, and I've been a victim of it too. I was in a a pack of cars that included a Mitsubishi Evo and we were ALL going the same speed, yet when we passed the cop, he pointed directly at Mr. Evo and made him pull over, letting the rest of us go.The Evo was NOT the closest to him either. He went right for him. Also, on that same stretch of road one day I was in a lane behind a pick up truck, which totally left me in the dust. I was in a Mitsubishi Lancer/Ralliart at the time which comes from the dealer with a bit of rice to it. The truck who "was" right with me when we started was NOWHERE around when I passed the cop (going the same speed as everyone else) yet I was the one pulled over.

Cops have often stated they will pull over a muscle car or a ricer car before a family-style car any day because they feel it's more 'likely' that the muscle or ricer driver was 'intending' to speed. Not because those drivers WERE speeding more than others, but because they felt that they were more likely to have INTENDED to speed.

Does that define arbitrary enough for you? Shall I go on?

There is everything wrong and 'sheeple' about your answer. I'll explain as I address your other meaningless points.


thanks :blah: :blah:



Speeding is an arbitrary offense. By that I mean that the cop can choose to give you a ticket or to not give you a ticket.


Actually no this is not the case. If he stops you in a speeding traffic control for speeding, he cannot choose. Although some get away with it, the cop him self really cannot choose if he wants to or not.


Also, when you're in rush hour traffic and everyone is going 10 miles per hour over, it's totally up to the cop who he pulls over. The selective enforcement and the careful wording of the speed laws by their very nature make them arbitrary.


Again, no it is not arbitrary. It is random..there's a difference. You should know that. The cops cannot possibly stop everyone so they'll pick someone at random.



Wrong. There are thousands and millions who go to court every day. Not exercising your right to answer the "allegations" against you is simply stupid. I enjoy my rights and I like having them, so I use them.

ROTFL, so you call speeding an alligation? I guess it is worse than I thought. If you were speeding pay up. If you know you were speeding, it is pathetic to go to court and claim anything else. Actually it isn't only pathetic, it is illegal.


Also, if the cop doesn't show, I would guess that shoots a very large hole in your 'resource' argument because he's not even there anyway. It's all part of the game. The cops' jobs are to issue tickets. They could really give a rat's tail most of the time about showing up for court. That in itself shows how 'important' they think speed laws are.

First of all, no it doesn't. It actually proves my point. You are still wasting tax payer money though...since the rest of the court is there. I actually think that if you choose to come to court you should not only have to pay the fine if found guilty, you should also pay the court costs. You are wasting tax money. Second of all, it isn;t a "game". Much of the speed laws are there for a reason. Looking upon it as a game simply emphsizes how little understanding and appreciation you have for traffic. Has nothing to do with how important they think speed laws are..they are simply overworked....saving your ___ from being robbed.

Actually what laws do you think are important? Should society in general just start following rules according to knightman? Actually, I am sure many would disagree...how about we all make rules for ourselves...that would work great.


Actually it has everything to do with making money. That's why over the years people have had to fight with city governments over speed traps that hide right by a change in speed, nailing everyone whose brakes don't slow them down in time to not get caught by the radar.


Okay I have no idea what you are trying to say here. As I have said before if you have a legitimate claim, go ahead...if you KNOW you were speeding it is pathitic to go to courst and blame the rain.


You would fight the fine because you felt it was the right thing to do. Just because you are going a couple of miles per hour faster than what a sign says does NOT, by the letter of the law, mean you were speeding. Again with the time and money wasted...there is none. If the cop doesn't show up, he's out doing his 'other job' and the prosecutors and judges have to be there regardless. That's their JOB.


wrong...your argument falls on it self. Hey I didn;t steal your car..I borrowed it for some time. Hey I only stole a pack of gum...you see where I am going with this? My point is that who decides what laws are the important ones and not? It really isn;t the right thing to do just because you feel like it. That in it self is probably the worst reason I have ever heard...oh and yes the speed limit is definite...it is not an advice...

..and you still waste the courts time..even if the cop doesn't show. This is the reasons why the courts are cluttered...



Actually the reference to the weather was talking about how the speed laws are written. Most are written along the lines of "safe and prudent speed with respect to conditions at the time (ie weather conditions, traffic conditions, etc).


Nope, that is when you should be going well under the speed limit. Going 55 mph on an icy snowy road is not at all respecting the conditions...and it requires you to drive well under the speedlimit, but you can NEVER go over.


I don't know where to begin with what you need to learn. Spelling and grammar would be a good start. Followed by a government lesson or two.

This is how you discuss? Trying to gain an upperhand in a discussion by pointing out grammatical errors? :rofl: :rofl: I am not sure I am laughing because it is really more sad than anything else. I guess it is like pointing out someones age as a means of getting an upper hand in a discussion...oh I forgot you did that too in this thread.


There have been many cases of a group of cars all going the same speed, just a couple of miles faster than the 'posted limit' and the car that looks the most like a riced-racer gets nailed. I've seen it myself, and I've been a victim of it too. I was in a a pack of cars that included a Mitsubishi Evo and we were ALL going the same speed, yet when we passed the cop, he pointed directly at Mr. Evo and made him pull over, letting the rest of us go.The Evo was NOT the closest to him either. He went right for him. Also, on that same stretch of road one day I was in a lane behind a pick up truck, which totally left me in the dust. I was in a Mitsubishi Lancer/Ralliart at the time which comes from the dealer with a bit of rice to it. The truck who "was" right with me when we started was NOWHERE around when I passed the cop (going the same speed as everyone else) yet I was the one pulled over.

Cops have often stated they will pull over a muscle car or a ricer car before a family-style car any day because they feel it's more 'likely' that the muscle or ricer driver was 'intending' to speed. Not because those drivers WERE speeding more than others, but because they felt that they were more likely to have INTENDED to speed.

Does that define arbitrary enough for you? Shall I go on?

No that defines intent to stop someone for a reason. It defines profiling, but it does not define arbitrary since what you are talking about is profiling...but not arbitrary.

It might sound like I have never speeded, I have, but I don't ____ and moan and go wasting court time about it. If I've done something I fess up, and get on with my life, instead of blaming everyone else. Easy as pie really.

:-)
A.

Actually no this is not the case. If he stops you in a speeding traffic control for speeding, he cannot choose. Although some get away with it, the cop him self really cannot choose if he wants to or not.

Again, no it is not arbitrary. It is random..there's a difference. You should know that.



Perhaps you should do a little research on this very site before you go opening your mouth and proving your ignorance. There are COUNTLESS speeding ticket threads on this site with MANY people posting saying they were BLATANTLY speeding and still they got no ticket. If cops can't choose who they ticket, explain why so many only get a warning. I myself have been stopped for speeding and my 'punishment' was the cop closing his ticket book and saying "slow down next time." Cops can't choose hmmm? Research.... research stops you from looking ignorant. Remember that.


ROTFL, so you call speeding an alligation? I guess it is worse than I thought. If you were speeding pay up. If you know you were speeding, it is pathetic to go to court and claim anything else. Actually it isn't only pathetic, it is illegal.


Actually, when the cop hands you the citation to sign, he says "Signing this is a promise to appear IN COURT. It is not an admission of guilt." By DEFINITION, that means that a speeding ticket *IS* and allegation. (By the way, it's not alligation.) You see, in this country a person is INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. That pertains to tickets as well. It is not illegal to fight a ticket you felt wasn't justified. I have no idea where you could get this rather odd notion from.


First of all, no it doesn't. It actually proves my point. You are still wasting tax payer money though...since the rest of the court is there. I actually think that if you choose to come to court you should not only have to pay the fine if found guilty, you should also pay the court costs. You are wasting tax money.


Here is where you also show your ignorance. When you *do* go to court, you *do* have to pay court costs if you lose. So I guess the only money wasted here is the person who exercises his or her right to fight the ticket.


