Full Version: Speeding Ticket
I was driving a month ago on a road going east bound and a police officer was going west.
I saw her and got into the left turn lane.
While in the left turn lane waiting for traffic to go by before I made the turn I looked in my rear view mirror.
I saw the police car stop in the middle of the road and then proceeded to make my turn.
I looked in the rear view mirror again and saw her come up on me fast.
She turned around and then put on her lights and pulled me over.
She asked why I was speeding?
I said what?
The speed limit there is 35. I was doing maybe 37.
She told me she had to do almost 50 to catch up with me.
Well I went to court the 12th.
Judge asked if I was guilty or not.
I said not. So my next date in court in the 10th of May.
I have to bring evidence.
I told the judge I have been driving 33 yrs and have not even a parking ticket.
He laughed.
I told my kids about it and my kids always say I drive under the speed limit. Which I usually do
My son asked are you sure this ticket is not for driving under the limit?
I think the only reason she said she had to d0 fifty to catch me was because she had to turn around and then wait for traffic to make the left hand turn to come up behind me.
I will be very upset if I get this ticket because she needed to give someone a ticket because she had to make a quota.
We shall see.
Edited to remove profanity - Jaime
I saw her and got into the left turn lane.
While in the left turn lane waiting for traffic to go by before I made the turn I looked in my rear view mirror.
I saw the police car stop in the middle of the road and then proceeded to make my turn.
I looked in the rear view mirror again and saw her come up on me fast.
She turned around and then put on her lights and pulled me over.
She asked why I was speeding?
I said what?
The speed limit there is 35. I was doing maybe 37.
She told me she had to do almost 50 to catch up with me.
Well I went to court the 12th.
Judge asked if I was guilty or not.
I said not. So my next date in court in the 10th of May.
I have to bring evidence.
I told the judge I have been driving 33 yrs and have not even a parking ticket.
He laughed.
I told my kids about it and my kids always say I drive under the speed limit. Which I usually do
My son asked are you sure this ticket is not for driving under the limit?
I think the only reason she said she had to d0 fifty to catch me was because she had to turn around and then wait for traffic to make the left hand turn to come up behind me.
I will be very upset if I get this ticket because she needed to give someone a ticket because she had to make a quota.
We shall see.
Edited to remove profanity - Jaime
I'm sorry to hear this. It's hard to see how you can prove that you were driving at the speed limit, so I only hope the judge believes you. I've had my share of speeding tickets, and I have always just paid them.
I've been done for speeding twice.
Both times I was driving over the posted limit. Once, I freely admit, at quite dangerous speeds which I cannot now reconcile myself to. The other time I was doing about 48 mph in a 40 limit on an empty road with no pedestrians, so there was little risk to anyone, myself included. But in both cases there was no dispute and I was caught, bang to rights, a fair cop, guv'nor, and all the old-fashioned "honest criminal" clichés.
Howver, in the UK at least, it is possible to defend against speeding tickets, because the law is quite specific on the way the evidence must be gathered. One lawyer has become prominent as the go-to guy for celebs caught speeding in their ridiculously expensive Aston Martins, Bentleys and the like, simply because he exposes shoddy police work that undermines prosecutions. It's not that his clients weren't driving 60mph faster than the posted limit, just that the police that caught them did not cross every 't' and dot every 'i'.
I'm not sure I entirely approve of such methods, especially when they are only available to the very rich who can afford to hire such lawyers, as it creates a sense that the very wealthy are somehow above the law and can break it with impunity as long as they can afford the best lawyers, but it may give you a hint at how to defend yourself.
That said, if you think you WERE driving faster than the legal limit at the time, then personally you should take the ticket and pay the fine. There's nothing in the constitution that says how people who really did break the law should feel or behave about it, but it's a commonplace of a civilised society that if you did break the law, you shouldn't grumble about being caught for it.
Both times I was driving over the posted limit. Once, I freely admit, at quite dangerous speeds which I cannot now reconcile myself to. The other time I was doing about 48 mph in a 40 limit on an empty road with no pedestrians, so there was little risk to anyone, myself included. But in both cases there was no dispute and I was caught, bang to rights, a fair cop, guv'nor, and all the old-fashioned "honest criminal" clichés.
Howver, in the UK at least, it is possible to defend against speeding tickets, because the law is quite specific on the way the evidence must be gathered. One lawyer has become prominent as the go-to guy for celebs caught speeding in their ridiculously expensive Aston Martins, Bentleys and the like, simply because he exposes shoddy police work that undermines prosecutions. It's not that his clients weren't driving 60mph faster than the posted limit, just that the police that caught them did not cross every 't' and dot every 'i'.
