Speeding ticket in CA, 82 mph in 65 zone (fwy)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have no issues with speeding. Non ..zip. If I'm tagged ...I'm tagged. After the Reagan storm trooper "federal" program ...speeding has been enforced, for the most part, on an "as needed" or "show stopper of the day" type thing. In high problem areas ..they'll pull a multi chase car ..with single radar unit sting ..or even employ aircraft.

Otherwise you will probably just fall into the rotation for a "pinch". The cop hasn't written a ticket in about a week ..the sargent is giving him grief ...you just may be the first target of opportunity.

Speed limits aren't reactive. They're static. A four lane in Clarion County is posted 70 ..the same limited access road in Montgomery County is posted 55. At many points in a 24 hour period ..they have identical traffic density and road conditions.

Now this is surely a rationalization or intelectualization on violating speed limits ...OTOH ..enforcement for the sake of enforcement ..without gain in safety, is somewhat questionable.

Let me add that I don't have any "thrill" for speed anymore. Driving is just a method to get from point A to point B. Jeeps tend to temper your need for speed. That being said ...55 is so boring. If you've ever travelled in northern/central PA on I-80 ..you'll realize that you would have to travel @ about 90 mph to keep the road interesting enough to pay attention. I got off once coming back from Lock Haven just because I couldn't take the boredom. It took me 2 1/2 hours longer to get home.
 
quote:

I got off once coming back from Lock Haven just because I couldn't take the boredom.

Alone? Or were you with someone?
grin.gif
 
Good post JHZR2
This is just one of those threads that there apear to be sharp divisions.

Some peeps see speed limits (and subsequent enforcement) as the Evil Government Taking peoples rights away in the name of greed (to collect money for speeding tickets). Others see speed limits a one of those 'Rights' of the States to control things they are allowed to control.

Not one person in a million will be influenced by anything anyone says for or against. (including me)
smile.gif
 
As far as I'm concerned interstate highways should be left to the national government to control under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.

There are some podunk states that find themselves between two attractive states, that feel a need to tap the passers-through for a "toll" to which they would not otherwise be subject.

Since travelling the shortest distance between two spots at an efficient speed is helpful to practically every citizen, the nat'l government should make things consistent on the interstates. Signage, rest stops, limited access, beltways... speed limits and enforcement.

Local roads financed with local dollars I could consider states' rights... because I choose to take that local exit. But don't saddle me with your hillbilly highway patrol when I'm passing through getting to point C.
 
Yeh, just like the little mississippi town i grew up in. The town police, sheriff's deputies, and highway patrol did more patrolling on the three miles of interstate that were in our township than they ever did in town. Alderman extended city boundaries to take in that part of the highway for the reason of collecting more money. Main reason every variety of police in that town were called barney. That and the fact that two of the sheriff's deputies couldnt stop anyone without rear-ending them. Turned out what they made on tickets was offset by civil judgements replacing people's cars. It made jokes of them all, even the few of the bunch that were hard working law enforcement and took thier job seriously.

All the radio stations had regular public announcements that told people to go around our town. Makes one proud to have grown up there, I must say.

Dan
 
quote:

It was 12 years ago when freeway speed limits were 55 mph, if I remember correctly. 68 back then would've gotten you a ticket. Now, 68 is safe. What changed?

Gas price is lowered, cars are better, tires are better, roads are better.

For those of you who think moderate speeding is irresponsible, you obviously haven't lived in a congested area that has traffic every day. Reasonable , like
In Californa, if you waive your right to a trial, you can just go to traffic school and pay the fine, and won't leave you a record that will increase your insurance. So, there is something to lose if you lose your case. Most of the people, even innocent ones, will just bite the bullet, take a pill, and go to traffic school, you can even do it online now. You pay $200-300 total but it is a lot less expensive than insurance going up and the time you need to spend in court.

Since it is your friend's first violation, just pay and make sure you go to traffic school, and be a bit more careful next time.
 
Maybe the cop decided he was a hazard because he was doing 17 over and not paying enough attention to realize he was passing a highway patrol car.

I'll have to say, I deserved every speeding ticket I've gotten because I a) knew the law, b) knew there would be a penalty if I got caught breaking it and c) exceeded the speed limit because I wanted to go faster. Most of those tickets were reduced to a lesser speed or charge, though, because I didn't get an attitude or try to justify myself. As a few posters from California have said, it's probably best to pay the fine, take the course, and maybe drive differently from now on.

If I understand civil disobedience correctly, it means breaking a law AND taking the punishment to show how unjust the law is. The question here seems to be how to break the law but avoid the punishment.
 
quote:

For those of you who think moderate speeding is irresponsible, you obviously haven't lived in a congested area that has traffic every day. Reasonable , like
I dont think I ever said moderate speeding is irresponsible. If I did, that wasnt the point I was trying to make. My point was that we need to take responsibility for our actions.
 
quote:

"There is no way youre going to cheat or lie your way out of taking responsibility for breaking the law"

It is civic duty to violate unjust law.