Second of all, it isn;t a "game". Much of the speed laws are there for a reason. Looking upon it as a game simply emphsizes how little understanding and appreciation you have for traffic. Has nothing to do with how important they think speed laws are..they are simply overworked....saving your butt from being robbed.


And the reason, in most cases, is because the city needs revenue. If this were not the case, explain to me why some cities are issuing 'civil' fines for speeding via radar/laser-controlled cameras? Some are also doing that for red light runners. How does a $75 dollar fine and no points on your license really deter anything? All that means is that those who can afford to pay $75 repeatedly can get away with ignoring any law they like.


Okay I have no idea what you are trying to say here. As I have said before if you have a legitimate claim, go ahead...if you KNOW you were speeding it is pathitic to go to courst and blame the rain.


When a law is written the way a speed law is, one who does not believe himself or herself to be speeding should ALWAYS fight. Who said anything about blaming anything on rain? :loser:


wrong...your argument falls on it self. Hey I didn;t steal your car..I borrowed it for some time. Hey I only stole a pack of gum...you see where I am going with this? My point is that who decides what laws are the important ones and not? It really isn;t the right thing to do just because you feel like it. That in it self is probably the worst reason I have ever heard...oh and yes the speed limit is definite...it is not an advice...


My argument doesn't fail at all, however your illogical comparison to other crimes does. Speeding is a victimless crime. Who is wronged if someone goes a measly 5 miles over the limit? Why is one highway set at 55 and another goes to 75? Why is it the Europeans have mastered the ability to drive over 100 mph safely but we seem to never grasp that concept?

Speed laws are guidelines. They are most certainly *not* definite or every single road would have the same one and no car made would be able to drive faster than the posted limit.


This is how you discuss? Trying to gain an upperhand in a discussion by pointing out grammatical errors? :rofl: :rofl: I am not sure I am laughing because it is really more sad than anything else. I guess it is like pointing out someones age as a means of getting an upper hand in a discussion...oh I forgot you did that too in this thread.


Considering your first reply of "thanks :blah: :blah: " I would say my attack on your grammar skills was certainly on the money. Since I'm dealing with someone who would reply the way you did, I would imagine said person hasn't even graduated high school yet.


No that defines intent to stop someone for a reason. It defines profiling, but it does not define arbitrary since what you are talking about is profiling...but not arbitrary.


Since it's clear you need a grammar lesson, let's begin, shall we?

Arbitrary:
ar·bi·trar·y (är'bĭ-trĕr'ē)

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

The ticketed driver is based on the WHIM of the cop at the time. Since cops tend to go after the sportier looking cars, they are making an arbitrary choice as to whom to pull over out of a group.


It might sound like I have never speeded, I have, but I don't ____ and moan and go wasting court time about it. If I've done something I fess up, and get on with my life, instead of blaming everyone else. Easy as pie really.


A) It's sped, not speeded. And B) you remember your rules on owning up to something if someone ever accuses you of murder or some other sinister crime. Remember to just fess up and do your time. Don't go wasting the court's time trying to prove your innocence.

Back on point, as I am certain you have no law degree and thus couldn't read your way through "Law for dummies" if you wanted to, I can put you in touch with one of my lawyers who, upon reading the written law and the subsequent case law pertaining to speed OFTEN stands up in front of a full jury and explains that because of the way speed laws are written, they must find not guilty if they themselves have ever gone above the limit *and* felt themselves to be reasonable and prudent in doing so.

He doesn't lose, by the way.

Perhaps you should do a little research on this very site before you go opening your mouth and proving your ignorance. There are COUNTLESS speeding ticket threads on this site with MANY people posting saying they were BLATANTLY speeding and still they got no ticket. If cops can't choose who they ticket, explain why so many only get a warning. I myself have been stopped for speeding and my 'punishment' was the cop closing his ticket book and saying "slow down next time." Cops can't choose hmmm? Research.... research stops you from looking ignorant. Remember that.

Again, you don't really read my replies. I didn;t say the cops don;t let people go with a warning..I said they cannot choose. They are completely wrong when they let someone caught in a speeding trap go..


Actually, when the cop hands you the citation to sign, he says "Signing this is a promise to appear IN COURT. It is not an admission of guilt." By DEFINITION, that means that a speeding ticket *IS* and allegation. (By the way, it's not alligation.) You see, in this country a person is INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. That pertains to tickets as well. It is not illegal to fight a ticket you felt wasn't justified. I have no idea where you could get this rather odd notion from.

Either you don't read what I write or you simply like to argue. Fine. I have never ever said you don;t have the right as defined by law to go to court and fight your $75 ticket. What I said is it is cowardly IF yoyu know you were speeding...to try to get off a ticktet by chancing that the cop will not show. It is definitely illegal and I think a federal crime to lie in court. ie. If you say you didn't speed, yet the prosecutor can proive you know otherwise you can end up in jail for a long time.

This is really what it is about. I think if you know you were speeding. Then let it go already. Pay your fine and get on with it.


Here is where you also show your ignorance. When you *do* go to court, you *do* have to pay court costs if you lose. So I guess the only money wasted here is the person who exercises his or her right to fight the ticket.

Okay I showed I have never been to court. I've paid my tickets before...simply because I knew I was speeding.


And the reason, in most cases, is because the city needs revenue. If this were not the case, explain to me why some cities are issuing 'civil' fines for speeding via radar/laser-controlled cameras? Some are also doing that for red light runners. How does a $75 dollar fine and no points on your license really deter anything? All that means is that those who can afford to pay $75 repeatedly can get away with ignoring any law they like.

Nonsense. Fines aren't made because cities needs revenue...that argument siply sounds like some wierd "they are after me plot", which quite frankly a lot of your argumentation sounds like.


When a law is written the way a speed law is, one who does not believe himself or herself to be speeding should ALWAYS fight. Who said anything about blaming anything on rain? :loser:

This is what I have been writing all along. Fight the ticket if you weren;t speeding...but if you were stop wasting everyones time and pay up.
In regards to the rain...it's from a milli vanilli song..I felt it was kind of fitting for you :-)..milli vanilli....[/quote]
Soudns to me you would try to argue your way out of a ticket even though you knew you were speeding.


My argument doesn't fail at all, however your illogical comparison to other crimes does. Speeding is a victimless crime. Who is wronged if someone goes a measly 5 miles over the limit? Why is one highway set at 55 and another goes to 75? Why is it the Europeans have mastered the ability to drive over 100 mph safely but we seem to never grasp that concept?


Are you for real? You're kidding right? Please tell me you are kidding? You really don't know why different stretches of roads have different speed limits? Is it true? I mean for gods sake, let's do something about the drivers education...

Oh, and no speeding isn;t a victimless crime. I've seen enough times to know.

Finally, actually, you would be surprised at how autobahn works....it doesn;t really seems like you know (have you ever driven there?) If you go out of gas, you get fined. If you tailgate, you'll get fined. If you pass a car on the right side you;ll get fined. Actually tailgating can lead to loosing your license. That is how it works..yet you would go complaining about it draggin lawyers into court.


Speed laws are guidelines. They are most certainly *not* definite or every single road would have the same one and no car made would be able to drive faster than the posted limit.

Priceless. This is a golden moment.... :rofl: :rofl: GUIDELINES? :rofl: :rofl:
You should perhaps not talk of other people's ignorance.


Considering your first reply of "thanks :blah: :blah: " I would say my attack on your grammar skills was certainly on the money. Since I'm dealing with someone who would reply the way you did, I would imagine said person hasn't even graduated high school yet.

I assume you would think that...btw you are actually close to being as wrong as you can be on that.

You know what I think is more funny...you talk about grammar skills...yet I am not quite sure you know the difference between grammar in linguistics and sematics because:


Since it's clear you need a grammar lesson, let's begin, shall we?

