Traffic Violation...friend had one...this one blows my mind...any insight?
01-05-2004, 10:59 AM
#12
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Stow, Ohio
Posts: 3,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's also BS...
Forget what the instructor says. She's already paid the money, and now it's on her record. They're trying to use peer pressure to make you believe that there's nothing to be done about it. If this happened in some small town where the local judge was in cooperation with the police, then the instructor would be correct.
On the other hand, this would be a good case for an attourney to take. Even if the judge rules against you, you can bring it up on appeal and possibly take it to a higher court for a final rulling and get the police to stop their action of "fundraising". (But may cost you more money in the long run.)
On the other hand, this would be a good case for an attourney to take. Even if the judge rules against you, you can bring it up on appeal and possibly take it to a higher court for a final rulling and get the police to stop their action of "fundraising". (But may cost you more money in the long run.)
01-05-2004, 11:41 AM
#13
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ya, but in TX, you can get a speeding ticket based on the officer's "judgement"...
They don't have to radar you or pace you. They can just look at you driving by and say, "he looks like he's going 45 in a 35..."
I once got a ticket in the middle of west Texas for doing 12 over, and the Trooper took my license and made me follow him 10 miles back to the station, where he called the judge in from home (it was a Saturday) to try me right then and there. They would not let me leave until I paid the $110 fine. They wouldn't take credit cards, and I had no cash, so I had to have the Trooper drive me to a gas station that did cash advances. It was two hours of my life I do not want to relive.
I once got a ticket in the middle of west Texas for doing 12 over, and the Trooper took my license and made me follow him 10 miles back to the station, where he called the judge in from home (it was a Saturday) to try me right then and there. They would not let me leave until I paid the $110 fine. They wouldn't take credit cards, and I had no cash, so I had to have the Trooper drive me to a gas station that did cash advances. It was two hours of my life I do not want to relive.
01-05-2004, 01:41 PM
#16
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See, this is the problem I have with this instance...
I don't see it as ignorance of the law when she followed what the California State Driver's handbook deems as a legal u-turn but the officer deems it as hazardous due to "inside information." It just seems to me like the state is picking on the little guy to generate revenue for the state and there's nothing we can do about it.
From the info below, she was protected by a green light and could see in either direction in excess of 200 ft.
In any case, she paid it...I just would hate to think it could happen to me. I would have fought it.
From the CA State Driver's handbook at:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs25thru29.htm
Legal U-Turns
When you make a U-turn, you turn around and go back the way you came. Signal and then make the U-turn only from the far left lane on your side of the road. If the street has a center left turn lane, begin your U-turn in that lane.
You may make a U-turn:
Across a double yellow line, if the turn can be made safely and legally.
In a residential district:
if no vehicle approaching you is closer than 200 feet.
whenever a traffic sign or signal protects you from vehicles which are close.
At an intersection on a green light or green arrow unless a "No U-turn" sign is posted.
On a divided highway. Don't drive over or across any dividing section, curb, or strip. This includes:
two sets of double lines marking a center divider unless an opening is provided for turns.
the unpaved median in the middle of the freeway.
Illegal U-Turns
Never make a U-turn on a highway by crossing a curb, or strip of land, or two sets of double lines.
You may not make a U-turn:
* Where you cannot clearly see 200 feet in each direction because of a curve, hill, rain, fog, or other reason.
* Where a "NO U-TURN" sign is posted.
* When vehicles may hit you.
* On a one-way street.<ul><li><a href="http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs25thru29.htm">http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs25thru29.htm</a</li></ul>
From the info below, she was protected by a green light and could see in either direction in excess of 200 ft.
In any case, she paid it...I just would hate to think it could happen to me. I would have fought it.
From the CA State Driver's handbook at:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs25thru29.htm
Legal U-Turns
When you make a U-turn, you turn around and go back the way you came. Signal and then make the U-turn only from the far left lane on your side of the road. If the street has a center left turn lane, begin your U-turn in that lane.
You may make a U-turn:
Across a double yellow line, if the turn can be made safely and legally.
In a residential district:
if no vehicle approaching you is closer than 200 feet.
whenever a traffic sign or signal protects you from vehicles which are close.
At an intersection on a green light or green arrow unless a "No U-turn" sign is posted.
On a divided highway. Don't drive over or across any dividing section, curb, or strip. This includes:
two sets of double lines marking a center divider unless an opening is provided for turns.
the unpaved median in the middle of the freeway.
