speeding ticket

[Rampage]

Originally Posted by sol740

Even those boring, middle-aged, Viagra-inhaling, garage-queeners, took the highway ramp they test drove it on, above recommended speeds, or if they were like myself, and can only enjoy test drives when there is abject terror in the eyes of the salesman, sideways.

I love that you refer to a 55yr old man as middle aged! When I was growing up, 40 was middle aged and 55 was OLD. I am now almost 59: barely past middle aged! I baby the hell out of my MR-S. Well, that is, except when I drive it.

To me, babying it means maintaining it meticulously, spending a butt load of money modding it, never driving it in snow or salt and almost never driving it in the rain. It is a sports car not a muscle car. That means, I do not have to do twice the speed limit to have fun. I can go find some twisties that normal cars have to creep around at the "yellow" speed limit and I can drive them at the full posted speed limit (+5 to make up for speedometer under reporting speed on almost all cars).

@ OP as was said above. You were irresponsible. Man up, take your medicine and learn from your mistake. Be thankful that it won't be the last one you make.

[jarviz]

Originally Posted by Foobar

Just an FYI - that's a minimum fine in NY of $360, maximum of $600, automatic 8 points. One more MPH and you'd have been at 11 points (automatic license suspension).

Oh, and don't think you're done yet - 6 points within 18 months in NY triggers the Driver Responsibility Assessment. You will be levied a fee of $100 each year for three years for 6 points. Each additional point is another $25. You're now facing $450 extra in fines over the next 3 years, on top of whatever your ticket fine was (at least $360).

New York state has some of the harshest fines out there. Probably second only to California.

Edit - I thought your violation was 80 in a 40, I see it's 85 in a 40. That's an 11 point hit, automatic license suspension, $225 Driver Responsibility Assessment each year for 3 years.

Unless the Cop wrote you up for a lesser violation, you shouldn't even have your license right now. I guess it'll probably get suspended when you go to court. Not sure if lawyering up will help you plea the violation down or not.

sheesh thanks for the heads up.

In response to many replies here, I know I was speeding and I'm not upset that I got pulled over. But I had no idea it was a 40mph zone... this the RFK (tribororugh bridge) and it was 2am, so almost no cars on the road.

For those that live in nyc, it was going towards the BQE, so all I needed to do was step on 3rd gear a little harder than usual since it was just a long straight, and next thing I know i was already doing 85. I let off the gas and by that time I already saw the cop

Never expected it to be a 40mph zone and coming off the jersey turnpike didn't help =/

[supramkivtt2jz]

Originally Posted by jarviz

sheesh thanks for the heads up.

In response to many replies here, I know I was speeding and I'm not upset that I got pulled over. But I had no idea it was a 40mph zone... this the RFK (tribororugh bridge) and it was 2am, so almost no cars on the road.

For those that live in nyc, it was going towards the BQE, so all I needed to do was step on 3rd gear a little harder than usual since it was just a long straight, and next thing I know i was already doing 85. I let off the gas and by that time I already saw the cop

Never expected it to be a 40mph zone and coming off the jersey turnpike didn't help =/

Really? Triboro bridge? Ive been to NY only one time and Ive known it was a speed trap before I took the keys of the rental. All tunnels are 35-55 mph in the north east and unmarked cops are notorious for busting people in the tunnel.

[HotLava]

Originally Posted by Foobar

Just an FYI - that's a minimum fine in NY of $360, maximum of $600, automatic 8 points. One more MPH and you'd have been at 11 points (automatic license suspension).

Oh, and don't think you're done yet - 6 points within 18 months in NY triggers the Driver Responsibility Assessment. You will be levied a fee of $100 each year for three years for 6 points. Each additional point is another $25. You're now facing $450 extra in fines over the next 3 years, on top of whatever your ticket fine was (at least $360).

New York state has some of the harshest fines out there. Probably second only to California.

Edit - I thought your violation was 80 in a 40, I see it's 85 in a 40. That's an 11 point hit, automatic license suspension, $225 Driver Responsibility Assessment each year for 3 years.

Unless the Cop wrote you up for a lesser violation, you shouldn't even have your license right now. I guess it'll probably get suspended when you go to court. Not sure if lawyering up will help you plea the violation down or not.