Arbitrary:
ar·bi·trar·y (är'bĭ-trĕr'ē)

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

The ticketed driver is based on the WHIM of the cop at the time. Since cops tend to go after the sportier looking cars, they are making an arbitrary choice as to whom to pull over out of a group.


What you are talking about here is semantics...which is different from grammar in the the sense that grammar is more how you would use the words in sentences, not what their meanings are. I know you are using this as a tactics are get an upperhand in the discussion, but to be honest the reason why my writing is like this is I don't think you are worth using my spell checker for. Sorry.

Also you are not right in your analysis. Because you say it is arbitrary..yet you say the cop picked your car for a reason..ie it was the looks of the car thus it cannot be arbitrary. Arbitrary would be for no reason at all, or at the whim of the cop...

If it was random or not..doesn't really matter. If you were speeding, then pay up. Don't complain about the guys the cops didn't stop...that is just weak.


A) It's sped, not speeded.

ahh this is grammar, thx. :-)
Made you feel good? I am glad I could be of assistance. LOL


Back on point, as I am certain you have no law degree and thus couldn't read your way through "Law for dummies" if you wanted to, I can put you in touch with one of my lawyers who, upon reading the written law and the subsequent case law pertaining to speed OFTEN stands up in front of a full jury and explains that because of the way speed laws are written, they must find not guilty if they themselves have ever gone above the limit *and* felt themselves to be reasonable and prudent in doing so.


Would you do that for me?? O thank you so so much (this is irony if you don't get it).
I am sure he is poud of himself working his way through a law degree to end up arguing tickets for guys that can't own up to themselves. Oh, and by the way, how does your lawyers ability to upon reading the law reflect on your inability to comprehend it? What does his Chewbacca defense have to do with your weak comprehension and argumentation that a speed limit is only a guideline....[/quote]

He doesn't lose, by the way.

Seriously? You must be joking. Now you're just trolling....the whole argumentation is irrelevant. Actually the judge or prosecutor should stop any argumentation like that as it is completely irrelevant...oh and do they actually have juries for this stuff? It is worse than I thought. I'd be so ____ed off if I had to sit in a jury and listen to pathetic guys not owning up to their speeding by blaming everyone else.

a.

Again, you don't really read my replies. I didn;t say the cops don;t let people go with a warning..I said they cannot choose. They are completely wrong when they let someone caught in a speeding trap go..


It's funny how you accuse people of not reading your posts and then you turn around and do the exact same thing. Thanks for the laugh, kiddo.

Cops CAN choose. If you still wish to argue this point, I can put you in touch with a number of police officers including my brother who know a lot more about their rules than you do.


Either you don't read what I write or you simply like to argue. Fine. I have never ever said you don;t have the right as defined by law to go to court and fight your $75 ticket. What I said is it is cowardly IF yoyu know you were speeding...to try to get off a ticktet by chancing that the cop will not show. It is definitely illegal and I think a federal crime to lie in court. ie. If you say you didn't speed, yet the prosecutor can proive you know otherwise you can end up in jail for a long time.

This is really what it is about. I think if you know you were speeding. Then let it go already. Pay your fine and get on with it.


Here we go again with the not reading on your part. To prove you were speeding, the cop and the court must prove you were driving at a speed unreasonable and imprudent given the conditions at the time. NOT that you were going above the posted limit. (You REALLY need to talk to my lawyer, you might learn something.) When a city makes those nifty little speed signs, they are "suggesting" a "reasonable and prudent speed" for the lowest common denominator -- the idiots who can't control their cars and make others look bad. For an example of this lowest common denominator, look in the mirror. So the signs are not for everyone, they are a suggestion. Which is EXACTLY how the law is written. In fact, in most municipalities, the speed law even says "A person is guilty of an offense if they knowingly drove at a speed unreasonable and imprudent with respect to current conditions." This is not the section talking about weather (since you've not read it). It's the section talking about a crime of speeding. This is also why cities choose whatever limits they want. Why an 18-wheeler can only go 60 while everyone else can go 70 or 75. Why one street says 30 while 5 blocks later is suddenly says 45.


Nonsense. Fines aren't made because cities needs revenue...that argument siply sounds like some wierd "they are after me plot", which quite frankly a lot of your argumentation sounds like.


Research.....that's all I'm going to say about this. Research and you'll look less stupid.


This is what I have been writing all along. Fight the ticket if you weren;t speeding...but if you were stop wasting everyones time and pay up.


It's not wasting time if you believe yourself to be innocent. The people who founded our system of government and the court system sure though it wasn't a waste.


Oh, and no speeding isn;t a victimless crime. I've seen enough times to know.


Oh really? Then who does it hurt if one person decides to drive a little faster than the 'posted limit?' What illogical argument do you have for this one?


Finally, actually, you would be surprised at how autobahn works....it doesn;t really seems like you know (have you ever driven there?) If you go out of gas, you get fined. If you tailgate, you'll get fined. If you pass a car on the right side you;ll get fined. Actually tailgating can lead to loosing your license. That is how it works..yet you would go complaining about it draggin lawyers into court.


Funny, because we have the same passing and tailgating laws here. Yet we can't drive over 60 on most roads. Why is that, Mr. Wizard? Come on, you claim to know so much. Why is it they can drive so much faster than us?


I assume you would think that...btw you are actually close to being as wrong as you can be on that.
/quote]

You haven't done much to prove me wrong so far, kiddo.


Also you are not right in your analysis. Because you say it is arbitrary..yet you say the cop picked your car for a reason..ie it was the looks of the car thus it cannot be arbitrary. Arbitrary would be for no reason at all, or at the whim of the cop...


When a cop makes a choice of which car he's going for and he picks the one in the middle of the group, he's made an arbitrary choice. It doesn't matter WHY he made the choice. All that matters is he made a choice based on his WHIM. That, coupled with the fact that he can let go the person he stopped if he so chooses makes the whole thing up to him, thus ARBITRARY. Please, if you dropped out, please return to school. If you're still in, stop skipping classes.


Would you do that for me?? O thank you so so much (this is irony if you don't get it).
I am sure he is poud of himself working his way through a law degree to end up arguing tickets for guys that can't own up to themselves. Oh, and by the way, how does your lawyers ability to upon reading the law reflect on your inability to comprehend it? What does his Chewbacca defense have to do with your weak comprehension and argumentation that a speed limit is only a guideline....


That's actually sarcasm, not irony. (Again, go back to school.) Actually my lawyer is very proud of what he does because he knows how the law works and how arbitrary it can be. My ability to comprehend the law is a direct reflection on my lawyer's ability to explain it to me. And if he can convince 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty that he is right, I'd say he knows his stuff.


It is worse than I thought. I'd be so ____ed off if I had to sit in a jury and listen to pathetic guys not owning up to their speeding by blaming everyone else.


Actually, your prejudice would likely rule you out of jury duty. As soon as my lawyer asked first if you have ever sped and then if you've ever felt yourself unreasonable or imprudent; your answer would highlight your inability to be objective and therefore, you'd be excused.

Don't forget, if/when you're accused of murder or any other real crime....don't get a lawyer. Just own up to it instead of trying to prove your innocence because you don't want to waste the court's time.

It's funny how you accuse people of not reading your posts and then you turn around and do the exact same thing. Thanks for the laugh, kiddo.

Cops CAN choose. If you still wish to argue this point, I can put you in touch with a number of police officers including my brother who know a lot more about their rules than you do.

ROTFL, that is the level now? You keep on adding new depth levels to this discussion. You brother?? :rofl: :rofl: Can I ask you how old you are? I mean you keep on bringing in age and education as if this has anything to do with the discussion at hand? So lets hear it.

I've said it before, and will repeat it for you reading pleasure. You have me pegged completely wrong.