Illegal U-Turns
Never make a U-turn on a highway by crossing a curb, or strip of land, or two sets of double lines.
You may not make a U-turn:
* Where you cannot clearly see 200 feet in each direction because of a curve, hill, rain, fog, or other reason.
* Where a "NO U-TURN" sign is posted.
* When vehicles may hit you.
* On a one-way street.<ul><li><a href="http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs25thru29.htm">http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs25thru29.htm</a</li></ul>
01-05-2004, 08:22 PM
#18
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There doesn't have to be a sign prohibiting U-turns. Certain areas and...
...conditions are automatically prohibited. Was it a business or multi-unit dwelling area? Bingo! Pay the man.
01-06-2004, 04:47 AM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 8,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dude, the bottm line is "officer discretion"......and if the officer feels that it was an unsafe....
maneuver, then that is what it was.
You feel what you feel, and thus is the reason we have courts of law, and not immediate punishment like other countries.
Officers go through plenty of hours of training regarding driver style and perception, much more than you can possibly imagine on a daily basis.
What is opinion, and in this case - the case of the U-Turn - it IS opinion. Take them to court. Maybe she can convince a judge in her favor. More power to her.
But It is all about Officer Discretion.
Much like driving the speed limit when the weather is not perfect. There is no specifically posted speed limit for rain, snow or fog - you just have to use your instincts and hope that they are on par with the Officers who are there to protect you and me from being harmed from those who use LESS discretion. Much like the U-Turn case, you have no idea how many people in ANY area have suffered from drivers, who MAY have been driving well under the speed limit during rainy conditions, but simply was not slow enough to have prevented a pedestrian death.
This is not privied information. It is just information. The only way you or her would have been IN on his information is if you had either gotten the ticket, which she did, or have hit a pedestrian. Given the two options, I'd opt for the ticket, be GLAD I only got a ticket and didn't kill anyone, and be on my merry way.
Since she DIDN'T kill anyone, then it would all most ikely be dismissed in court.
It's a long way to learn the benefits of the privied information, granted, but just stop WHINING and be glad no one got hurt.
There are peope who make that U-Turn every single day who have yet to get a tciket, and who still have no clues of the dangers of that intersection. Until they hit and/or kill someone doing it, they too can consider themselves lucky.
One ticket would probably prevent them from doing the U-Turn again - preventing someones injuries.
I would much rather explain why I made a U-Turn in court without the required explanation of why I made the SAME U-Turn only having killed or injured someone at the same time.
You feel what you feel, and thus is the reason we have courts of law, and not immediate punishment like other countries.
Officers go through plenty of hours of training regarding driver style and perception, much more than you can possibly imagine on a daily basis.
What is opinion, and in this case - the case of the U-Turn - it IS opinion. Take them to court. Maybe she can convince a judge in her favor. More power to her.
But It is all about Officer Discretion.
Much like driving the speed limit when the weather is not perfect. There is no specifically posted speed limit for rain, snow or fog - you just have to use your instincts and hope that they are on par with the Officers who are there to protect you and me from being harmed from those who use LESS discretion. Much like the U-Turn case, you have no idea how many people in ANY area have suffered from drivers, who MAY have been driving well under the speed limit during rainy conditions, but simply was not slow enough to have prevented a pedestrian death.
This is not privied information. It is just information. The only way you or her would have been IN on his information is if you had either gotten the ticket, which she did, or have hit a pedestrian. Given the two options, I'd opt for the ticket, be GLAD I only got a ticket and didn't kill anyone, and be on my merry way.
Since she DIDN'T kill anyone, then it would all most ikely be dismissed in court.
It's a long way to learn the benefits of the privied information, granted, but just stop WHINING and be glad no one got hurt.
There are peope who make that U-Turn every single day who have yet to get a tciket, and who still have no clues of the dangers of that intersection. Until they hit and/or kill someone doing it, they too can consider themselves lucky.
One ticket would probably prevent them from doing the U-Turn again - preventing someones injuries.
I would much rather explain why I made a U-Turn in court without the required explanation of why I made the SAME U-Turn only having killed or injured someone at the same time.
01-06-2004, 11:05 AM
#20
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's unfortunate...
I agree with most all your valid points on safety and discretion.
In one of my last posts I said that I disagree with "This Instance"...However, I do agree with other conditions of discretion...namely the ones you mentioned in your last post among others. I am not arguing "The Law", I am arguing this instance.
