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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

 

thanks

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. The cops cannot possibly stop everyone so they'll pick someone at random.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

This is how you discuss? Trying to gain an upperhand in a discussion by pointing out grammatical errors? 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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Considering your first reply of "thanks " 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.

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.

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.

 

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..

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.

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


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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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.

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

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 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]

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.

 

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.

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.

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

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 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?

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?

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.

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.

 

ROTFL, that is the level now? You keep on adding new depth levels to this discussion. You brother?? 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.


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?

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?


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...


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?

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.


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?

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..."

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?

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

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.

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.

LOL, well I sure will take your legal advice.

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

 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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'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.

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.

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.

 

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

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...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?


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.

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 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.

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.


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.

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.

Fine but it belongs in another discussion.

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.

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.

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.

thx, I'll take that as a compliment.

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 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.


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.... :-(


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

 

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, 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.

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 " 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

 

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.