No, way. California is EASY compared to back east. Jeez, since the recession the legislature now allows you to go to traffic school two or three times in an 18 month period to clear your record and get more revenue for the state. Since July 2011 more than one conviction in an 18 month period is available for the judge to 'see' in the system when meeting out punishment. But If you attend traffic school those convictions eventually get 'masked' in the system so if you stay clean for a few years it appears to the judge that you have a clean record. And of course with traffic school those 'cleaned up' convictions are never reported to the insurance companies. For 'regular' speeding it's like a perpetual get out of jail free card.

I used to live in NY. Man, in school zones you have to do the school speed limit. In California you only do 25MPH if children are present, which of course they won't be at 1 am or Christmas day--another crucial difference.

For the record, I don't speed and don't advocate speeding. But the one time I did get a speeding ticket in good old Cali. I attended the Comedy Club driving school. And in California what department manages the driving schools in this state? California Highway Patrol? No. CalTrans? No. Attorney General? No. Ahh . . . It's the Department of Agriculture!! I kid you not. See, it's one big joke in this state.

[blackraven1425]

Originally Posted by rhoyle

Red Herring much?

Your extreme examples are quite a long way from relevant. They all involve the rights of others being violated. You're hung up on "is this right" but you forget to realize that driving itself isn't a right. The courts have covered this many times over; no ones rights are violated by a speed limit. Speed limits and traffic control are not bounded by being fair or just. Those concepts don't apply.

Beyond that, the OP isn't looking to change the speed limit, he's looking to avoid paying the ticket. Discussions or evaluations of limits placed on a privilege (driving) are off topic and off point.

If you can apply a logical process to laws so diverse as to range from not being allowed to slurp soup in public in New Jersey (which is ridiculous) to those major issues (which are clearly important enough to warrant logical discussion), why can't logic apply to something in between?

The OP wasn't getting on about the difference between law and logic, but the post you responded to was directly addressing the issue in a different realm of thought that doesn't presuppose that the law is supreme and must be followed and cannot be questioned.

You failed to see my point, and it's clear that you're more legally inclined than logically inclined, as evidenced by your thought process regarding driving being a right. I never said it was a right, I said something akin to "the speed limit may not be correct", but you interpreted it in a legal framework that's not actually relevant to the point I was making. It's clear you interpreted it this way because you're using the legal definition of right (a thing bestowed upon all people) rather than the more common definition I was using (right vs wrong) while equating the two. Jurisprudence is very different from what happens in a court.

Everything is bounded within this framework. You cannot exclude something from a system via an arbitrary distinction (i.e. I define driving as a privilege and speech as a right, therefore one can be scrutinized and the other cannot). It's simple to say "you don't have the right"; it's harder to back it up in a logically coherent fashion.

Back on that issue of rights: Why isn't the ability to drive a right? Think about the answer to that question carefully, because it's much simpler than you may realize.

[Miniata]

http://www.attackthatticket.com/

For the OP, get a lawyer. Will be worth the expense, see the above link. Recommended by Matt Farah of The Car Show and The Smoking Tire fame.

I had many speeding tickets from age 16-30, only one in the 12 years since (due to a speedometer that read low). I still speed, I just don't get tickets anymore.

[rhoyle]

Originally Posted by blackraven1425

If you can apply a logical process to laws so diverse as to range from not being allowed to slurp soup in public in New Jersey (which is ridiculous) to those major issues (which are clearly important enough to warrant logical discussion), why can't logic apply to something in between?

The OP wasn't getting on about the difference between law and logic, but the post you responded to was directly addressing the issue in a different realm of thought that doesn't presuppose that the law is supreme and must be followed and cannot be questioned.

You failed to see my point, and it's clear that you're more legally inclined than logically inclined, as evidenced by your thought process regarding driving being a right. I never said it was a right, I said something akin to "the speed limit may not be correct", but you interpreted it in a legal framework that's not actually relevant to the point I was making. It's clear you interpreted it this way because you're using the legal definition of right (a thing bestowed upon all people) rather than the more common definition I was using (right vs wrong) while equating the two. Jurisprudence is very different from what happens in a court.