Here we go again with the not reading on your part. To prove you were speeding, the cop and the court must prove you were driving at a speed unreasonable and imprudent given the conditions at the time. NOT that you were going above the posted limit. (You REALLY need to talk to my lawyer, you might learn something.)


Not true. I am actually going to call you out on this. This is ONLY when you shgould be driving under the speed limit. If you are driving 55 mph and it is icy and water and your speed should be 20 mph...then the prudent speeds some in, otherwise that only suggested speed you have is the yellow signs...didn't you learn this before you got your license?


When a city makes those nifty little speed signs, they are "suggesting" a "reasonable and prudent speed" for the lowest common denominator -- the idiots who can't control their cars and make others look bad. For an example of this lowest common denominator, look in the mirror. So the signs are not for everyone, they are a suggestion. Which is EXACTLY how the law is written. In fact, in most municipalities, the speed law even says "A person is guilty of an offense if they knowingly drove at a speed unreasonable and imprudent with respect to current conditions." This is not the section talking about weather (since you've not read it). It's the section talking about a crime of speeding. This is also why cities choose whatever limits they want. Why an 18-wheeler can only go 60 while everyone else can go 70 or 75. Why one street says 30 while 5 blocks later is suddenly says 45.

Again, how do you get to this miscomprehension? Really. I actually think they the speed limits are made for people like I assume you are...and I wish there were more police to control drivers going way to fast. A speed limit is actually determined by factors such as policy, road, conditions, whan location of the road. THEY AREN:T SUGGESTED ONES (those are the yellow signs). I hope you are reading this.

If you can get me a good reliable source saying anything else I will be happy to say I was wrong until then reading about your "lawyer" that is proud to argue the Chewbacca defense, or your brother or his friends just doesn;t cut it. Here is a freebie for you...when doing research that you preach...the first thing you should do is evaluate the source...for instant some guys distorted opinion of reality is not a valid or reliable point. Second of all, if there is theory, go to research publications. In law you can actuyally just show me the laws..they are written down. On thop there will be cases proceeding on those laws to examplify.

You talked about Europeans....can I ask you have you ever driven on Autobahn?



Research.....that's all I'm going to say about this. Research and you'll look less stupid.

Do you know what research is? You suggest it, but fail to show any sources except your brother and your "lawyer" I actually do not think you have completed a single piece of scientifc research..simply because there seems to be a completel lack of comprehension of what a reliable source is. They way you argue also lacks any substance. Step it up and show me the law. I'll be happy to admit to any errors...



It's not wasting time if you believe yourself to be innocent. The people who founded our system of government and the court system sure though it wasn't a waste.


This actually pathetic. If you go above the speed limit and youknow it there is no way you can be innocent. Did you blame every one else whan growing up?


Oh really? Then who does it hurt if one person decides to drive a little faster than the 'posted limit?' What illogical argument do you have for this one?

Are you kidding?? You must be trolling. We are not really talking about a little faster? I've seen what can happen when someone speeds, and can't stop in time. It wasn't that much, but it surely killed the biker. I guess you would simply say it was the driver not the limit. Or it was the biker not the soeed limit..you could probably have stopped easily. Actually, this is exactly why there is a speed limit. For safety.

If not the speed limit..where does the boundries go? Should it be a skills dependent limit? I mean a race car driver would probaly be able to drive a regular car over the speed limit safer than me, but how about the old lady he cuts off and she skids out? How about when everyone is driving at different speeds? How would you suggest that a limit like this would be enforced? How about drinking and driving? Would this suggested lat apply to the same? How about stealing?


Funny, because we have the same passing and tailgating laws here. Yet we can't drive over 60 on most roads. Why is that, Mr. Wizard? Come on, you claim to know so much. Why is it they can drive so much faster than us?


I'll humor you.
2 things. 1. I think the first problem here is driver education and knowledge. People here think it is a right to have a license thus no-one should need more than a test that people can do blind. drivers tailgate and pass on the wrong side all the time her. You know it. Freeing the highways here would lead to havoc and mass collisions immediately. 2. Tradition. Because Autrobahn has been like it is for a very long time. From before could go as fast. It isn't becuase there is no political will, but there is a lot of resistance to changing it. Also accidents happen.

I have driven on the autobahn many times, and I know if I want to be in the left lane...I better go fast.....really really fast. I am telling you going 100 mph, isn't always enough..because when BMW comes at a 170 mph, he can have problems slowing down. Point is, the really bad accident happen when people are tailgating, and I don't think that people here understands this.



You haven't done much to prove me wrong so far, kiddo.

Here you go pulling age whathave you into the discussion. I am really curious how old you think I am. I have no high school was it? And now kiddo? :rofl:


When a cop makes a choice of which car he's going for and he picks the one in the middle of the group, he's made an arbitrary choice. It doesn't matter WHY he made the choice.
Yes it does. You were the one bringing definitions in. By having a reason, it CANNOT by definition be arbitrary.
"Choices and actions are considered to be arbitrary when they are done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim..."


All that matters is he made a choice based on his WHIM. That, coupled with the fact that he can let go the person he stopped if he so chooses makes the whole thing up to him, thus ARBITRARY. Please, if you dropped out, please return to school. If you're still in, stop skipping classes.

Give it up already. I don;t have yet to meet anyone who are so preoccupied with other peoples education or age. Step it up...how are you in this landscape?



That's actually sarcasm, not irony. (Again, go back to school.)


Well I guess it is both. I did mean to make you the butt of that joke. It is still definitely irony though.


Actually my lawyer is very proud of what he does because he knows how the law works and how arbitrary it can be. My ability to comprehend the law is a direct reflection on my lawyer's ability to explain it to me. And if he can convince 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty that he is right, I'd say he knows his stuff.


Your comprehension of the law is a direct reflection on your lawyer's ability to explain...see right there. I would just never hire anyone like that. Ever. Simple as that, becasue I really don;t think you actaully do comprehend...but I am willing to be PROVEN wrong. Cough it up...the laws.


Actually, your prejudice would likely rule you out of jury duty. As soon as my lawyer asked first if you have ever sped and then if you've ever felt yourself unreasonable or imprudent; your answer would highlight your inability to be objective and therefore, you'd be excused.


Again, it wouldn't. It isn't speeding it self. It is the pathetic excuses, but I am willing to listen to anything but the Chewbacca defense. :-)
Btw. what law office does he work out of? I am just curious. A link is okay.


Don't forget, if/when you're accused of murder or any other real crime....don't get a lawyer. Just own up to it instead of trying to prove your innocence because you don't want to waste the court's time.

LOL, well I sure will take your legal advice.

thx for a if not good discussion, but atleast funny one :rofl:
A.

ROTFL, that is the level now? You keep on adding new depth levels to this discussion. You brother?? :rofl: :rofl: Can I ask you how old you are? I mean you keep on bringing in age and education as if this has anything to do with the discussion at hand? So lets hear it.

I've said it before, and will repeat it for you reading pleasure. You have me pegged completely wrong.


From where I sit, I have you pegged dead on. For one, you ask how old I am, when it's right there on the left next to my little name and above my avatar picture. Go on look. I'll wait. Done? Alright then.

Not true. I am actually going to call you out on this. This is ONLY when you shgould be driving under the speed limit. If you are driving 55 mph and it is icy and water and your speed should be 20 mph...then the prudent speeds some in, otherwise that only suggested speed you have is the yellow signs...didn't you learn this before you got your license?


Call me out all you like. My information comes DIRECTLY from my LAWYER. If you can't accept truth, by all means continue making an idiot of yourself. I enjoy reading your misguided posts. They are nothing if not entertaining.

Again, how do you get to this miscomprehension? Really. I actually think they the speed limits are made for people like I assume you are...and I wish there were more police to control drivers going way to fast. A speed limit is actually determined by factors such as policy, road, conditions, whan location of the road. THEY AREN:T SUGGESTED ONES (those are the yellow signs). I hope you are reading this.