I'm not sure I entirely approve of such methods, especially when they are only available to the very rich who can afford to hire such lawyers, as it creates a sense that the very wealthy are somehow above the law and can break it with impunity as long as they can afford the best lawyers, but it may give you a hint at how to defend yourself.
That said, if you think you WERE driving faster than the legal limit at the time, then personally you should take the ticket and pay the fine. There's nothing in the constitution that says how people who really did break the law should feel or behave about it, but it's a commonplace of a civilised society that if you did break the law, you shouldn't grumble about being caught for it.
I can personally attest to mom's 'old-lady' speed preferences when driving. About 10 years ago, I was passing a kidney stone and in absolute, sheer pain. Mom drove me to the hospital and went slightly UNDER the speed limit the whole time. Had I not been on the border of passing out in the back seat, I would have taken over and driven myself.
Should I submit an affidavit to the Judge?
Should I submit an affidavit to the Judge?
The police officer has already admitted to seriously breaking the speed limit to catch up. So, I suggest submitting a simple physics story problem to the judge:
Train A leaves the station at 0800 and travels for at an average rate of 35 mph. Train B leaves the station at 0805 on a parallel track. How fast must train B travel, on average, to catch up to train A by 0810?
A. Faster than a speeding bullet
B. Like a bat out of hell
C. Quick, that's for sure
D. See answer below:
At a rate of 1 mph, train A travels 88 feet each minute (5,280 ft. / 60 minutes)
At an average rate of 35 mph, train A travels 3,080 feet each minute (88 ft/minute * 35 mph)
Over a period of 5 minutes, train A travels 15,400 feet (3,080 ft/minute * 5 minutes)
Train B has 15,400 feet to go straight out of the gate while train A keeps on moving. To eat up the initial distance, train B needs to go at an average of 35 mph, but during that time, train A has gone another 15,400 feet. So train B needs to go twice as fast as train A, on average, to catch up within 5 minutes:
70 mph.
Figure out the time it took the police officer to catch up. With that, and with the officer's claimed speed of 50 mph, it can be calculated how fast Mom was going. Need the distance involved too.
It'll be a theoretical speed, as nobody has any empirical evidence just what was going on -- no radar records, no other witnesses, basically the word of the officer against Mom's.
Being that I am often forced to watch Matlock, why not do some detective work? Two cars drive out to the scene of the crime and try to reenact it while paying attention to speed and time. Maybe someone on motorcycle watches out for the cops. Everyone has cell phones or walkie-talkies. Or, since location really doesn't matter, find a deserted road to conduct the experiment.
Wear a white linen suit to court. Seems to work every time for Matlock.
Train A leaves the station at 0800 and travels for at an average rate of 35 mph. Train B leaves the station at 0805 on a parallel track. How fast must train B travel, on average, to catch up to train A by 0810?
A. Faster than a speeding bullet
B. Like a bat out of hell
C. Quick, that's for sure
D. See answer below:
At a rate of 1 mph, train A travels 88 feet each minute (5,280 ft. / 60 minutes)
At an average rate of 35 mph, train A travels 3,080 feet each minute (88 ft/minute * 35 mph)
Over a period of 5 minutes, train A travels 15,400 feet (3,080 ft/minute * 5 minutes)
Train B has 15,400 feet to go straight out of the gate while train A keeps on moving. To eat up the initial distance, train B needs to go at an average of 35 mph, but during that time, train A has gone another 15,400 feet. So train B needs to go twice as fast as train A, on average, to catch up within 5 minutes:
70 mph.
Figure out the time it took the police officer to catch up. With that, and with the officer's claimed speed of 50 mph, it can be calculated how fast Mom was going. Need the distance involved too.
It'll be a theoretical speed, as nobody has any empirical evidence just what was going on -- no radar records, no other witnesses, basically the word of the officer against Mom's.
Being that I am often forced to watch Matlock, why not do some detective work? Two cars drive out to the scene of the crime and try to reenact it while paying attention to speed and time. Maybe someone on motorcycle watches out for the cops. Everyone has cell phones or walkie-talkies. Or, since location really doesn't matter, find a deserted road to conduct the experiment.
Wear a white linen suit to court. Seems to work every time for Matlock.
*****Funny mysogenist comment follows*****
Another reason why women should not be police officers!!
