@$%@$%^ Ticket in Orange County

They do, especially at LAX. I know for a fact that a major source of revenue is in the various parking lots and structures at and around LAX. I remember reading about it in the Times sometime within the last year or so. They will cruise around the parking lots and structures a few times a day and write citations for minor infractions (mostly fix-it tickets, but tickets nonetheless). My husband got one while we were away for a week, he didn't have his front license plate mounted (a no-no in CA).

Ooh, found the article:

LAX Parking tickets: Gotcha!

 

Boy, let's try this again, IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE GUILTY, MY EXAMPLE (MAN UP) DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU! GET IT?

Wow.

Oh, and it has nothing to do with 'being a man'. Man Up is just a colloquialism intended to convey the concept of standing up and facing the music when you KNOW THAT YOU ARE GUILTY. IF YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHETHER YOU ARE GUILTY OR NOT, THEN I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU. Dang, there I go again. Of course, now you're going to ask me what kind of music I was talking about...

 

Last time I was stopped was doing 95 on a 55 road...........got a warning

 

WOW! Do you have an clearly visible assets that might have impaired the officer's vision??

 

See, but there's the rub. Was the cop wrong? Traffic violations such as rolling stops and exceeding a posted speed limit are not really about the stated citation. When it comes right down to it, the reason the cop pulls someone over is because the cop felt that the driving being done was in an unsafe manner. The specific of the violation is merely the justification of the professional opinion that the driving was done in an unsafe manner. Standards of policy are set so that people will have some general guidelines to go by, but when it comes right down to it safety is what counts. Sometimes weather conditions may be so severe that driving at the speed limit may constitute unsafe driving in the professional opinion of a police officer, and he would be correct to pull someone over. Other times, a posted speed limit may be lower than what is required for safe driving.

And in this particular instance the question is not whether a rolling stop occurred, but rather whether, if it did, did it constitute unsafe driving? The cop at the scene was just following their established procedures, but the ultimate decision about this belongs to the judge (and as Squid was saying, not just the pre-trial magistrate). It sounds like the person who made the post essentially feels that the cop was wrong in that they were not driving in an unsafe manner when they did or did not slow down enough to constitute a rolling stop. Well, if that's what the driver believes, then there's nothing wrong with putting that question to the final authority. After all, a lot is riding on this. The ticket is small change, but the bump to insurance rates may amount to thousands of dollars.

The thing to do if ever you get pulled over, is show respect to the cop and do whatever you can to put them at ease. When they approach your car, they have no idea whether you are going to pull out a gun and shoot them, and this does not put them in a good mood, so pull over in a way convenient to the cop, don't make a lot of movement in the car, turn on the dome light so they can see inside if it's dark, turn off the engine, especially if you are, ahem, in an urban environment, and absolutely have your hands visible up in plain site on the steering wheel before the cop walks up to your car. Be nice, try to think about how the cop is trying to make the roads safer, and neither volunteer your guilt nor make excuses for your behavior. Who knows, if you make a good impression the cop might even decide to cut you a break and exit the courtroom when your docket comes up, and then your case will be automatically dismissed. But by all means, if you think you were driving safely, you should spend some time seriously preparing to make your case to the judge, who will naturally be more inclined to side with the cop than you.

You can get a lot of helpful tips about avoiding tickets at http://www.motorists.org/ . (Of course not speeding and always making complete stops at the line first helps too.)

 

Gee, sounds like an excellent reason to STOP at STOP signs and red lights!

By the way, your theory that running a STOP sign is not necessarily a violation of law is quite amusing!

Whatever happened to accountability? Does ANYONE else ever just say, "Whoops. That was a mistake, sir. Have a nice day." Again, pay attention to this part, this only applies if you KNOW YOU ARE GUILTY! Seems to be necessary.

 

And I'd like to add the cops are also considering habitual behavior. They only have this one instance as an example. But they may cite you if they feel this is habitual behavior on your part...I.E. a safety issue.

So the one rolling stop you made with no one around you feel wasn't that unsafe. To the cop's way of thinking....you may always drive this way and he may not be there when you do your non-stop with a lot of cars and people around. So he's going to cite you for the instance he is witness to.

And that blather about beating the tickets in court is a perfect example of the problems with both the courts and the insurance system. People who *know* they're guilty but are trying to squirm out of their responsibility.