I kept wondering the same thing about you (about your level of comprehension, of course). It's widely known (and joked about on late night talk shows) that everything about this country plays to the lowest common denominator. Think I'm wrong? Tell me why coffee cups at McDonald's have warnings about the contents being hot. Tell me why a 5 gallon bucket comes with a drowning warning or why a hair dryer has a warning not to use it in water. This country caters to the stupid. Why do you think other countries make fun of our educational system?

If you can get me a good reliable source saying anything else I will be happy to say I was wrong until then reading about your "lawyer" that is proud to argue the Chewbacca defense, or your brother or his friends just doesn;t cut it. Here is a freebie for you...when doing research that you preach...the first thing you should do is evaluate the source...for instant some guys distorted opinion of reality is not a valid or reliable point. Second of all, if there is theory, go to research publications. In law you can actuyally just show me the laws..they are written down. On thop there will be cases proceeding on those laws to examplify.

Do you know what research is? You suggest it, but fail to show any sources except your brother and your "lawyer" I actually do not think you have completed a single piece of scientifc research..simply because there seems to be a completel lack of comprehension of what a reliable source is. They way you argue also lacks any substance. Step it up and show me the law. I'll be happy to admit to any errors...


You want to know what really cracks me up about you? You've demanded my sources and told me how wrong I am, yet I have yet to see source ONE from you. This entire time, you've been talking out of your rear and you know it. I've done my research on the subject, extensively, in fact. But if you haven't provided any citation or proof of your illustrious claims, then why should I? Sheesh, kiddo, a simple google search turns up SEVERAL articles written by former police officers where they talk about who they pull over and when they do and don't give a ticket. In one such article, the cop flat out says if you own up to it on the spot and are genuine, he lets you go. If you try and make up a BS excuse, you get a ticket. Hmmm certain sounds like CHOICE to me. But then you don't want to hear about that do you? You probably won't go look that up because it doesn't support your position.

I on the other hand research for FUN. It's what I do. In fact, I research so often and such inane, innocuous things that I am honestly running out of room for the links. I have links on everything from crime, language, 80's television shows, how stuff works, football, self-defense laws and items, video games and movies. There are very few things that I haven't looked up in at least a casual capacity.

This actually pathetic. If you go above the speed limit and youknow it there is no way you can be innocent.


Wrong again. Once you've done your homework, you will see the truth.


Are you kidding?? You must be trolling.


Oh yes, I'm the troll and you're the one here with no profile or identifying information of any kind....right. Good call.


We are not really talking about a little faster? I've seen what can happen when someone speeds, and can't stop in time. It wasn't that much, but it surely killed the biker. I guess you would simply say it was the driver not the limit. Or it was the biker not the soeed limit..you could probably have stopped easily. Actually, this is exactly why there is a speed limit. For safety.


And your argument fails here as well (you must hear that alot). *I* am talking about a little fast. I have no idea what you are talking about except when you bring in 'other factors.' I'm not talking about the idiot kid that drives over 100 and kills a family of 4. I'm talking about the guy merrily on his way to work who's keeping up with traffic and that just happens to mean 5 to 10 miles over. Where is the victim there? As a matter of fact, of all the times I've been on a freeway in the last 14 years, the guy who was going EXACTLY what the sign said was a traffic hazard and he was being passed on both the left AND the right side because NO ONE was going that speed.


If not the speed limit..where does the boundries go? Should it be a skills dependent limit? I mean a race car driver would probaly be able to drive a regular car over the speed limit safer than me, but how about the old lady he cuts off and she skids out? How about when everyone is driving at different speeds? How would you suggest that a limit like this would be enforced? How about drinking and driving? Would this suggested lat apply to the same? How about stealing?


Personally, I think the limits should be raised. And the skills thing isn't a bad idea. First good thing to come out of your mouth yet actually. I wouldn't have a clue how to administer such an idea. But I like it. The country has already begun that, to some degree. In some places teens can't drive at night...in others older people must get re-checked much more frequently than those in their prime in order to keep their license. Your ideas about drinking and driving and stealing, however, bring us right back to your straw man argument. And that's sad. You had a glimmer of hope there. Keep at it, kiddo.


Are you kidding?? You must be trolling. We are not really talking about a little faster? I've seen what can happen when someone speeds, and can't stop in time. It wasn't that much, but it surely killed the biker. I guess you would simply say it was the driver not the limit. Or it was the biker not the soeed limit..you could probably have stopped easily. Actually, this is exactly why there is a speed limit. For safety.

If not the speed limit..where does the boundries go? Should it be a skills dependent limit? I mean a race car driver would probaly be able to drive a regular car over the speed limit safer than me, but how about the old lady he cuts off and she skids out? How about when everyone is driving at different speeds? How would you suggest that a limit like this would be enforced? How about drinking and driving? Would this suggested lat apply to the same? How about stealing?

I'll humor you.
2 things. 1. I think the first problem here is driver education and knowledge. People here think it is a right to have a license thus no-one should need more than a test that people can do blind. drivers tailgate and pass on the wrong side all the time her. You know it. Freeing the highways here would lead to havoc and mass collisions immediately. 2. Tradition. Because Autrobahn has been like it is for a very long time. From before could go as fast. It isn't becuase there is no political will, but there is a lot of resistance to changing it. Also accidents happen.

I have driven on the autobahn many times, and I know if I want to be in the left lane...I better go fast.....really really fast. I am telling you going 100 mph, isn't always enough..because when BMW comes at a 170 mph, he can have problems slowing down. Point is, the really bad accident happen when people are tailgating, and I don't think that people here understands this.


So, your idea, instead of teaching people more thoroughly how to handle their vehicles is to just keep everyone to one, low-set limit? Lowest common denominator strikes again, I'm afraid. How sad. As for your accident argument, I'm sure the autobahn has its share of accidents. Yet people can still drive fast.


Here you go pulling age whathave you into the discussion. I am really curious how old you think I am. I have no high school was it? And now kiddo? :rofl:


I only call 'em like I see 'em. Or in your case, how you're acting.


Yes it does. You were the one bringing definitions in. By having a reason, it CANNOT by definition be arbitrary.
"Choices and actions are considered to be arbitrary when they are done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim..."


When the reason is not a legitimate, law-inspired reason, it is the cop's whim. His CHOICE. Does he go for the family sedan doing 80? No, he'd rather the guy in the Evo doing 75. It's simply what he feels like doing. No one is telling him to do so. He's not after a black man in a Benz in a decent neighborhood, he's going after who he WANTS to go after. That, coupled with the fact that he CAN choose to ticket or not to ticket, make the whole situation ARBITRARY.


I don;t have yet to meet anyone who are so preoccupied with other peoples education or age. Step it up...how are you in this landscape?


I'd answer this bit, but I can't understand what the heck you're trying to say. Think it out, type slowly and it will all make sense. Thus the flow of conversation won't be hindered.


Your comprehension of the law is a direct reflection on your lawyer's ability to explain...see right there. I would just never hire anyone like that. Ever. Simple as that, becasue I really don;t think you actaully do comprehend...but I am willing to be PROVEN wrong. Cough it up...the laws.


You might not hire a lawyer with a successful strategy to win cases, but I do, because I don't want to pay a lawyer to lose. If you do, that's your business and your money.


Again, it wouldn't. It isn't speeding it self. It is the pathetic excuses, but I am willing to listen to anything but the Chewbacca defense. :-)
Btw. what law office does he work out of? I am just curious. A link is okay.


I'll tell you what. If you comply with the following TWO link stipulations, I will go you one better. I will give you my lawyer's e-mail address and you can ask him yourself. He LOVES to encourage people to e-mail him because he enjoys both teaching, and proving his case.