The police officer must present evidence that you speeded. They cannot simply say "she was speeding". They need to have a radar gun reading (with suitable up-to-date calibration certificate; the officer's training must be current on the equipment as well) or "pace" your car by driving behind you (for a reasonable distance).
If you presented the situation to the judge the way you presented it to us, there is zero chance the judge upheld your speeding ticket. The officer presented no evidence that you were speeding.
Of course, your defense, as presented in the "I told the judge..." section doesn't mention the fact that the officer could not have possible "clocked" you.
Another reason why women should not be police officers!!
The police officer must present evidence that you speeded. They cannot simply say "she was speeding". They need to have a radar gun reading (with suitable up-to-date calibration certificate; the officer's training must be current on the equipment as well) or "pace" your car by driving behind you (for a reasonable distance).
If you presented the situation to the judge the way you presented it to us, there is zero chance the judge upheld your speeding ticket. The officer presented no evidence that you were speeding.
Of course, your defense, as presented in the "I told the judge..." section doesn't mention the fact that the officer could not have possible "clocked" you.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 19 2007, 08:38 AM) 
The police officer must present evidence that you speeded. They cannot simply say "she was speeding". They need to have a radar gun reading (with suitable up-to-date calibration certificate; the officer's training must be current on the equipment as well) or "pace" your car by driving behind you (for a reasonable distance).
If you presented the situation to the judge the way you presented it to us, there is zero chance the judge upheld your speeding ticket. The officer presented no evidence that you were speeding.
Of course, your defense, as presented in the "I told the judge..." section doesn't mention the fact that the officer could not have possible "clocked" you.
Absolutely correct on all counts.
Regardless of whether the initial judge told you you had to prove you weren't speeding or not, you are still presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by representatives of the government.
With the information you have given us, it would appear that the officer in question could not have tracked you by radar, and did not follow you long enough on a section of road to clock you by speedometer.
If, just for fun you throw in Am's suggestion, and have someone do some demonstrations on video for you, or some basic math with regard to bodies in motion, you should not only get off scott free, but really embarass the officer who wrote you the ticket besides.
Yep - the officer has no case. Years ago - decades ago - I was involved in a one-car accident (I swerved to avoid running over a groundhog and took out a couple of trees instead) and called the police to report it. They decided to write me up for "driving too fast for conditions" on the grounds that if I hadn't been driving too fast for whatever the conditions may have been (a dry road on a bright, clear morning), that I wouldn't have had the accident. In fact, I was doing about 55 mph in a 50 mph zone, but they didn't even ask. I went to court and my lawyer asked one of the officers how fast I had been going. He didn't know. My lawyer said "Then you had no grounds whatsoever for issuing such a citation." The judge cut the policeman's response off and dismissed the charge. After the police stormed out of the court, the judge said, "I don't think those officers are too pleased with the law."
Good luck, Mom.
Good luck, Mom.
QUOTE(Momof3 @ Apr 19 2007, 06:06 AM)
I was driving a month ago on a road going east bound and a police officer was going west.
I saw her and got into the left turn lane.
While in the left turn lane waiting for traffic to go by before I made the turn I looked in my rear view mirror.
I saw the police car stop in the middle of the road and then proceeded to make my turn.
I looked in the rear view mirror again and saw her come up on me fast.
She turned around and then put on her lights and pulled me over.
She asked why I was speeding?
I said what?
The speed limit there is 35. I was doing maybe 37.
She told me she had to do almost 50 to catch up with me.
Well I went to court the 12th.
Judge asked if I was guilty or not.
I said not. So my next date in court in the 10th of May.
I have to bring evidence.
I told the judge I have been driving 33 yrs and have not even a parking ticket.
He laughed.
I told my kids about it and my kids always say I drive under the speed limit. Which I usually do
My son asked are you sure this ticket is not for driving under the limit?
I think the only reason she said she had to d0 fifty to catch me was because she had to turn around and then wait for traffic to make the left hand turn to come up behind me.
I will be very upset if I get this ticket because she needed to give someone a ticket because she had to make a quota.
We shall see.
Edited to remove profanity - Jaime
she was coming in the opposite direction? how did she verify your speed? radar? laser?
what was the ticketed speed and how was it verified? these are important questions for you.
she needs proof real evidence that you were speeding.
she could NOT say that she paced you because she was coming from the opposite direction.
the ticket should give chapter and verse for what law you violated... look it up either online of at city hall.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.