Everything is bounded within this framework. You cannot exclude something from a system via an arbitrary distinction (i.e. I define driving as a privilege and speech as a right, therefore one can be scrutinized and the other cannot). It's simple to say "you don't have the right"; it's harder to back it up in a logically coherent fashion.

Back on that issue of rights: Why isn't the ability to drive a right? Think about the answer to that question carefully, because it's much simpler than you may realize.

The post I replied to was insinuating that some 40mph zones are different than others. While it's true that speed limits are set on a variety of factors, and that as an example - one road may be 40mph due to terrain while another is 40mph due to proximity to residences and yet another may be 40 for a capricious reason, none of that matters to the OP - that was the point I was making. He has no argument about why the speed limit is what it is that will help him once he has a ticket in hand.

I don't fail to see your point at all, nor do presume that the law is supreme and cannot be modified. This was never a discussion of right vs wrong, but was always a legal (how can I get out of this ticket) thread. We all recognize that breaking the law and then contesting that it shouldn't be that way is not going to get it changed. And anyway, like I said, the OP is not interested in changing the speed limit.

By the very definition of what a speed limit is, LEGALLY and LOGICALLY, they can not be incorrect. They can indeed be inefficient, needlessly low or dangerously high, and all those things are subjective. The fact remains though that you can change a speed limit tomorrow and it wouldn't have been wrong today.

All of this is way off point, though - and so I won't continue to jack the thread. Your points are eloquently stated and well thought out, we're just not talking about the same things.

[Mango22]

Originally Posted by FRiSson

I don't think most sports car buyer purchase their cars because they want to drive irresponsibly. I would guess only a few buy them because they are borderline sociopaths who evade responsibility whenever possible. They buy them because they want a car that gives them a more engaged driving experience and rewards skill. I think it is SUV drivers that are least responsible. They want a vehicle that provides them and their families a big cushion of safety and mass so that they can prattle on the phone, drink and eat and generally pay minimum attention to driving.

Honest to God, there's nothing worse than a soccer mom on her cell phone while driving her minivan/SUV. I'm surprised there haven't been any movie producers yet to make a B horror movie about that scenario. Picture it, MOM, leaving destruction in her path wherever she goes, and she's coming for you!! MOM, coming to a theater near you! Screech.... crash....thump thump, thump thump....<heartbeat stops> , flatline......

[HotLava]

Originally Posted by rhoyle

The post I replied to was insinuating that some 40mph zones are different than others. While it's true that speed limits are set on a variety of factors, and that as an example - one road may be 40mph due to terrain while another is 40mph due to proximity to residences and yet another may be 40 for a capricious reason, none of that matters to the OP - that was the point I was making. He has no argument about why the speed limit is what it is that will help him once he has a ticket in hand.

I don't fail to see your point at all, nor do presume that the law is supreme and cannot be modified. This was never a discussion of right vs wrong, but was always a legal (how can I get out of this ticket) thread. We all recognize that breaking the law and then contesting that it shouldn't be that way is not going to get it changed. And anyway, like I said, the OP is not interested in changing the speed limit.

By the very definition of what a speed limit is, LEGALLY and LOGICALLY, they can not be incorrect. They can indeed be inefficient, needlessly low or dangerously high, and all those things are subjective. The fact remains though that you can change a speed limit tomorrow and it wouldn't have been wrong today.

All of this is way off point, though - and so I won't continue to jack the thread. Your points are eloquently stated and well thought out, we're just not talking about the same things.

I'm sure you're right about NY. But in California a speed limit can be legally incorrect. Speed Traps are illegal under state law. A speed trap is any speed limit that does not conform to the 85% rule, which basically says the speed limit HAS to follow the speed that 85% of the drivers drive at, which small 5 MPH corrections up or down based on a variety of factors. In other words the speed limit follows the driving patters of the public. It's speed limit by democracy. The 85% is determined by routine engineering surveys. Not all states have this as their law but the US Department of Transportation encourages all states to follow the 85% rule.

Below is a transcript of an interview with a Long Beach, CA traffic engineer from the Pasadena Star News:


Q: Wait. The Wardlow speed dots south of Studebaker. I don't like those at all. Do you get a lot of complaints about them?
A: Complaints, yes, but also appreciation for them. People want cars to slow down as they go over the bridge. We want people to go slower so we can keep the speed limit down to 45.