The two stipulations are:
1) You have to provide me with ONE link, ANY link that supports your case in ANY WAY.
2) You have to show me ONE link, again ANY link that supports mine. And I know they are out there, because I have most of them book marked. If you 'truly' can't find any that support my view, I will share one of mine, but only after I see some effort on your part and after I see the link supporting your side.

So what do you say? Are you up to the challenge? You demanded my research. I want to see at least some effort on your part. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

From where I sit, I have you pegged dead on. For one, you ask how old I am, when it's right there on the left next to my little name and above my avatar picture. Go on look. I'll wait. Done? Alright then.



LOL I didn't see that. Well I guess it goes to show 29 huh? I should be calling you kiddo.


Call me out all you like. My information comes DIRECTLY from my LAWYER. If you can't accept truth, by all means continue making an idiot of yourself. I enjoy reading your misguided posts. They are nothing if not entertaining.

See this is where you really show the lack of comprehension. Whaaaaa directly from your lawyer???? Well in that case I guess this is untrue: (from your Texas law book (there are some difficult words for you there)):

"§ 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS. (a) A speed in
excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another
provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed
is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful."
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/TN/content/htm/tn.007.00.000545.00.htm#545.351.00

Find subsection B in the link. It should have some of what you are talking about in there...

Isn't this what you guys are calling owned?



I kept wondering the same thing about you (about your level of comprehension, of course). It's widely known (and joked about on late night talk shows) that everything about this country plays to the lowest common denominator. Think I'm wrong? Tell me why coffee cups at McDonald's have warnings about the contents being hot. Tell me why a 5 gallon bucket comes with a drowning warning or why a hair dryer has a warning not to use it in water. This country caters to the stupid. Why do you think other countries make fun of our educational system?

Coming up with some basic examples from law 101 proving my point of abuse of the legal system. If you think it wierd that these lables are on the cups (I agree btw), then don;t take your speeding ticket to court if you infact did speed.


You want to know what really cracks me up about you? You've demanded my sources and told me how wrong I am, yet I have yet to see source ONE from you. This entire time, you've been talking out of your rear and you know it.


Well I am not the one who claims anything outrageous about traffic law. All I said was, if you know you speeded pay up and get on with it. Of course now I did look it up and it turns out YOU WERE WRONG ALL ALONG.


I've done my research on the subject, extensively, in fact. But if you haven't provided any citation or proof of your illustrious claims, then why should I? Sheesh, kiddo, a simple google search turns up SEVERAL articles written by former police officers where they talk about who they pull over and when they do and don't give a ticket. In one such article, the cop flat out says if you own up to it on the spot and are genuine, he lets you go. If you try and make up a BS excuse, you get a ticket. Hmmm certain sounds like CHOICE to me. But then you don't want to hear about that do you? You probably won't go look that up because it doesn't support your position.

I really doubt you actually know what research is. How do you evaluate your sources? Do you know it is not some other nut writing about this?
You talk of your lawyer? He must be absolutley the worst lawyer to not know about these things...or maybe he just doesn't tell you since he wants to retain gullible clients. I don't know.
Speaking of which..I provided you with a link to the Texan law...although the Hawaiian one say pretty much the same...:
" §291C-102 Noncompliance with speed limit prohibited. (a) A person violates this section if the person drives:

(1) A motor vehicle at a speed greater than the maximum speed limit"....

also funny you were talking about how fines are an earning to the state....well in Hawaii it is actually donated: "shall be deposited into the neurotrauma special fund"
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov

Is that owned again? Just asking.


I on the other hand research for FUN. It's what I do. In fact, I research so often and such inane, innocuous things that I am honestly running out of room for the links. I have links on everything from crime, language, 80's television shows, how stuff works, football, self-defense laws and items, video games and movies. There are very few things that I haven't looked up in at least a casual capacity.


Wow, I've been working as a researcher...doing ACTUAL research. What you are doing is good, but it ain't research. Try doing some "research' on the scientific method. It would help you a lot. You are very welcome for the tip.



Oh yes, I'm the troll and you're the one here with no profile or identifying information of any kind....right. Good call.


Actually something I think you did good. You are right on this good call. Seriously..hmm, now I am actually sounding ironic, but I agree. One should evaluate a person online by his or hers merits. Although it doesn't look so good for you, I have no history here...

(Breathe. Take a step back. Calm down.)
I'll give it to you straight. I have no problems discussing with people, but I really hate when people try to bully their way through a discussion by using tactiscs like age, like education, language and talking down to people. It NEVER helps the topic. I did it a little to you more to show you how you are against people. I am pretty active on other types of forums, and I actually never ever reply when discussions becomes personal. I have not written about my education..I have a lot, actually too much, and I am still on it at age 33. I don't have a law degree, but I have some basic law, mostly contract law (so it doesn't really count) under my belt in one of my masters degrees. I am currently working on my PhD. Take it or leave it. I can write if I want to, my position is that if people on forums understand then it is good enough..no worries. It is of course different when I write my research papers.


And your argument fails here as well (you must hear that alot). *I* am talking about a little fast. I have no idea what you are talking about except when you bring in 'other factors.' I'm not talking about the idiot kid that drives over 100 and kills a family of 4. I'm talking about the guy merrily on his way to work who's keeping up with traffic and that just happens to mean 5 to 10 miles over. Where is the victim there? As a matter of fact, of all the times I've been on a freeway in the last 14 years, the guy who was going EXACTLY what the sign said was a traffic hazard and he was being passed on both the left AND the right side because NO ONE was going that speed.


I understand what you mean, but where do you set the limit in these cases? You cannot blame a person for being overtaken. If you say it okay for peoiple to drive 5mph over they will drive 10 over and complain just the same. If he is overtaken on the right side, the driverpassing is breaking the law. If you complain about the speedlimits in general that is well and fine, but in terms of law, the posted speed limit is the limit. In this case nothing else matters. My point is still..if you know you speeded pay the fine and get on with it.


Personally, I think the limits should be raised.

Fine but it belongs in another discussion.


And the skills thing isn't a bad idea. First good thing to come out of your mouth yet actually. I wouldn't have a clue how to administer such an idea. But I like it. The country has already begun that, to some degree. In some places teens can't drive at night...in others older people must get re-checked much more frequently than those in their prime in order to keep their license.

Well the country I am from we actually have mandatory driving training that a person has to go thorugh to be able to get their license. It includes all the basic training one needs to know to drive well in a veriety of situations...I think it is too expensive, but considering we drive a lot on ice, and snow, in the dark and some of the roads are pretty weak especially over the mountain chains I think it is pertty good. Atleast it goives you some good driving habits, and it is better than having some parent who can hardly drive themselves and have not read the traffic rules since the 60ties do the teaching.

I have two more. We could have ambulating speed limits. In rain they would be lower, in sunny clear days higher. Easily done with electronic signage. This is done on the autobahn.


Your ideas about drinking and driving and stealing, however, bring us right back to your straw man argument. And that's sad. You had a glimmer of hope there. Keep at it, kiddo.

I actually didn't intentionally use a strawman. Really, I tried examplifying my point of where do you draw the limit? It becomes too hard to evaluate what is too fast, since it is a matter of skills, equipment, timne of day etc. THis is exactly why the limits are set as they are.


So, your idea, instead of teaching people more thoroughly how to handle their vehicles is to just keep everyone to one, low-set limit? Lowest common denominator strikes again, I'm afraid. How sad. As for your accident argument, I'm sure the autobahn has its share of accidents. Yet people can still drive fast.


Acvtually I don't think the limits are too low, but I do think there are still a lot of people that could do with some courses in basic driving skills.
For me it isn't an either or, it is both. Not everyone have 12 lanes interstate roads like you do in Texas, and I can unserstand it must be boring to drive across states. I am not saying one should not evaluate different solutions...I am saying however that an upper speed limits has to be strict. I still find the argument that I shouldn't have to pay because not everyone else fomr some reason or another is caught is frivolous.