I don't buy the quota myth.

I also don't buy the other excuses for justifying breaking the law.

If I don't approve of my tax dollars being spent on the war and that huge pork budget with a looming obscene deficit; if I don't think I'm being taxes equitably to others...shall I just not pay my taxes?

Bottom line: grow up.

 

No just average, traveling with two yorkies (they sure are cute!) :lol:

 

You seem so sure of your position here, that it appears you are equating what is morally right with what is legally right. Driving 70 mph safely in a 60mph zone is not morally wrong, it is legally wrong IF you are found guilty in a court of law.

 

If slowed down to 8 or fewer mph, you could claim you came to a complete regen-brake stop.

 

Well, no, that is not actually true. There are codified rules we live by called 'laws'. These are 'on the books' (literally, you can read them if you have insomnia). Doing things contrary to these 'laws' IS 'legally wrong', whether or not you are ultimately convicted. According to you, the murderer who is never caught, did nothing legally wrong. Seems a BIT of a stretch...

Of course I am sure of my position, it's MY position! (?) My point originally was simply that if I knew I was guilty of a moving violation and was ticketed, I wouldn't fight it, I would pay the fine. Obviously this is an utterly baffling notion to most.

edited to add:

WHAT GODIVA SAID! Here, here!

 

Last year, I think over the Labor Day Weekend, I was taking a friend home late at night and got stopped for driving slower than the speed limit. I was trying to maximize the mileage and I fit the profile of DUI. He saw I wasn't drunk and let me go.

 

so does anyone in here believe that if I go to court and state that I was only trying to maximize my fuel economy they may understand and say I am not guilty?

 

I was stopped once for suspicion of DUI. The officer said she thought I was weaving. I told her I had been up all night and was very tired, which was true. I asked her right away if I had committed any infractions and she said, "No, and you didn't leave your lane." Just the same, I wound up 'cuffed and stuffed.' Here's how tired I was, I sat there for a second, and then I thought, "Hey, I need to tell her something" and reached for the door handle. Guess what? No inside door handles in the backs of police cruisers. Well, duh! She got back into the car just then anyway. I had taken a (single) law course by then, so I told her she had better Mirandize me if she was going to keep me in custody any longer. She let me go and I went (the rest of the way) home and went to sleep. It wasn't a confrontational encounter, and I actually found it interesting. And that is how I met my wife. Just kidding.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

No, that won't work. If you don't have any tickets or not one for a while, you could argue that you thought that you had stopped and that the officer's view of the stop wasn't what it should be. Something like that. Unless the judge is really nice and drives a Prius, I wouldn't use that maximize fuel economy thing.

On a related matter. I was driving home after work on Valentine's Day. I had just entered a 35 zone and there were a couple of impatient so-and-sos behind me. I like that area because I can usually get my mileage up a bit there and I was doing 35. Up ahead, there was a cop just waiting to ruin someone's Valentine's day. Jerk. I'll bet the goobers behind me considered themeselves lucky to be "stuck" behind me. It probably saved them a ticket. Some time after that, I was driving 35 through another 35 zone and sure enough, another cop was sitting there waiting for his turn to ruin someone's day. I guess having a Prius has its side benefits, eh? B)

 

I didn't think so
Perhaps I should try to explain to the judge that he should seriously think about getting a Prius? You know, make a friendly conversation with the guy and tell him all the benefits of driving one?

 

Have to play it by ear. It helps if you're down the list so that you can see a few others before you and what happens to them. If the judge is in a good mood or not, you can tell. You have to think about the stop sign event and think of a way to argue that the cop is just wrong. Your Honor, I drive a Prius, for goodness sake. I don't run stop signs. The officer was checking out the woman who was headed the other way and he didn't get a clear view of my car. I stopped, he just didn't see me stop. I stopped for the sign before he saw me like I always do and he just thought that he saw me go through it. Whatever logical argument that you can come up with based on the situation. Judges prefer logical arguments. Flirting or playing the victimized little girl with a male judge or trying to get a female judge to side with you because that stupid male officer is a pig who hates women are risky moves. Work from the logical argument, that's the best way. Unless, of course, the woman ahead of you was able to get away with flirting B)

 

wear glasses if you have them. Wear a conservative suit. Look and act professional and with a good, logical argument, you may be able to beat it.

 

hmmm, are you suggesting that I become cross-eyed?