Cheating? I should also surrender to magistrate for the beverages consumed before age 21 too. 80% of the time the police officer will not even appear resulting in dismissal of your case. That is not cheating that is simply the use of due process.

My civic duty to violate unjust law? Lets try complete anarchy and overthrow of the government too.
There is a much more civilized way to go about expressing your discontent with certain laws.
 
quote:

Gas price is lowered, cars are better, tires are better, roads are better.

But cars/tires/roads weren't better prior to the implementation of the 55MPH NMSL, and gas was cheaper too (at least till the oil embargo).
 
quote:

Let me add that I don't have any "thrill" for speed anymore.

For me, it's not about thrills. I do windy roads at relatively high speeds for thrills. But just going fast on the freeway? That's a "from point A to point B" kind of thing, but I'd rather be bored for 1 hr than 90 minutes, for example. I just get impatient on certain roads at certain times. When every car is going 70 on a moderately populated highway, I'm fine with 70. When there isn't a car ahead of me for 300 yards and nothing even close to being in my way, I won't be happy following the 30 mph speed limit. I just think cops need to be more subjective or logical in determining when a speedster is really posing a hazard to themselve and to others.

quote:

Some peeps see speed limits (and subsequent enforcement) as the Evil Government Taking peoples rights away in the name of greed (to collect money for speeding tickets). Others see speed limits a one of those 'Rights' of the States to control things they are allowed to control.

Just curious... there's also a thread floating around here on the possibility of cars' speeds being regulated with some sort of GPS device. Are you okay with that?

But yeah, I agree that this is just one of those things that two groups of completely rational people will be divided on.
 
Slowing down to conserve on an interstate might be useful, but slowing down to conserve on a highway with synchronized traffic lights (which is just about all of them here in Northern VA) is counterproductive.

(As a side note, it's always amusing to see a slowpoke who was going 10 or 5 under the limit be the first to stop at a red light (if they didn't speed up to beat the yellow, that is), then when the light turns green they exceed the speed limit..a little too late then, especially since the upstream light will likely still be red when they get there).

[ February 22, 2006, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: brianl703 ]
 
agreed, but stoplights need to be set up properly in general... this is a major issue all over, and causes likely millions of gallons of fuel to be wasted each year...

I agree it is funny to see how folks adjust to stoplights, speeding up just to stop because the folks in front hadnt gotten moving fully yet.

JMH
 
Hey I'll glady take 82 in a 65. Consider yourself luck. I almost got it last year for doing 90+ in a 45. Yikes.

I look at it this way, if you get 1 ticket a year, that's good if you get less than that your doing great. Usually getting a ticket is cuased by inattention. Like speeding when no one else is around. This will get you busted big time.

Consider this a lesson learned and try not to speed when there is no one else to follow on the Interstate.
 
quote:

Maybe the cop decided he was a hazard because he was doing 17 over and not paying enough attention to realize he was passing a highway patrol car.

Pretty much.

Arguing speed limits being too low won't go anywhere. I just wish they would enforce other vehicle laws just as much as speeding. Especially equipment violations. I just think speeders are easy targets and they can spot them a lot easier with lots of specialized equipment to do so.

My biggest gripe is the number of cars I see with obvious equipment violations. They are more dangerous than any speeder. If the guy doesn't care enought to fix his broken brake lights what does that say about the rest of the car. Or the guy with one headlight or no headlights at night. I could go on.

Don't get me started on the people I see with badies and no baby seats. Or kids not wearing seatbelts. I see it everyday in Los Angeles.

I think an annual or biannual safety check should be implemented in California. I would be willing to pay for it if it meant the roads would be safer. I was rearend last year by a *** car with bald tires. He slid down the off-ramp on the oil on the road. Funny how nobody else had that problem. He also had a bungy cord holding his hood down. Good thing too, without the bungy cord he might not of been able to make it home after hitting me.
 
I'd imagine geing pulled over for an equipment violation is more common in small towns. I overheard a conversation in an Arkansas Autozone one time--One guy asked if you can get a ticket for driving with your license plate light blown out. Somebody answered "Why don't you drive through Elkins tonight and find out."
 
Yeah, broken brake light is bad. I once had a short in my light that keeps it on all the time, and I didn't find out until 2 months later. During that 2 months I was wondering why the 2nd car behind me always hit the car behind me (happened 3 times). Oops.

Maybe cops didn't show up in court before, but now I heard they just defer the trial if s/he is busy and they try to schedule all the trial of the cop on the same day, so the system learned to deal with people like us too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top