I only call 'em like I see 'em. Or in your case, how you're acting.
thx, I'll take that as a compliment.


When the reason is not a legitimate, law-inspired reason, it is the cop's whim. His CHOICE. Does he go for the family sedan doing 80? No, he'd rather the guy in the Evo doing 75. It's simply what he feels like doing. No one is telling him to do so. He's not after a black man in a Benz in a decent neighborhood, he's going after who he WANTS to go after. That, coupled with the fact that he CAN choose to ticket or not to ticket, make the whole situation ARBITRARY.


Okay now we are moving in circles. It isn;t arbitrary if he uses a reason for it. In your case he was after the cars that looked like they were speeding with intent. Not arbitrary, at least from his perspective. Thing is though, ,they cannot really choose to ticket or not. They do sometimes let people off, but they aren;t allowed to do that. They are actually breaking the rules.


I'd answer this bit, but I can't understand what the heck you're trying to say. Think it out, type slowly and it will all make sense. Thus the flow of conversation won't be hindered.

I was looking ofr your age (got it) and education....simply because you were puttingpeople down because of theirs..(without actually knowing anything about it). What if you were discussing with a guy that had reading and writing problems? Doesn;t make then any less of a discussion participant and it certainly doesn;t make their points less valid.



You might not hire a lawyer with a successful strategy to win cases, but I do, because I don't want to pay a lawyer to lose. If you do, that's your business and your money.

uuhm, for me it is way way cheaper to pay the $135 fine and get on with it. I am loosing more money writing here than paying the fine.... :-(



I'll tell you what. If you comply with the following TWO link stipulations, I will go you one better. I will give you my lawyer's e-mail address and you can ask him yourself. He LOVES to encourage people to e-mail him because he enjoys both teaching, and proving his case.

The two stipulations are:
1) You have to provide me with ONE link, ANY link that supports your case in ANY WAY.
2) You have to show me ONE link, again ANY link that supports mine. And I know they are out there, because I have most of them book marked. If you 'truly' can't find any that support my view, I will share one of mine, but only after I see some effort on your part and after I see the link supporting your side.

hey sure..I gave you two links that support my case..actually just let me remind you whole case was..if you know you were speeding...pay up. I guess it will be hard to find links about that...linking to tha actual speeding limit laws of Texas and hawaii should suffice I guess?

The links the actualy laws also include you point about the prudent speeds about:
"(b) An operator:
(1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is
reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for
actual and potential hazards then existing; and
(2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as
necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is
on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of
each person to use due care."

The problem I guess is that this is the law that is amended in both Hawaii and Texeas. with the quotes I provided way above. Everything else that I found was either some guys opinion and thus frivolous in this matter, or a site deidicated to fighting speeding laws, and thus partial.


Name and firm please. A hotmail account will not be sufficient. No real lawyer uses a a hotmail. :-)

So what do you say? Are you up to the challenge? You demanded my research. I want to see at least some effort on your part. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

:-)
All I say evaluate your sources before posting them.
A.

See this is where you really show the lack of comprehension. Whaaaaa directly from your lawyer???? Well in that case I guess this is untrue: (from your Texas law book (there are some difficult words for you there)):

"§ 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS. (a) A speed in
excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another
provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed
is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful."
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/TN/content/htm/tn.007.00.000545.00.htm#545.351.00

Find subsection B in the link. It should have some of what you are talking about in there...

Isn't this what you guys are calling owned?


Why yes it *IS* called getting owned. Too bad you don't realized you just owned yourself and don't even realize it. I'll explain. Well, let me wait a minute for you to catch your breath, since I know it's a shock. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Ready? Good.

First, let's address a piece you completely left out:
§ 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT. (a) An operator
may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent
under the circumstances then existing.

Got that? Good. Now let's address that lovely phrase you quoted: prima facie.
prima facie:
pri·ma fa·cie (prī'mə fā'shē -shə, -shē-ē)
1. True, authentic, or adequate at first sight; ostensible: prima facie credibility.
2. Evident without proof or reasoning; obvious: a prima facie violation of the treaty.

This is where the state's case usually falls apart in court. Because it's referring to an 'at first glance' situation. What usually happens is my lawyer gets up and faces the jury and asks "Have any of you ever driven at a speed higher than what the signs had posted?" Some will usually raise their hands. He then asks "Did you feel that you were being reasonable and prudent at that time, despite what the number on your speedometer said?" And some invariably nod. To which he replies "Then, by letter of the law, you MUST find "not guilty."

You see our justice system is based on reasonable doubt. That's all you have to create in the jury's mind in order to acquit. If they have ANY reasonable doubt AT ALL that you were actually speeding, they CANNOT find you guilty. My lawyer talks about this often and is a rather successful lawyer, hence why he's a partner at his firm.


Actually something I think you did good. You are right on this good call. Seriously..hmm, now I am actually sounding ironic, but I agree. One should evaluate a person online by his or hers merits. Although it doesn't look so good for you, I have no history here...


Actually, since you clearly can't tell. That was sarcasm. I have at least a profile and information about who I am. You're 33? Doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds like you're some 17 year old punk who likes to talk big. Gosh...some guy I met recently just asked how I evaluate my sources and if I knew that "it is not some other nut writing this." And in your case, I'm really not sure. You make lots of grandiose claims and you send a link that actually backs up my position, so I have to say, you're not gaining much ground here.


I'll give it to you straight. I have no problems discussing with people, but I really hate when people try to bully their way through a discussion by using tactiscs like age, like education, language and talking down to people. It NEVER helps the topic. I did it a little to you more to show you how you are against people. I am pretty active on other types of forums, and I actually never ever reply when discussions becomes personal. I have not written about my education..I have a lot, actually too much, and I am still on it at age 33. I don't have a law degree, but I have some basic law, mostly contract law (so it doesn't really count) under my belt in one of my masters degrees. I am currently working on my PhD. Take it or leave it. I can write if I want to, my position is that if people on forums understand then it is good enough..no worries. It is of course different when I write my research papers.


You know it's funny. Those aren't "tactics" I use to "bully my way through" a discussion, they are just methods by which I let the inferior arguer know that I am aware of my audience. When they act like immature little kids with the "thanks :blah: :blah: " kind of crap, it really hurts their credibility. You might in fact have a couple of degrees (which I doubt) but because of your original replies, your credibility is shot already. And you claim that you can "write if you want to" because you do so on your papers. Well, if an argument or discussion that you are trying to win doesn't warrant good writing skills, then I'd say your 'papers' are suspect. I would also question your grades. As they say, a degree never has a grade printed on it. Even a C student earns a degree.


You cannot blame a person for being overtaken.


Yes you can. And in some places, it's actually illegal to drive so slow that people are passing you on both sides. In the lovely driver's ed handbook, it says that slower traffic should keep to the right. It also says a rule of thumb is if you are being passed on the right, you're going too slow for the lane you're in.


My point is still..if you know you speeded pay the fine and get on with it.


Once again, it's sped, not speeded. Also, knowing you sped means copping to the charge. And those who do not believe they were speeding can fight. And should.


I understand what you mean, but where do you set the limit in these cases? You cannot blame a person for being overtaken. If you say it okay for peoiple to drive 5mph over they will drive 10 over and complain just the same. If he is overtaken on the right side, the driverpassing is breaking the law. If you complain about the speedlimits in general that is well and fine, but in terms of law, the posted speed limit is the limit. In this case nothing else matters. My point is still..if you know you speeded pay the fine and get on with it.

I have two more. We could have ambulating speed limits. In rain they would be lower, in sunny clear days higher. Easily done with electronic signage. This is done on the autobahn.