Q: You mean if people drive faster, the speed limit will go up? A: It can. We have to follow very strict laws about how speed limits are set. We conduct speed surveys. We set the limit at the 85th percentile, the idea being that most drivers are reasonable.

The problem is that many smaller communities don't have engineers and don't spend the money to conduct surveys. So you end up with speed limits set by city councils in response to "Complaining Jane" who thinks it should be 25MPH on her road, even though everyone goes 40.

Below is an article about a retired Sheriff who is suing is own city due to wrong speed limits.



LOMA LINDA - Speed limits have been set below state standards on several city streets, constituting speed traps, alleges a retired sheriff's deputy.
Walter Farr gained familiarity with the California Vehicle Code as he enforced traffic laws in San Dimas, and since moving to Loma Linda he said he's noticed streets with speed limits 10mph below the usual survey-based standard.
"Any ticket written on a street where the limit isn't in agreement with the survey is a speed trap ticket and would be thrown out by a judge," Farr said. "(But) many people won't fight the ticket and will go to traffic school or pay the fine. ... Look at the economic damage to the public." And he said artificially low speed limits - he points to Beaumont Avenue's 35mph maximum as a prime example - can actually increase accidents, an argument the transportation officials also make.

[rhoyle]

In California, all that you just mentioned only applies to multi-lane state highways. And the law states that the speed limit is 55 UNLESS the conditions you mention have been met, and then it is modified accordingly.

If you really want to get into an interesting discussion, the validity of the 85% rule and the affect of existing speed limits is very debatable. Not to mention that the 85th percentile seems completely arbitrary in the first place. Why not use the 80th or 90th percentile?

[Aetyrno]

Originally Posted by jarviz

Not sure how he clocked me because I'm pretty sure he was moving too and I thought he was a cabbie at the time. He was easily over 200ft away when I noticed him catching up to me but I was already back down to 60. Wouldn't it be near impossible to eyeball another car's actual speed without a detector?

Don't they have them integrated into the dashboard? Easy enough to just take the reading and subtract out their speed. Reads 130, subtract the 45 he was going and you have 85.

Originally Posted by jarviz

Also he put my car make as a Toyota on the ticket, any chance I can fight them and say it's a scion this time haha..

Could work, look into other threads. Other people have talked about trying this. More likely in this case that it'll just piss off the judge and ruin your chances of at least getting the fine reduced.

Originally Posted by jarviz

I got a speeding ticket this weekend for doing 85 in a 40.

You are scum. You 100% deserve this ticket. Take it to the track next time. You may think you're a competent driver but you can't count on the numbnuts next to you being a safer driver than you are and not suddenly changing lanes into you or something equally as stupid.

Originally Posted by jarviz

Never expected it to be a 40mph zone and coming off the jersey turnpike didn't help =/

I forgive you a little bit. Still, take it to the track.

[blackraven1425]

Originally Posted by Aetyrno

Could work, look into other threads. Other people have talked about trying this. More likely in this case that it'll just piss off the judge and ruin your chances of at least getting the fine reduced.

There seems to be some discrepancy about whether Scion is even a make rather than a series of models. NHTSA doesn't list Scion as a make. It's listed as a Toyota for the make, and the model is a Scion FR-S (same for tC, xD, etc.). So, I'm not sure if this would work.

[Aetyrno]

Originally Posted by blackraven1425

There seems to be some discrepancy about whether Scion is even a make rather than a series of models. NHTSA doesn't list Scion as a make. It's listed as a Toyota for the make, and the model is a Scion FR-S (same for tC, xD, etc.). So, I'm not sure if this would work.

Yeah that's why I was hinting at other threads... I think this has all come up before and hopefully @jarviz can get into contact with another driver who has tried it.

[sho220]

Originally Posted by Spencer Strayer

This all reminds me of when I got pulled over for the first time ever.... going 90... in a 25... LOL. Cops initial reaction "Sir please step out of the car, WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU DOING!"

Haha...I had a somewhat similiar experience. Pulled over for 88 in a 55 and the first thing he asked me was "Sir, have you ever been to jail?" Not a good feeling. He let me off with a warning though.