Safety is paramount.
What I disagree with is that if you follow all the rules you are taught, and all of the conditions appear right and there was no danger at the time, and everything you are doing appears correct, then you get ticketed because of the reason "there have been complaints about this intersection IN THE PAST" not because you were in danger or causing danger, is my point.
The $300+ cost to this whole shabbang is ridiculous...in my OPINION (although it is her fault for not fighting and just paying for it).
Simple solution...Put up a sign. Or, in the meantime, pull people over and WARN them of this. If I was warned by an officer of the danger of an otherwise safe intersection - AND I followed the rules of driving, you bet I would do as they suggested in the future and be more cautious all around...it's hairy enough to be pulled over by an officer in the first place...But don't just take their money and say "too bad", it's the LAW. Just because the whole country is in "$collections$ mode" should not be a reason an easygoing, law abiding citizen should pay for and be stigmatized when there are, in fact, convicted drunk drivers with licenses roaming the roads among other criminals. I am an honest and fair guy, if I knowingly do something wrong, I take responsibility for it. However, when I hear about things like this, to me, it takes the integrity out of the action of protecting and brings it down to the level of a shiesty sales person cheating people out of their money by taking advantage of the law and hiding behind the action of protecting. Just because the city needs to upgrade or add a Jacuzzi to the Courthouse should not dictate the law and how many people they can take advantage of. Get the people who are committing the wrongdoings...don't con people.
Saying that EVERY police officer is always correct is like saying that EVERY referee in sports is always correct. Bad calls in sports are rampant and opinion is called "point of view" or "perception". Perception is not always reality however to the eye it came from it sure as heck looks like it. Even the most trained and experienced referee makes a bad call occasionally.
The unfortunate part of this is that this is a realm of discussion...having an intelligent conversation is what I enjoy, especially when someone brings in a point of view that I did not think of before...unfortunately, elitism is rampant...instead of intelligently discussing points of view, you had to dismiss my discussion as "Whining"...a simple cop-out. Barring your elitist comments, I agree with and enjoy reading your point of view.
Also, I am glad you like Audis...we have at least 1 thing in common.
In one of my last posts I said that I disagree with "This Instance"...However, I do agree with other conditions of discretion...namely the ones you mentioned in your last post among others. I am not arguing "The Law", I am arguing this instance.
Safety is paramount.
What I disagree with is that if you follow all the rules you are taught, and all of the conditions appear right and there was no danger at the time, and everything you are doing appears correct, then you get ticketed because of the reason "there have been complaints about this intersection IN THE PAST" not because you were in danger or causing danger, is my point.
The $300+ cost to this whole shabbang is ridiculous...in my OPINION (although it is her fault for not fighting and just paying for it).
Simple solution...Put up a sign. Or, in the meantime, pull people over and WARN them of this. If I was warned by an officer of the danger of an otherwise safe intersection - AND I followed the rules of driving, you bet I would do as they suggested in the future and be more cautious all around...it's hairy enough to be pulled over by an officer in the first place...But don't just take their money and say "too bad", it's the LAW. Just because the whole country is in "$collections$ mode" should not be a reason an easygoing, law abiding citizen should pay for and be stigmatized when there are, in fact, convicted drunk drivers with licenses roaming the roads among other criminals. I am an honest and fair guy, if I knowingly do something wrong, I take responsibility for it. However, when I hear about things like this, to me, it takes the integrity out of the action of protecting and brings it down to the level of a shiesty sales person cheating people out of their money by taking advantage of the law and hiding behind the action of protecting. Just because the city needs to upgrade or add a Jacuzzi to the Courthouse should not dictate the law and how many people they can take advantage of. Get the people who are committing the wrongdoings...don't con people.
Saying that EVERY police officer is always correct is like saying that EVERY referee in sports is always correct. Bad calls in sports are rampant and opinion is called "point of view" or "perception". Perception is not always reality however to the eye it came from it sure as heck looks like it. Even the most trained and experienced referee makes a bad call occasionally.
The unfortunate part of this is that this is a realm of discussion...having an intelligent conversation is what I enjoy, especially when someone brings in a point of view that I did not think of before...unfortunately, elitism is rampant...instead of intelligently discussing points of view, you had to dismiss my discussion as "Whining"...a simple cop-out. Barring your elitist comments, I agree with and enjoy reading your point of view.
Also, I am glad you like Audis...we have at least 1 thing in common.