It's perfect timing that you mention speed limits here and how they are set. You see, while searching the article I was referring to, I would assume the page itself expired as it no longer showed up. Necessity is the mother of invention, however. Because I had to re-do my search, I found a MUCH better link. A mass grouping of links on the subject in fact. Take your pick:
http://www.speedtrap.org/speedlimits/index.html

That link is FILLED with data, research and argument against our archaic speed limits. I can't even begin to pick one point from that site to argue because they are all good. There are myths, facts, data and everything you could want. Have a ball.


Okay now we are moving in circles. It isn;t arbitrary if he uses a reason for it. In your case he was after the cars that looked like they were speeding with intent. Not arbitrary, at least from his perspective. Thing is though, ,they cannot really choose to ticket or not. They do sometimes let people off, but they aren;t allowed to do that. They are actually breaking the rules.


We're not moving in circles, but I can see how someone on the losing side (who's not willing to admit it) can see that. It matters not what the cop's reason is. It matters not what time or day, what he had for breakfast, or who he's riding with. When he makes a CHOICE, for WHATEVER REASON and that CHOICE is NOT bound by rules he follows in a book, IT......IS.....ARBITRARY. When he closes the ticket book and walks away saying "slow down next time" IT......IS......ARBITRARY. And I would love to know when you served as a cop, since you claim to know that it's breaking "the rules" for them to not right tickets. There is NOT a rule anywhere that tell them they *have* to give you a ticket. Wanna know how *I* know? If there were such rules, then cops would be perpetually in trouble. Remember dash cams? Everything that happens during a stop is caught on the cam. If a cop's log shows he made a stop, yet he has no ticket to show for it, if there *were* rules for ticketing, then he would probably be in a lot of trouble. You never heard about the mass firings going on for cops not issuing a ticket though, do you? I know I don't.



I was looking ofr your age (got it) and education....simply because you were puttingpeople down because of theirs..(without actually knowing anything about it). What if you were discussing with a guy that had reading and writing problems? Doesn;t make then any less of a discussion participant and it certainly doesn;t make their points less valid.


This comment cracks me up as much as some of your other ones. You and the other individual here whom I referred to as "kiddo" seem to think "kiddo" is a bad word. How else can you assume I'm putting you down? Kiddo is a term of endearment in many places. Dad's call their sons and daughters kiddo. Old crusty sergeants in the military sometimes affectionately refer to their lower-ranked troops as kiddo. Yet according to you, I'm putting people down by doing so. Interesting. I always thought kiddo was simply a qualifier. You act and speak young, I do not. Ergo: kiddo. As for the points and arguments of the young being less valid. Well that's open for debate. Many times I have heard the expression "youth is wasted on the young." This basically means that much of life's lessons do not come to a person until they are older. So a young person's point of view may not be as sound as one who's been around for awhile.


uuhm, for me it is way way cheaper to pay the $135 fine and get on with it. I am loosing more money writing here than paying the fine.... :-(


I'm glad you think so. However I'm not bad at math. And the $75 my lawyer charges me to get my charge outright dismissed, far outweighs the ticket cost.

Look at your private messages for my lawyer's information. Be sure when you e-mail him to ask to explain how there are no legal speed limits in the state of Texas (his state of expertise). I assume that since the answer will come from a credentialed lawyer, you will return here to apologize.

Wtf?! This post is absolutely ridiculous! Why argue about crap like this? If you speed and get a ticket, just pay the damn ticket! It's better then NOT paying it and having sheriff come to your house with a bench warrant.

Wtf?! This post is absolutely ridiculous! Why argue about crap like this? If you speed and get a ticket, just pay the damn ticket! It's better then NOT paying it and having sheriff come to your house with a bench warrant.

Perhaps. But that course of action is *not* better than hiring a lawyer who can properly advise you as to the best course of action.

If it was me and I had prepaid legal, I'd go for it. I don't think it's worth it to hire a lawyer otherwise. JMO. Good luck either way to the OP.

If it was me and I had prepaid legal, I'd go for it. I don't think it's worth it to hire a lawyer otherwise. JMO. Good luck either way to the OP.

Actually, traffic lawyers usually only charge about $75 per ticket or violation. That's typically about half or less than half what the average ticket will cost you. Often times the actual court date, due to the lawyer's schedule, will be anywhere from 6 months to 18 months later. Which, even if you had to pay the fine for deferred adjudication, you could save up $10 a week and still never even feel the financial impact of the ticket itself.

Well hmm....guess I don't get my apology. His member page says he's logged in as recently as 3 days ago, yet no replies. I understand his position, though. On the rare occasion I am proven wrong, I hate to have it thrown back at me as well.

Well hmm....guess I don't get my apology. His member page says he's logged in as recently as 3 days ago, yet no replies. I understand his position, though. On the rare occasion I am proven wrong, I hate to have it thrown back at me as well.

Hey, I got your PM...if you really think your lawyer will reply then I'll send him an email. If he answers then he might not have that much to do. :-)

That said, that has no bearings on to what extent it is better to just pay the ticket...IF YOU WERE DRIVING TOO FAST, just pay it. It is the honorable thing to do. Take respoinsibility for your own actions. If you have a case where you didn't drive too fast, and the police still fined you...go ahead state your case... you seem to be ignoring this.

Btw. I think you have might be misunderstanding what Prima Facie means. It means Evidence good and sufficient on its face ie. you have to disprove that you were drivng at the speed. The argument as you state it is more an admission of guilt than anything else.

anyhoo, I still think we are moving in circles.
a.

Hey, I got your PM...if you really think your lawyer will reply then I'll send him an email. If he answers then he might not have that much to do. :-)

That said, that has no bearings on to what extent it is better to just pay the ticket...IF YOU WERE DRIVING TOO FAST, just pay it. It is the honorable thing to do. Take respoinsibility for your own actions. If you have a case where you didn't drive too fast, and the police still fined you...go ahead state your case... you seem to be ignoring this.

Btw. I think you have might be misunderstanding what Prima Facie means. It means Evidence good and sufficient on its face ie. you have to disprove that you were drivng at the speed. The argument as you state it is more an admission of guilt than anything else.

anyhoo, I still think we are moving in circles.
a.

We're moving in circles because of your delusion.

ALWAYS, unless you yourself are a lawyer, you should hire one. They get paid to advise people who are not as well-versed in the law as they are.

You have this disconnect where you think hiring a lawyer magically makes things all better. It doesn't. Many times, they can't get you off for the offense and you *do* end up paying the fine. However, when a lawyer takes your case, though you may pay the fine, you do so under a deferred adjudication so that you don't get points on your license. You still "own up to it" as you put it, but you don't have the added worry of losing your license because you were easy pickins on a day when you traveled in a group of speeders.

And it's lovely to hear someone with no knowledge of the law tell me I don't understand it. The information I gave you was quoted directly from my own lawyer (who likely has a better understanding of the law than you do) and it's an understanding he uses OFTEN in court to win his cases.

You know what? I am not a lawyer and I know I don't have a full understanding of the law. MOST citizens don't. It's not our area of expertise. Therefore, you MUST hire a lawyer who can, and who gets paid to properly advise you of all of your rights. That's what's essential here -- looking out for the innocent until proven guilty or pleaded guilty. Prosecutors are known for trying to "run up the score" legally speaking. They will get you for whatever they can because it puts another "win" in their record for whatever else their career may hold down the line. Defense lawyers are the opposite. They look out for those paying them because it's their rights that need looking after.

As a final note, considering how eager you were to prove me wrong, you sure are taking your sweet time. If I were you, I wouldn't bother. This argument was over with me as the victor almost 2 months ago. You're afraid to be proven wrong or you'd have e-mailed the lawyer already.

Don't waste your time. You won't agree with whatever the reply is and I honestly don't care. You can cop to speeding, robbery, murder, whatever you like.

When I'm accused of something I know I didn't do, I will fight it. No matter what.